ࡱ>  V bjbj<< ^ ^^Z.w 93D###/#LSd99(C9C9C9:"@: L:SRURURURURURURTRWUR:?:::?:?URC9C9SCCC:?C9C9R6C:?SRCCJNQC9UV#AaQB RS0LSQBWhC.WQWQ$T:V;C<b=T:T:T:URURC4T:T:T:LS:?:?:?:?WT:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T: : December 1998 School of Urban and Public Affairs University of Texas at Arlington Center for the Study of Educational Reform University of North Texas Texas Center For Educational Research Texas Justice Foundation Center for Public Policy University of Houston Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Second Year Evaluation Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools: Second Year Evaluation Executive Summary 1 Section I: Introduction 7 Section II: Characteristics of Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools 10 General Characteristics 10 Student Characteristics 14 Charter School Faculties 17 Facilities 17 Charter School Finance 18 Summary 20 Section III: Perspectives of Charter School Directors 22 Starting and Maintaining Charter Schools 23 Governance, Finances, and Support 24 Governance 24 Finances 27 Support from the community and business partnerships 28 Personnel, Programs, and Effects on Public School Districts 29 Directors 29 Teachers 30 Curriculum and instruction 30 Effects on local school districts 31 Parents and Students 32 Parents 32 Students 33 Student Discipline 35 Summary 36 Section IV: Parental Demographics, Participation, and Satisfaction Levels 38 Introduction 38 Demographic Characteristics of Charter School Parents 40 Reasons for Choosing to Enroll in a Charter School 43 Parents Satisfaction with Charter School Compared to Previous School 45 How Parents Learned about Charter Schools 48 Parent Involvement in Schools 49 Summary 50 Section V: Student Satisfaction 52 Factors Influencing the Choice of the Charter School 54 Evaluation of the Charter School 55 Comparison of Satisfaction across Two Years 57 Summary 60 Section VI: Perspectives of Charter School Teachers 62 Teachers in Texas First-Generation Charter Schools 65 Demographic Information 65 Education and Certification of Charter School Teachers 67 Respondents Work Experience 68 Teachers Expectations about Employment 70 Where Charter School Teachers Children Attend School 72 Membership in Teacher Organization or Union 72 Teachers Decisions to Teach in Charter Schools 73 Teachers Satisfaction with Charter Schools 77 Teachers Assessment of Charter Schools Success 80 Summary 85 Section VII: Effects of Open-Enrollment Charter Schools on School Districts 87 Student Attrition 87 Effects on State Funding Levels 88 Effects on District Activities 88 District or School Programs 89 Intradistrict Transfer Policies 89 Contracting for Services 89 Other Effects on Districts 89 Teacher Attrition and Class Size 89 Effects on Students and Parents 90 Summary 90 Section VIII: Performance of Charter Schools 92 Accountability 96 Summary 96 Section IX: Commentary and Policy Challenges 98 Differences between At-Risk and Non-At-Risk Charter Schools 98 Charter Schools for At-Risk Students 99 Charter Schools for Non-at-Risk Students 99 Racial and Ethnic Diversity 100 Student Recruitment 101 Student Skimming 101 Funding 102 Governance 103 Appendices 104 Appendix A: Statutory provisions governing Texas open-enrollment charter schools Appendix B: Survey instruments Appendix C: Charter schools profiles Appendix D: Complete list of Texas open-enrollment charter schools Appendix E: Perspectives of charter school directors Table of Tables Section II II.1 Geographic Distribution of Schools and Student Enrollments 11 II.2 Enrollments, Teachers, and Student-Teacher Ratios, 1997-98 12 II.3 New Charter Schools and Conversion Schools, 1997-98 13 II.4 At-risk and Non-at-risk Charter Schools, 1997-98 14 II.5 Overall Open-Enrollment Charter School Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity 15 II.6 Individual Charter Schools, Student Characteristics, 1997-98 15 II.7 Charter School Special Populations: Percentage Student Enrollment by Special Status 16 II.8 Charter School Faculty, 1997-98 17 II.9 Charter School Expenditures, 1996-97 20 Section III III.1 Comparing Difficulties Between Year One (1996-97) and Year Two (1997-98) 23 III.2 Difficulties in Year Two, 1997-98 24 III.3 Characteristics of Charter School Governing Board Members, 1997-98 25 III.4 Numbers of Charter School Board Members by Race and Ethnicity, 1997-98 26 III.5 Self-Reported Start-up Funds for Charter Schools, 1997-98 27 III.6 Reported Community and Business Partnerships, 1997-98 28 III.7 Teaching and Administrative Experience of Charter School Directors 29 III.8 Educational Practices Used in Charter Schools, 1997-98 31 III.9 Parent Participation Practices in Charter Schools, 1997-98 32 III.10 Type of Parent Involvement in Charter School Activities, 1997-98 33 III.11 Students Who Left Charter Schools in 1997-98, Reported by School Directors 34 III.12 Student Recruitment Techniques Reported by Charter Schools, 1997-98 34 III.13 Number of Disciplinary Incidents in Charter Schools, 1997-98 36 Section IV IV.1 Race and Ethnicity of Charter School Parents 40 IV.2 Ethnic and Racial Distributions of At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Parents 41 IV.3 Income of Charter School Parents 41 IV.4 Education Level of Charter School Parents 42 IV.5 Employment Status of Charter School Parents 42 IV.6 Marital Status of Charter School Parents 42 IV.7 Parent Aspirations for Charter School Students 43 IV.8a Non-at-Risk Parents: Reasons for Choosing a Charter School 44 IV.8b At-Risk Parents: Reasons for Choosing a Charter School 44 IV.9 Grades Given to Previous School by Charter School Parents 45 IV.10a Non-at-Risk Parent Satisfaction with Aspects of Previous Schools 46 IV.10b At-Risk Parent Satisfaction with Aspects of Previous Schools 46 IV.11 Grades Given by Parents to Previous School and Charter School 47 IV.12 Grades Given to Charter Schools by First-year and Second-year Parents 47 IV.13 How Parents Learned about the Charter School 48 IV.14a Involvement of At-Risk Parents in Previous Schools and Charter Schools 49 IV.14b Involvement of Non-at-Risk Parents in Previous Schools and Charter Schools 50 Section V V.1 Student Survey Response Rates 52 V.2 Characteristics of At-Risk School Sample 53 V.3 At-Risk School Student Responses and Weights 53 V.4 Reasons At-Risk School Students Chose a Charter School 54 V.5 Students Comparison of At-Risk Charter School with School They Would Otherwise Have Attended 55 V.6 At-Risk School Students Satisfaction with the School and Plans for the Coming Year 56 V.7 Grades At-Risk School Students Gave to Their Schools 57 V.8 Characteristics of At-Risk School Sample, 1996-97 and 1997-98, and Comparison School Sample, 1996-97 58 V.9a Students Satisfaction with the Charter School, 1996-97 and 1997-98 58 V.9b Grades Assigned by Students, 1996-97 and 1997-98 58 V.9c Students Plans for Next Year, 1996-97 and 1997-98 59 V.10 Future Goals of At-Risk School Students, 1996-97 and 1997-98 60 Section VI VI.1 Response Rate for Charter School Teacher Survey 62 VI.2 Weighted Responses for At-Risk and Non-at-Risk School Teachers 64 VI.3 Age of Respondents 65 VI.4 Ethnicity of Respondents 66 VI.5 Gender of Respondents 66 VI.6 Respondents Education Level 67 VI.7 Respondents Certification 68 VI.8 Grade Levels Taught 69 VI.9 Respondents Previous Teaching Experience 69 VI.10 Respondents Previous Non-Teaching Work Experience 70 VI.11 Respondents Expectations about Working in Charter Schools Next Year 70 VI.12 Alternatives to Working in Charter Schools 71 VI.13 How Respondents Salaries Compare with Job Alternatives 71 VI.14 Where Survey Respondents Children Attend School 72 VI.15 Importance of Factors in Decisions to Teach in Charter Schools: All Respondents 73 VI.16 Importance of Factors in Decisions to Teach in Charter Schools: At-Risk School Teachers and Non-At-Risk School Teachers 74 VI.17 Importance of Possibilities in Decisions to Teach in Charter Schools: All Respondents 75 VI.18 Importance of Possibilities in Decisions to Teach in Charter Schools: At-Risk School Teachers and Non-At-Risk School Teachers 76 VI.19 Respondents Satisfaction with Features of the Charter School: All Respondents 77 VI.20 Respondents Satisfaction with Features of the Charter School: At-Risk School Teachers and Non-At-Risk School Teachers 78 VI.21 What Respondents View as Main Difference from Previous School 79 VI.22 Respondents Evaluation of their Schools Success: All Respondents 81 VI.23 Respondents Evaluation of their Schools Success: At-Risk School Teachers and Non-At-Risk School Teachers 82 VI.24 Respondents Greatest Source of Satisfaction at Their Schools 83 VI.25 Respondents Greatest Source of Discontent at Their Schools 84 VI.26 School Problems Viewed by Respondents as Most Serious 84 Section VII VII.1 Estimates of Officials in Six Districts: Numbers of Students Leaving District Schools to Attend Open-Enrollment Charter Schools 88 Section VIII VIII.1 Spring 1998 TAAS Results for Charter School Students 92-95 VIII.2 Spring 1998 TAAS Results: Percent Passing All TAAS Tests Taken 95 VIII.3 Spring 1998 TAAS Results: Percent Mastering All TAAS Tests Taken 96 VIII.4 August 1998 Texas Accountability Ratings for Public Schools and Charter Schools 96 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 20 charters. 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 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 SBOE pursuant to TEC 12.118 and covers the second year of a multiyear study. It encompasses a variety of data sources including parent, student, and teacher surveys; surveys of charter school directors and local school district officials; results on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) test; 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. 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 more than two-thirds of Texas charter schools are new or startup schools, compared to about 60 percent nationally. Eleven of the 19 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 overpayments. 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, meeting requirements, 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. More than 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 19 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. Three-quarters say they use Texas curriculum materials, and two schools use them exclusively. In 13 schools, teachers are reported to have developed their own curriculum. When asked to select the educational practices used most commonly at their school, directors selected 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 exit-level TAAS test to graduate, and charter school directors say they use TAAS data 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. More than one-third of charter school directors say that their schools are affecting 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 or graduated. Other reasons for leaving are unique to at-risk student populations. Charter schools do not have to follow requirements for safety and student conduct (TEC Chapter 37). 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 have 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 and perhaps to the departure of students whose parents were dissatisfied. 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 than the students had experienced in schools they 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, and the percentage African American teachers is higher in non-at-risk schools. Slightly more than half of charter school teachers report that they 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) Charter school students performed at lower levels on TAAS than traditional public school students. Texas accountability ratings for August 1998 show that 40 percent of charter schools have an acceptable or higher rating, compared with 91 percent of Texas public schools in general. Two charter schools were rated low performing. Three charter schools outperformed the state average, however, and one was rated recognized. 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. During the 1997-98 school year, 19 open-enrollment charter schools were operating in Texas. 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 Student discipline Socioeconomic data on students families Parents satisfaction with their childrens schools 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 charter school A survey of charter school parents A survey of charter school students Assessment of TAAS scores of charter school students and a comparison group of traditional public school students A survey of charter school directors A survey of officials in affected public school districts For various reasons, it has not been possible to carry out this entire mandate in the year-two evaluation. First, in the absence of the individual level data for charter school students, the comparison of charter school students and traditional public school students Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) scores has not been carried out at the time of this writing. The data are currently being prepared by the ˿Ƶ. A comparison sample of traditional public school students will be drawn from data provided by Houston Independent School District. Similarly, because audited enrollment information for charter school students is not yet available for the 1997-98 school year, attendance figures used in this report are based on self-reports to the ˿Ƶs charter school office by school directors. Second, due to the increase in the number of charter schools and limited resources, no comparison groups of traditional public school students and parents were surveyed for the second-year evaluation. Third, it has been logistically difficult to collect teacher 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 or from a charter school to a traditional public school because several of the schools have adopted innovative educational programs. As in the first-year evaluation, no comparison or analysis of grades is included in the second-year report. This second-year evaluation report presents detailed information concerning the nineteen open-enrollment charter schools in operation during the 1997-98 school year. Though such information is not available for the expanded group of charter schools operating in the 1998-99 school year, or for the schools subsequently approved by the Texas State Board of Education, these schools are listed and briefly described in Appendix D. 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 open-enrollment charter schools that operated in Texas during the 1997-98 school year. Drs. Gregory Weiher of the Center for Public Policy at the University of Houston and Catherine Clark of the Texas Center for Educational Research prepared this section. Section III presents findings from surveys of the directors of open-enrollment charter schools. Dr. Delbert Taebel and Ms. Susan Chiasson 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. Dr. Gregory Weiher and Ms. Laura Neilsen of the Center for Public Policy at the University of Houston prepared this section. Section V presents a summary of a survey of charter school 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 a summary of a survey of charter school teachers. Dr. Kay Thomas prepared this section. Section VIII presents the second-year scores of charter school students on the TAAS state achievement test as reported by the ˿Ƶ. Dr. Catherine Clark prepared this section. Section IX presents commentary from the evaluation team regarding evaluation findings and their public policy implications. Members of the research team from all three groups contributed to this section. Members of the research team from all three groups contributed to the summary of findings. Appendix A includes the statutory provisions governing open-enrollment charter schools (TEC 12.101-118). Appendix B includes copies of the various survey instruments used to collect information about parent and student satisfaction from charter school and comparison groups. Appendix C includes summary information about each of the 19 charter schools approved in 1996 and operating during the 1997-98 school year. Appendix D presents tabular information about charter schools approved and/or operating after the 1997-98 school year. Appendix E contains supplementary information on perspectives of charter school directors. 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 certification and formal educational attainment? How do charter school students and faculties compare to students and faculties in traditional public schools in terms of demographic characteristics? What kinds of facilities are charter schools using? What costs have charter schools incurred for instruction, administration, and transportation? General Characteristics The data presented in this chapter come from self-reports of charter school directors to the ˿Ƶ. Nineteen open-enrollment charter schools operated for the entire 1997-98 school year. In Table II.1 these schools are grouped by location. The table presents information about student enrollment at each school Table II.1 Geographic Distribution of Schools and Student Enrollments SchoolGrades Served1996-97 Enroll.1997-98 Enroll.Percent Change1997-98 Wait ListHouston: George I. Sanchez Girls and Boys Prep Medical Center Raul Yzaguirre SER-Nios UH Tech West Houston 9-12 6-12 K-5 6-8 PreK-5 K-2 7-11 384 241 123 98 155 20 96 386 350 116 184 223 40 99 0% 45% -6% 88% 44% 100% 3% 20 17 0 0 61 50 6Dallas: Dallas Can! North Hills Pegasus Renaissance PreK, 9-12 5-8 7-9 7-11 269 NA NA 298 623 217 104 640 131% NA NA 115% 375 15 0 83Austin: Amer. Inst. for Learning Texas Acad. of Excellence 9-12 PreK-2 92 50 174 81 89% 62% 0 8San Antonio: Blessed Sacrament Building Alternatives 9-12 9-12 136 99 156 197 15% 99% 13 140Corpus Christi: Acad. of Trans. Studies Seashore Learning Center 6-12 PreK-6 196 62 170 124 -13% 76% 0 25Mission: One-Stop Multiservice 9-12 117 105 -10% 9Waco: Waco Charter School K-3 62 146 135% 3Totals--2,498413566%825 Though charter schools remain small compared to many traditional public schools, they are growing. The average enrollment for the 1996-97 school year was 147. In 1997-98, the average charter school enrollment was 217. Six of the existing schools doubled in size, and two others nearly did. 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. In Texas, two-thirds of open-enrollment charter schools enroll fewer than 200 students. On the other hand, in a state where more than half of school districts (579) enroll fewer than 1,000 students, many charter schools are not unusually small. Table II.2 presents numbers of teachers, enrollments, and student teacher ratios for charter schools. Like other Texas schools, charter schools generally have small class sizes, though the average for 1997-98 (16.0) is somewhat higher than for 1996-97 (12.1). Texas public schools reported 15.5 students per teacher for 1996-97. Table II.2 Enrollments, Teachers, and Student-Teacher Ratios, 1997-98 SchoolEnrollmentTeachersStudent-Teacher RatioAcademy of Transitional Studies170628.3American Institute for Learning1741610.9Blessed Sacrament Academy1561213.0Building Alternatives197238.6Dallas Can! Academy6232723.1Girls and Boys Prep Academy3503410.3Medical Center Charter School1161011.6North Hills School 2171514.5One-stop Multiservice105521.0Pegasus Charter School104119.5Renaissance Charter School6402624.6George I. Sanchez Charter School3862118.4Seashore Learning Center124815.5SER-Nios Charter School223924.8Texas Academy of Excellence81711.6U. of Houston Charter School of Technology4058.0Waco Charter School146720.9West Houston Charter School99109.9Raul Yzaguirre School for Success184726.3Total4,13525916.0 Although it is possible to present data for the 19 charter schools in the aggregate, such presentations sometimes obscure real differences in the origins and missions of different schools. In this report, schools are often considered as members of various subgroups. There are several ways charter 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 68 percent of open-enrollment charter schools in Texas are start-up 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 indicates which charter schools are start-ups and which are conversions. Table II.3 New Charter Schools and Conversion Schools, 1997-98 SchoolStart-upConversionAcademy of Transitional StudiesXAmerican Institute for LearningXBlessed Sacrament XBuilding AlternativesXDallas Can!XGirls and Boys PrepXMedical CenterXNorth HillsXOne-stop MultiserviceXPegasusXRenaissanceXGeorge I. SanchezXSeashore Learning CenterXSER-NiosXTexas Academy of ExcellenceXU. of Houston Charter School of TechnologyXWaco Charter SchoolXWest HoustonXRaul YzaguirreXTotal136 A second alternative for grouping schools is to distinguish between those that serve primarily traditional students and those that exist to serve students who are at-risk. This is a distinction that informs many of the sections of this report. Each school was assigned to an at-risk group or non-at-risk group depending upon the mission statement included in its charter application and upon the socioeconomic characteristics of parents who responded to the charter school parent survey. Table II.4 indicates which schools are classified as at-risk and which are classified as non-at-risk. More than half of Texas charter schools serve primarily students who are at risk of dropping out of school. Table II.4 At-risk and Non-at-risk Charter Schools, 1997-98 SchoolAt-riskNon-at-riskAcademy of Transitional StudiesXAmerican Institute of LearningXBlessed Sacrament XBuilding AlternativesXDallas Can!XGirls and Boys PrepXMedical CenterXNorth Hills XOne-stop MultiserviceXPegasus XRenaissanceXGeorge I. SanchezXSeashore Learning CenterXSER-NiosXTexas Academy of ExcellenceXU. of Houston Charter School of TechnologyXWaco Charter SchoolXWest HoustonXRaul YzaguirreXTotals118 Student Characteristics Texas charter school legislation (TEC 12.111(6)) contains language that prohibits enrollment discrimination by charter schools. Critics claimed that the creation of 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. Table II.5 Overall Open-Enrollment Charter School Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity EthnicityTexas Public SchoolsCharter Schools in TexasCharter Schools in the U.S.Hispanic37%45%24.8%African American14%29.3%13.8%Anglo46%23.8%51.6%Other3%1.9%9.8% In the aggregate, the ethnic and racial enrollment patterns of charter schools and traditional public schools are dissimilar. Table II.5 shows that, overall, no single racial or ethnic group is represented in charter schools in a proportion that approximates its statewide proportion. Table II.6 Individual Charter Schools, Student Characteristics, 1997-98 (percentages) SchoolHisp. %Af. Am.%Anglo %Other %At-risk %Spec. Ed.%Acad. Trans. Studies91.21.26.51.21006.5Am. Inst. for Learning5416.728.701004.6Blessed Sacrament93.62.63.211007.7Building Alternatives46.743.79.601000Dallas Can!41.153.35.10.51002.1Girls and Boys Prep0.69603.45412Medical Center10.365.59.514.723.30North Hills7.811.17016.118.44.6One-Stop Multiservice94.314.8010017.1Pegasus27.828.841.31.918.52.9Renaissance15.814.169.20.9253.3George I. Sanchez97.20.82.1052.50Seashore 10.10.983.55.53.77.3SER-Nios92.86.700.480.33.6TX Acad. of Excellence4.992.62.5039.58.6U. of H. Charter School203042.57.500Waco Charter School28.855.515.701006.2West Houston20.210.169.7046.531.3Raul Yzaguirre98.91.10098.41.6Averages4529.323.81.9684.5 The data in Table II.6 demonstrate that most Texas charter schools have racially and ethnically distinctive enrollments. The patterns for individual schools are consistent with the aggregate data in Table II.5 in that African American and Hispanic students are heavily represented in many charter schools. In ten of the nineteen charter schools, more than 90 percent of enrollments are comprised of African American and/or Hispanic students. All these schools except one (Girls and Boys Prep) serve predominantly at-risk students. While the non-at-risk schools in the aggregate enroll substantial numbers of minority students, 77 percent of all of the Anglo students enrolled in charter schools attend four of the non-at-risk schools: North Hills, Renaissance, Seashore, and West Houston. It is important to point out that Texas public school districts and the schools within them are also not ethnically balanced. 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 the neighboring Alamo Heights ISD has a 73 percent Anglo student population. Though charter schools in the aggregate are more heavily minority than public schools generally, they reflect conditions found in many Texas schools and school districts. Table II.7 Charter School Special Populations: Percentage Student Enrollment by Special Status Special StatusTexas Public SchoolsTexas Charter SchoolsAt-risk StudentsNA68%Special Education Students12%4.5%Limited English Proficient Students12%6.2%Gifted and Talented Students8%5.3% Students at risk of dropping out of school before graduation are also over-represented in the population of charter school students (Table II.7). The Texas numbers are not unusually high given that three-fourths of charter schools in the U.S. are dedicated wholly or in major part to serving at-risk student populations. This calls into question the extent to which charter schools provide an alternative for average households and students with fewer educational liabilities, however, as well as the extent to which charter schools will place competitive pressure on the public education system. Alternative education programs such as magnet schools are often charged with skimming off the most able students. In Texas, charter schools operating in the first two years have instead tended to serve students with the greatest educational difficulties. Charter School Faculties Table II.8 Charter School Faculty, 1997-98 Teacher CharacteristicTexas Public SchoolsTexas Charter SchoolsNon-certified3.9%52.2%African American8%27.5%Hispanic15%20%Anglo76%44.6%Other Racial/Ethnic Group1%7%Non-degreed0.9%4.3%Baccalaureate Degree72.1%69.8%Masters Degree26.6%19.4%Doctorate0.4%6.5% The laws failure to require charter schools to hire certified teachers provokes strong reactions from critics. Some states such as Minnesota require that teachers in charter schools meet the same certification requirements as teachers in the traditional schools. In Texas public schools overall, only 3.9 percent of teachers are not certified; however, 52.2 percent of charter school teachers are not certified. More than four percent of charter school teachers do not have a college degree compared to fewer than one percent of faculty members at traditional public schools. Teachers with baccalaureate or masters degrees are slightly under-represented in charter schools compared to the public schools overall, but those with doctorates are over-represented. Finally, a much larger proportion of charter school teachers are minority group members. Facilities Open-enrollment charter schools in Texas have made diverse arrangements for facilities. Most schools lease the space they occupy. Some participate in what might be called a lease-back arrangement, renting space from their sponsoring organizations. Some have permission to use space owned by the sponsoring organization, and at least one has free space provided by the university that sponsors it. The type of space occupied by charter schools varies. Some schools 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 from a church, and another meets in a former day care center. Some students attend class in former convenience stores. Most charter schools have 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 school=s 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 two years of operation, the ˿Ƶ has 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. With the exception of high-wealth school districts that were required to reduce their wealth, 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. This condition reduced the impact of charter school development on traditional public school districts in the 1997-98 year. In practice, during 1997-98, 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. If students are served by a compensatory education program at an open-enrollment charter school, the school must offer free or reduced price lunches. The ˿Ƶ verifies student participation in special programs to make sure funding distributions are accurate. Discrepancies between enrollment estimates used to make aid payments and actual enrollments in 1996-97 were made up during the 1997-98 school year. Similarly, discrepancies for 1997-98 will be made up in 1998-99. Like traditional public school districts, charter schools may not spend or keep overpayments from the state. Open-enrollment charter schools are subject to state information reporting requirements of the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS). In October, the charter schools report budget estimates by object and function. At the end of the fiscal year, school districts report actual expenditures. This information becomes available for use about five months after it is submitted to the ˿Ƶ, meaning that expenditure data for 1997-98 will be available in early 1999. This report shows charter school financial information 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. The North Hills and Pegasus charter schools received charters to open in fall 1997 and did not report expenditures for 1996-97. Table II.9 reports expenditures by function for 1996-97. Nearly half of charter school expenditures were for instruction, instructional resources, and curriculum and staff development (functions 11, 12, and 13). Charter schools spent less than one percent on instructional leadership (function 12) and almost eight percent on school leadership (function 23). General administration expenditures (function 41) were 10 percent of total expenditures. Transportation expenditures (function 34) were one percent of the total. During the first year of operation, open-enrollment charter schools, as a group, spent a smaller proportion of their budgets for instruction and transportation than did public school districts in Texas overall. Charter schools spent a larger proportion on general administration compared with public school districts. There may be several reasons for the relatively high administrative costs, among them the small size of the schools. Small schools (and school districts) cannot capitalize on economies of scale with regard to administration and, thus, their costs are likely to be higher than larger schools (and school districts). Charter schools may also have had expenses stemming from start-up tasks. Table II.9 Charter School Expenditures, 1996-97 Expenditure (Function code)Total Expenditures by Charter SchoolsPercentage of Total ExpendituresInstruction and instructional resources (11,12)$5,986,47046.7%Curriculum and staff development (13)$117,0370.9%Instructional leadership (21)$68,8500.5%School leadership (23)$963,6807.5%Guidance, counseling, social work (31, 32)$568,3304.9%Health services (33)$73,2360.6%Pupil transportation (34)$140,8591.1%Food service (35)$355,6652.8%Extracurricular and co-curricular (36)$100,7000.8%General administration (41)$1,325,64010.4%Plant maintenance and operations (51)$2,513,69719.7%Security and monitoring (52)$158,9861.2%Data processing (53)$226,5911.8%Community service (61)$85,1780.7%Fund raising (81)$64,8140.5%Total$12,785,218 Summary Texas charter schools are generally smaller than schools within their immediate geographic area. Most are located in urban areas. There are about twice as start-up as conversion 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 public schools in Texas. Nearly all teachers in Texas traditional public schools are certified, while slightly over half of charter school teachers are certified. More charter school teachers than traditional public school teachers belong to minority groups. Most charter schools are housed in leased buildings not originally designed to be schools. Charter schools receive state aid for all of tier one and tier two funding. Public 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 and 1997-98. Like traditional public school districts, charter schools submit financial information through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS). So far, charter schools have spent nearly half their total operating expenditures on instruction and instructional resources. They have spent about ten percent on administration and about one percent on pupil transportation. Charter schools have spent a smaller proportion of their budgets on instruction and instructional related functions and more on administration than traditional public 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 19 charter schools operating in June 1998. Of these 19 charter schools, 17 were in their second year of operation and had completed a questionnaire the previous year. These schools were given a revised version of the previous questionnaire. The two other charter schools that had just completed their first year of operation received the questionnaire used in the previous year. Copies of both questionnaires appear in Appendix B of this report. All charter school directors completed and returned a questionnaire. For the purpose of analysis, the schools were grouped into three categories: at-risk schools in their second year of operation (11 reported), non-at-risk schools in their second year of operation (6 reported), and schools in their first year of operation (2 reported). A list of schools in each category appears in Appendix C. Unless reported by category, the results should be interpreted to reflect the responses for all 17 responding second-year charter school directors. Responses from the two first-year charter schools are reported in Appendix E, and include a comparison of the 1997 responses of the first-year charter schools. The distinction between at-risk schools and non-at-risk schools is made because schools in these groups have different missions, serve different student populations, and have different origins. These schools do share certain similarities. In the 1997 survey, both at-risk and non-at-risk charter schools were interested in developing their own educational vision and gaining autonomy in educational programming. However, at-risk charter schools valued two goals more highly than did the non-at-risk charter schools: serving a special population, and developing non-traditional relationships with businesses in the community. All at-risk schools but one were converted from existing private schools, and directors viewed their status as new charter schools as a means of attracting more students and resources. Finally, at-risk schools tend to serve middle school and high school students experiencing academic difficulties, whereas non-at-risk schools tend to serve elementary school students. This section of the evaluation report has four parts. The first part focuses on reasons for founding charter schools and challenges faced in opening and operating the schools. The second part examines the governance of the schools, their finances, and their support from business and the community. The third part describes school personnel and programs and directors views on how their schools effect public school districts. Parents and students are the focus of the fourth part. Starting and Maintaining Charter Schools The first question posed to second-year charter school directors asked them to compare their experiences from year one to year two: were certain tasks easier to handle, more difficult, or about the same? Directors responded to a list of tasks, using a three-point rating scale where easier to handle was given a value of 3, about the same difficulty was given a value of 2, and more difficult was given a value of 1. The results are depicted in Table III.1. Table III.1 Comparing Difficulties Between Year One (1996-97) and Year Two (1997-98) ChallengesAt-Risk Charter School Mean ScoreNon-at-Risk Charter School Mean ScoreAttracting students2.72.8Realizing original vision2.42.8Attracting/retaining teachers and staff2.52.6Involving parents2.42.0Securing adequate funding2.01.81 = more difficult 2 = about the same difficulty 3 = easier to handle The majority of directors found that securing adequate funding remained difficult; only one director found it easier, and two found it to be more difficult. Involving parents also continued to be difficult. However, the tasks of attracting and retaining teachers and staff, realizing the original vision of the school, and attracting students became less difficult. The generally positive experiences these schools had with attracting studentsand attracting and retaining facultyare detailed in the fourth section. Overall, non-at-risk schools encountered about the same difficulties as at-risk schools. Directors were given a list of organizations and asked whether each had proved helpful. They were unanimous in finding the following organizations helpful: Charter School Research Center of Texas, ˿Ƶ, and their regional educational service center. Seven of the eleven directors (64%) of at-risk schools found a local college or university helpful, while five of seven directors (71%) of non-at-risk schools found a local college or university helpful. Two non-at-risk schools are, in fact, affiliated with a university. Few directorsfour of eleven directors (36%) of at-risk schools, and two of six directors (33%) of non-at-risk schoolsfound their local school districts to be helpful. The evaluation team was also interested in identifying obstacles sponsors faced in establishing charter schools. For the 1997 survey, 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 were reviewed. Many of their questions were used in both the 1997 and 1998 surveys, allowing us to compare our results with findings from the national study and the Minnesota study. Results are compiled in Table III.2. Table III.2 Difficulties in Year Two, 1997-98 At-Risk Charter SchoolsNon-at-Risk Charter SchoolsDifficultiesMean ScoreDirectors Answering Difficult or Very Difficult (%)Mean ScoreDirectors Answering Difficult or Very Difficult (%)Inadequate operating funds2.270%2.583%Lack of planning time2.182%2.067%Inadequate facilities2.370%1.880%Repayment of state aid overpayment2.064%2.067%Hiring teaching staff1.973%1.433%Local board opposition1.501.033%Federal education regulations1.373%2.033%TEA regulations1.364%2.033%Internal conflicts1.218%1.017%Health and safety regulations1.056%1.00Community opposition1.001.00Teacher association opposition1.001.001 = not at all difficult 2 = difficult 3 = very difficult Inadequate operating funds emerged as being the greatest difficulty, with the lack of planning time as the second greatest difficulty. Inadequate facilities was third, and Repayment of state aid overpayment was fourth. These 1998 results almost exactly replicate the 1997 results. In 1997, the top four obstacles that directors identified were inadequate start-up funds, inadequate facilities, lack of planning time, and inadequate operating funds. Thus, funds, facilities, and time remained major difficulties. Funding appeared to present a greater difficulty to non-at-risk schools than to at-risk schools, while inadequate facilities were a greater difficulty for at-risk schools than for non-at-risk schools. 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 charter schools governing bodies. Table III.3 Characteristics of Charter School Governing Board Members, 1997-98 At-Risk Charter Schools MeanNon-at-Risk Charter Schools Mean1996-971997-981996-971997-98Board Size9.89.67.35.7Gender Women Men 4.3 5.4 5 4.6 4.3 3 3 2.8Ethnicity Anglo African American Hispanic Asian American Other 3.4 1.8 4.4 0 0 2.6 2.1 4.5 0 0 2.5 3.5 1 0 0.3 3.7 1.7 0.5 0 0Other Parents of Students Teachers in the Charter School 1.5 0.2 0.5 0.1 2 0.2 1.6 0.1 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 9.6 (compared to 9.8 in the 1997 survey). Non-at-risk charter school boards continue to be slightly smaller with an average size of 5.7 (compared to 7.3 in the 1997 survey). The range in board size varies from a high of 18 members to a low of four members. Although Table III.3 seems to indicate a high degree of racial diversity among governing board members, an examination of data presented in Table III.4 shows that this is not always the case. Table III.4 Numbers of Charter School Board Members by Race and Ethnicity, 1997-98 AngloAfricanAmer.Hisp.Asia Amer.Oth.TotalAt-Risk Charter SchoolsAcademy of Transitional Studies00100010American Institute for Learning8020010Blessed Sacrament AcademyNANANANANA4Building AlternativesNANANANANANADallas Can!4440012George I. Sanchez212005One-Stop Multi-Service008008SER-Nios214007Texas Academy of Excellence1810010Waco Charter School8730018Raul Yzaguirre10110012Non-At-Risk Charter SchoolsGirls and Boys Prep070007Medical Center320005Renaissance Charter School500005Seashore Learning Center401005UH Tech501006West Houston Charter School511007 Seven of the charter schools exhibit some racial diversity, meaning that two or more ethnic groups share almost equal representation. The other ten boards are dominated by a single racial group. For example, one board is composed entirely of African American members while another is composed entirely of Hispanics. For a third charter school board, eight of ten members are Anglo. Anglos dominate four of the six non-at-risk charter school boards. Generally, the racial and ethnic makeup of boards reflects the racial and ethnic makeup of the student population served. In contrast to 1997, boards were more diverse in terms of gender: only one board had no female members. Parental representation dropped slightly from the year before. Parents served on only seven school boards, while in 1997 parents served on slightly more than half of the boards. As in 1997, one school board had eight parents serving as members. Teachers continued to have low representation. In 1997, only three boards had teacher representation, and that was limited to one teacher. In 1998, two boards had teacher representation, limited to one teacher in one school and three teachers in the second school. The marked informality found in the 1997 survey to characterize charter schools governing boards continues, with no uniform method established to select board members. As before, some boards are simply the existing boards of a non-profit organization. However, if we define a closed selection process as one in which a small group or the director appoints members, then most boards use a closed process. Terms of office average two years, slightly less than the term of office for public school district trustees. Three at-risk schools and two non-at-risk schools have indefinite or indeterminate terms of office. Boards average one meeting a month, with three boards meeting quarterly and one board meeting twice a month. Most boards elect three officers: a president or chair, and a vice-president or vice-chair, and a secretary. Few boards elect a treasurer. The majority of the boards have adopted by-laws (all but two at-risk schools, all but one non-at-risk schools), give written approval of operating policies (all but one at-risk schools, all but two non-at-risk schools), and approve the budget (all but one at-risk and non-at-risk schools.) 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 $50,000. However, the mean was $119,290, indicating great differences for start-up funding among schools. The non-at-risk schools received an average of $36,000 in start-up funds, with a median amount of $0. Table III.5 Self-Reported Start-up Funds for Charter Schools, 1997-98 Amount of Start-up FundsNumber of At-Risk Charter SchoolsNumber of Non-At-Risk Charter Schools$003$20,000-$50,00050$80,000-$100,00012$552,00010Not Reporting41Average$119,290$36,000 Loans were an important source of start-up funds for five charter schools, while grants were a source for four charter schools. Three charter schools cited the ˿Ƶ as the source of their start-up funds. Six charter school directors did not respond to this question. Analysis of charter school revenue budgets shows the average contribution from the federal revenue was 7 percent (compared to 12 percent in 1997), and the state contribution was 73 percent (68 percent in 1997). The remaining 20 percent came from other sources including grants, contributions from chartering organizations, and local fundraising. Twelve charter schools received no funds from parents, whereas parent donations averaged one percent of the budget at the remaining schools. Four of the six non-at-risk schools received parent donations, compared to one of the eleven at-risk schools. Seven schools reported receiving no revenue from private grants; another seven schools reported receiving 5 percent or less of their revenue from private grants. One school reported receiving 10 percent of its revenue from private grants. The majority of charter schools (15, compared to 12 in 1997) received no financial assistance from their chartering organization. The two schools that did acquire funds from their chartering organizations each received an amount that provided 5 percent of the budget. Only one charter school reported receiving in-kind support such as equipment, space, or volunteers; in 1997, seven charter schools received such support. As in 1997, all but two charter schools were eligible for federal Title 1 funding. All but one of the eligible schools received Title 1 funding; the other school rejected it for philosophic reasons. Support from the Community and Business Partnerships Most charter schools reported some type of community and business partnership (see Table III.6). As noted above, at-risk charter schools valued highly the opportunity to establish non-traditional relationships with businesses in the community, and this desire is reflected in practice. Over three-quarters (82 percent) of the charter schools receive support from business and community groups for both equipment donations and monetary donations. More than half the schools receive support for field trips and volunteers. In 1997, these four areas attracted the most support, with less than half of schools receiving support for tutoring, mentoring, or job shadowing. Table III.6 Reported Community and Business Partnerships, 1997-98 Type of PartnershipNumber of At-Risk Charter SchoolsNumber of Non-At-Risk Charter Schools1996-971997-981996-971997-98Equipment donations81143Monetary donations71044Field trips7952Time donations (volunteers)6941Tutoring6820Mentoring7711Job shadowing3411 Personnel, Programs, and Effects on Public School Districts Directors The survey asked charter school directors several questions concerning their qualifications. Responses are compiled in Table III.7. Table III.7 Teaching and Administrative Experience of Charter School Directors Type of ExperienceMean Years of Experience for At-Risk Charter School DirectorsMean Years of Experience for Non-At-Risk Charter School Directors1996-971997-981996-971997-98Public School Teaching Administration 8.7 5.9 8.8 2.9 9.2 4.7 10.3 1.2Private school Teaching Administration 3.6 3.6 0.7 1.3 5.3 3.7 6.3 6.0Total Teaching Administration 12.3 9.5 9.5 4.3 14.5 8.4 16.6 7.2 Slightly fewer than one-third of the charter schools require mid-management certification for the position of director. Most directors hold degrees beyond the baccalaureate; nine hold masters level degrees, and four directors hold doctorates. The majority of directors have prior experience teaching in public and/or private schools. Only one director had no experience in teaching or school administration. Among at-risk charter school directors, the average length of teaching experience in public schools is 8.8 years, and the average for private schools is 0.7 years, for an overall average teaching experience of 9.5 years (a decline from 12.3 in 1997). The non-at-risk directors have more teaching experience, averaging 10.3 years in public schools and 6.3 years in private school, for an overall average teaching experience of 16.6 years. The at-risk school directors have more administrative experience in public schools than do the non-at-risk school directors: 2.9 years compared to 1.2 years. Non-at-risk charter school directors average more administrative experience in private schools than do at-risk school directors, 6.0 years versus 1.3 years; however, these figures are skewed by one school director with 28 years of administrative experience in private schools. Three of the seventeen directors teach classes on a regular basis in their school. Fourteen directors are also the CEO of the school. Teachers According to charter school directors, nearly all charter school teachers hold a college degree; at two schools, one teacher lacked such a degree. Nearly half the teachers are certified or vocationally licensed. According to directors, the turnover rate for teachers in at-risk schools is 60 percent, measured by teachers who started teaching in fall 1997 and did not return for the 1998-1999 school year. The turnover rate averaged 40 percent in non-at-risk schools. These turnover rates represent an increase from the previous year. About one-third of those who left were reported to have taken positions in other public or private schools, a decline from one-half in 1997. Seven percent of the teachers in at-risk schools and three percent of teachers in non-at-risk schools left their positions before the end of the 1997-1998 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. All 17 schools use curriculum materials approved for use in Texas public schools. Two at-risk schools use these materials exclusively, whereas the 15 remaining schools have adopted other curriculum models either as their primary mode or as a supplement. In 13 schools, teachers have developed their own curricula. Directors were asked what educational practices were employed in their schools. Responses are tabulated in Table III.8. Because charter school directors provided responses in more than one category, the total number of responses exceeds the number of charter schools. The most common educational practices employed in at-risk charter schools are multi-age grouping, favored by all eleven at-risk schools, and mainstreaming, project-based learning, interdisciplinary teaching, and alternative assessments, favored by nine of the eleven at-risk schools. Six of the six non-at-risk schools also favor mainstreaming and use of technology for learning. Five of the six schools use multi-age grouping. This list can be compared with the 1997 results, which ranked use of technology, individualized learning, performance-based assessments, and multi-age groupings as the most widely used practices in the charter schools. Table III.8 Educational Practices Used in Charter Schools, 1997-98 Type of Educational PracticeNumber of At-Risk Charter Schools Using the PracticeNumber of Non-at-Risk Charter Schools Using the PracticeMulti-age grouping115Mainstreaming96Project-based learning93Interdisciplinary teaching93Alternative assessments92Individualized learning83Performance-based assessments83Use of technology for learning76Site-based decision making74Experiential learning73Nontraditional yearly schedule70Community service requirements63Nontraditional daily schedule61After-school scheduling52Nontraditional weekly schedule40Graduation/learning standards31Use of simulations31 Effects on Local School Districts Advocates for 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 effects of charter schools on public schools. Seven of the 17 charter school directors indicated that they were aware of changes in the school districts from which they draw their students. When asked to describe these changes, seven directors provided comments. As in 1997, three directors pointed to the development of additional campus charter schools. Two noted that the school districts were building new schools. One director noted that the school district was devoting more attention to dropout recovery programs. Two directors saw a financial impact, either in a decrease in ADA allocations, or increase in pay for district teachers. One at-risk school director noted that TAAS scores for the district had risen. On average, charter school directors view relations between school districts and charter schools as cooperative. One at-risk school director reported the relationship as hostile. Directors at three at-risk schools and three non-at-risk schools reported the relationship as neutral. Directors at three at-risk schools said it was somewhat cooperative. Seven directors, four at at-risk schools and three at non-at-risk schools, reported the relationship as 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. Because charter school directors reported responses in multiple categories, the total number of responses exceeds the number of charter schools. Table III.9 Parent Participation Practices in Charter Schools, 1997-98 Parent Participation PracticeNumber of At-Risk Charter Schools Using the PracticeNumber of Non-at-Risk Charter Schools Using the PracticeOffering opportunities for parents to volunteer at the school116Offering referrals to other social or health services agencies102Offering workshops or support groups for parents73Regularly scheduled parent-teacher meetings63Written plan or contract for parent involvement61Regularly scheduled parent meetings54Serving on school-wide committees54Regularly scheduled home-school communications44Offering parents at-home learning activities to support school objectives43Requiring parents to sign homework41Requiring parents to work at the school21Acting as teacher/instructors04 All schools offer opportunities for parents to volunteer in the school. A majority of schools offer workshops or support groups for parents and regularly scheduled parent-teacher meetings. At-risk charter schools were more likely to offer referrals to other social or health services agencies than were non-at-risk charter schools, and were slightly more likely to require that parents sign homework. Non-at-risk charter schools were more likely to rely on regularly scheduled parent meetings and parental service on school-wide committees. Two-thirds of non-at-risk charter schools had parents serve as instructors; none of the at-risk charter schools did. It appears that non-at-risk schools are more likely to make use of the more traditional practices of involving parents (such as parent-teacher meetings), at-risk charter schools favor a departure from traditional practices. Differences in practices may be related to the different missions of the schools, and the different populations served. Charter school directors were also asked what percentage of parents engaged in various activities for the school. Their estimated percentages have been averaged in Table III.10 below. As noted in this table, more parents of students attending at-risk charter schools were involved in coordinating community projects than in any other activity, while more parents in non-at-risk charter schools devoted their time primarily to maintenance of the physical plant and fundraising. Table III.10 Type of Parent Involvement in Charter School Activities, 1997-98 Type of Parent InvolvementAverage Percent of Parental Involvement at At-Risk Charter SchoolsAverage Percent of Parental Involvement at Non-at-Risk Charter SchoolsCommunity projects13%6%Fundraising7%21%Maintenance of physical plant3%29%Class presentations2%9%Tutoring1%7%Teaching assistants1%6%Mentoring0%1% Students At the conclusion of the 1997-98 school year, charter school directors reported a total of 4,120 students enrolled. At-risk school directors anticipated that 56 percent of their students would return for the fall 1998 semester; non-at-risk school directors anticipated that 88 percent of students would return for the fall 1998 semester. More than half the schools had wait lists in September 1997, and nearly all schools anticipated wait lists for the fall 1998 semester. Most schools plan to expand by adding classes and faculty members. Three of the 11 at-risk schools and four of the six of the non-at-risk schools plan to expand by adding grade levels. Charter school directors estimate that, of the students enrolled in fall 1997, a total of 2,487 left charter schools. Of the 2,221 students who left at-risk charter schools, 932 (37 percent) did so because they graduated or completed their GED requirements. Some of the at-risk schools, such as Dallas Can!, have a revolving admission whereby students come to school only until they pass the GED exam or TAAS exit exam. Thus, Dallas Can! had spaces for 623 students in the 1997-98 school year, and reported that 1,000 left, half because they had completed their GED. Table III.11 below indicates the other reasons given by charter school directors for students leaving. Table III.11 Students Who Left Charter Schools in 1997-98, Reported by School Directors Reasons for Students Leaving Charter SchoolsNumber of At-Risk Charter School Students Number of Non-at-Risk Charter School Students ReasonNumberPercentNumberPercentDisciplinary problems43434%5320%Moved24519%5822%Transportation problems18815%5320%Student got a job20816%00%School did not meet academic expectations1189%7127%Medical reasons806%52%Academic problems161%135% Charter school directors do not see a single overwhelming reason for student attrition. One school official from an at-risk charter school expressed the opinion that, although students transfer out for a variety of reasons, the common thread is that the charter school was not what the students expected it to be in terms of schedules, academics, discipline, and so on. For non-at-risk charter school students, a significant reason for leaving was the failure of the school to meet academic expectations. The majority of schools do not dismiss students for academic failure but prefer to work with them. Student recruitment is an integral part of maintaining enrollment in charter schools. Charter schools use a variety of recruitment techniques, as displayed in Table III.12. Because charter school directors responded in multiple categories, the number of responses exceeds the number of charter schools. Table III.12 Student Recruitment Techniques Reported by Charter Schools, 1997-98 Recruitment TechniqueNumber of At-Risk Charter Schools Using TechniqueNumber of Non-at-Risk Charter Schools Using TechniqueWord of mouth116Flyers83Newspaper ads73Parent meetings55Radio32Posters22 A new category, word of mouth, was added to the second-year survey, and it proved to be the leading recruitment technique for all charter schools. Half the schools used flyers, newspaper ads, and parent meetings. Radio announcements, cited by 10 schools in the 1997 survey, were used by only five schools in 1998. Use of posters also declined, from six schools in 1997 to four schools in 1998. 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 are not directly comparable with data gathered from other public schools. One way of measuring this aspect of the school experience is the time that administrators and teachers spend on student discipline. Our survey results show that teachers and administrators expend approximately 21 percent of their time on student discipline in at-risk charter schools and 13 percent of their time in non-at-risk schools. Two at-risk schools added a category, counselors, and indicated that counselors spend an average of 50 percent of their time on student discipline. In some cases, administrators spend as little as 1 percent of their time on discipline, and teachers spend as little as 5 percent of their time. At the other extreme, one school reported that teachers and administrators spend 50 percent of their time on student discipline. When asked to rate the degree of seriousness of student discipline problems, eight of the eleven at-risk charter schools chose not very serious, while the remaining three chose somewhat serious. Only one non-at-risk charter school chose somewhat serious; the other five non-at-risk schools chose not very serious to describe discipline problems. When asked how often classes are interrupted by discipline problems, directors at eleven of the seventeen schools said that classes were interrupted either once a week or two to three times a week. Classes at five schools were almost never interrupted, whereas classes at one school were interrupted a great deal. When asked to assess to what extent the need for student discipline interfered with the educational process at the school, directors at twelve charter schools said that this need interfered occasionally with education; three said it interfered not at all, and two schools, both serving an at-risk population, said discipline issues interfered pretty regularly with the educational process. There were wide variations in the number of disciplinary incidents, displayed in Table III.13 below. Table III.13 Number of Disciplinary Incidents in Charter Schools, 1997-98 At-Risk Charter SchoolsNon-at-Risk Charter SchoolsType of IncidentNumber PercentNumber PercentDrugs4165%120%Alcohol1016%120%Assault914%240%Knives35%120%Guns00%00% Some schools reported no disciplinary incidents, whereas others indicated a relatively high number of incidents. Two at-risk charter schools account for over half the drug-related incidents; both assessed their disciplinary problems as relatively serious. Non-at-risk charter schools had many fewer disciplinary incidents than the at-risk charter schools. As in the 1997 survey, no director reported any incident with guns. Summary Given that the schools have different target populations, different locales, different curricula, different resources, and different goals and objectives, it is not surprising to find that vast differences exist among the open-enrollment charter schools in Texas. There is considerable variation in student discipline, student attrition, and parent involvement, yet 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. Limited funds remain the primary obstacle reported by all charter school directors. Each charter school has a governing board, and the boards continue to be characterized by informality in selection and function. Charter school directors are experienced educators with many years of teaching and administrative experience. Charter school teachers are diverse in their preparation as educators, but nearly all have college degrees and are certified teachers. As in 1997, teachers use Texas curriculum materials extensively but not exclusively. Charter schools use a variety of innovative teaching practices in their curriculum. 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. As noted, at-risk charter schools opt for more non-traditional approaches to parent involvement, whereas non-at-risk schools are more likely to make use of more traditional approaches. Parental involvement appears to have declined slightly from the previous year. Although the number of students leaving charter schools seems high, it includes those students who have passed the GED and experienced academic success. Otherwise, there is no single reason for student attrition. Charter schools have no difficulties attracting students, and maintain waiting lists. They rely on a combination of formal methods, such as flyers, and informal methods, such as word of mouth, to recruit students. Regarding student discipline, charter school directors report wide variations in the number of disciplinary incidents, but no director reported that discipline problems 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 636 telephone interviews of charter school parents during spring 1998. In addition to a survey of charter school parents, the first-year evaluation, conducted in spring 1997, included a survey of a comparison group of parents whose children were enrolled in public attendance-zone schools. The comparison group survey was omitted from the second-year evaluation. An overriding consideration was simply cost. Three additional charter schools were operational in the 1997-98 school year, making it desirable to expand the survey to include parents of students attending those schools. The capacities of the evaluation team were further taxed by the decision to focus on a comparative analysis of TAAS scores in the second and third years. By omitting the comparison group survey, it was possible to expand the charter school parent survey by more than 100 interviews. It also freed team resources for the task of acquiring and examining TAAS scores of charter school students and those of a comparison group of students. The evaluation team plans to reinstate the practice of interviewing a parent comparison group in future evaluations. Many statistical problems that beset the first-year evaluation of parent attitudes are greatly reduced or have disappeared in the second-year evaluation. For instance, in the first-year evaluation, there were very few responses from parents of children who attended some schools, whereas the parents of children attending other schools were greatly over-represented. The response rates across schools were much more even in the second-year study. For 1997-98, interviews were conducted with at least 20 parents for each school. The 20 interviews were conducted with parents whose children attend the University of Houston Charter School of Technology (UH Tech) represent half the schools enrollment of 40 children. The largest numbers of surveys were administered to parents of children in the Dallas Can! Academy (67) and the Renaissance Charter School (63). The Dallas Can! interviews represent 10.5 percent of all of the interviews conducted, whereas the schools enrollment represented about 15.1 percent of all of the charter school students in the state. Similarly, the Renaissance interviews constitute about 9.9 percent of interviews conducted in the second year, whereas its enrollment represents about 15.5 percent of Texas charter school students. For this section, parent responses are not weighted to more closely approximate the proportions of students in each school for two reasons. The first is that there are a substantial number of responses for each school even though there may be small disparities between the number of interviews for each school and its number of students. The second is that budget constraints preclude conducting enough interviews to support statistical evaluation of school level effects. Since the purpose of the research is to evaluate charter school outcomes in the aggregate, there seemed little reason to complicate matters by weighting responses in the interest of calibrating each schools contribution to the whole survey. As in the first-year study, 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. The schools in each category differ so greatly from schools in the other in terms of their missions, the objective characteristics of the students they enroll, and the educational aspirations of students and parents that it would muddy the waters greatly to lump them together. The three schools that opened during the second yearPegasus, UH Tech, and North Hillsall profess to serve primarily non-at-risk students. Thus the proportion of students attending non-at-risk charter schools increased somewhat compared to the first year. Response rates from non-at-risk schools tend to be disproportionately high (with the exception of Renaissance), whereas response rates from at-risk schools tend to be low. According to the ˿Ƶs (TEA) 1997-98 summary data on charter schools, about 59.3% of charter school students in the state attended at-risk schools, with the remainder attending non-at-risk schools. In our survey, about 47.8% of responses are from parents of students attending non-at-risk schools. This over-representation of non-at-risk parents results from the greater ease of contacting high socioeconomic status parents, and their greater willingness to respond to interviewers. The important concern is that each group be representative of the population from which it was drawn. Given that each group of parents represents a large number (332 at-risk, 304 non-at-risk) of randomly selected respondents, there is good reason to think that they are like other at-risk and non-at-risk charter school parents in most important respects. Of more concern is the fact that in the aggregate, the respondents to second-year parent survey are unrepresentative of the charter school student body with respect to race. Recent research into school choice indicates that household educational preferences vary by race. Some reports assert that low socioeconomic (SES) and minority households are more concerned with discipline in schools and less concerned with academic quality than higher SES and Anglo households. Other reports indicate that low-income and minority households are concerned with academics, but that they focus on academic outcomes whereas upper-income white households are more concerned with academic process. Whatever the truth may be, it does appear that race is a mediating influence on many of the attitudes we hope to measure in this evaluation. Consequently, we use weights to bring the distribution of respondents in this study into line with the racial distribution of charter school students reported by the TEA for 1997-98. The weighting strategy is discussed in the sub-section on charter school parent demographics. The discussion in this section addresses the following issues: What are the demographic characteristics of charter school households? What factors prompted parents to choose a charter school? How satisfied are parents with charter schools in comparison to schools their children attended previously? How did parents learn about the charter school their children attend? Demographic Characteristics of Charter School Parents Table IV.1 presents the ethnic/racial distribution of all students in Texas charter schools and the same distribution for respondents in the second-year parent survey. The last column of the table presents the weights that are used to make the parent survey distribution approximate the racial distribution of charter school students. In each case, the weighting factor is simply the ratio of the overall percentage to the survey percentage. All subsequent tables in this section are generated from data that incorporate these weights. Table IV.1 Race and Ethnicity of Charter School Parents Race/EthnicityStatewideSurveyWeightAfrican American29.3%26.4%1.11Hispanic45%36.6%1.23White23.8%30.3%0.79Asian/Pacific Islander1.9%2.9%0.66 Table IV.2 presents ethnic and racial distributions of non-at-risk parents and at-risk parents, adjusted by weight. Table IV.2 Ethnic and Racial Distributions of At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Parents Race/EthnicityNon-at-Risk ParentsAt-Risk ParentsAll Parents SurveyedCount%Count%Count%White12545.5%287.4%15323.4%African American9032.7%9424.8%18428.1%Hispanic3111.3%25266.5%28343.3%Asian124.4%00%121.8%Native American10.4%20.5%30.5%Middle Eastern31.1%00%30.5%Other134.7%30.8%162.4%Total275379654 Among charter school households, whites are found disproportionately among non-at-risk parents, and Hispanics are found disproportionately among at-risk parents. This pattern reflects the fact that low SES students are more likely to be at-risk, and Hispanic households fall disproportionately into low SES categories. On the other hand, African American parents comprise a larger percentage of the non-at-risk parent group than of the at-risk parent group. Table IV.3 Income of Charter School Parents Income CategoryNon-at-riskAt-riskLess than $5,0000.9%8.3%$5,000 9,9992.2%9.4%$10,000 14,9994.9%16.8%$15,000 19,9996.3%9.9%$20,000 24,9998.1%12%$25,000 34,99915.7%14.4%$35,000 49,99920.2%8.6%Over $50,00026.5%6.4% Table IV.3 presents income distributions for non-at-risk and at-risk parents. Again, it is not surprising that parents of non-at-risk students are more affluent than parents of at-risk students. Table IV.4 Education Level of Charter School Parents Education LevelNon-at-riskAt-risk8th grade or less1.4%13.3%9-11th grade2.5%20.5%GED1.1%4%High school degree11.8%29.5%Vocational training (no degree)1.1%1.3%Vocational training (with degree)2.2%2.9%Less than 2 years of college12.9%10.9%More than 2 years of college17.9%7.7%College degree33.3%6.6%Graduate degree15.8%3.2% Consistent with previous indications of the difference in SES between non-at-risk and at-risk parents, Table IV.4 indicates that non-at-risk parents tend to have greater educational achievement than at-risk parents. The modal education category for non-at-risk parents is college degree, while the modal category for at-risk parents is high school degree. Table IV.5 Employment Status of Charter School Parents Employment StatusNon-at-riskAt-riskFull-time64.7%53.8%Part-time12.4%8.7%Unemployed5.5%10.9%Going to school2.9%3.5%Homemaker14.5%23.1% Table IV.5 indicates that non-at-risk parents are more likely to be employed full-time or part-time than at-risk parents, who are more likely to be unemployed. At-risk parents are also more likely than non-at-risk parents to identify themselves as homemakers. Table IV.6 Marital Status of Charter School Parents Marital StatusNon-at-riskAt-riskMarried w/spouse76.3%69.8%Marriage-like relationship1.1%3.2%Separated or divorced15.8%21.9%Never married4.7%7.2%Widowed2.2%2.7% Table IV.6 indicates that non-at-risk parents are more likely to be married and living with their spouses. At-risk parents are more likely to be separated or divorced, or never married. Table IV.7 Parent Aspirations for Charter School Students What do you hope your child will do after graduation?Non-at-riskAt-riskGo to work1.8%10.5%Join the military2.1%8.9%Go to a technical/vocational school5%8.7%Go to a community college6.4%27%Go to a four-year college75%31.2%Other2.9%4.2%Dont know/no response6.8%9.4% Parent aspirations for their children after graduating from high school are presented in Table IV.7. Three-quarters of non-at-risk parents want their children to go to a four-year college after graduation (no other category reaches double digit percentages). About half that many at-risk parents hope that their children will go to a four-year college. Other important categories for at-risk parents are go to a community college, and go to work. Many at-risk parents have lower aspirations for their children than non-at-risk parents have for theirs. Tables IV.3 through IV.7 make it clear that non-at-risk households are higher in SES than at-risk households. In addition to providing a clearer picture of the parents of charter-school students, these results support the separation of data for non-at-risk and at-risk charter school parents. 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 (Tables IV.8a and IV.8b). Table IV.8a Non-at-Risk Parents: Reasons for Choosing a Charter School How important were the following factors?Very ImportantImportantSomewhat ImportantNot ImportantNo AnswerEducational quality of the school78.9%17.5%2.50.7%0%Class size56.8%30.9%7.93.6%0.4%Concern for childs safety48.6%20.4%7.921.8%0.4%Location of the school29.9%30.9%19.120.1%0%Teaching moral values27.6%18.6%936.5%3.2%Child had learning problems at previous school27.8%12%5.454.1%0.8%Child has friends at the charter school8.3%17.6%16.955.8%0.4%Child had discipline problems at previous school11.1%8.6%6.563.8%1.4% Table IV.8b At-Risk Parents: Reasons for Choosing a Charter School How important were the following factors?Very ImportantImportantSomewhat ImportantNot ImportantNo AnswerSchools educational quality of the school68.9%24.7%2.9%1.3%0.8%Class size50.4%32.5%5%9.4%1%Concern for childs safety57.6%19.6%5.2%14.7%0%Location of the school37.5%35.2%10%15.2%1.3%Teaching moral values44.1%25.7%4.7%15%2.9%Child had learning problems at previous school43.9%22.5%5.5%25.7%2.3%Child has friends at the charter school20.2%21.2%11%44%1%Child had discipline problems at the previous school31.7%19.1%3.1%32.7%2.6% These data provide scant validation for the argument made by some observers that upper SES parents are more likely to choose a school based on its academic quality, while lower SES parents are more concerned with safety. First, at-risk parents are nearly as likely as non-at-risk parents to mention educational quality as a factor in choosing a charter school over a traditional public school. Among non-at-risk parents, educational quality is cited by 96.4 percent as very important or important. The percentage of at-risk parents who cite educational quality as very important or important93.6is nearly the same. Moreover, at-risk parents are almost as likely to be concerned about class size (82.9 percent) as non-at-risk parents (87.7 percent). It is true that at-risk parents cite concern for their childrens safety as a basis of their decision somewhat more often than non-at-risk parents (77.2 percent to 69.0 percent), but the difference is not great, particularly given that at-risk children are likely to have attended the most troubled central city schools. At-risk parents are also somewhat more likely to take the location of the charter school into account (72.7 percent to 60.8 percent), but at-risk parents are less likely to have the resources to transport a child to a distant school. Not surprisingly, the parents of children in at-risk schools are more likely to report that their childrens learning problems or disciplinary problems are a factor in their decision than are non-at-risk parents (66.4 percent and 50.8 percent to 39.8 percent and 19.7 percent respectively). This is surely implicit in the fact that they have chosen to send their children to schools that profess to specialize in the education of at-risk students. Perhaps the most remarkable difference is in the percentage of at-risk parents who say that they chose to send their children to charter schools because they were dissatisfied with the teaching of moral values at their previous schools. While only 46.2 percent of non-at-risk parents are concerned with the teaching of moral values, 69.8 percent of at-risk parents express such a concern. Parent Satisfaction with Charter School Compared to Previous School Charter parents were asked to assign a letter grade to the previous schools attended by their children (Table IV.9). Table IV.9 Grades Given to Previous School by Charter School Parents What grade would you give your childs previous school?Non-at-riskAt-riskA19.4%20.3%B25.6%26.5%C30.6%28.5%D12%11.6%E11.2%12.5%Not sure1.2%0.6% There was no difference between non-at-risk and at-risk parents in the grades that they assigned to these schools. Approximately 45 to 47 percent of charter school parents would assign the previous schools that their children attended an A or a B. This is neither a remarkably high nor a remarkably low approval rating. A 1995 survey found that only 22 percent of respondents would give the public schools an A or a B, but that 41 percent would give such grades to their local public school. In 1996, another survey found that 75 percent of respondents would give an A or a B to the schools that their children attended. Parents were asked how satisfied they were with specific aspects of their childrens previous schools (Tables IV.10a and IV.10b). Table IV.10a Non-at-Risk Parent Satisfaction with Aspects of Previous Schools At your childs previous school, how satisfied were you withVery SatisfiedNot SatisfiedParents say in how school was run11%30.6%18.4%37.6%Discipline10.5%39.3%17.5%31.1%Priority placed upon learning17.8%36.8%18.6%25.6%Teachers10.5%37%21.8%30%Parent/teacher relations14.7%42.2%20.2%21.7% Table IV.10b At-Risk Parent Satisfaction with Aspects of Previous Schools At your childs previous school, how satisfied were you withVery SatisfiedNot SatisfiedParents say in how school was run10.7%40.6%18.0%27.0%Discipline7.3%42.4%15.7%32.0%Priority placed upon learning15.0%44.4%18.4%20.2%Teachers7.2%38.3%23.1%30.3%Parent/teacher relations8.9%47.1%17.2%23.9% Non-at-risk parents tend to choose the very satisfied option slightly more often than at-risk parents, but differences between the groups do not form strong patterns. Non-at-risk parents are most likely to be dissatisfied with their say in how the previous school was run, and most satisfied with the priority placed upon learning at the previous school. At-risk parents were most dissatisfied with discipline at their childs previous school, and most satisfied with the priority placed upon learning. Parents were asked to assign a letter grade to the charter schools their children attend (Table IV.11). The contents of Table IV.9 are reproduced here to facilitate a comparison of approval ratings for previous schools with approval ratings for charter schools. Table IV.11 Grades Given by Parents to Previous School and Charter School Previous SchoolPrevious SchoolCharter SchoolCharter SchoolGradeNon-at-riskAt-riskNon-at-riskAt-riskA19.4%20.3%45.9%55.5%B25.6%26.5%38.7%29.1%C30.6%28.5%10.0%8.1%D12.0%11.6%3.6%1.8%F11.2%12.5%1.4%3.4%Not sure1.2%0.6%0.4%1.3% Charter school parents are clearly much more satisfied with charter schools than they were with their childrens previous schools. Among non-at-risk parents, 84.6 percent would give the charter schools an A or a B, whereas only forty-five percent gave their childrens previous schools an A or a B. There is a similar disparity in the grades assigned by at-risk parents, with 84.2 percent saying that the charter schools deserved an A or a B and only 46.8 percent saying that their childrens previous schools deserved an A or a B. Finally, the apparent high-satisfaction levels exhibited by charter school parents might be questioned because many of them have less than a years experience with charter schools. Their approval levels may represent nothing more than an attempt to rationalize their decision to change the schools that their children attend. Fortunately, in the second-year parent survey, the children of a substantial number of respondents were in their second year in a charter school. Table IV.12 presents a comparison of approval levels of first-year charter parents and second-year charter parents. Table IV.12 Grades Given to Charter Schools by First-year and Second-year Parents Non-at-riskNon-at-riskAt-riskAt-riskGradeFirst-yearSecond-yearFirst-yearSecond-yearA46.6%44.9%51.9%66.1%B39.3%37.8%31.4%23.2%C9%11.2%9.1%6.3%D2.8%5.1%1.1%3.6%F1.7%1%4.5%0.9%Not sure0.6%0%1.9%0%Total parents17898264112 There is little in this table to indicate a general change in approval levels for charter schools among non-at-risk parents whose children are in their second year. Among at-risk parents, however, there is some indication of increased approval for charter schools among second-year parents. In particular, second-year parents are 14.2 percentage points more likely to give the charter schools an A than are first-year parents. This tendency is somewhat compensated by the fact and second-year parents are also about 8 percentage points less likely to give charter schools a B than first-year parents. Nevertheless, among at-risk parents, 89.3 percent would give the charter schools an A or a B, with only 83.3 percent of first-year parents giving charter schools an A or a B. How Parents Learned about Charter Schools It is important to know how parents were contacted and students recruited for charter schools. Most parents reported that they found out about the charter school through their network of friends and relatives (Table IV.13). Table IV.13 How Parents Learned about the Charter School How did you learn about your childs charter school?Non-at-riskAt-riskNewspapers13.7%5.0%TV or Radio7.8%5.3%Private Schools1.4%2.0%Public Schools3.2%21.1%Community Center2.7%2.0%Church1.8%3.3%Friends or Relatives65.3%57.4%Teachers4.1%4.0%Total parents219303 Among the sample of at-risk charter parents, 57.4 percent said that friends or relatives were the source of their information about the school. The only other source of information about charter schools that reaches double digits for at-risk parents is the public schools. For non-at-risk parents, friends or relatives are also the most important way (65.3 percent) of learning about their childrens charter schools. For this group, however, the second most important source is not the public schools (which have negligible importance), but newspapers. Indeed, for non-at-risk parents, the media combined are as important a source of awareness about charter schools (21.5 percent) as the public schools are for at-risk parents. For both groups, all other sources fall far short of 10 percent. Two things about these patterns should be noted. First, networks of friends and relatives tend to be highly distinctive in terms of race and class. When these networks are clearly the most important in alerting households to the existence of charter schools, one can anticipate that the schools themselves will be highly distinctive in terms of race and class. Second, the fact that the public schools are a significant source of information for at-risk parents but not for non-at-risk parents recalls a finding from the first-year report. In first-year interviews of school district officials, charter schools for at-risk students were either praised for helping the public schools to address a difficult problem or viewed neutrally. Critical comments were much more likely to be made about non-at-risk charter schools. There is a strong suggestion that public school officials do not oppose the creation or existence of charter schools for at-risk students because such schools relieve school districts of the responsibility for some of the students who are the hardest and most expensive to educate. Non-at-risk charter schools, on the other hand, compete for public school students and may consequently be viewed as a threat. The fact that many more at-risk than non-at-risk parents hear of charter schools through the public school system may mean that school districts are willing to publicize charter schools that draw away problem students, but not the ones that attract high-achieving students. Parental Involvement in Schools Parents were asked about various ways of being involved in their childrens charter schools and in the schools that they previously attended (Tables IV.14a and IV.14b). Table IV.14a Involvement of At-Risk Parents in Previous Schools and Charter Schools Previous SchoolCharter SchoolIn your childs previous/charter school, did youYesNot sureNoYesNot sureNoAttend a PTO meeting?58.2%0.3%41.5%49.2%1.1%49.7%Attend a parent-teacher conference?86.3%0%13.7%78.9%0.5%20.6%Participate in school activities?60.9%1.5%37.6%57.3%1.3%41.4%Belong to a booster club?13.2%0.9%85.9%10.1%2.1%87.8% Table IV.14b Involvement of Non-at-Risk Parents in Previous Schools and Charter Schools Previous SchoolCharter SchoolIn your childs previous/charter school, did youYesUnsureNoYesUnsureNoAttend a PTO meeting?81.30.817.973.60.426.1Attend a parent-teacher conference95.30.44.392.40.07.6Participate in school activities?84.80.015.281.41.117.6Belong to a booster club?16.72.481.012.61.985.6 Two things are apparent from an examination of Tables IV.14a and b. First, as might be expected, non-at-risk parents are more involved in every dimension portrayed in these tables than at-risk parents are. This disparity can be explained by previously documented SES differences between non-at-risk parents and at-risk parents, given that high SES individuals are more likely to be involved in their children's schools than low SES individuals. Second, both non-at-risk and at-risk parents are less likely to be involved in their charter schools than they were to be involved in their childrens previous schools. The differences in involvement are not great (3 to 10 percentage points). Nevertheless, they are so consistent across categories and for both groups that it is difficult to think that they are random. For every kind of activity and for both non-at-risk and at-risk parents, levels of involvement are lower for charter schools than for the schools their children previously attended. It may be that charter schools, being new, have not created or fully activated some of these forms of parental involvement. On the other hand, it is possible that, being more satisfied with the charter schools, parents do not feel that their involvement is required to the level it was in their childrens previous schools. The evaluators cannot offer anything beyond speculation about this result at this time, however. Future surveys should attempt to determine the causes of this reduction in involvement. Summary As in other sections, in Section IV the charter schools are divided into two groups at-risk schools and non-at-risk schools. Because socioeconomic status has such an important impact on a variety of education outcomes, to lump both groups together for analysis would obscure important relationships rather than illuminate them. In fact, households of students attending at-risk schools exhibit socioeconomic differences on average compared to households of students attending non-at-risk schools. Non-at-risk households have higher incomes, and the parents have more education. These parents are more likely to be employed full-time, and are more likely to be married and living with spouses (though the difference is not great). Non-at-risk parents have higher aspirations for their children once they graduate high-school. At-risk and non-at-risk households are not different in terms of the most important considerations that lead them to choose charter schools. Both seek out charter schools for the promise of improved educational quality. Most of the differences between at-risk and non-at-risk charter parents on other considerations of choice are to be expected. At-risk parents are more concerned about safety, but their children are more likely to have attended the traditional public schools where violence is most common. At-risk parents are more likely to take the location of the school into account when making a choice, but they are less able to afford the costs of transportation to a distant school. It is less clear why at-risk parents are much more likely to cite training in moral values as an important choice factor than non-at-risk parents. Both at-risk and non-at-risk charter parents are highly satisfied with their charter schools. There is no indication of a drop in satisfaction among second-year charter parents. In fact, second-year at-risk parents are even more satisfied with the charter schools than first-year at-risk parents. A cause for concern is the predominance of word-of-mouth networks as a source of information about charter schools. Such networks are themselves highly distinctive in terms or race, class, and ethnicity, and if they persist as the major avenue of communication about the charter schools, it will be no surprise that the charter schools themselves continue to be similarly distinctive. Also of some concern is the fact that the second most important source of information for at-risk parents is the public schools, but the public schools are a negligible source of information for non-at-risk parents. This disparity might result in the impression that the public schools are happy to be relieved of the responsibility of educating at-risk students, but try to prevent more gifted students from transferring into charter schools. Section V: Student Satisfaction As was done for the first-year evaluation (conducted during the 1996-97 academic year), for the second-year study the evaluation team surveyed charter school students to gain an understanding of their satisfaction with their schools. During April and May 1998, surveys were administered in all charter schools having grades 7 through 12 (elementary school students were omitted because of their more limited reading ability and restricted experience with any school). Paper-and-pencil questionnaires were completed during class time by all students returning signed parental permission slips (except married students and those18 years of age or older, who were not required to have parental permission). All charter schools that had been in existence during the previous academic year were asked to participate, and completed questionnaires were collected from all but two (Renaissance and West Houston) of the 11 charter schools attended by students in grades 7 and higher. The two schools that began during the 1997-98 year (North Hills and Pegasus) were not asked to participate in this part of the evaluation. We received completed questionnaires from 500 charter school students. Table V.1 shows the response rates for each of the nine participating charter schools. Table V.1 Student Survey Response Rates SchoolNumber of Students EnrolledNumber of Students RespondingPercent of Enrollment RespondingNon-at-Risk Schools Girls and Boys Prep  350 35 10%At-Risk Schools Academy of Transitional Studies American Institute of Learning Blessed Sacrament Building Alternatives Dallas Can! George I. Sanchez One Stop Multiservice Raul Yzaguirre 170 174 156 197 623 386 105 184 41 74 36 73 77 43 31 90 24.1% 42.5% 23.1% 37.1% 12.3% 11.1% 29.5% 48.9%Total 234550021.3% The surveyed charter school students ranged in age from 9 years to 23 years, with an average age of 16.1. Forty-nine percent of the responding students were female, 9.4 percent identified themselves as Anglo, 21 percent as African American, 64.1 percent as Hispanic, 0.8 percent as Asian, and 4.6 percent as either of mixed race or failed to provide information about their race. Respondents were fairly equally distributed across grades 7 through 12 (roughly 15 percent in each grade), and also included students enrolled in programs designed to prepare them for the GED exam (4.3 percent of the sample). Eight of the nine schools responding to the survey target at-risk high school students, while the other school focuses on educating non-at-risk students. Ideally we would like to analyze the two types of schools separately. Unfortunately, both of the non-responding schools were considered non-at-risk (Renaissance and West Houston), leaving us with only the responses from the 35 Girls and Boys Prep students to represent all students in non-at-risk schools. To avoid drawing generalizations from such a small and restricted sample, student satisfaction at non-at-risk schools is not included in this section. Thus, the remaining analyses in the section are based on responses from the remaining 465 students attending at-risk schools. Although average age of the overall sample was 16.1 years, once the non-at-risk students are omitted from the sample, the average age becomes slightly older (17 years). Responses have been weighted to represent each schools proportion in the population. Table V.2 presents characteristics of the at-risk school sample. Table V.3 presents the distribution of responses across schools and weights used to balance the responses for each school. Table V.2 Characteristics of At-Risk School Sample CharacteristicsPercentage of At-Risk Charter School RespondentsRace Hispanic African American Anglo Other/NA 66.8% 22.3% 9.1% 4.9%Gender Female Male 50.6% 49.4%Average Age17 Table V.3 At-Risk School Student Responses and Weights SchoolOriginal Number of ResponsesWeightWeighted ResponsesAcademy of Transitional Studies410.9740American Institute of Learning740.5541Blessed Sacrament361.0136Building Alternatives730.6346Dallas Can!771.89145George I. Sanchez432.0990One-Stop Multiservice310.7924Raul Yzaguirre900.4843 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). Some students in the sample (32.5 percent) had attended the charter school the previous year. These students were not asked why they chose to attend the charter school; therefore the following analyzes represent the views of new charter school students only. Table V.4 Reasons At-Risk School Students Chose a Charter School Mean Rank*Percent Listing Among Top Three ReasonsClasses fit needs better353.5%More attention from teachers3.448.4%Student in trouble at previous school3.939.4%Better teachers3.938%Bothered by trouble-makers at previous school4.628.1%Parent persuasion4.924.2%Better location5.220.2%Friends going to charter school6.76.3%* Mean rank out of 8 where 1 is the most important reason and 8 is the least important reason. Among new students attending at-risk schools, parents had little to do with their decision to attend the school: only 7.1 percent said parent persuasion was the most important reason (24.2 percent placed it within the top three most important reasons). Far more important to these at-risk school students was that classes offered better fit their needs as compared to course offerings in other schools (53.5 percent ranked this as one of the three most important reasons) and that the teachers at the charter school give the students more attention than the student would normally have received elsewhere (48.4 percent ranked this as one of the three most important reasons). Students were also attracted to their charter school because they believed that the school had better teachers than schools previously attended (38.0 percent ranked this as one of the three most important reasons). Over a third of at-risk school students (39.4 percent) said that one of the three most important reasons they chose to attend the charter school was that they had been in trouble in their previous school. Whether or not the charter school was in a better location than their previous school mattered to very few students: only 20.2 percent ranked this within their top three reasons. Where friends attend school was even less relevant to the at-risk school students: only 6.3 percent listed this reason within their top three. When asked whose idea it was for the student to attend the charter school, 53.1 percent of the at-risk school students said they made the decision themselves, although 25 percent said their family was also involved in the decision. Only 9.4 percent of at-risk school students said 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 who had not attended the charter school the previous year were asked to compare their charter school with the school they would otherwise have attended. Table V.5 reports the students responses. The table includes only new charter school students. Table V.5 Students Comparison of At-Risk Charter School with School They Would Otherwise Have Attended Feature of schoolBetterSame Worse Dont knowSmall class size70.6%20.5%5.1%3.8%Personal attention from teachers67.4%25.3%3.5%3.8%Good teachers66.6%28.3%1.2%3.9%Teachers care about students62.2%24.1%0.9%12.8%Feeling of belonging47%47%1.1%4.9%Choice of classes45.1%40.1%8%6.8%Order in classroom45.9%38.7%8.6%6.8%Interesting classes40.8%47%8.4%3.8%Feeling safe33.7%55.3%5.4%5.5%Principal cares about students33%36.2%11.5%19.4%Close to home22.7%45.1%27.8%4.4% Table V.5 presents the percentage of students who believe their at-risk charter school is better than other schools on a number of factors. Nearly three-fourths of new at-risk school students said they found the charter school to be better than other schools in terms of offering smaller classes. Two-thirds of new at-risk students found the charter schools better than other schools in providing teachers who care about their students, teachers who give personal attention to their students, and all-around good teachers. Nearly half of new at-risk school students expressed a feeling of belonging in the charter school that they had not experienced in their previous school. The students were also pleased with the choice of classes offered at the charter school. One should remember that these schools are designed specifically to help the student at risk of dropping out or the student who has already left school but wishes to return and graduate. A few students found their charter school worse in some aspects than the school they would otherwise have attended. For new at-risk school students, however, the only concern that a sizable number of students expressed was that the school was farther from home: 27.8 percent of the students said that location was worse for the charter school than for their previous school. Table V.6 summarizes students satisfaction with the charter school as well as their plans for the upcoming school year. Table V.6 At-Risk School Students Satisfaction with the School and Plans for the Coming Year All StudentsNew StudentsReturning StudentsSatisfaction with Charter SchoolVery satisfied35.9%34.7%37.7%Satisfied55.7%57.5%52.3%Not satisfied8%7.1%9.9%Plans for Next YearI will graduate31.6%27.3%38.4%Among those still eligibleI will return to charter school55.8%50.5%69%I will switch schools11.4%12.3%8.4%I dont know yet32.7%37.2%22.6% When asked how satisfied they were in general with the charter school, 36 percent of all at-risk school students (not just new students) said they were very satisfied, 55.8 are satisfied, and only 7.8 percent are dissatisfied. There is little difference in satisfaction between new students and students who attended the charter school the previous year: 34.7 percent of new students are very satisfied, compared to 37.7 percent of returning students. Moreover, among students not expecting to graduate after the current year (32 percent would be graduating in 1997-98), 55.8 percent said they will definitely return to the charter school in the fall. New charter school students were less sure than returning students whether they would attend the charter school the next year. While 69 percent of non-graduating returning students intend to continue attending the charter school and 22.6 percent are unsure, 50.5 percent of new students definitely plan to re-enroll, whereas 37.2 percent are unsure. A third measure of satisfaction called upon students to grade their charter school as well as the school they attended the previous year. Table V.7 shows the grades given to the charter schools as well as the previous schools. Table V.7 Grades At-Risk School Students Gave to Their Schools Grades All StudentsNew StudentsReturning StudentsCharter SchoolCharter SchoolPrevious SchoolCharter SchoolPrevious SchoolA35.8%37.3%13.1%32.5%16.7%B40.8%40.1%25.7%41.9%11.1%C14.9%13.7%25.4%17.6%11.1%D6.4%6.7%15.3%5.9%27.8%F2.1%2.1%20.5%2.2%33.3% Thirty-two percent of students in the sample had attended the charter school the previous year. Their responses are presented separately from those new to the charter school. Among new students, 37.3 percent gave the charter school an A and 40.1 percent gave it a B. Among students who have been in the school for at least a year, 32.4 percent gave it an A and 41.9 percent gave it a B. Students held far less positive views of their previous school than the charter school. Only 13.0 percent of new students felt that their previous school deserved an A, and 25.7 percent gave their old school a B. Likewise, 16.7 percent of returning students gave their old school an A and 11.1 percent gave it a B. Moreover, at-risk school students held a fairly negative view of their previous school: 20.5 percent of new students gave their previous school an F, compared to 2.1 percent who gave the charter school an F; and 33.3 percent of returning students gave their old school an F, compared to 2.2 percent who gave the charter school an F. Comparison of Satisfaction Across Two Years In this section we look at whether students have changed in their satisfaction with the charter schools over the past year. Not all students attended a charter school the previous year, and these students have been omitted from the analyses. In addition, in the first-year evaluation, Academy of Transitional Studies failed to provide data. Responses from this charter school have been omitted from the comparison analyses. The sample of 1997-98 charter school students contains a greater proportion of African American students than the sample of new charter school students collected during the 1996-97 academic year (22.5 percent in 1997-98, compared to 5.7 percent African Americans in 1996-97). The sample of returning students is otherwise quite similar to the previous years sample. Also, in the first-year report, we included results from a survey of non-charter comparison schools. For reference, the results from this comparison-group survey are presented in the tables as well. Table V.8 presents the demographic characteristics of the three samples. Table V.8 Characteristics of At-Risk School Sample, 1996-97 and 1997-98, and Comparison School Sample, 1996-97 CharacteristicsRespondents Attending At-Risk Charter School 1997-98Respondents Attending At-Risk Charter School 19976-97Respondents Attending Comparison School 19976-97Race Hispanic African American Anglo Other/NA 68.3% 22.5% 5.5% 3.5% 76% 5.7% 6.4% 11.9% 82.1% 11.8% 2.4% 3.7%Gender Female Male 47.9% 52.1% 51.3% 48.7% 53.1% 46.9%Average Age17.517.316.2 Returning students appear less satisfied with the charter school their second year than they were during their first year at the school. Tables V.9a through V.9c show the responses to several measures of satisfaction. Table V.9a Students Satisfaction with the Charter School, 1996-97 and 1997-98 Returning Students, 1997-98Charter School Students, 1996-97Comparison School Students, 1996-97*Very satisfied37.7%56.8%29.2%Satisfied52.3%38.9%62.5%Not satisfied9.9%4.3%8.3%* Represents satisfaction with the public attendance-zone (non-charter) school they attended. Table V.9b Grades Assigned by Students, 1996-97 and 1997-98 GradeReturning Students, 1997-98Charter School Students, 1996-97Comparison School Students, 1996-97A32.5%45%18%B41.9%42.5%46.3%C17.6%7.7%24.5%D5.9%3%7.8%F2.2%1.8%3.2% Table V.9c Students Plans for Next Year, 1996-97 and 1997-98 Returning Students, 1997-98Charter School Students, 1996-97Comparison School Students, 1996-97I will graduate38.4%35.3%NAAmong those still eligibleI will return to charter school69%63.1%NAI will switch schools8.4%7.7%NAI dont know yet22.6%29.5%NA During their first year at the charter school, 56.8 percent said that they were very satisfied, whereas during their second year at the charter school, only 37.7 percent were very satisfied. Moreover, though the percentage of students who were dissatisfied remained low (9.9 percent), it nonetheless doubled since the first year (4.3 percent). Despite the lower satisfaction, a slightly larger proportion of second-year students plan to return to the charter school (69.0 percent) than planned to return after their first year (63.1 percent). Although not strikingly different, returning students graded the charter school slightly better the second year than they had during the first year. Thirty-two percent of returning students believed the charter school deserved an A as compared to 29.9 percent of the students during the start-up year. Very few students felt that the charter school failed, and returning students were even less likely to believe so than students during the first year (2.2 percent as compared to 3.7 percent). Table V.10 provides the percentages of students responses to questions about their future goals. Table V.10 Future Goals of At-Risk School Students, 1996-97 and 1997-98 GoalReturning Students, 1997-98Charter School Students, 1996-97Comparison School Students, 1996-97Want to go to college?Yes83.4%82.3%74.5%No4%2%5.1%Dont know12.6%4.8%20.4%Plans for the future?Job16%19.6%29.1%Technical School7.1%8.8%5.9%Four-year college32.2%32.7%33.3%Military13.6%5.3%5.5%Two-year college20.3%22.8%11.8%Dont know9.4%10.7%13.9% A number of factors can help determine the career path an individual decides to take, and one such factor is their educational experience. Returning students were just as likely to say they plan to attend a four-year college (32.2 percent) as were students during their first year of charter school attendance (32.7 percent). Returning students were also similar in their plans to get a job, attend a two-year college or attend a technical school. Where the two groups differed was in their aspiration toward the military. Returning students were more than twice as likely as students during the first year of the school to say they plan to join the military when they complete high school (13.6 percent, compared to 5.3 percent). Summary At-risk school students chose charter schools because they believed such schools would offer classes that better fit their needs than the classes offered in other schools. They also believed they would get more personalized attention from charter school teachers than they had received from teachers in schools they previously attended. Finally, at-risk school students chose to attend charter schools because they believed the teachers would be better. At-risk school students made the decision to attend the charter school either by themselves or with the help of their family; their family rarely made the decision for them. At-risk school students found the charter school experience to be an improvement over their previous school experience in two key ways. First, they particularly liked the small class size offered by the charter schools. Second, they were pleased with the teaching faculty. They found that the teachers offered them more personalized attention, that the teachers tended to be good at what they do, and that the teachers cared more about the students than teachers in schools the students had attended previously. The overwhelming majority of at-risk charter school students were satisfied with their charter school. Moreover, although returning students were less likely than they had been during their first year to express strong support for the charter school, they nonetheless were quite committed to continuing their education at the charter school. Section VI: Perspectives of Charter School Teachers This section is based on a survey of charter school teachers. In April 1998, the evaluation team developed a questionnaire for the survey and distributed copies of the questionnaire and postage-paid return envelopes at 18 of the 19 operating charter schools. A copy of the questionnaire, which is based on the instrument used by the Hudson Institute in its national survey, appears in Appendix B of this report. Response rates by school are shown in Table VI.1. Table VI. 1 Response Rate for Charter School Teacher Survey Name of SchoolNumber of Teachers RespondingPercentage of Full Time FacultyAcademy of Transitional Studies250%American Institute for Learning14100%Blessed Sacrament Academy655%Building Alternatives842%Dallas Can!311%Girls and Boys Prep833%Medical Center00%North Hills NANAOne-Stop Multiservice240%Pegasus240%Renaissance1255%George I. Sanchez943%Seashore7100%SER-Nios330%Texas Academy of Excellence00%UH Tech00%Waco Charter School360%West Houston 457%Raul Yzaguirre5100%Total88 As is apparent from an examination of the data in Table VI.1, 88 full time charter school teachers responded to the survey. The response rate was highest at American Institute for Learning, Seashore, and Raul Yzaguirre, where all teachers responded. Half or more of teachers at Academy of Transitional Studies, Blessed Sacrament, Renaissance, Waco Charter School, and West Houston responded. No responses were received from teachers at Medical Center, Texas Academy of Excellence, and the University of Houston Charter School of Technology. Because of time constraints, teachers at the North Hills School were not surveyed. The remainder of this section contains tables and text portraying charter school teachers responses to survey questions. For Tables VI.2 through VI.26, total percentages in some rows and columns are less than 100 percent because one or more teachers did not respond to the question, or because they indicated that they had no opinion. Separation of schools into at-risk and non-at-risk categories For the purpose of analysis, responses were considered in the aggregate and then grouped into two categories: teachers in at-risk schools (64 respondents) and non-at-risk schools (24 respondents). The basis for identifying schools as at-risk and non-at-risk is explained in Section II, and a list of the schools in each category appears in Appendix C. Weighting of responses for at-risk and non-at-risk schools As is apparent from the percentages shown in Table VI.1, response rates of teachers in the 18 charter schools surveyed vary from none to 100 percent. To ensure appropriate representation of each school, responses from teachers at the schools have been weighted to reflect the proportions of full-time teachers on the faculty of the school. Table VI.2 shows the weighting calculations. The weighting is used for percentages of respondents portrayed in Tables VI.2 through VI.26. Table VI.2 Weighted Responses for At-Risk and Non-at-Risk School Teachers Name of SchoolNumber of Full Time Teachers in School*Percentage of Total in AR/NAR SubgroupNumber of Teachers Responding WeightWeighted Number of ResponsesAt-Risk SchoolsAcademy of Transitional Studies 4 .03% 2 1.00 2American Institute for Learning 14 .11% 14 0.43 6Blessed Sacrament 11.08%60.835Building Alternatives19.15%81.1259Dallas Can!27.21%34.0012One-Stop Multiservice5.04%21.002Pegasus5.04%21.002George I. Sanchez21.17%91.1110SER-Nios10.08%31.675Waco Charter School5.04%30.672Raul Yzaguirre5.04%50.402Total At-Risk 1265757Non-at-Risk SchoolsGirls and Boys Prep.24.40%81.5012Renaissance22.37%120.9211Seashore7.12%70.574West Houston 7.12%41.004Total Non-at-Risk 603131Total 1868888*The number of full-time teachers for each school was determined from a report prepared for the State Board of Education by Brooks Flemister, Senior Director for Charter Schools, ˿Ƶ, June 1997, and from telephone calls to charter school secretaries made in June 1998. Discrepancies between numbers of charter school teachers reported in sections II and VI arise from the fact that all charter school teachers were counted for Table II.2, whereas only full-time teachers were counted for Tables VI.1 and VI.2. Teachers in Texas First-Generation Charter Schools Demographic Information The charter school research team collected information from respondents about their education level, certification status, and salary, as well as age, ethnicity, gender, experience, and grade level they teach. In addition, we asked teachers what they did before coming to the charter school, whether they expected to continue teaching there, where their own children attended school, and what they would be doing if not teaching there. Finally, teachers were asked how they decided to teach in charter schools, how satisfied they were with features of the school, how they would evaluate the schools success, and what they considered to be its greatest strengths and weaknesses. Demographic information provided by respondents about themselves is presented in Tables VI.3 through VI.5. Where available, we provide comparison data for all Texas public school teachers. Table VI.3 Age of Respondents* At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersAll Respondents< 259%12%10%25-3012%12%12%31-4039%29%36%41-5026%27%26%>5010%14%11%* Some column totals are less than 100 percent because five teachers did not check an age range on the questionnaire. Most respondents are between age twenty-five and fifty, with the highest concentration in the thirty-one to forty group. Ten percent are under twenty-five, and young teachers are more likely to be found in the non-at-risk schools than in the at-risk schools. The same is true for teachers over fifty. No comparable statewide data on the age of teachers are available. Teachers were asked, What is your ethnicity? Their responses are presented in Table VI.4. Table VI.4 Ethnicity of Respondents* At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersAll RespondentsAnglo49%59%53%Hispanic31%10%24%African American7%25%13%Asian American5%0%4%Native American4%0%3%Other12%3%9%* Column totals may be more or less than 100 percent because some respondents checked more than one ethnic group, whereas others did not check a group. Nearly half of respondents belong to minority groups, and more than half of those are Hispanic. Minority teachers are far more likely to be found in at-risk than in non-at-risk schools. The percentage of African American respondents is higher in non-at-risk schools, whereas respondents from other minority groups are found almost exclusively in at-risk schools. The percentage of Anglo teachers is higher in Texas public schools overall (76 percent) and lower for minority teachers (16 percent Hispanic, eight percent African American, and one percent other) than in Texas charter schools. The percentage of Hispanic teachers is higher in at-risk charter schools than in all Texas public schools, whereas the percentage of African American teachers is higher in non-at-risk charter schools than in public schools in general. Teachers were asked, What is your gender? Table VI.5 shows the results. Table VI.5 Gender of Respondents* At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersAll RespondentsFemale55%65%58%Male42%27%37%* Column totals are less than 100 percent because some respondents did not indicate their gender. A higher percentage of respondents from charter schools are men than in Texas public schools overall. The ratio of male to female respondents is roughly one-third to two-thirds, whereas in all Texas public schools, that ratio is closer to one-quarter to three-quarters (23 percent male, 77 percent female). A higher percentage of male respondents teach in at-risk than in non-at-risk charter schools. Education and Certification of Charter School Teachers Teachers were asked to indicate whether they held a bachelors or advanced degree. As is apparent from the data presented in Table VI.6, nearly all respondents hold a bachelors degree. More than a quarter hold advanced degrees. Table VI.6 Respondents Education Level At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersAll RespondentsBachelors Degree91%97%93%Advanced Degree24%35%28% More than 90 percent of respondents in both types of charter schools hold bachelors degrees, whereas a higher percentage of teachers in non-at-risk than in at-risk charter schools hold advanced degrees. The percentage of teachers holding bachelors degrees is higher in Texas public schools overall (99 percent), whereas the percentage holding advanced degrees (27 percent) is about the same. Teachers were asked, What is your certification status? and were directed to check all that applied from a list of certification options. Their responses are summarized in Table VI.7. Table VI.7 Respondents Certification* At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersAll RespondentsCertified in Texas to teach the level and subject now teaching20%49%31%Certified in Texas to teach other level or subject27%23%26%Working on Texas certification31%32%32%Certified in other state18%15%17%Not now certified nor actively working on it24%13%20%* Because some teachers hold more than one type of certification, the percentage totals in columns for Table VI.7 exceed 100 percent. As is apparent from an examination of the data presented in Table VI.7, teachers in non-at-risk schools are more likely to be certified or to be working toward certification than teachers in at-risk schools. Similarly, a much greater percentage of teachers in non-at-risk than in at-risk schools are certified to teach the level and subject to which they are assigned. To learn how many respondents hold a Texas certificate, we conducted a second analysis (not shown in Table VI.7) in which we added responses of teachers who indicated that they are certified in Texas for their level and subject with those certified for another level or subject. We found that 45 percent of respondents hold a Texas teaching certificate. When the number of teachers holding certificates from another state are added in, their proportion rises to 54 percent. By comparison, 96 percent of Texas teachers overall are certified. Respondents Work Experience Teachers were asked to specify the grade level they teach. Five choices were offered: PreK(K, 1-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12. Teachers were asked to check all that applied. Table VI.8 Grade Levels Taught* At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersAll RespondentsPrimary Grades (PreK-2)17%11%15%Elementary (3-5)18%9%15%Middle School (6-8)23%44%30%High School (9-12)83%73%79%*Column totals add up to more than 100 percent because some respondents checked more than one category. The categories PreKK and 12 were collapsed into PreK2 for reporting purposes. More than three quarters of respondents are in high school settings at least part of the time. In the primary and elementary grades, more respondents teach in non-at-risk schools than at-risk schools. The reverse is true at the middle school and high school levels. These differences are not surprising, given that most charter high schools have programs geared toward the needs of at-risk students, whereas charter elementary schools tend to have a more mainstream student base. Teachers were asked, What is your prior teaching experience? and asked to check all that apply. Their responses are presented in Table VI.9. Table VI.9 Respondents Previous Teaching Experience At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersAll RespondentsHave public school experience57%52%55%Have private school experience16%32%22%Have teaching experience in other institution34%37%35%Have experience in home schooling2%0%1%*Column totals are greater than 100 percent because some respondents checked more than one type of previous experience. The majority of respondents have previous teaching experience of some kind. More than half have taught in public schools, and more than a third have teaching experience in other institutions. Teachers in non-at-risk schools are more likely than their counterparts in at-risk schools to have previous experience at private schools. Aside from elementary or secondary teaching, respondents were asked to list other major personal, professional, and occupational experience they had prior to teaching at a charter school. Of the 88 survey respondents, 75 wrote descriptions of their prior experiences to answer this question. Their responses are summarized in Table VI.10. Table VI.10 Respondents Previous Non-Teaching Work Experience* At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersAll RespondentsSocial Services43%17%37%Business-related25%30%32%Adult Education/English as Second Language14%16%16%Technical13%9%12%Trade4%23%12%Retail9%9%9%Other19%18%16%* Because some teachers listed more than one type of previous experience, the percentage totals in columns for Table VI.10 exceed 100 percent. Most respondents have non-teaching work experience. More than a third of those with non-teaching experience have done social service work; not surprisingly, more teachers in at-risk schools have done this sort of work than those at non-at-risk schools. Nearly a third of respondents reported business-related experience. Teachers Expectations About Employment Charter school teachers were asked, Do you plan to return to this school next year? Response options included I hope so, not sure, and I hope to be elsewhere. Table VI.11 contains teachers responses. Table VI.11 Respondents Expectations about Working in Charter Schools Next Year At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersAll RespondentsI hope so43%61%49%Not sure36%29%33%I hope to be elsewhere*21%11%17%* One teacher wrote No on the response form. That response was included under I hope to be elsewhere in the data analysis. Nearly half of respondents indicated a desire to return to their charter school the next school year. The percentage of teachers wanting to return was higher in non-at-risk than in at-risk charter schools. About a third of teachers were not sure whether or not they would return, whereas nearly a quarter of respondents from at-risk schools said that they hoped to be elsewhere. Teachers were asked, What would you most likely be doing this year if you werent teaching in this school? Response options included teaching in three school settingsin another charter school, in a regular public school, or in a private schoolor other. Table VI.12 presents teachers responses. Table VI.12 Alternatives to Working in Charter Schools* At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersAll RespondentsTeaching in regular public school36%29%34%Teaching in another charter school23%20%22%Teaching in private school4%22%10%Other36%22%31%* Column totals are less than 100 percent because some respondents did not answer the question. When asked what they would be doing if not teaching at their present school, about two-thirds of respondents indicated that they would be teaching somewhere else. Nearly a quarter said that they would be teaching at another charter school. Teachers in at-risk schools were more likely than teachers in non-at-risk schools to select other, implying that they would not be teaching at all if not for the charter school. This finding was anticipated, given that fewer teachers in at-risk than non-at-risk schools hold teaching certificates. Teachers were asked, How does your present salary in this school compare with your likely earnings if you were doing what you indicated in the question above? Their responses are presented in Table VI.13. Table VI.13 How Respondents Salaries Compare with Job Alternatives At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersAll RespondentsSalary is significantly higher7%7%7%Salary is slightly higher5%5%5%Salary is about the same23%59%36%Salary is slightly lower10%4%8%Salary is significantly lower54%22%43% As is apparent from an examination of the data in Table VI.13, well over four-fifths of respondents reported that they received the same salary or less at their charter school than they would receive if they were working somewhere else. More than 40 percent reported that they were making significantly less money than they otherwise might make. Respondents in at-risk schools were much more likely than respondents in non-at-risk schools to say they earned less money than they might earn elsewhere. As was true for the preceding question, this finding may be related to the previously reported finding that fewer teachers in at-risk than non-at-risk schools hold teaching certificates. Where Charter School Teachers Children Attend School Charter school teachers were asked, If you have school-age children, where do they attend school? Teachers with no school-age children were instructed to skip the question. Respondents answers are presented in Table VI.14. Table VI.14 Where Survey Respondents Children Attend School At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersAll RespondentsThis school7%33%22%Other public school79%44%59%Private school14%17%13%Other Charter School0%6%3% Thirty-two respondents with school-age childrenroughly half in each groupresponded to this question. The majority reported that their children attend non-charter public schools, whereas a quarter said their children attend a charter school. Higher percentages of respondents in non-at-risk than at-risk schools send their children to charter schools and to private schools. It is possible that charter school teachers who work in high schools and have elementary-age children (or elementary teachers who have older children) would like to send them to a charter school, but that none is available. It will be interesting to note in subsequent evaluation reports whether the percentage of charter school teachers sending their children to charter schools increases as more charter schools open their doors. Membership in Teacher Organization or Union Teacher organization or union membership is more prevalent among teachers in non-at-risk charter schools than among teachers in at-risk schools. Three-quarters of non-at-risk school respondents say they have belonged to an organization or union at some point in their careers, and half belong now. A third of teachers in at-risk schools have belonged, but only 11 percent belong now. For all charter school respondents, 44 percent have belonged to an organization or union at some point, and 21 percent now belong. Teachers Decisions to Teach in Charter Schools Teachers were asked whether they had taught in their schools before they became charter schools. Because the majority of charter schools did not exist previous to receiving a charter in 1996, most respondents80 percentreported that they did not previously teach at the school. All 18 respondents who said they taught at their school before it became a charter school work in at-risk schools. Charter school teachers were asked, How important were the following factors in your decision to teach in this school? Teachers responded to a list of possible factors, using a five-point rating scale ranging from very important to not at all important. They were also given the option of choosing not considered as a response. Their responses are portrayed in Table VI.15 (for all respondents) and Table VI.15 (responses grouped for respondents in at-risk and non-at-risk schools). Table VI. 15 Importance of Factors in Decisions to Teach in Charter Schools: All Respondents All RespondentsFactorImportant/ Very importantSomewhat important/ Not very importantNot at all important/ not consideredSchools educational philosophy or mission84%10%2%Size of schools classes77%18%5%Schools size69%26%5%Salary/benefits package44%51%5%Desire for change39%33%28%Convenience of schools location37%52%11%Difficulty finding other suitable position26%32%42% The most important factor in respondents decisions to teach in charter schools is the schools educational philosophy or mission. Eighty-four percent of responding teachers rated this factor as important or very important, with only two percent rating it as not important at all or not considered. Two-thirds or more of respondents rated the schools size and the size of its classes as important or very important. The factor rated as not important at all or not considered by the highest percentage of respondents (42 percent) was difficulty finding other suitable position. Still, more than a quarter rated this factor as important or very important. Table VI.16 Importance of Factors in Decisions to Teach in Charter Schools: At-Risk School Teachers and Non-At-Risk School Teachers At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersFactorImportant/ very importantSomewhat important/not very importantNot at all important/not consideredImportant/ very importantSomewhat important/not very importantNot at all important/ Not consideredSchools educational philosophy or mission85%10%4%82%11%0%Size of schools classes72%22%6%77%15%6%Schools size73%22%6%61%34%3%Salary/benefits package38%57%5%53%40%5%Desire for change 37%40%23%43%19%36%Convenience of schools location37%51%12%35%52%11%Difficulty finding other suitable position33%38%28%10%21%68% When comparing responses of teachers in at-risk and non-at-risk schools, it is apparent that the educational philosophy or mission of a school, its size, and the size of its classes are high priorities for both groups of respondents. As can be seen from an examination of the data in Table VI.16, the schools salary and benefits package is a slightly more decisive factor for non-at-risk school teachers. Another difference in the two groups responses is their rating of the factor difficulty finding another suitable position. Few non-at-risk teachers found it important, and more than two-thirds of them rated it as not at all important or not considered, whereas a third of at-risk school teachers found it important or very important. The two groups of respondents differed only slightly in their ratings for the other factors. A related question, How important were the following possibilities in your decision to teach in this school?, represents a slightly different approach to understanding why teachers decide to teach in charter schools. The preceding question asked about features of the school or the respondents situation, about which information was available at the time the decision was made. The second question, however, asks about possibilities rather than factors. In this case, the emphasis is on features the teacher might hope or expect to find at the school, but about which the he or she has no definitive source of information. Respondents ratings of possibilities appear in Table VI.17. Table VI.17 Importance of Possibilities in Decisions to Teach in Charter Schools: All Respondents All RespondentsPossibilityImportant/ Very importantSomewhat important/ not very importantNot at all important/ not consideredOpportunity to help shape a new kind of school84%15%0%Opportunity to work with like-minded colleagues68%26%7%Less bureaucracy64%18%18%High quality administrators62%23%14%Safety55%20%24%Opportunity to have more authority or autonomy53%24%23%Opportunity to work with eager or high-achieving students48%35%17%Level of commitment or involvement among students parents45%30%24%Less influence by teacher organizations or unions35%31%34% Opportunity to help shape a new kind of school was the possibility rated as important or very important by the highest number of respondents (86 percent) in their decision to teach in charter schools. No respondent rated this possibility as not at all important or not considered. Two-thirds rated the opportunity to work with like-minded colleagues as important or very important. Less influence by teacher organizations or unions has the lowest level of importance among the respondents; a third rated it as not at all important or not considered. Table VI.18 Importance of Possibilities in Decisions to Teach in Charter Schools: At-Risk School Teachers and Non-At-Risk School Teachers At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersImportant/ very importantSomewhat important/not very importantNot at all important/not consideredImportant/ very importantSomewhat important/not very importantNot at all important/ not consideredOpportunity to help shape a new kind of school86%13%0%83%17%0%Opportunity to work with like-minded colleagues66%28%6%66%22%11%Less bureaucracy62%14%24%68%25%7%High quality administrators59%24%17%69%22%9%Safety45%21%34%74%19%7%Opportunity to have more authority or autonomy44%28%28%70%15%15%Opportunity to work with eager or high-achieving students27%53%21%87%2%11%Level of commitment or involvement among students parents29%34%36%76%21%3%Less influence by teacher organizations or unions35%29%36%34%36%30% When comparing responses of teachers in at-risk and non-at-risk schools, it is apparent that the opportunity to help shape a new kind of school is a high priority for both groups of respondents. Other possibilities rated as important or very important by more than half of all respondents from both groups were opportunities to work with like-minded colleagues, less bureaucracy, and high-quality administrators. There are four major differences between the two groups responses to the question about the importance of possibilities in deciding to work at a charter school. First, teachers in non-at-risk schools were more likely than teachers in at-risk schools to give high ratings to the opportunity to work with eager or high-achieving students. This finding was expected because students in at-risk schools are typically not high achievers. Second, non-at-risk school teachers gave higher ratings to the item concerned with the level of commitment or involvement among students parents. Similarly, this finding is connected with a characteristic of students who attend at-risk schools; that is, students at several of these schools are older than the typical age for their grade level. It is not uncommon for high school students in at-risk schools to live apart from their parents; some are married, have children, and hold full-time jobs. A third difference noted between responses of teachers in at-risk and non-at-risk schools involves safety. Teachers in at-risk schools seem much less concerned about safety than teachers in non-at-risk schools: more than a third of them rated it as not at all important or not considered, whereas only seven percent of non-at-risk school teachers did so. Finally, more teachers in non-at-risk than at-risk schools rated the opportunity to have more authority or autonomy as important or very important in their decision. Teachers Satisfaction with Charter Schools Charter school teachers were asked, In general, how satisfied are you with specific features of this school and your experience in it? Their responses are depicted in Tables VI.19 and VI.20. For this question, a four-point scale ranging from very satisfied to very dissatisfied was used. The option to choose no opinion was also provided, but not included in the tables. Table VI.19 Respondents Satisfaction with Features of the Charter School: All Respondents All RespondentsFeature of SchoolVery satisfiedSomewhat satisfiedNot too SatisfiedVery DissatisfiedChallenge of starting a new kind of school52%27%11%5%Level of classroom autonomy46%34%12%3%Size of school46%33%10%9%Other teachers in the school40%41%13%6%Schools educational philosophy or mission39%43%8%8%Students in the school29%44%16%9%Schools administrators27%28%20%23%Staff development opportunities offered by school26%23%20%22%Opportunities for teachers to participate in school decisions23%32%23%21%Non-teaching responsibilities21%38%20%9%Relations with local community19%38%17%11%Schools governing board15%34%31%17%Salary/benefits15%35%24%23%Schools physical facilities12%29%33%24%Instructional materials10%48%22%17%Relations with local district(s)9%27%28%15%Level of commitment or involvement among students parents8%39%23%29%Relations with teacher organizations and unions3%19%18%11% Challenge of starting a new kind of school was the only feature of the charter school with which half or more of all respondents indicated that they were very satisfied. Forty percent or more were very satisfied with the level of classroom autonomy, the schools size, and with other teachers in the school. When responses of teachers indicating that they were somewhat satisfied are added to those indicating they were very satisfied, the satisfaction level rises to about 80 percent for each of those features and for the schools educational philosophy or mission. Table VI.20 Respondents Satisfaction with Features of the Charter School: At-Risk School Teachers and Non-At-Risk School Teachers At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersFeature Of SchoolVery satisfiedSomewhat satisfiedNot too satisfiedVery dissatisfiedVery satisfiedSomewhat satisfiedNot too satisfiedVery dissatisfiedChallenge of starting a new kind of school44%31%11%6%67%19%11%3%Level of classroom autonomy34%44%13%5%68%17%11%0%Size of school39%37%9%14%59%27%11%0%Other teachers in the school41%40%11%7%38%43%16%3%Schools educational philosophy or mission29%45%13%10%58%39%0%3%Students in the school28%48%13%10%30%36%20%8%Schools administrators19%28%17%34%43%28%26%3%Staff development opportunities offered by school18%20%25%27%41%27%11%13%Opportunities for teachers to participate in school decisions14%28%30%26%41%39%10%11%Non-teaching responsibilities22%39%16%10%19%35%27%6%Relations with local community14%35%19%14%27%42%13%5%Schools governing board6%33%41%20%32%36%14%12%Salary/benefits11%24%30%31%23%55%14%8%Schools physical facilities5%19%41%32%26%47%19%8%Instructional materials4%47%22%23%22%49%21%5%Relations with local district(s)7%22%25%18%12%36%32%9%Level of commitment Or involvement among students parents4%37%22%34%14%42%26%18%Relations with teacher organizations and unions2%12%17%17%6%32%19%0% An additional half or more of respondents indicated that they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their students and administrators, opportunities for shared decision making offered by the school, relations with the community, and with their instructional materials, non-teaching duties, and salaries. The largest degree of dissatisfactionnearly a quarter of respondentswas noted for physical facilities and level of commitment or involvement among students parents. More than twenty percent of respondents were also dissatisfied with administrators, salaries, staff development opportunities, and opportunities to participate in school decisions. For all but two featuresother teachers in the school and non-teaching responsibilitiesa higher percentage of respondents in non-at-risk schools than in at-risk schools indicated that they were very satisfied. Differences of more than 20 percentage points in very satisfied responses of non-at-risk school teachers over at-risk school teachers were found for these features: opportunities for decision-making and staff development offered by the school; the challenge of starting a new kind of school and level of classroom autonomy; and the schools size, physical facilities, philosophy or mission, governing board, and administrators. For several features, teachers in at-risk schools were far more dissatisfied than those in non-at-risk schools: schools administrators, facilities, salary and benefits package, and parent involvement. Teachers who had taught previously in another school were asked to describe the biggest difference between this school and your previous school(s). A majority of respondents from non-at-risk schools (17) and about half those from at-risk schools (32) wrote comments in response to the question. The majority of their comments fell into nine major categories, as shown in Table VI.21. Table VI.21 What Respondents View as Main Difference from Previous School At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersAll RespondentsMore attention to student needs22%41%33%More teacher autonomy16%29%20%Less support for teachers22%12%18%More teamwork9%29%16%Enhanced ability to teach effectively9%12%10%Improved work environment16%0%10%Lack of resources9%6%8%Larger work load9%0%6%More special needs/at-risk students6%0%4% A third of the 49 teachers responding to the question about differences between schools noted more attention paid to student needs at the charter school than at schools in which they previously worked. Although eighteen percent of those wrote comments indicating that they felt less supported as teachers, another 20 percent mentioned an increased level of autonomy and teamwork with their colleagues. Teachers in at-risk schools were more likely than those in non-at-risk schools to say that they were not supported, whereas more non-at-risk school teachers mentioned autonomy, teamwork, as well as an enhanced ability to teach effectively. Teachers Assessment of Charter Schools Success Given a list of 20 areas, charter school teachers were asked: How would you evaluate this schools success so far in these areas? Their responses are presented in Tables VI.22 and VI.23. For this question, a three-point scale ranging from much success to little or no success was used. The option to choose no opinion was also provided, but not included in the tables. More than half of respondents indicated that they think their school has attained much success in providing for the safety of students and staff. A third or more thought their schools very successful in providing an excellent educational alternative, building a good staff, positively influencing education in the community, attracting students for whom the school is appropriate, raising student achievement levels, and maintaining order and discipline. Table VI.22 Respondents Evaluation of their Schools Success: All Respondents All RespondentsFeature of SchoolMuch successSome successLittle or no successProviding for the safety of students and staff55%28%12%Providing an excellent educational alternative for children who need it38%44%15%Building a high-quality, high-performing staff38%38%20%Having a positive influence on education in the community37%47%11%Attracting students for whom the schools mission and methods are appropriate35%48%13%Maintaining order and discipline34%40%21%Raising student achievement levels34%53%10%Educating children who are hard to educate31%59%6%Using suitable means of assessing student performance29%43%23%Involving teachers in decision making29%39%29%Providing necessary training or staff development for teachers27%41%25%Maintaining student enrollment26%46%26%Developing a rigorous curriculum and effective teaching methods25%45%23%Integrating technology into the curriculum23%44%28%Setting and maintaining high academic standards21%49%26%Running smoothly as an organization21%44%32%Obtaining necessary resources14%57%26%Providing teachers with the instructional supplies and materials they need11%43%43%Giving teachers adequate preparation time10%44%42%Involving parents9%38%50% On the other hand, 40 percent or more of respondents indicated that their school has had little or no success in involving parents or in providing teachers with adequate instructional materials or preparation time. About a third indicated little or no success on the part of their school in running smoothly as an organization. Respondents are least critical of their schools success in educating students who are hard to educate: fewer than ten percent of respondents said their school had attained little or no success in this area. Table VI.23 Respondents Evaluation of their Schools Success: At-Risk School Teachers and Non-At-Risk School Teachers At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersFeature of SchoolMuch successSome successLittle or no successMuch successSome SuccessLittle or no successProviding for the safety Of students and staff46%32%17%73%21%3%Providing an excellent educational alternative for children who need it36%43%18%41%45%8%Building a high-quality, high-performing staff32%40%24%49%33%15%Having a positive influence on education in the community30%49%17%50%43%0%Attracting students for whom the schools mission and methods are appropriate36%51%9%35%42%19%Maintaining order and discipline41%29%24%21%61%15%Raising student achievement levels29%56%10%41%46%10%Educating children who are hard to educate37%56%5%21%65%8%Using suitable means of assessing student performance16%48%31%54%34%10%Involving teachers in decision making19%39%37%46%39%12%Providing necessary training or staff development for teachers17%48%28%44%27%19%Maintaining student enrollment17%44%36%42%49%6%Developing a rigorous curriculum and effective teaching methods15%52%26%44%32%18%Integrating technology into the curriculum19%46%32%32%41%21%Setting and maintaining high academic standards7%57%31%46%33%18%Running smoothly as an organization19%34%44%24%63%10%Obtaining necessary resources11%53%33%19%64%14%Providing teachers with the instructional supplies and materials they need4%42%51%23%45%28%Giving teachers adequate preparation time4%43%48%20%46%31%Involving parents4%31%62%19%50%27% As is apparent from an examination of the data presented in Table VI.23, there are three areas in which a higher percentage of respondents from at-risk than non-at-risk schools say their school has attained much success: maintaining order and discipline, educating children who are hard to educate, and attracting students for whom the schools mission and methods are appropriate. In all other areas, a higher percentage of respondents in non-at-risk than in at-risk schools indicated that their school had attained much success. Differences of 20 or more percentage points in much success responses of non-at-risk school teachers over at-risk school teachers were found in areas related to academic standards, curriculum and teaching methods, assessment of student performance, opportunities for decision making and staff development, safety, maintenance of student enrollment, and positive influence in the community. Several of these differencesparticularly those related to safety, enrollment, and assessmentare a consequence of the fact that at-risk schools serve students with poor achievement and attendance records, many of whom are recovered dropouts and are older than the typical age for their grade level. Teachers were asked, What is your greatest source of personal or professional satisfaction at this school? More than half of respondents wrote comments in response to this open-ended question. The majority of their comments fell into five major categories, as shown in Table VI.24. Table VI.24 Respondents Greatest Source of Satisfaction at Their Schools At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersAll RespondentsSuccess of students60%39%52%Relationships with students38%19%31%Teacher empowerment11%29%16%Teamwork5%23%13%Parent involvement4%3%5%Other2%3%2% The two sources of satisfaction reported most frequently had to do with students. The greatest number of teachers who responded to the question(particularly those from at-risk schoolsreported that their students success was their greatest source of satisfaction. Similarly, several respondents cited good relationships with students as their greatest source of satisfaction. Teachers in non-at-risk schools were more likely than their counterparts in at-risk schools to report teacher empowerment and teamwork as sources of satisfaction. Nearly all teachers (81) wrote comments in response to the open-ended question: What is your greatest source of personal or professional discontent at this school? The majority of their comments fell into nine major categories, as shown in Table VI.25. Table VI.25 Respondents Greatest Source of Discontent at Their Schools At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersAll RespondentsPoor administration47%29%40%Lack of resources28%29%30%Poor discipline6%29%16%Work-related stress9%29%16%Disagreements among teachers8%7%6%Low salary8%0%5%Low student performance4%7%5%Lack of parental involvement0%7%2%Student attrition2%0%1% The greatest overall source of dissatisfaction for respondents was poor administration. Teachers in at-risk schools cited this as a problem more frequently than teachers in non-at-risk schools. The second most commonly cited source of discontent for both groups was lack of resources. Other sources of dissatisfaction for teachers in non-at-risk schools were poor discipline and stressproblems cited much less frequently by teachers in at-risk schools. Nearly all respondents (82) wrote comments in response to the open-ended question: What do you consider to be this schools most serious unsolved problem? As shown in Table VI.26, the majority of their comments fell into five major categories, all of which overlap with the categories in Table VI.25. Table VI.26 School Problems Viewed by Respondents as Most Serious At-Risk School TeachersNon-at-Risk School TeachersAll RespondentsLack of resources30%50%37%Poor administration28%21%24%Poor discipline20%29%21%Student attrition20%4%15%Low student performance6%0%4%Other0%0%0% Overall, respondents viewed lack of resources and poor administration as their schools most serious unsolved problems. Resources were of greatest concern for teachers in non-at-risk schools, whereas poor administration was the biggest concern for teachers in at-risk schools. Teachers in non-at risk schools were more concerned about student discipline than those in at-risk schools, whereas at-risk school teachers were more concerned about poor administration and student attrition. Summary In spring 1998, nearly half the full-time teachers from 15 charter schools responded to a paper and pencil survey. Nearly all respondents hold a bachelors degree, and more than a quarter hold an advanced degree. Nearly a third hold a Texas certificate in the subject or level they now teach, whereas 20 percent are uncertified and not working on certification. More than half taught previously in public schools. Slightly more than a third of those with previous non-teaching work experience have held social service jobs, and roughly a third have prior business-related experience. About half of respondents indicated a desire to return to their charter school jobs the next year, and two-thirds said they would be teaching somewhere else if not in the charter school. The vast majority of all respondents said their charter school salary was the same or less than they would receive if they were working elsewhere. Among those from at-risk schools, more than half said their salary was significantly lower. Factors in deciding to teach in charter schools that were rated important or very important by two-thirds or more of respondents were the schools educational philosophy, its size, and the size of its classes. The salary and benefits package was also highly rated by a majority of respondents from non-at-risk schools. Respondents were attracted to charter schools by possibilities such as shaping a new type of school, working with like-minded colleagues, decreased bureaucracy, high-quality administrators, safety, and increased autonomy. The opportunity to work with high-achieving students and involvement on the part of students parents were also important to respondents from non-at-risk schools in their decisions to work in charter schools. 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 size of their school and with the level of their autonomy in the classroom. Respondents are least satisfied with the schools physical facilities and the level of involvement among their students parents. In general, respondents from non-at-risk schools were more satisfied than those from at-risk schools. 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. The majority of respondents consider their school very successful in providing for the safety of students and staff members. Roughly half of respondents from non-at-risk schools said their school had attained much success in setting high academic standards for students, assessing student performance, building and training a high quality faculty and involving members in decision making, and positively influencing education in their community. Conversely, more than half 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. Seeing their students succeed was cited by respondents from both groups in as their greatest source of satisfaction in teaching. Teachers from at-risk schools cited relationships with students more often as a source of satisfaction, whereas more teachers from non-at-risk schools cited teacher empowerment and teamwork. Sources of discontent named most frequently by respondents from both groups were poor administration and lack of resources. Several teachers from non-at-risk schools also indicated concern over poor discipline and work-related stress. Respondents from both groups view lack of resources as their schools most serious problem. Section VII: Effects of Open-Enrollment Charter Schools on School Districts In submitting the charter school application to the State Board of Education, an applicant is required to survey public school districts from which the charter schools students may be drawn about the charter schools potential effects on the district, and to report the results of this survey in their application. Applications for Texas original group of 20 charter schools approved in 1996 designated 43 districts as potentially affected by their presence. A summary of findings from a spring 1997 survey of superintendents and other district officials is contained in Section IV of Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools: Year-One Evaluation (available from the Texas Educational Agency). The second-year evaluation of Texas charter schools repeats the survey of officials in the 43 districts. In spring 1998, the questionnaire was mailed to persons in districts who had responded to the survey in 1997 (a copy appears in Appendix B). In some cases, this person was the superintendent. In others, it was an administrative assistant to the superintendent or a central office administrator with responsibility for overseeing such areas as enrollment, pupil services, public relations, personnel, or accountability. The mailout was followed up by telephone calls to nonrespondents. By September 1998, officials from 40 districts had either returned mail questionnaires or participated in telephone interviews. They answered questions about student and teacher attrition from their schools, changes in funding and programs, and effects on students and parents. Student Attrition When surveyed in spring 1998, officials in 32 districts reported either that no student had left their district to attend a charter school, or that they were not aware of any student doing so. Several mentioned that their record-keeping systems were not set up to yield information about students transferring to charter schools, or that their system of tracking withdrawals did not differentiate between charter schools and other types of schools to which students might transfer. Several respondents whose districts are near a charter school serving dropouts indicated that students attending the charter school would already have left district schools and therefore would not have transferred out of the district to attend a charter school. Officials in eight districts reported that they were aware of students leaving district schools to attend charter schools. The total number of students estimated to have left those schools is 2,170, compared to 331 estimated by respondents in 1997. The 1997 figure accounted for about 13 percent of the nearly 2,500 students attending open-enrollment charter schools during the 1996-97 school year, whereas the 1998 figure accounts for about 57 percent of the nearly 3,800 students attending open-enrollment charter schools during the 1997-98 school year. This difference seems to indicate an increased awareness among district officials that students are transferring to charter schools. Table VII.1 provides estimates of student transfers by grade level for 1997-98 and for 1998-99. Table VII. 1 Estimates of Officials in Six Districts: Numbers of Students Leaving District Schools to Attend Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Estimated number of students who left in 1997-98Estimated number of students who will leave in 1998-99*Elementary school students187155Middle school students16440High school students26187Undetermined grade level**15584575Total students21704857*Officials in two districts who gave estimates for 1997-98 did not do so for 1998-99; thus the figures reflect estimates for six rather than eight districts. **Estimates from a single large urban district account for 1,500 students leaving in 1997-98 and 4,500 students leaving in 1998-99. Effects on State Funding Levels In 35 districts, respondents reported that no funds were lost to open-enrollment charter schools or that they were unable to determine whether funds were lost. Five respondents reported that their districts lost funds. Estimates given by officials at the five districts were based on state aid times the number of students transferring. An official from a suburban district pointed out what he considers to be inequities in the system for funding charter schools: I am concerned that a K-6 charter school receives the same money per student that we get for K-12. There is no comparison of elementary costs to secondary costs. By contrast, the respondent from a large urban district described an arrangement in which her district benefits from the presence of a charter school. Both the district and the charter school share a computer system used for dropout recovery. The district benefits: the cost for services decreases because the charter school helps pay for it. Effects on District Activities So far, open-enrollment charter schools effects on district activities have been minimal. Information reported by the 40 respondents about changes in district or school programs, interdistrict transfer policies, and contracting for services is given in this section; however, no respondent to the spring 1998 survey indicated that changes were made in response to the emergence of charter schools in their area. District or School Programs Respondents from nine districts indicated that their districts operate magnet or thematic schools. Among those nine, six have opened magnet or thematic schools since the legislature approved charter schools in 1996. Officials from three districts reported that their districts have established or plan to establish program or campus charter schools as a response to local interest in charter schools. Two of those districts expect to have one new program or campus charter school each; the third district, 16. Interdistrict Transfer Policies Eight districts have made changes in their interdistrict transfer policies. Officials from two districts reported that they had stopped accepting transfers(one because of space limitations. A third district now has more stringent requirements for behavior and achievement among students wishing to transfer in. On the other hand, at least two districts have made it possible for more students to transfer in. Tuition for transfers into a mid-sized urban district was reduced, but the respondent from that district reported no significant increase in transfer requests. Another district added an International Baccalaureate program at one of its high schools and now accepts tuition-free interdistrict transfers for that program. Contracting for Services Twelve of the 40 responding districts contract out for instructional or educational services not provided at their schools. Among the 12, six have begun contracting for services since 1996. Contracted services reported by district officials include arrangements with providers working with alternative educational programs for students with behavior problems. In addition, districts contract with providers of special services for disabled students, those at risk of dropping out, and those wishing to take classessuch as cosmetologynot presently offered at district high schools. Other Effects on Districts Teacher Attrition and Class Size Respondents from 35 districts reported that no teacher had left to teach in open-enrollment charter schools or that no information about teacher attrition was available. Officials from four districts estimated losing from one to three teachers, whereas ten teachers were reported to have left a large urban district to teach in charter schools. One district reported that the presence of charter schools had led to the elimination of two teaching positions. No district has experienced changes in class size in response to charter schools in the area. Effects on Students and Parents Although officials from three of the 40 responding districts said that students had been affected by the presence of charter schools in the area, the types of effects they reported were not at all similar. An official from a mid-sized urban district reported that high-performing students were the ones leaving his district to attend charter schools, thus negatively affecting the district. On the other hand, an official from a large urban district said that competition among schools for students produces excellence in education, and that having a choice about where to attend school has had a positive effect on students. Finally, an official from a suburban district said that charter schools in the area provide educational opportunities for students who otherwise would have been expelled or dropped out. Similarly, three respondents reported effects by area charter schools on district parents. According to one, the effects at this time are minimal. However, he predicts that effects are expected to accelerate during the coming years. The respondent from a large urban district said that the media has made parents aware that their children have educational alternatives other than public or private schools. Officials in three districts reported differences in levels of parental involvement as a result of charter schools opening in the area. First, an official from a suburban district indicated a negative effect on parental involvement: Some of the parents [whose children now attend charter schools] were very active in PTA and volunteered time at school. By contrast, the respondent from a mid-sized urban district said that, although charter schools in the area have not yet affected the level of parental involvement, his district has revitalized its efforts to involve parents as school partners and to be more aggressive in publicizing significant achievements. Finally, the respondent from a large urban district that operates several campus charter schools said that parental involvement for those programs has increased. (An official from a different large urban district stated that the two charter schools operating in the city have not caused a decline in parental involvement, but instead that that level in her district is high and has been increasing.) Summary In 1998, public school districts near charter schools reported only minimal effects in terms of funding, student or teacher attrition, parental involvement, and programmatic changes. Although several districts have made recent changes in policies or activities, no district official indicated that changes were made directly in response to the presence of open-enrollment charter schools in the area. However, in a large urban district, a charter school principal serves on the board for that districts alternative education steering committee. Moreover, one respondent from a mid-sized urban district stated: We recognize that charter schools will be a stimulus to improve our existing schools. We will most likely increase the number of district magnet schools and other high-profile programs as well. Not surprisingly, district officials perceptions of charter school effects seem most closely related to the number and proximity of charter schools in the area. According to an official from a large urban district, Although our district supports charter schools, the accumulation of so many in our immediate area is having an effect on our district. A respondent from a mid-sized district in another city said, Because there have been no charter schools in our district and only four in the county, the impact has been negligible. Section VIII: Performance of Charter Schools Texas charter schools administer assessment instruments described in Texas Education Code Chapter 39, Subchapter B. These are the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) tests given to students in grades 3 through 8 and the TAAS exit-level test. Texas charter schools participate in the states accountability system, a system of school and district ratings based, in part, on performance on TAAS. Table VIII.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 VIII.1 the first unshaded column shows the percent of charter school students who were tested. ANA@ means no data are reported because fewer than five students were tested. The writing portion of TAAS is administered only at grades 4 and 8 and at the exit level, so some rows of the table do not include a report for the writing test. Not all charter school students take TAAS. Students in the Texas Academy of Excellence, Waco Charter School, and the University of Houston Charter School of Technology offer programs in grades K through 2 and, therefore, did not administer TAAS in 1998. Table VIII.1 Spring 1998 TAAS Results for Charter School Students  Percent Meeting Minimum Expectations on TAAS Spring 1998 (all students not in special education)  Percent Tested Percent Passing Math Percent Passing Reading Percent Passing Writing Percent Passing All Tests Academy of Transitional Studies* grade 6 grade 7 grade 8 exit  100 100 80 100 50 19 18 43 20 43 33 44 44 40 33 18 15 10 American Institute for Learning* exit  NA NA NA NA NA  Percent Meeting Minimum Expectations on TAAS Spring 1998 (all students not in special education) Percent TestedMath Reading Writing Passed All Tests  Blessed Sacrament * exit  92 10 40 40 12 Building Alternatives* exit 98 20 63 39 18  Dallas Can!* exit  89 23 55 55 20 Girls and Boys Prep grade 6 grade 7 grade 8 exit 100 100 100 100 57 55 64 39 62 73 72 78 76 81 47 52 51 39  Medical Center grade 3 grade 4 grade 5  100 100 100 53 50 20 89 50 70 56 53 46 20 North Hills grade 5 grade 6 grade 7 grade 8  100 100 100 100 96 96 97 96 97 99 97 96 100 95 95 97 93  Percent Meeting Minimum Expectations on TAAS Spring 1998 (all students not in special education)  Percent Tested Math  Reading  Writing  Passed All TestsOne-Stop Multiservice* exit 82 22 32 29 19Pegasus grade 7 grade 8  100 96 56 87 68 91 91 54 87Renaissance grade 7 grade 8 exit 100 100 97 81 73 84 76 86 92 81 91 74 64 80George I. Sanchez* exit  100 36 72 66 27Seashore Learning Center grade 3 grade 4 grade 5 grade 6 100 100 100 100 88 89 82 100 93 100 91 100 78 88 74 82 100  Percent Meeting Minimum Expectations on TAAS Spring 1998 (all students not in special education)  Percent Tested Math  Reading  Writing  Passed All TestsSER-Nios* grade 3 grade 4 grade 5 100 100 100 38 20 NA 63 40 NA 20 38 20 NAWest Houston grade 7 grade 8 exit 95 96 91 67 82 70 83 91 89 82 67 70 70Raul Yzaguirre* grade 6 grade 7 grade 8 99 93 94 49 48 68 44 47 68 68 32 40 53*Schools at which the majority of students are at risk of dropping out before graduation. Charter school TAAS performance generally falls below public school TAAS performance. Table VIII.2 compares, by grade level, the state average percent of students passing all tests taken with the charter school average percent of students passing all tests taken. Table VIII.2 Spring 1998 TAAS Results: Percent Passing All TAAS Tests Taken GradeState Average Percent Passing All TAAS Tests TakenCharter School Average Percent Passing All TAAS Tests TakenGrade 37563Grade 47757Grade 58384Grade 68061Grade 77859Grade 87160Exit7034 Another measure of TAAS performance is the percent of students scoring at mastery level. Charter school student performance generally, except for grade 5, is lower than the state performance. Table VIII.3 shows these results. Table VIII.3 Spring 1998 TAAS Results: Percent Mastering All TAAS Tests Taken GradeState Average Percent Mastering All TAAS Tests TakenCharter School Average Percent Mastering All TAAS Tests Takengrade 33016grade 4183grade 52430grade 61813grade 72318grade 8147exit175 Accountability In August 1998, charter school accountability ratings were released by TEA along with ratings for all public school campuses and districts. Table VIII.4 shows accountability ratings by category for charter schools and traditional public schools. Table VIII.4 August 1998 Texas Accountability Ratings for Public Schools and Charter Schools 1998Number of Public SchoolsPercent of Public SchoolsNumber of Charter SchoolsPercent of Charter SchoolsExemplary1,04815.7%0 0Recognized1,66625.0%1 5.0%Acceptable3,36550.5%735.0%Low-performing590.9%210.0%Not rated1181.8%315.0%Alternative ed.4066.1%735.0% Fewer than one percent of traditional public school students attend low-performing schools, compared with approximately 12 percent of charter school students attending low-performing schools. Summary In spring 1998, TAAS was administered to students in 17 open-enrollment charter schools. At nine of those schools, the majority of students were at risk of dropping out, whereas eight schools serve predominately non-at-risk students. Compared to students in traditional public schools, charter school students performed at lower levels. Three charter schools outperformed the state average, one of which has an accountability rating of recognized. Texas accountability ratings show that 40 percent of charter schools have an acceptable or higher rating, compared with 91 percent of traditional Texas public schools. Section IX: Commentary and Policy Challenges We begin our analysis from the premise that charter schools, as public agencies, are accountable to the public and must meet the same standards as other public school entities. For this reason, we frequently compare our findings about open-enrollment charter schools to what is generally known about public schools. In addition, we believe that charter schools have other important purposes: to offer choice within the public schools for families and students, to stimulate improved student achievement, and to spur improvement in the public education system as a whole. The research conducted in the preparation of this report provided the evaluation team with insights into the experiences of charter school students and their families, the performance of charter school students, and the operation of charter schools. Because charter schools are still relatively new in Texas, this second-year evaluation provides important information about how they work and ways in which they can be improved. In this section, we discuss the implications of our second-year findings for public policy makers and educators. At the same time, it is important to note that in 1997 the Texas Legislature raised the cap on the number of open-enrollment charter schools that may be approved from 20 to 120, and provided for granting an unlimited number of charters for schools serving a student body composed of at least 75 percent students at risk of leaving school before graduation. Accordingly, the State Board of Education has moved quickly to approve charters for 100 open-enrollment charter schools beyond the original 20 and for 40 additional at-risk charter schools under the 75 percent rule. As of December 1998, 160 entities hold charters to operate open-enrollment charter schools in Texas. The significance of the second-year study 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 non-charter schools to comply with the evaluation study required by law. Differences between At-Risk and Non-At-Risk Charter Schools There are numerous differences among Texas charter schools, but they can be grouped by certain significant characteristics. Some schools serve secondary students, while others serve elementary grades. Some charter schools enroll predominately Anglo students; in others, minority students make up the bulk of the student body. Some were newly formed as charter schools, whereas others existed as private schools before receiving charters. From an evaluation perspective, the most striking difference among charter schools is that 11 are designed to serve at-risk students, whereas eight serve more mainstream students. Charter Schools for At-Risk Students Some observers of public education believe that students and families will be better served if families can choose the school their children will attend. Charter schools appear to serve the need for choice. Our findings support the views of proponents that charter schools provide minority and low-income families, whose children are more likely to be at-risk students, with choices for education that once could be made only by affluent families (or those less affluent who were willing to make sacrifices). Minority and low-income families appear eager to take advantage of the opportunity to send their children to charter schools. Even though at-risk students have not performed well on TAAS tests, the students, teachers, and parents surveyed for this evaluation study appear reasonably satisfied with the performance of charter schools. If satisfaction is an important indicator that charter schools are fulfilling part of their intended function, then the schools appear to be achieving that outcome. Moreover, several administrators in districts affected by charter schools have indicated that the at-risk charter schools provide a needed service by offering educational alternatives to students who might otherwise drop out before graduation. On the other hand, the preference that the state chartering process gives to schools for at-risk students reduces the extent to which charter schools can provide competitive incentives for the traditional public schools to improve and limits the educational alternatives available to parents of non-at-risk students. In contrast to choice and satisfaction, charter schools do less well in stimulating improved student achievement or spurring change within the larger system of public education in Texas. On average, TAAS scores typically fall below the state standard, and a greater proportion of charter school students than traditional public school students attend low-performing schools. The performance of charter schools serving at-risk students is generally lower than charter schools serving non-at-risk students. Charter Schools for Non-at-Risk Students Charter schools designed for the mainstream, non-at-risk student population differ from the at-risk schools. They attract students by offering alternatives to traditional public schools, and some administrators in districts affected by charter schools have expressed concern that these schools siphon good students with active parentsas well as other resourcesfrom their districts schools. Teachers in non-at-risk schools express generally higher levels of satisfaction with the performance of their schools than teachers in at-risk schools. Parents of students in non-at-risk schools seem less than enthusiastic about the schools, and more than a third express dissatisfaction with how the charter schools are run. More than a quarter of parents are dissatisfied with the priority placed on learning in the charter schools. Racial and Ethnic Diversity The overall enrollment pattern of the 19 openenrollment charter schools in this evaluation study shows that they serve a predominately minority population. This alone is not sufficient evidence to conclude that charter schools are integrated to a greater degree than traditional public school districts and campuses. Ten of the 19 charter schools serve atrisk populations that consist of 90 percent or more minority students. By contrast, more than three-quarters of the Anglo children enrolled in Texas charter schools attend four non-at-risk schools. Thus, school-by-school analysis reveals an ethnic clustering similar to the traditional school system that is masked when aggregate data are examined. Anglo students tend to enroll in non-at-risk charter schools, whereas African American students are fairly evenly divided between non-at-risk and at-risk charter schools. By contrast, the overwhelming majority of Hispanic students attending charter schools are enrolled in at-risk schools. This finding raises questions about why Hispanic students fail to enroll in non-at-risk schools. Parents responses to our survey suggest that information about the existence of charter schools is spread largely through informal family and friend word-of-mouth networks. To the extent that Hispanic families are not part of non-at-risk family networks, they are less likely to receive information about non-at-risk schools. On the other hand, it is possible that Hispanic families are aware of the non-at-risk charter schools but choose not to send their children to them. That Hispanic children are largely absent from non-at-risk schools is troublesome in a state where 37 percent of public school students are of Hispanic origin. An important factor contributing to the racial enrollment pattern in charter schools 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 population is predominantly one race, the schools also will be predominantly one race. It is possible that geographic service area limits preclude attendance by some Hispanic students. Restrictive geographic boundaries raise important public policy and legal considerations. Although TEC ' 12.111 requires that each schools charter describe the geographical area it will serve, the State Board of Education may want to consider whether a literal interpretation of a provision that serves to limit admission to students of a particular race or class is in the spirit of open enrollment. We question whether a charter school 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 provide meaningful choices to parents, not to constrain choice. Moreover, continuing the policy that each school can designate a geographic catchment area not only increases the likelihood that students will be selected on race, but also runs the risk of making such schools monopoly providers in the areas they designate. It was precisely to challenge such monopoly power that charter schools were conceived. Charter school teachers constitute a more diverse racial and ethnic group than Texas public school teachers in general. Nearly half of charter school teachers belong to minority groups, and more than half of those are Hispanic. The percentage of Hispanic teachers is higher in at-risk charter schools than in Texas public schools overall, whereas the percentage of African American teachers is higher in non-at-risk charter schools than in Texas public schools overall. Governing boards of charter schools tend to follow the racial and ethnic makeup of the students; 10 of 19 boards are dominated by a single racial group. Student Recruitment Student recruitment is an area where the difference between at-risk and non-at-risk schools seems particularly problematic. In both cases, parents most often heard about the charter school from friends and family. While word of mouth is not, in itself, a technique to be avoided, friendship and family groups tend to be highly distinctive in terms of race and class, and this could account for the lack of diversity in the majority of charter schools. Equally revealing is the parents second source of information. For parents of at-risk students, the local public schools were the next most frequent source of information about charter schools. By contrast, parents of non-at-risk students more often heard about charter schools from the media. This raises the possibility that public school districts are targeting parents of at-risk students with information about charter schools without also providing information to parents of non-at-risk students. The media have the power to make parents aware that their children have educational alternatives other than traditional public schools or private schools. A more aggressive effort to publicize the existence of charter schools is likely to lead to more diversity within charter schools in terms of student race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Lack of advertising funds is, however, a problem. The state can devise practices for publicizing the existence of charter schools that ensure broader dissemination of information and for helping parents make wise choices for their children. Random selection of students from an applicant pool rather than a first-come, first-served policy might also help increase diversity. If the state makes such efforts, charter schools may become more racially and socioeconomically balanced. Student Skimming As stated previously, the data presented in this report do not suggest that charter schools skim off the most talented schools from public schools. Officials in at least some districts seem to have a heightened awareness that students are leaving regular schools to attend charter schools, but few have mentioned specifically that high-performing students were the ones leaving the district to attend charter schools. TAAS scores available for charter school students indicate that, in general, these students perform less well than students in regular public schools. This finding is not surprising, given that the majority of charter schools are geared specifically toward at-risk students. When considering TAAS performance by the percent of students scoring at mastery level, charter school students perform generally worse than other students around the state in this area as well. Texas accountability ratings show that 40 percent of charter schools have an acceptable or higher rating, whereas 91 percent of traditional Texas public schools were rated acceptable or above. It should be noted, however, that three charter schools in this study outperformed the state average on TAAS. Funding The level at which Texas funds charter schools continues to pose major problems for charter school entrepreneurs. During the first-year study, charter school directors identified the absence of start-up funding as their most significant problem. Similarly, directors at the two additional charter schools that opened in the 1997-98 school year identified lack of start-up funding as a significant problem. Teachers in charter school also view lack of resources as their schools most serious unsolved problem. Generally, inadequate funding is reported by charter school directors to be a bigger problem for at-risk schools than for non-at-risk schools. On average, the non-at risk schools had more than three times as much money as the at-risk schools had for start-up costs. The funding inequity was not unexpected: the same problem has been reported in other states. Consequently, fundraising has become a significant preoccupation of charter school directors, just as tax rates and school funding engage the time of school district administrators. Moreover, fundraising concerns charter school parents who, according to directors, spend a considerable amount of time in this endeavor. Charter schools rely on a combination of federal and state funds, private grants, support from chartering organizations, and support from community and business partnerships. Charter schools do not have taxing authority and cannot sell bonds to fund facilities and equipment. Their lack of taxing authority also makes them ineligible for the state program of assistance for facilities funding. Leasing facilities is an appropriate solution for some but not all charter schools. To assist charter schools in developing their own facilities, state policy makers may want to consider permitting charter schools to finance facilities with revenue bonds. Upon default, the state would own the facilities for which it has provided funding. Another financial issue is a lack of understanding among charter school operators of the state funding process. Charter schools receive funding based on their estimate of attendance in the coming school year. If they overestimate, they must return the overpayment. In 1996-97, the state overpaid $2.5 million to several charter schools, based on estimated enrollments. Charter schools spent that money. As is the case with public schools, overpayments were deducted from 1997-98 state aid unless the school had held the overpayment in reserve. As a consequence, some charter schools began their second year of operation with reduced aid because they were repaying overpayments from the first year of operation. Thirteen of 16 charter school directors characterized this problem as difficult or very difficult. Charter schools need more guidance in the area of fiscal controls and procedures. Governance The governing structure and practices of Texas charter schools vary widely and continue, in the second year, to be characterized as informal. There is no systematic mechanism for selection of board members. Parent and teacher representation on governing boards is minimal. Overly informal governance patterns may carry their own dangers, and the lack of public and parent involvement in the selection of board members may dilute external accountability. Board members who serve because they are tapped by friends may not have the time or personal commitment to make sure that the school is achieving its mission and at the same time complying with federal and state laws and rules. Consideration should be given to assuring that charter school board members serve a meaningful role in directing the school to maintain its charter. As with schools and other nonprofit organizations, an external audit should be required to assure the patrons and taxpayers that the schools follow generally accepted fiscal practices. Appendix A: Statutory Provisions Governing Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Appendix B: Survey Instruments Charter School Parent Interview Guide (English and Spanish Versions) Charter School Student Questionnaire (English and Spanish Versions) Charter School Teacher Questionnaire Charter School Director Questionnaire Officials in Affected Districts Questionnaire Appendix C: Charter School Profiles At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools List Approved in 1996 Operating During the 1997-98 School Year Appendix D: Complete List of Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Approved by December 1998 Appendix E: Perspectives of Charter School Directors Comparisons of First Year Experiences 1996-97 and 1997-98 Appendices available in hard copy upon request 800-580-8237  Self-reported data are not audited.  The source for descriptive data on open-enrollment charter schools is a series of tables produced by Brooks Flemister, Director of Charter Schools, ˿Ƶ, November 21, 1997.  This is the enrollment reported by the school for May 1997.  This is the enrollment reported by the school for May 1998.  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.  ˿Ƶ, Division of Performance Reporting, Office of Policy Planning and Research. 1998. Snapshot 97: 1996-97 School District Profiles. Austin, Texas: ˿Ƶ, p. 5.  Snapshot 97, p. 346, Item 45.  RPP International and University of Minnesota, A Study of Charter Schools: First-year Report.  ˿Ƶ, Snapshot 97, p. 32.  RPP International and University of Minnesota, A Study of Charter Schools: First-year Report.  TEA, Snapshot 95, p. 116.  TEA, Snapshot 97, p. 32.  Figures for 1997-98, self reported by charter school directors. .  RPP International and University of Minnesota, A Study of Charter Schools: First-year Report.  TEA, Snapshot 97, p. 19.  Self reported by charter school directors. 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 $840,000 in an effort to get the school ready to enroll students. Funds were spent to obtain timber and mineral rights for property, assistance in drawing up policies, and assistance in developing programs for the at-risk youth the school expected to serve.  ˿Ƶ, PEIMS 1996-97, final budget data  University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. (December 1996). Minnesota charter schools evaluation, Interim report.  Because charter schools reported community and business partnerships in multiple categories, the total number of partnership arrangements exceeds the number of charter schools.  As mentioned in section I, collection and analysis of TAAS scores is underway but not yet completed.  Throughout the remainder of this section, parents of students attending different types of charter schools are referred to as at-risk parents and non-at-risk parents.  Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1992, School Choice: A Special Report.  Schneider, Marschall, Teske, and Roch, 1998. School choice and culture wars in the classroom: What different parents seek from education. Social Science Quarterly 79:3, 487-501.  The source for descriptive data on Texas open-enrollment charter schools in general is a series of tables produced by Brooks Flemister, Director of Charter Schools, ˿Ƶ, November 21, 1997.  With the exception of Table IV.2, most tables present percentages and omit counts. Counts are presented in Table IV.2 to give the reader some appreciation of the impact of the weighting scheme.  Note that weighting for race and ethnicity changes the total number of respondents and the counts in various categories.  The difference in the two percentages is exaggerated by the weighting scheme used here, but even in the unweighted data, African American parents comprise 27.1 percent of non-at-risk parents and 25"  G H _ a b `Cq*}*Z,,,,,:0;033 4;;,N-N6[j[h&illD|E|./HIRop*1   hR{>*jhR{0J5UjhR{0JU hR{6 hR{56 hR{5 hR{CJ( hR{CJ$ hR{CJ4 hR{5CJ0 hR{CJhR{ hR{5\ hR{5CJ hR{5CJ ="5IVWXYZ[j $$dNa$ $$dNa$$a$$a$$a$      % 6 G _ ` b ] $$dNa$$a$b c   7 S p   4 D R  X  !X $a$ 0 I V d { ! X "#\- X -JAv9:Pt>bmn X ` X 0ZYx*+ pX @@@J`^`` ! X `  !X  X +67{61ZPf>p pX @@@J`^``` ST_`Cx(jC !pX @@@J`^`` pX @@@J`^`` pX @@@J`^``Uj' \ !A!`!! "A"Z"""## pX @@@J`^`` !pX @@@J`^``#"###\#####$*$N$k$$$%-%b%%%'&<&&&'$'r''' pX @@@J`^``' (R(((()*)e)))0*p*q*}*~*+ +++Z+++++,, pX @@@J`^`` pX @@@J`^``,,T,X,Y,Z,[,,,,,,:0;0K2L233 4!4'5(5556 & F$a$$a$ !`^`` pX @@@J`^``66H8I8J9K9::;;;;<<_>`>8@9@6A7ABBDD F F G GG & F & FGG-H.HHH(K)KLLMM,N-NOOQQRRSSTTTTV & F & F & FVVGYHY5[6[j[k[u\v\]]^^ ` `-b.bddgghh&i'iKj & F & F & F & Fh^h`KjLjjj)k*kkkllllgohorrrrrs*s^ssstt ! & F h88^8$a$ & F & Ftttu?ubuuuvWvXvvvxxyypzqzD|E|}}U~V~ & F h!88^8 & F h!88^8 ![\ TU?@ & F h!88^8 & F h!88^8 & F h!88^8 & F h!88^8  !^ & F h!88^8  !88^8@WX\]tu @A & F $ !a$ !  !88^8 & F h!88^8AJKR`qӌ  !$If$IfFf $$Ifa$$If & F#*.348<@CGJMNRVZ^behilpt $$Ifa$tx| $$Ifa$ 71111$Ifkd$$Iflֈo 7W"    04 lap ͍΍Սڍލ  $$Ifa$$If !$&)*.kd$$Iflֈo 7W"    04 lap  $$Ifa$*2Kefkrsvyz~ $$Ifa$$IfŎ71++$If$Ifkd$$Iflֈo 7W"    04 lap ώЎckΏ̒͒EFHT”knƗfgTp6BD`ߠ'3${ŤƤȤ9MNdeg:;RSƴǴݴ޴@BοhR{OJQJ hR{56jhR{0J5U hR{>*jhR{0JUhR{ hR{5PŎƎˎЎюՎ؎َݎ $$Ifa$47111$Ifkd$$Iflֈo 7W"    04 lap 45:ABFIJNRSX\]_b $$Ifa$bcl711( $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$$Iflֈo 7W"    04 lap  $$Ifa$ 711( $$Ifa$$IfkdI $$Iflֈo 7W"    04 lap ďŏʏˏ͏ $$Ifa$ ͏ΏՏ؏ޏ5/&& $$Ifa$$Ifkdn $$IflHֈo 7W"    04 lap ޏ.kd $$Iflֈo 7W"    04 lap  $$Ifa$GHT $$Ifa$$If ! ”c]TTT $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Ifl\Z:"     (4 lap(~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kd $$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap 59<A~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kd$$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap ABX\_c~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kd$$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap cdx|~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kdx$$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap ~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kdL$$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap ̕Еӕؕ~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kd $$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap ٕؕ~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kd$$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap ~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kd$$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap 37:>~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kd$$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap >?Z^af~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kdp$$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap fg~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kdD$$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap ~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kd$$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap Ӗזٖޖ~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kd$$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap ޖߖ~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kd$$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap 146:~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kd$$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap :;OSUZ~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kdh$$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap Z[wz}~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kd<$$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap yppp $$Ifa$  !$If{kd$$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap ŗ~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kd$$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap ŗƗǗST[doztkk $$Ifa$$If !{kd$$Ifl\Z:"   4 lap  opZTKK $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF,"X    0    4 lappjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap ˛̛Λpe\\ $$Ifa$  !$Ifkd !$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap Λϛpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd "$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd#$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap  pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap  "#pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd%$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap #$023pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd&$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap 34JLMpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd'$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap MNVXYpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd($$IflF,"X   0    4 lap YZfhipjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd)$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap ij|}pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd*$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd+$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd+$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap ǜɜʜpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd,$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap ʜ˜pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd-$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd.$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap !"pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd/$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap "#245pe\\ $$Ifa$  !$Ifkd0$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap 56<?Apjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd1$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap ABCCDKSpnnnnnlnf] $$Ifa$$Ifkd2$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap  S_`QK$Ifkd4$$IflF,"X  0    4 lap $$Ifa$pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd>5$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap pjaa $$Ifa$$IfkdK6$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap Ԡ֠נpjaa $$Ifa$$IfkdJ7$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap נؠpjaa $$Ifa$$IfkdI8$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap pjaa $$Ifa$$IfkdH9$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap pjaa $$Ifa$$IfkdG:$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap  !#pjaa $$Ifa$$IfkdF;$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap #$:<=pjaa $$Ifa$$IfkdE<$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap =>GHJpjaa $$Ifa$$IfkdD=$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap JKWXZpjaa $$Ifa$$IfkdC>$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap Z[moppjaa $$Ifa$$IfkdB?$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap pqpjaa $$Ifa$$IfkdA@$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd@A$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd?B$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd>C$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd=D$$IflF,"X   0    4 lap pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd* hR{6 hR{56 hR{5jhR{0JUhR{hR{OJQJO:< ,xH  X(":$If ,xH  X("$If$a$ ,xH  X(""#;kd y$$Ifx4F$$         4 xaxp"$ ,xH  X(":$Ifa$ $ ,xH  X("$Ifa$#S^deThkd0z$$IfxF$$        4 xaxp "$ ,xH  X(":$Ifa$ ,xH  X(":$IfwTT"$ ,xH  X(":$Ifa$ ,xH  X(":$Ifhkd&{$$IfxF$$        4 xaxp wTT"$ ,xH  X(":$Ifa$ ,xH  X(":$Ifhkd|$$IfxF$$        4 xaxp  %wTT"$ ,xH  X(":$Ifa$ ,xH  X(":$Ifhkd}$$IfxF$$        4 xaxp %&;CHwTT"$ ,xH  X(":$Ifa$ ,xH  X(":$Ifhkd~$$IfxF$$        4 xaxp HIclqwTT"$ ,xH  X(":$Ifa$ ,xH  X(":$Ifhkd~$$IfxF$$        4 xaxp qrwTT"$ ,xH  X(":$Ifa$ ,xH  X(":$Ifhkd$$IfxF$$        4 xaxp wTT"$ ,xH  X(":$Ifa$ ,xH  X(":$Ifhkd$$IfxF$$        4 xaxp wTT"$ ,xH  X(":$Ifa$ ,xH  X(":$Ifhkd$$IfxF$$        4 xaxp (.wTT"$ ,xH  X(":$Ifa$ ,xH  X(":$Ifhkdւ$$IfxF$$        4 xaxp ./LUZwTT"$ ,xH  X(":$Ifa$ ,xH  X(":$Ifhkd̃$$IfxF$$        4 xaxp Z[py~wTT"$ ,xH  X(":$Ifa$ ,xH  X(":$Ifhkd„$$IfxF$$        4 xaxp ~wTT"$ ,xH  X(":$Ifa$ ,xH  X(":$Ifhkd$$IfxF$$        4 xaxp wTT"$ ,xH  X(":$Ifa$ ,xH  X(":$Ifhkd$$IfxF$$        4 xaxp wTT"$ ,xH  X(":$Ifa$ ,xH  X(":$Ifhkd$$IfxF$$        4 xaxp  ~~e~~~~~~~ ,xH  X(" ,xH  X("hkd$$IfxF$$        4 xaxp  456mn12vwrs $$Ifa$$If$a$ ,xH  X("159QK$Ifkd$$Ifl    F"      0        4 lalp $$Ifa$9:TX\pjaa $$Ifa$$IfkdΊ$$Ifl    F"     0        4 lalp \]pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkdċ$$Ifl    F"     0        4 lalp pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl    F"     0        4 lalp pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl    F"     0        4 lalp  pg $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl    F"     0        4 lalp  !"JKEFRtuv $$Ifa$$IfYkd$$Ifl    ""0    4 lal@ZTKKKK $$Ifa$$IfkdG$$Ifl    F V% N N     0        4 lalp@A\$Ifkdi$$Ifl    r 2V% *$ *$       20    4 lalp2\`dhlmA;$Ifkd$$Ifl    r 2V% *$ *$    0    4 lalp  $$Ifa$A;$Ifkd/$$Ifl    r 2V% *$ *$    0    4 lalp  $$Ifa$A;$Ifkd_$$Ifl    r 2V% *$ *$    0    4 lalp  $$Ifa$A;$Ifkd$$Ifl    r 2V% *$ *$    0    4 lalp  $$Ifa$ -A;$Ifkd$$Ifl    r 2V% *$ *$    0    4 lalp  $$Ifa$-137;<ZA;$IfkdŘ$$Ifl    r 2V% *$ *$    0    4 lalp  $$Ifa$Z^bfjk{A;$Ifkd$$Ifl    r 2V% *$ *$    0    4 lalp  $$Ifa${A;$Ifkd $$Ifl    r 2V% *$ *$    0    4 lalp  $$Ifa$A;$Ifkd+$$Ifl    r 2V% *$ *$    0    4 lalp  $$Ifa$A;$Ifkd[$$Ifl    r 2V% *$ *$    0    4 lalp  $$Ifa$A;$Ifkd}$$Ifl    r 2V% *$ *$    0    4 lalp  $$Ifa$"$(*+sAkd$$Ifl    r 2V% *$ *$    0    4 lalp  $$Ifa$stuGHjkvwvw $$Ifa$$If$a$Ykd$$Ifl    V%V%0    4 lal (ZTKKKK $$Ifa$$Ifkd^$$IflFT"~ D     0    4 lalp()4$Ifkdd$$IflrT@"F      204 lalp248<@DEL>8$Ifkd$$IflrT@"F   04 lalp  $$Ifa$LW`aeijlpquwxz~ $$Ifa$$If~GAAAAAA$Ifkd$$IflrT@"F   04 lalp    $$Ifa$#<`aeGAAA88 $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflrT@"F   04 lalp eijnrsuyz~ $$Ifa$ GEEEEEEkd$$IflrT@"F   04 lalp 1239FLQW\bc{|zikd$$Ifl2""   04 lap $IfFfܩ $$Ifa$$If | $$Ifa$$If$$Ifkd̬$$Ifl֞ :rp 2""8   04 lap  $$Ifa$$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ :rp 2""8   04 lap  $$Ifa$$$Ifkd4$$Ifl֞ :rp 2""8   04 lap !$'*- $$Ifa$-.:$$Ifkda$$Ifl֞ :rp 2""8   04 lap :<>@BDG $$Ifa$GHZ$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ :rp 2""8   04 lap Z\^`bdf $$Ifa$fg~$  !$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ :rp 2""8   04 lap ~ $$Ifa$$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ :rp 2""8   04 lap  $$Ifa$$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ :rp 2""8   04 lap  $$Ifa$$$IfkdB$$Ifl֞ :rp 2""8   04 lap  $$Ifa$$$Ifkdo$$Ifl֞ :rp 2""8   04 lap   $$Ifa$  ($$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ :rp 2""8   04 lap ()=?ACEGI $$Ifa$$Ifikdɹ$$Ifl2""   04 lap IJY$$Ifkdr$$Ifl֞ :rp 2""8   04 lap Y[]_ace $$Ifa$ef$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ :rp 2""8   04 lap  $$Ifa$$$Ifkd̼$$Ifl֞ :rp 2""8   04 lap  $$Ifa$$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ :rp 2""8   04 lap  $$Ifa$$$Ifkd&$$Ifl֞ :rp 2""8   04 lap  $$Ifa$. $""kdS$$Ifl֞ :rp 2""8   04 lap . /   -.%&"2IY $$Ifa$YZ]_aZTKK $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF "       0    4 lalpabrtvpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF "     0    4 lalp vwpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd`$$IflF "     0    4 lalp pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF "     0    4 lalp pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF "     0    4 lalp pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkdp$$IflF "     0    4 lalp =>./pnnnnnnnnnnnkd.$$IflF "      0    4 lalp  rs $$Ifa$ %-5ZTKKKK $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$$IflF"]""; )     0    4 lalp6J&0    Q'R'**,,--y000K1^1d1r1X3z399@::::::;PCCCHD[DDDDHHDIGI4JJJKK>KTKNOOPP+P,PPPd[[[[[\%^&^gggg!m"mppqq z zjhR{0JU hR{>* hR{56 hR{5hR{ hR{6V56J$Ifkd*$$Iflr"hTm""F      204 lalp2JLOQSTgA;$Ifkd$$Iflr"hTm""F   04 lalp  $$Ifa$gilnpq}A;$Ifkd$$Iflr"hTm""F   04 lalp  $$Ifa$}A;$Ifkd$$Iflr"hTm""F   04 lalp  $$Ifa$A;$Ifkd~$$Iflr"hTm""F   04 lalp  $$Ifa$A;$Ifkdv$$Iflr"hTm""F   04 lalp  $$Ifa$A;$Ifkdn$$Iflr"hTm""F   04 lalp  $$Ifa$A??kdt$$Iflr"hTm""F   04 lalp  $$Ifa$%&01   X   $$Ifa$$If$a$       ZTKKKK $$Ifa$$Ifkdz$$IflF " d      0    4 lalp   $Ifkd$$Iflr " j      204 lalp2         !!! !!! $$Ifa$$If!!"!0!D!E!I!GAAA88 $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflr " j   04 lalp I!M!N!R!V!W![!_!`!d!h! $$Ifa$ h!i!o!}!!!!GAAA88 $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflr " j   04 lalp !!!!!!!!!!! $$Ifa$ !!!"" % %G'GEEEEEEkd#$$Iflr " j   04 lalp G'H'Q'R'****,,--y0{000001J1 $$Ifa$$If$a$J1K1^1a1c1ZTKK $$Ifa$$Ifkd<$$IflF,"      0    4 lalpc1d1r1t1v1pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd4$$IflF,"     0    4 lalp v1w1111pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF,"    0    4 lalp 11111pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF,"    0    4 lalp 11111pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd|$$IflF,"    0    4 lalp 11111pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd:$$IflF,"    0    4 lalp 11 2 22pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF,"    0    4 lalp 22/21232pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF,"    0    4 lalp 3242O2Q2S2pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkdt$$IflF,"    0    4 lalp S2T2j2l2n2pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd2$$IflF,"    0    4 lalp n2o2222pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF,"    0    4 lalp 22222pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF,"    0    4 lalp 22222pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkdl$$IflF,"    0    4 lalp 22222pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd*$$IflF,"    0    4 lalp 22333pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF,"    0    4 lalp 3393;3=3pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF,"    0    4 lalp =3>3Q3S3U3pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkdd$$IflF,"    0    4 lalp U3V3W3X3z3{3z4{47788pnninnnnnnn$a$kd"$$IflF,"    0    4 lalp  89999?:@:L::::::; $$Ifa$$a$ ;;T;W;Y;ZTKK $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFh"h    0    4 lalpY;Z;;;;pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFh"h   0    4 lalp ;;;;;pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFh"h   0    4 lalp ;;<<<pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFh"h   0    4 lalp <<6<8<:<pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkdt$$IflFh"h   0    4 lalp :<;<_<a<c<pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd@$$IflFh"h   0    4 lalp c<d<<<<pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$IflFh"h   0    4 lalp <<<<<pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFh"h   0    4 lalp << = = =pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFh"h   0    4 lalp  ==1=3=5=pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkdp$$IflFh"h   0    4 lalp 5=6=^=`=b=pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd<$$IflFh"h   0    4 lalp b=c====pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFh"h   0    4 lalp ===qArAPCQC^CCCCCpnnnnnnnnee $$Ifa$kd$$IflFh"h   0    4 lalp  CCDGDHD[D_DbDQK$Ifkd$$IflFn "n       0    4 lalp $$Ifa$bDcDoDrDvDpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFn "n     0    4 lalp vDwDDDDpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFn "n     0    4 lalp DDDDDpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkdv$$IflFn "n     0    4 lalp DDDDDpjaa $$Ifa$$IfkdB$$IflFn "n     0    4 lalp DDDDDpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFn "n     0    4 lalp DDDDDpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFn "n     0    4 lalp DDDDDGGII4J5JCJJpninnnnnnnnn$a$kd$$IflFn "n     0    4 lalp  JJJJJJKKKOkd$$IflF0"0      0    4 lalp $$Ifa$KK&K.K5K=K $$Ifa$$If=K>KTK$Ifkd$$Iflr0 "0      204 lalp2TKXK\K_KcKdKjKA;$Ifkd$$Iflr0 "0   04 lalp  $$Ifa$jKnKrKuKyKzKKA;$Ifkd$$Iflr0 "0   04 lalp  $$Ifa$KKKKKKKA;$Ifkd$$Iflr0 "0   04 lalp  $$Ifa$KKKKKKKA;$Ifkd$$Iflr0 "0   04 lalp  $$Ifa$KKKKKK LA;$Ifkd$$Iflr0 "0   04 lalp  $$Ifa$ LLLLLL)LA;$Ifkd$$Iflr0 "0   04 lalp  $$Ifa$)L,L/L2L5L6L7LNA??kd`$$Iflr0 "0   04 lalp  $$Ifa$NNOOOPP,P^PP $$Ifa$$If ! PPPPPZTKK $$Ifa$$IfkdJ$$IflF 0!       0    4 lalpPPPPPpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd^$$IflF 0!     0    4 lalp PPPPPpjaa $$Ifa$$IfkdF$$IflF 0!     0    4 lalp PPPPPpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF 0!     0    4 lalp PPPPPpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF 0!     0    4 lalp PPPPPpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF 0!     0    4 lalp PPPRRRRSSVV,X-Xpnnnlnnnnnnnkdv$$IflF 0!     0    4 lalp  -XZZc[d[r[[[[[[[[ $$Ifa$$If [[[\ \\\ZTKKKK $$Ifa$$IfkdP$$IflF e        0    4 lalp\\ \$IfkdH$$Iflr e  JJJJ      204 lalp2 \#\'\)\-\.\6\A;$Ifkd$$Iflr e  JJJJ   04 lalp  $$Ifa$6\9\=\?\C\D\L\A;$Ifkd$$Iflr e  JJJJ   04 lalp  $$Ifa$L\N\R\T\X\Y\`\A;$Ifkd$$Iflr e  JJJJ   04 lalp  $$Ifa$`\b\e\g\k\l\q\A;$Ifkdt $$Iflr e  JJJJ   04 lalp  $$Ifa$q\s\v\x\{\|\}\%^A??kdb $$Iflr e  JJJJ   04 lalp  $$Ifa$%^&^.^/^``ccddcgggggminimmgphprrUuVu)|*|z{ !$a$ z}~~~} 45MINO`*+-#Z[0hiBCg=mnX˗̗}~Z[$%'0ܧݧԩ1c g hR{6 hR{H*jhR{0J5U hR{5jhR{0JUhR{U{=>()ABN|} $$Ifa$$If$If & FÄȄc]TTT $$Ifa$$Ifkd^ $$Ifl\ hX  xxx     (4 lalp(ȄɄ҄ք܄~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kd $$Ifl\ hX  xxx   4 lalp ~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kdn $$Ifl\ hX  xxx   4 lalp  ~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kdG$$Ifl\ hX  xxx   4 lalp  !" 3ztkkk $$Ifa$$If$If{kd $$Ifl\ hX  xxx   4 lalp  345;=C<6--- $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\"$      (04 lalp(CEKMNTX^afjp$IfFf $$Ifa$ pq$$Ifkd2$$Ifl֞G 9+"yQyyz   04 lalp  $$Ifa$$$Ifkd6$$Ifl֞G 9+"yQyyz   04 lalp ņ $$Ifa$ņƆ̆$$Ifkd:$$Ifl֞G 9+"yQyyz   04 lalp ̆φԆֆن܆ $$Ifa$$$Ifkd>$$Ifl֞G 9+"yQyyz   04 lalp  $$Ifa$$$IfkdB$$Ifl֞G 9+"yQyyz   04 lalp  #%* $$Ifa$*+1$$IfkdF $$Ifl֞G 9+"yQyyz   04 lalp 149;@CH $$Ifa$HIP$$Ifkd."$$Ifl֞G 9+"yQyyz   04 lalp PTUYZ^_ $$Ifa$_`a,$""kd$$$Ifl֞G 9+"yQyyz   04 lalp ,-9Z[kwp~kd%$$IflF@  @ pp        4 lalp $$Ifa$$If z $$Ifa$ $ !$Ifa$$Ifhkd&$$IflF@  @ pp       4 lalp lj̉҉ $$Ifa$$Ifhkd'$$IflF@  @ pp       4 lalp ҉Ӊ $$Ifa$$Ifhkd($$IflF@  @ pp       4 lalp   $$Ifa$$Ifhkd|)$$IflF@  @ pp       4 lalp   !' $$Ifa$$IfhkdM*$$IflF@  @ pp       4 lalp '(9?D $$Ifa$  !$Ifhkd+$$IflF@  @ pp       4 lalp DERX] $$Ifa$$Ifhkd+$$IflF@  @ pp       4 lalp ]^_"#0Z[kwvv $ !$Ifa$  !$If !hkd,$$IflF@  @ pp       4 lalp  vhh $ !$Ifa$  !$If~kd-$$IflFpp        4 lalp~~ $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifhkd.$$IflFpp       4 lalp Ë~~ $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifhkd/$$IflFpp       4 lalp Ëċ׋݋~~ $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifhkdh0$$IflFpp       4 lalp  ~~ $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifhkd91$$IflFpp       4 lalp 16;~~ $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifhkd 2$$IflFpp       4 lalp ;<Y_e~~ $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifhkd2$$IflFpp       4 lalp ef~~ $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifhkd3$$IflFpp       4 lalp ~~ $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifhkd}4$$IflFpp       4 lalp Ō~~ $ !$Ifa$  !$IfhkdN5$$IflFpp       4 lalp Ōƌnj/0<hi{xx $ !$Ifa$  !$If !hkd6$$IflFpp       4 lalp  vhh $ !$Ifa$  !$If~kd6$$IflF` @` pp        4 lalp~~ $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifhkd8$$IflF` @` pp       4 lalp Ȏ͎ӎ~~ $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifhkd8$$IflF` @` pp       4 lalp ӎԎ~~ $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifhkd9$$IflF` @` pp       4 lalp ~~ $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifhkd:$$IflF` @` pp       4 lalp  BCR^fxx $ !$Ifa$  !$If !hkdi;$$IflF` @` pp       4 lalp  fgx~tff $ !$Ifa$  !$IfkdH<$$Ifl;F` @` pp        4 lalp~~ $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifhkde=$$IflF` @` pp       4 lalp ǐ͐~~ $ !$Ifa$  !$IfhkdD>$$IflF` @` pp       4 lalp ͐ΐܐ~~ $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifhkd?$$IflF` @` pp       4 lalp ~~ $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifhkd?$$IflF` @` pp       4 lalp ‘(4<~~ $$Ifa$$If !hkd@$$IflF` @` pp       4 lalp  <=HMS{rr $$Ifa$$If~kdA$$IflFH HPP        4 lalpSTfkp $$Ifa$$IfhkdB$$IflFH HPP       4 lalp pq $$Ifa$$IfhkdC$$IflFH HPP       4 lalp  $$Ifa$$IfhkdQD$$IflFH HPP       4 lalp ’ܒ $$Ifa$$Ifhkd"E$$IflFH HPP       4 lalp  $$Ifa$$IfhkdE$$IflFH HPP       4 lalp  $$Ifa$$IfhkdF$$IflFH HPP       4 lalp GHmnWe͗ܗ $$Ifa$  !$IfhkdG$$IflFH HPP       4 lalp ܗ $$Ifa$4'!$IfkdtH$$Iflֈ 0@P`p#        <4 lalp<4:@DILMX^dUO$IfkdI$$Iflֈ 0@P`p#    4 lalp  $$Ifa$ dhmrsUO$IfkdJ$$Iflֈ 0@P`p#    4 lalp  $$Ifa$ ǘ͘ҘؘۘUO$IfkdK$$Iflֈ 0@P`p#    4 lalp  $$Ifa$ۘܘ ^XOOOOO $$Ifa$$IfkdL$$Iflֈ 0@P`p#    4 lalp   ;AEIOT^XOOOOO $$Ifa$$IfkdM$$Iflֈ 0@P`p#    4 lalp TU}^XOOOOO $$Ifa$$IfkdN$$Iflֈ 0@P`p#    4 lalp ʙЙՙٙߙ^XOOOOO $$Ifa$$IfkdkO$$Iflֈ 0@P`p#    4 lalp +,Veo^\\\\VMM $$Ifa$$IfkdTP$$Iflֈ 0@P`p#    4 lalp o $$Ifa$ƚ'  !$IfkdKQ$$Iflֈ 0@P`p#        <4 lalp<ƚ̚ҚךܚUO$IfkdR$$Iflֈ 0@P`p#    4 lalp  $$Ifa$  &,17UO$IfkdS$$Iflֈ 0@P`p#    4 lalp  $$Ifa$ 7:;RX^bhmUO$IfkdT$$Iflֈ 0@P`p#    4 lalp  $$Ifa$mn^XOOOOO $$Ifa$$IfkdU$$Iflֈ 0@P`p#    4 lalp Λԛڛߛ^XOOOOO $$Ifa$$IfkdpV$$Iflֈ 0@P`p#    4 lalp #'*^XOOOOO $$Ifa$$IfkdYW$$Iflֈ 0@P`p#    4 lalp *+`flqw|^XOOOOO $$Ifa$$IfkdBX$$Iflֈ 0@P`p#    4 lalp |}~ߤ$%^\\\Z\\\\\kd+Y$$Iflֈ 0@P`p#    4 lalp  '/028>j~kd"Z$$IflF`PP        4 lalp $$Ifa$$If$If >?AGM $$Ifa$$Ifhkd;[$$IflF`PP       4 lalp MNPV\ $$Ifa$$Ifhkd\$$IflF`PP       4 lalp \]_ci $$Ifa$$Ifhkd\$$IflF`PP       4 lalp ijlrx $$Ifa$$Ifhkd]$$IflF`PP       4 lalp xy $$Ifa$$Ifhkd^$$IflF`PP       4 lalp өԩ !"0 $$Ifa$$Ifhkd^_$$IflF`PP       4 lalp 01TX^djE?6666 $$Ifa$$Ifkd=`$$Iflr6"6rrrr      24 lalp2jkv|qkbbbb $$Ifa$$Ifkda$$Iflr6"6rrrr   4 lalp Ūqkbbbb $$Ifa$$Ifkdb$$Iflr6"6rrrr   4 lalp ŪƪϪժ٪ߪqkbbbb $$Ifa$$Ifkdbc$$Iflr6"6rrrr   4 lalp  qkbbbb $$Ifa$$IfkdCd$$Iflr6"6rrrr   4 lalp $bcqommog^^^^ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$e$$Iflr6"6rrrr   4 lalp  E?6666 $$Ifa$$Ifkdf$$Iflr6"6rrrr      24 lalp2 qkbbbb $$Ifa$$Ifkdhg$$Iflr6"6rrrr   4 lalp =CIOUqkbbbb $$Ifa$$IfkdWh$$Iflr6"6rrrr   4 lalp UV_djpvqkbbbb $$Ifa$$Ifkd8i$$Iflr6"6rrrr   4 lalp vwqkbbbb $$Ifa$$Ifkdj$$Iflr6"6rrrr   4 lalp qoooeoooo_$If -DM kdj$$Iflr6"6rrrr   4 lalp   (784kdk$$Iflr T        24 lalp2 $$Ifa$$If8>JR^fg6kd4m$$Iflr T        24 lalp2 $$Ifa$$Ifgiou{bkdmn$$Iflr T     4 lalp  $$Ifa$$If qkbbbb $$Ifa$$Ifkd\o$$Iflr T     4 lalp Űʰϰqkbbbb $$Ifa$$Ifkd=p$$Iflr T     4 lalp ϰаҰذްqkbbbb $$Ifa$$Ifkdq$$Iflr T     4 lalp qkbbbb $$Ifa$$Ifkdq$$Iflr T     4 lalp jkxqoeeo_]]oW$If ! -DM kdr$$Iflr T     4 lalp  ص89ζ !k3Ij86},DST%.YZ8:is*+[\tu hR{56 hR{>* hR{6 hR{hhR{ hR{5X̵ص3kds$$Iflr "      24 lalp2 $$Ifa$$If $$Ifa$ $ !$Ifa$$If &,2B<333 $$Ifa$$Ifkd u$$Iflr "      24 lalp2289:<BHNOD  !$IfkdYv$$Iflֈ "#   4 lalp $If $$Ifa$NTUWZ`eje_$IfkdPw$$Iflr "   4 lalp  $$Ifa$jkmrw|nh____ $$Ifa$$Ifkd(x$$Iflr "   4 lalp nh____ $$Ifa$$Ifkdy$$Iflr "   4 lalp nh____ $$Ifa$$Ifkdy$$Iflr "   4 lalp öƶʶζnh____ $$Ifa$$Ifkdz$$Iflr "   4 lalp ζ϶жعٹ !nllljllllllkd{$$Iflr "   4 lalp  !Vbjkv|rd $ !$Ifa$~kd||$$IflF(x(PP        4 lalp $$Ifa$$If $$Ifa$$Ifhkd}$$IflF(x(PP       4 lalp  $$Ifa$$Ifhkdt~$$IflF(x(PP       4 lalp ûȻλ $$Ifa$$IfhkdE$$IflF(x(PP       4 lalp λϻ $$Ifa$$Ifhkd$$IflF(x(PP       4 lalp  $$Ifa$$Ifhkd$$IflF(x(PP       4 lalp  $$Ifa$$Ifhkd$$IflF(x(PP       4 lalp (-2 $$Ifa$$Ifhkd$$IflF(x(PP       4 lalp 23AEI $$Ifa$$IfhkdZ$$IflF(x(PP       4 lalp IJK]^ghHIij"ij !hkd9$$IflF(x(PP       4 lalp jk{ojFfևkd$$Ifl4FV "V           4 lalf4p $$Ifa$$If   $$Ifa$$If:@CIOKE<<<< $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞V 6n"V 888888   4 lalp OTZ[}B<$Ifkd$$Ifl֞V 6n"V 888888   4 lalp  $$Ifa$B<$Ifkd$$Ifl֞V 6n"V 888888   4 lalp  $$Ifa$Bkd<$$Ifl֞V 6n"V 888888   4 lalp  $$Ifa$789IXYa[$Ifkds$$Ifl4FV "V           4 lalf4p $ !$Ifa$  !$If   !$IfFf1 $ !$Ifa$  K@222 $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifkd$$Ifl֞V 6n"V 888888   4 lalp  :=2  !$IfkdE$$Ifl֞V 6n"V 888888   4 lalp  $ !$Ifa$:?CHMQV $ !$Ifa$VWqvzK@222 $ !$Ifa$  !$Ifkdn$$Ifl֞V 6n"V 888888   4 lalp q=75 !kd$$Ifl֞V 6n"V 888888   4 lalp  $ !$Ifa$qrz{/0op $$Ifa$$If$a$,DE<6-'$If $$Ifa$$IfkdΗ$$Ifl\| h%|     (04 lalp(EFJKNOSTdRL$Ifkd$$Ifll\| h%|   04 lalp  $$Ifa$d./37;?CGKOPSVY\_behio $$Ifa$$Ifou{Tkd$$Ifl\| h%|   04 lalp  $$Ifa$NLJLkd֚$$Ifl\| h%|   04 lalp  $$Ifa$$If%&+UH  $Ifkdƛ$$Ifl0h    04 lalp$  $Ifa$$If  +8MWdekqv{|f|kdʜ$$Ifl0h    04 lalp $  $Ifa$  $If d~kd$$Ifl 0h    04 lalp $  $Ifa$  $If-zzzxriii $$Ifa$$If  |kdr$$Ifl0h    04 lalp  -.NQV:4++ $$Ifa$$IfkdR$$Ifll\"p8     (04 lalp(VYZy|TN$Ifkd$$Ifl\"p8   04 lalp  $$Ifa$]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\"p8   04 lalp ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\"p8   04 lalp ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\"p8   04 lalp ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\"p8   04 lalp ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\"p8   04 lalp -058]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\"p8   04 lalp 89:ophis][Y[[L[J $]^a$kd$$Ifl\"p8   04 lalp @kd$$IflF*j @     0    4 lalp $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If $*ga$Ifkd$$IflF*j @    0    4 lalp  $$Ifa$*+QU[pjaa $$Ifa$$IfkdȪ$$IflF*j @    0    4 lalp [\lptpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF*j @    0    4 lalp tupjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF*j @    0    4 lalp pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF*j @    0    4 lalp pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkdh$$IflF*j @    0    4 lalp  pjaa $$Ifa$$IfkdP$$IflF*j @    0    4 lalp opQRstkdb`b^^^bb kd8$$Ifl4LF*j @    0    4 lalf4p  opQR/6;NO`i9:jkQp! &'-=>RSfgvw?NOjkPaw  % hR{56 hR{H* hR{6hR{ hR{5Z/6;BN$If $$Ifa$$If ,l ! NO` $$Ifa$kd8$$Iflrn 6 n       204 lalp2`flqvwA;$Ifkd$$Iflrn 6 n    04 lalp  $$Ifa$A;$Ifkdv$$Iflrn 6 n    04 lalp  $$Ifa$A;$Ifkd`$$Iflrn 6 n    04 lalp  $$Ifa$ A;$IfkdJ$$Iflrn 6 n    04 lalp  $$Ifa$"&+01CA;$Ifkd4$$Iflrn 6 n    04 lalp  $$Ifa$CIORWXkA;$Ifkd$$Iflrn 6 n    04 lalp  $$Ifa$kqw|A;$Ifkd$$Iflrn 6 n    04 lalp  $$Ifa$A;$Ifkd$$Iflrn 6 n    04 lalp  $$Ifa$A;$Ifkdܹ$$Iflrn 6 n    04 lalp  $$Ifa$A;$Ifkdƺ$$Iflrn 6 n    04 lalp  $$Ifa$%*+,8A??kd$$Iflrn 6 n    04 lalp  $$Ifa$89_`9:;HUh$ $Ifa$ $If  $ a$hi<2  $Ifkd$$Ifl\ |# vv     (04 lalp(uuu$ $Ifa$ $Ifnkd$$Ifl4##   04 lalf4p ZN???$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl\ v# pp   0 4 lalp ZN???$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl\ v# pp   0 4 lalp ZN $Ifkd$$Ifl\ v# pp   0 4 lalp  uuu$ $Ifa$ $Ifnkd$$Ifl4##   04 lalf4p 9ZK$ $Ifa$kdU$$Ifl\ v# pp   0 4 lalp 9:Z`fjuuu$ $Ifa$ $IfnkdJ$$Ifl4##   04 lalf4p jkZN???$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl\ v# pp   0 4 lalp ZN???$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl\ v# pp   0 4 lalp ZSQOOOSO kd$$Ifl\ v# pp   0 4 lalp  $$Ifa$$If93** $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl4\ @FLRTN$Ifkd$$Ifl\T!Z Z Z    04 lalp  $$Ifa$RSU[`f]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\T!Z Z Z    04 lalp fginqv]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\T!Z Z Z    04 lalp vwy~]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\T!Z Z Z    04 lalp ][YY[SJJ $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\T!Z Z Z    04 lalp  &./3kds$$Ifl\` p!` PP     (04 lalp( $$Ifa$/?EKNOjKE$Ifkd$$Ifl\` p!` PP   04 lalp  $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$jk $$Ifa$$Iflkd$$Ifl4!!   04 lalf4p ]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdW$$Ifl\` p!` PP   04 lalp ]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdG$$Ifl\` p!` PP   04 lalp OP\][[[[[TTT kd7$$Ifl\` p!` PP   04 lalp   $$Ifa$ $If <0 $Ifkd5$$Ifl\@  @      (04 lalp("(.4xxx$ $Ifa$ $Iflkdu$$Ifl4     04 lalf4p 458;>C]QBBB$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd)$$Ifl\@  @    04 lalp CDOUZ`]QBBB$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl\@  @    04 lalp `aw]Q $Ifkd $$Ifl\@  @    04 lalp wx|xxx$ $Ifa$ $Iflkd$$Ifl4     04 lalf4p ]QBBB$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl\@  @    04 lalp ]QBBB$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl\@  @    04 lalp ]QBBB$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd$$Ifl\@  @    04 lalp  ]QBBB$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd}$$Ifl\@  @    04 lalp !'-]QBBB$ $Ifa$ $Ifkdm$$Ifl\@  @    04 lalp -./    ""$]VTTRTTTT kd]$$Ifl\@  @    04 lalp  $$%&&'''$(%(4(R(`(r( $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If$a$ %&&'''$(%(4(R(r(s((((((()) ) )))/)0)D)E)X)Y)u)v)))))))))))))****3*4*J*T*U*..V.W.///112 2/222222 3 3A3B3f3g333333333334 hR{5>* hR{>*jhR{0JUhR{ hR{5 hR{56Vr(s((((ZTKK $$Ifa$$Ifkd[$$IflF` `       0    4 lalp(((((pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp (((((pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp (((()pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd_$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp )))))pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd?$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp ))))+)/)pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp /)0)?)A)D)pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp D)E)R)U)X)pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp X)Y)o)q)u)pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp u)v)~)))pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp )))))pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp )))))pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd_$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp )))))pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd?$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp )))))pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp )))))pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp )))**pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp *****pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp **-*/*3*pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp 3*4*C*E*J*pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp J*K*Q*T*U*pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd_$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp U*V*W*..V.W.////1pnlllllnljlkdM$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp  1112 2/2W2u2~2222222Ff $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If !222222223333 3 $$Ifa$$Ifnkd$$Ifl4^X#X#   04 lalf4p  3 3*3+3.3711( $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflֈ (X#    04 lalp .3/343538393>3?3A3 $$Ifa$$IfA3B3U3X37,# $$Ifa$  !$Ifkd$$Iflֈ (X#    04 lalp X3]3_3d3f3g3.kd $$Iflֈ (X#    04 lalp  $$Ifa$g3}333333 $$Ifa$$If3333371(( $$Ifa$$Ifkd. $$Iflֈ (X#    04 lalp 33333.kdV $$Iflֈ (X#    04 lalp  $$Ifa$3333333 $$Ifa$$If3333371(( $$Ifa$$Ifkd~ $$Iflֈ (X#    04 lalp 33333.kd $$Iflֈ (X#    04 lalp  $$Ifa$344 4 444 $$Ifa$$If444!4&471(( $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflֈ (X#    04 lalp 44/404T4U4t444444 5 5(5o7p7777g:h:&;D;E;F;O;;;]<^<+>->.>U>V>W>`>>>>>>>>>>??&?-ABBBCKCXCnCoCpCyCCCCC>DqErEE F FFGGG&GbGGG)I*I,I-IIIIJJ[JjhR{0JU hR{6 hR{56hR{ hR{5X&4(4-4/404.kd$$Iflֈ (X#    04 lalp  $$Ifa$04D4F4K4M4R4T4 $$Ifa$$IfT4U4d4f4k471(( $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflֈ (X#    04 lalp k4m4r4t4u4.kdF$$Iflֈ (X#    04 lalp  $$Ifa$u4444444 $$Ifa$$If4447. $$Ifa$kdn$$Iflֈ (X#    04 lalp 4444!lkd^$$Ifl4X#X#   04 lalf4p $Iflkd$$Ifl4X#X#   04 lalf4p 4444444 $$Ifa$$If4444471(( $$Ifa$$Ifkd&$$Iflֈ (X#    04 lalp 44444.kdN$$Iflֈ (X#    04 lalp  $$Ifa$444555 5 $$Ifa$$If 5 555571(( $$Ifa$$Ifkdv$$Iflֈ (X#    04 lalp 5!5&5(5)5.kd$$Iflֈ (X#    04 lalp  $$Ifa$)5<5?5@5C5D5G5 $$Ifa$$IfG5H5I57. $$Ifa$kd$$Iflֈ (X#    04 lalp I5J5Q5U5V5Y5Z5]5 $$Ifa$$Iflkd$$Ifl4X#X#   04 lalf4p ]5^5o7p77775533kd$$Iflֈ (X#    04 lalp 777g:h:%;&;1;E;F;G;O;_;k;{;;; $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If$a$;;;;;;<3333 $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl\j*ppP     (04 lalp(;;;;;;]TTTT $$Ifa$kd@$$Ifl\j*ppP   04 lalp ;;;;;;]TTTT $$Ifa$kd` $$Ifl\j*ppP   04 lalp ;;;;;;]TTTT $$Ifa$kd!$$Ifl\j*ppP   04 lalp ;;;;;;]TTTT $$Ifa$kd"$$Ifl\j*ppP   04 lalp ;;]<^<==->.><>V>W>][YYYYW[[Wkd#$$Ifl\j*ppP   04 lalp  W>X>`>p>|>>>> $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If>>>>>><6--- $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$$Ifl\ !      (04 lalp(>>>>>>]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd4&$$Ifl\ !    04 lalp >>>>>>]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdF'$$Ifl\ !    04 lalp >>>>>>]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdX($$Ifl\ !    04 lalp >> ????]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdj)$$Ifl\ !    04 lalp ??? ?#?&?]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd|*$$Ifl\ !    04 lalp &?'???,A-ABCKCLC][Y[YYWWYkd+$$Ifl\ !    04 lalp  LCXCoCpCqCyCCCCCC $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If CCCCCC<6--- $$Ifa$$Ifkd,$$Ifl\ `ppp     (04 lalp(CCCCCC]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd-$$Ifl\ `ppp   04 lalp CC>D?DEE F FF][USSNSL$a$ !kd/$$Ifl\ `ppp   04 lalp FFFGGG&G6GBGRGVGbG $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If bGcGuGyG}GG<6--- $$Ifa$$Ifkd0$$Ifl\        (04 lalp(GGGGGG]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdf1$$Ifl\      04 lalp GGG,I-IIIJJJ][[[Y[Y[S$Ifkdx2$$Ifl\      04 lalp  JJJJ/J;JKJOJ[J $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If[J\JJJJJ<6--- $$Ifa$$Ifkd3$$Ifl\ p  x     (04 lalp(JJJJJJ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd4$$Ifl\ p  x   04 lalp JJK KKK]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd 6$$Ifl\ p  x   04 lalp KK-K1K5K9K]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd,7$$Ifl\ p  x   04 lalp 9K:KgKkKoKsK]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdL8$$Ifl\ p  x   04 lalp sKtKKKlMmMOOOO][YYYYYTY$a$kdl9$$Ifl\ p  x   04 lalp  [JtKKOOPPQPpPqPrP{PPQSSkTlTTTTU V!VlWmWXXYYYYKYhYiYYYYYYYYYYY Z ZZ[[\\ \\,]-]7]s]t]~]]E^__`*a4aqaaaaaaa b bjbdWeXeeeefXiirjsjj hR{CJ hR{6 jBhR{ hR{56 hR{5hR{XOPP\PqPrPsP{PPPPPP $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If PPPPPP<6--- $$Ifa$$Ifkd:$$Ifl\@ @ 0     (04 lalp(PPPPPP]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd;$$Ifl\@ @ 0   04 lalp PPQQQQ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd=$$Ifl\@ @ 0   04 lalp QQ.Q2Q6Q:Q]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd.>$$Ifl\@ @ 0   04 lalp :Q;QQQSSkTlTyTTT][[Y[Y[WW[kdN?$$Ifl\@ @ 0   04 lalp  TTTTTTTT $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$TTU UUU<6--- $$Ifa$$Ifkdn@$$Ifl\ @x! x     (04 lalp(UU4U8UX   04 lalp ÔĔJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd*$$Iflrn">X   04 lalp  JD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflrn">X   04 lalp ,048;JD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflrn">X   04 lalp ;<gkoruJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkdt$$Iflrn">X   04 lalp uvJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflrn">X   04 lalp ŕJD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdP$$Iflrn">X   04 lalp ŕƕJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflrn">X   04 lalp  GKOSWJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd,$$Iflrn">X   04 lalp WXvz~JD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflrn">X   04 lalp JD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflrn">X   04 lalp ϖӖזۖߖJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkdv$$Iflrn">X   04 lalp ߖJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflrn">X   04 lalp "&*.JD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdR$$Iflrn">X   04 lalp ./GKOSWJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflrn">X   04 lalp WXy|JD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd.$$Iflrn">X   04 lalp ėǗ˗ϗӗJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflrn">X   04 lalp ӗԗ JD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Iflrn">X   04 lalp QR_֚GEEECAAkdx$$Ifl4rn">X   04 lalf4p ֚ךؚ  @:$Ifkd$$IflF B%       0    4 lalp $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If /BTfuěٛݛ!Ff5$IfFf $$Ifa$$If!$(,034CGKNRVZ^abrFfk$IfFfP $$Ifa$ʜΜҜ֜ڜޜ  8<@DHFfFf $$Ifa$$IfFfHLPTWXם Ff$IfFf $$Ifa$  *.26:>BFIJZjnrvz~FfCFf( $$Ifa$$IfFf žÞӞמ۞ߞ $(,/Ffy$IfFf^ $$Ifa$/0HKOSW[_cfgwFfFf $$Ifa$$IfFf47;?CFJNQRSTop;Ff $IfFf $$Ifa$;<̧   $0@DP$If $H$If^Ha$ $H$If^Ha$ H$If^H -DM   @DP}~ǨȨ9:UVpq" <@A#ķ׷5ݽ  Stu hijs  +,RSgh jChR{ hR{6 hR{CJ hR{56hR{ hR{5WPQquy<2%% $H$If^Ha$ H$If^Hkd $$Ifl\ Z4#   (04 lalp(y}~PF H$If^HkdU $$Ifl\ Z4#    04 lalp  $H$If^Ha$èǨ]SFFF $H$If^Ha$ H$If^Hkdu $$Ifl\ Z4#    04 lalp ǨȨ֨٨ݨ]SFFF $H$If^Ha$ H$If^Hkd$$Ifl\ Z4#    04 lalp  ]SFFF $H$If^Ha$ H$If^Hkd$$Ifl\ Z4#    04 lalp .259]SFFF $H$If^Ha$ H$If^Hkd$$Ifl\ Z4#    04 lalp 9:LORU]SFFF $H$If^Ha$ H$If^Hkd$$Ifl\ Z4#    04 lalp UVgjmp]SFFF $H$If^Ha$ H$If^Hkd$$Ifl\ Z4#    04 lalp pq]SFFF $H$If^Ha$ H$If^Hkd5$$Ifl\ Z4#    04 lalp "#TUέϭ][[YWYYYYYkdU$$Ifl\ Z4#    04 lalp   '<_Y$Ifkdu$$Ifl0!   04 lalp $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ <=lptx]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!   04 lalp xyŰɰͰ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!   04 lalp Ͱΰ ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!   04 lalp   DHLP]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!   04 lalp PQ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd<$$Ifl\!   04 lalp ͱѱձٱ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdj$$Ifl\!   04 lalp ٱڱ ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!   04 lalp   59=@]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\!   04 lalp @Aw{]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Ifl\!   04 lalp ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd""$$Ifl\!   04 lalp ]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdP#$$Ifl\!   04 lalp "&*.]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd~$$$Ifl\!   04 lalp ./osw{]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd%$$Ifl\!   04 lalp {|]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd&$$Ifl\!   04 lalp ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd($$Ifl\!   04 lalp !]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd6)$$Ifl\!   04 lalp !"@DHL]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdd*$$Ifl\!   04 lalp LM]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd+$$Ifl\!   04 lalp ϴӴ״۴]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd,$$Ifl\!   04 lalp ۴ܴ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd-$$Ifl\!   04 lalp #][[[[[YS !kd/$$Ifl\!   04 lalp ķŷ׷B<$IfkdJ0$$IflFjZ$j @     0    4 lalp $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If׷ *5 $$Ifa$ 56Pf$$Ifkd1$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp fjnrvz} $$Ifa$}~Ƹ$$IfkdJ3$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp ƸʸθҸָڸݸ $$Ifa$ݸ޸ $$Ifkd5$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp  !% $$Ifa$%&`$$Ifkd6$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp `dhlptw $$Ifa$wxƹ$$Ifkd8$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp ƹʹιѹչٹݹ $$Ifa$ݹ޹$$Ifkdr:$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp   $$Ifa$;$$Ifkd<<$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp ;?CGKOS $$Ifa$ST$$Ifkd>$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp  $$Ifa$̺$$Ifkd?$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp ̺кԺغܺ $$Ifa$ $$IfkdA$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp  # $$Ifa$#$c$$IfkddC$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp cgkosw{ $$Ifa${|$$Ifkd.E$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp  $$Ifa$$$IfkdF$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp   $$Ifa$  7$$IfkdH$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp 7;?CGKO $$Ifa$OP$$IfkdpJ$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp  $$Ifa$$$Ifkd:L$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp ļȼ̼мԼ $$Ifa$Լռ$$IfkdN$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp   $$Ifa$  W$$IfkdO$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp WZ^bfjn $$Ifa$no$$Ifkd|Q$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp  $$Ifa$ý$$IfkdFS$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp ýƽʽνҽֽڽ $$Ifa$ڽ۽ܽݽ$""kdU$$Ifl֞jZ) j Z$j`   04 lalp ݽ '3CGS $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$IfSThlpt<6--- $$Ifa$$IfkdV$$Ifl\ ^#   (04 lalp(tu]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd&X$$Ifl\ ^#    04 lalp ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd8Y$$Ifl\ ^#    04 lalp ]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdJZ$$Ifl\ ^#    04 lalp ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd\[$$Ifl\ ^#    04 lalp ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdn\$$Ifl\ ^#    04 lalp  -ij][[[Y[YY[kd]$$Ifl\ ^#    04 lalp  jks $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If<6--- $$Ifa$$Ifkd^$$Ifl\` :#`   (04 lalp(]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd_$$Ifl\` :#`    04 lalp  ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd`$$Ifl\` :#`    04 lalp    #'+]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkda$$Ifl\` :#`    04 lalp +,ILOR]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdc$$Ifl\` :#`    04 lalp RS^adg]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd d$$Ifl\` :#`    04 lalp gh]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd2e$$Ifl\` :#`    04 lalp ]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdDf$$Ifl\` :#`    04 lalp ]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdVg$$Ifl\` :#`    04 lalp  SrsvIIJ~^z}9:yCcd[cYefx*+hR{OJQJ hR{>* jChR{jhR{0JU hR{56 hR{6 hR{5hR{Q ][YYYW[WW[kdhh$$Ifl\` :#`    04 lalp  '3CGS $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$IfSTfjnr<6--- $$Ifa$$Ifkdzi$$Ifl\ ^#      (04 lalp(rs]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdj$$Ifl\ ^#    04 lalp ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdk$$Ifl\ ^#    04 lalp ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdl$$Ifl\ ^#    04 lalp ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdm$$Ifl\ ^#    04 lalp ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdo$$Ifl\ ^#    04 lalp ;<][YYYYYYYYkdp$$Ifl\ ^#    04 lalp  nouv< -DM -DM $a$ Kkd,q$$IflF` `      0    4 lalp $$Ifa$$If&*-pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkdr$$IflF` `     0    4 lalp -.CGJpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkds$$IflF` `     0    4 lalp JKfkppjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkdt$$IflF` `     0    4 lalp pqpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkdv$$IflF` `     0    4 lalp )"#FGpffffffffff -DM kdLw$$IflF` `     0    4 lalp  ]^z{TU|}xyBCcd -DM +,Z[cd     h i XYXYf:$If d$If -DM )*B}uiii $d$Ifa$:$If d$Ifdkdlx$$Ifx440@ "@    4 xaxf4p $:$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ BC[\v $:$Ifa$ $d$Ifa$vwx' d$Ifkd]y$$Ifxֈ@ @@"@        <4 xaxp<x $:$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ $d$Ifa$ :$If^ $If^$If $d$Ifa$ $:$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$)*+^UOCC7 $d$Ifa$ :$If^$If d$Ifkdz$$Ifxֈ@ @@"@    4 xaxp +,-01236789<=>?BCDEH $d$Ifa$ $:$Ifa$ $$Ifa$+0167<=BCKM  &'CDHIfirswx01>?CDE]^_ HIJP XY>KL   $$i'0+-/<8e8E hR{>* hR{5 hR{CJ hR{6hR{[HIJKLMNOP^\\SSGGG $d$Ifa$ d$Ifkd|$$Ifxֈ@ @@"@    4 xaxp PQ~~s $:$Ifa$ d$Ifckd;}$$Ifx40@ "@    4 xaxf4p $$Ifa$ $d$Ifa$  $$Ifa$ $:$Ifa$' d$Ifkd~$$Ifxֈ@ @@"@       <4 xaxp<     !$ $:$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ $d$Ifa$ :$If^$If$%'>CD\SMA5 $d$Ifa$ :$If^$If d$Ifkd$$Ifxֈ@ @@"@    4 xaxp DEHIJMNORSTWXY\] $d$Ifa$ $:$Ifa$ $$Ifa$]^_lqr^UOE9 :$If^ $If^$If d$Ifkd$$Ifxֈ@ @@"@    4 xaxp rstwxy|}~ $:$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ $d$Ifa$^UOEEE $If^$If d$IfkdӁ$$Ifxֈ@ @@"@    4 xaxp  $:$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ $d$Ifa$ :$If^ $$Ifa$ $d$Ifa$ $:$Ifa$'^UOEE $If^$If d$Ifkd$$Ifxֈ@ @@"@    4 xaxp '0126:>?@CFIJKNQTUVWZ[\_ $:$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ $d$Ifa$ `p`:$If^p``_befgsJA;$If d$Ifkd $$Ifxֈ@ @@"@    4 xaxp  $:$Ifa$ $$Ifa$s| $:$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ $d$Ifa$ `p`:$If^p`` $If^ $:$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ $d$Ifa$  ^\SGA8 $$Ifa$$If $d$Ifa$ d$Ifkd'$$Ifxֈ@ @@"@    4 xaxp  ABCDEFNUV[\y d$IfgkdC$$Ifx4O0@ "@    4 xaxf4p $d$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ \]efgopq $$Ifa$ $:$Ifa$%  !$Ifkd,$$IfxOֈ@ @@"@       <4 xaxp< $:$Ifa$ $$Ifa$  !$If\VL8/ $$Ifa$ `p`:$If^p`` $If^$Ifkd$$IfxPֈ@ @@"@    4 xaxp $If $:$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ \VLL@7 $$Ifa$ :$If^ $If^$Ifkd̉$$IfxOֈ@ @@"@    4 xaxp "%&),/0369:;>ABEHK $:$Ifa$ $$Ifa$KL_def\VL@7 $$Ifa$ :$If^ $If^$Ifkdފ$$IfxPֈ@ @@"@    4 xaxp fjknorsvwz $$Ifa$ $:$Ifa$ z{\VLL@@ :$If^ $If^$Ifkd$$IfxOֈ@ @@"@    4 xaxp  $:$Ifa$ $$Ifa$'3\ZQE<< $$Ifa$ $d$Ifa$ d$Ifkd$$IfxOֈ@ @@"@    4 xaxp 3[\]^_`hopuvwyn $:$Ifa$ d$Ifgkd0$$Ifx4m0@ "@   4 xaxf4p $d$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ w $$Ifa$ $:$Ifa$%$Ifkd'$$Ifxֈ@ @@"@  <4 xaxp< $:$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ :$If^ $If^\VL@@7 $$Ifa$ :$If^ $If^$Ifkd$$Ifxֈ@ @@"@    4 xaxp !$'(+.12367:=@ $:$Ifa$ $$Ifa$@AQYaij\VL@@7 $$Ifa$ :$If^ $If^$IfkdǑ$$Ifxֈ@ @@"@    4 xaxp jmpstwz}~ $:$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ HIJ\ZZZZZZZT$Ifkd$$Ifxkֈ@ @@"@    4 xaxp  JPK@  !$Ifkd$$IflF        0    4 lalp $$Ifa$$Ifpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd)$$IflF       0    4 lalp pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF       0    4 lalp pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkdݖ$$IflF       0    4 lalp  pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF       0    4 lalp   pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF       0    4 lalp "%pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkdk$$IflF       0    4 lalp %&'  XYZ`pnnnnnnhh_ $$Ifa$$IfkdE$$IflF       0    4 lalp  QK$Ifkd-$$IflF      0    4 lalp $$Ifa$pjaa $$Ifa$$IfkdA$$IflF       0    4 lalp pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF       0    4 lalp  pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF       0    4 lalp pjaa $$Ifa$$IfkdϞ$$IflF       0    4 lalp &)+pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF       0    4 lalp +,146pjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF       0    4 lalp 678GH>?Lpnlnnnnnnf$Ifkd]$$IflF       0    4 lalp   lf$IfkdE$$Ifl40{g%`{   04 lalf4p $$Ifa$   $IfkdF$$Ifl4r{qg% {{{{{      204 lalf4p2  $ & - . 9 A;$Ifkd$$Iflr{qg%{{{{{   04 lalp  $$Ifa$9 ? E G N O Z A;$Ifkdo$$Iflr{qg%{{{{{   04 lalp  $$Ifa$Z ` f h n o ~ A;$IfkdK$$Iflr{qg%{{{{{   04 lalp  $$Ifa$~       A;$Ifkd'$$Iflr{qg%{{{{{   04 lalp  $$Ifa$       A;$Ifkd$$Iflr{qg%{{{{{   04 lalp  $$Ifa$       !A??kdߨ$$Iflr{qg%{{{{{   04 lalp  $$Ifa$!!!!$1$2$h'i'0+1+N-P---//00j3k3A6B6;8<8e8f8 -DM $a$$a$f899;;;;>>BBDDIIKK7L8LLLML P PGSHSYS0`0 Z0^Z`0$a$ -DM EEI7L8LLLHSYS_ccccgg&gmgyghhi'ixiii)j*jOjPjkkNkOkkkkkHlIlllmmmm1m2mbmmmmmmmmmn n!n'n3n=n>nDnPnYnZn[nnnnnnnnooo hR{CJ hR{6jhR{0JUhR{5CJ \ hR{5\ hR{56 hR{5hR{hR{OJQJMYSZSXX X X Z Z_]`]__ccccgggglgmgggggh:h$a$ -DM :h`hhhhhhii^ixiyiiiiiiiij)jOjkNkkHlm1mm$a$mm n=nYnnnnoFotqqqqLrrsgstrt(uuv9wP tQ  & ,xH  X("ooFoGotquqqqqrKrLrMrssgshsttQtptrtstuu(u)uuuvv9w:wxP P P gP hP jP tQ uQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q R "R |R R R R R R S S [S \S S S S S S S S S 񿳿񿳿jhR{0J5U hR{5 hR{H* hR{6H* jChR{6U hR{6 hR{CJjhR{0JCJUhR{jhR{0JUF.8 percent of at-risk parents.  All differences between non-at-risk and at-risk parents easily pass a (2 (chi-square) test at the 0.05 level of significance except the ones recorded for the importance of the academic quality of the school in the parents choice. The significance level for the difference between non-at-risk and at-risk parents in this case was 0.061.  Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1992, School Choice: A Special Report.  (2 significance = 0.949.  Stanley M. Elam and Lowell C. Rose. 1995. The 27th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Publics Attitudes toward the Public Schools, Phi Delta Kappa 77:1 (September): pp. 41-60.  USA Today (interactive edition). May 17, 1996. Education Poll Gives Policy Makers Hope, Warning.  Source: Hudson Institute web site: www.edexcellence.net/chart/survey.html/  Source: ˿Ƶ web site: www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/  Source: ˿Ƶ web site: www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/  Source: ˿Ƶ web site: www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/  Because Texas law constrains union activities, this finding was anticipated.  Districts not responding to the survey were Corpus Christi ISD, Somerset ISD, and Southwest ISD.  Respondents from only seven of the 40 districts reported that their district has a process for tracking students who leave to attend charter schools.  So far, open-enrollment charter school funding has come directly from the state and not through local districts. Therefore, no district has been required to make a payment directly to a charter school.     1997-98 Charter School Evaluation, Pg.  PAGE 3 1997-98 Charter School Evaluation, Pg.  PAGE 6 tQ Q Q R S [S S S S S >T ?T T T T U VV WV YV ZV \V ]V _V `V bV cV V V V $a$S =T ?T @T T T T T T U U U VV WV XV ZV [V ]V ^V `V aV cV V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V ûîûîݥhR{5CJ \hR{0JCJmHnHuhR{0JCJjhR{0JCJU hR{CJjh Uh jhR{0J5UjhR{0JU hR{5hR{+V V V V V V V V $a$$a$E 0/R / =!"#$% P0 @ / 0/R / =!"#$% 90P/R / =!"#$% Dp<0P/R / =!"#$%0 Dp$$If!vh5 55555#v #v:V l       <05 5/ / /  / /  / / / 4p<kd$$Iflֈo 7W"        <04 lap<$$If!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   05 5/  / / / / 4p $$If!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   05 5/ /  / / / 4p #$$If!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   05 5/  / /  / / / 4p #$$If!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   05 5/  / /  / / / 4p #$$If!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   05 5/  / /  / / / 4p #$$If!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   05 5/  / /  / / / 4p '$$If!vh5 55555#v #v:V lH   05 5/  / /  / / / 4p #$$If!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   05 5/ /  / / /  / 4p 0$$If!vh5555#v#v:V l     (55/ /  / /  / / / 4p($$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/  / /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/  / /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v:V l   55/ /  / / /  / 4p S$$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l    05X5/ / /  / /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/  / /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p  $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/  / / / /  / 4p 7$$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l  05X5/ /  /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/  / /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / / 4p  $$If!vh5X55#vX#v:V l   05X5/ /  / / /  / 4p 0$$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l     (5 5/ /  / /  / / / 4p($$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l   5 5/  / /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / /  / 4p $$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l        F05 5555/ / /  / /  / / / 4pF7kdM$$Ifl֞ wgPG7!         F04 lapFU$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/  / /  / / / 4p G$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/ /  / / / 4p G$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/ /  / / / 4p G$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/ /  / / / 4p G$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/ /  / / / 4p K$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/ /  / / / 4p G$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/ /  / / / 4p G$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/ /  / / / 4p G$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/ /  / / / 4p G$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/ /  / / / 4p G$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/ /  / / / 4p G$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/ /  / / / 4p U$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/  / /  / / / 4p G$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/ /  / / / 4p G$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/ /  / / / 4p G$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/ /  / / / 4p G$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/ /  / / / 4p G$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/ /  / / / 4p U$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/  / /  / / / 4p U$$If!vh5 555555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   05 5555/ /  / / /  / 4p $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l    55p/ /  / /  / / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/  / /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / /  / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l    55p/ /  / /  / / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/  / /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / /  / 4alp #$$Ifx!vh55$ 5#v#v$ #v:V x4    55$ 5/ / / /  / / 44 xaxp$$Ifx!vh55$ 5#v#v$ #v:V x   55$ 5/  / / /  / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh55$ 5#v#v$ #v:V x   55$ 5/  / /  / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh55$ 5#v#v$ #v:V x   55$ 5/  / /  / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh55$ 5#v#v$ #v:V x   55$ 5/  / /  / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh55$ 5#v#v$ #v:V x   55$ 5/  / /  / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh55$ 5#v#v$ #v:V x   55$ 5/  / /  / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh55$ 5#v#v$ #v:V x   55$ 5/  / /  / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh55$ 5#v#v$ #v:V x   55$ 5/  / /  / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh55$ 5#v#v$ #v:V x   55$ 5/  / /  / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh55$ 5#v#v$ #v:V x   55$ 5/  / /  / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh55$ 5#v#v$ #v:V x   55$ 5/  / /  / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh55$ 5#v#v$ #v:V x   55$ 5/  / /  / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh55$ 5#v#v$ #v:V x   55$ 5/  / /  / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh55$ 5#v#v$ #v:V x   55$ 5/  / /  / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh55$ 5#v#v$ #v:V x   55$ 5/  / /  / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh55$ 5#v#v$ #v:V x   55$ 5/  / /  / / /  / 44 xaxp .$$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l    0    55 / / /  / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   0    55 / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   0    55 / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   0    55 / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   0    55 / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   0    55 / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5"#v":V l0    5"/ / 4al $$Ifl!vh5 5N 5N #v #vN :V l    0    5 5N / /  / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh5 5*5$ 5*5$ #v #v*#v$ #v*#v$ :V l      20    5 5*5$ 5*5$ / / / /  / 4alp2.$$Ifl!vh5 5*5$ 5*5$ #v #v*#v$ #v*#v$ :V l   0    5 5*5$ 5*5$ / / / / 4alp .$$Ifl!vh5 5*5$ 5*5$ #v #v*#v$ #v*#v$ :V l   0    5 5*5$ 5*5$ / / / / 4alp  $$Ifl!vh5 5*5$ 5*5$ #v #v*#v$ #v*#v$ :V l   0    5 5*5$ 5*5$ / / / 4alp  $$Ifl!vh5 5*5$ 5*5$ #v #v*#v$ #v*#v$ :V l   0    5 5*5$ 5*5$ / / / 4alp  $$Ifl!vh5 5*5$ 5*5$ #v #v*#v$ #v*#v$ :V l   0    5 5*5$ 5*5$ / / / 4alp  $$Ifl!vh5 5*5$ 5*5$ #v #v*#v$ #v*#v$ :V l   0    5 5*5$ 5*5$ / / / 4alp  $$Ifl!vh5 5*5$ 5*5$ #v #v*#v$ #v*#v$ :V l   0    5 5*5$ 5*5$ / / / 4alp  $$Ifl!vh5 5*5$ 5*5$ #v #v*#v$ #v*#v$ :V l   0    5 5*5$ 5*5$ / / / 4alp .$$Ifl!vh5 5*5$ 5*5$ #v #v*#v$ #v*#v$ :V l   0    5 5*5$ 5*5$ / / / / 4alp  $$Ifl!vh5 5*5$ 5*5$ #v #v*#v$ #v*#v$ :V l   0    5 5*5$ 5*5$ / / / 4alp  $$Ifl!vh5 5*5$ 5*5$ #v #v*#v$ #v*#v$ :V l   0    5 5*5$ 5*5$ / / / 4alp  $$Ifl!vh5 5*5$ 5*5$ #v #v*#v$ #v*#v$ :V l   0    5 5*5$ 5*5$ / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5V%#vV%:V l0    5V%/ / 4al$$Ifl!vh55~ 5D #v#v~ #vD :V l    055~ 5D / 4alp}$$Ifl!vh55555F#v#v#v#v#vF:V l      2055555F/ / / 4alp2$$Ifl!vh55555F#v#v#v#v#vF:V l   055555F/ / 4alp  $$Ifl!vh55555F#v#v#v#v#vF:V l   055555F/ 4alp  $$Ifl!vh55555F#v#v#v#v#vF:V l   055555F/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh55555F#v#v#v#v#vF:V l   055555F/ / 4alp $$If!vh5"5585555#v"#v#v8#v#v#v#v:V l        F05"5585555/ 4pF7kd+$$Ifl֞ :rp 2""8        F04 lapF$$If!vh5"#v":V l   05"/ / 4p 9$$If!vh5"5585555#v"#v#v8#v#v#v#v:V l   05"5585555/ / 4p +$$If!vh5"5585555#v"#v#v8#v#v#v#v:V l   05"5585555/ 4p +$$If!vh5"5585555#v"#v#v8#v#v#v#v:V l   05"5585555/ 4p +$$If!vh5"5585555#v"#v#v8#v#v#v#v:V l   05"5585555/ 4p +$$If!vh5"5585555#v"#v#v8#v#v#v#v:V l   05"5585555/ 4p +$$If!vh5"5585555#v"#v#v8#v#v#v#v:V l   05"5585555/ 4p +$$If!vh5"5585555#v"#v#v8#v#v#v#v:V l   05"5585555/ 4p +$$If!vh5"5585555#v"#v#v8#v#v#v#v:V l   05"5585555/ 4p +$$If!vh5"5585555#v"#v#v8#v#v#v#v:V l   05"5585555/ 4p +$$If!vh5"5585555#v"#v#v8#v#v#v#v:V l   05"5585555/ 4p +$$If!vh5"5585555#v"#v#v8#v#v#v#v:V l   05"5585555/ 4p $$If!vh5"#v":V l   05"/ 4p +$$If!vh5"5585555#v"#v#v8#v#v#v#v:V l   05"5585555/ 4p +$$If!vh5"5585555#v"#v#v8#v#v#v#v:V l   05"5585555/ 4p +$$If!vh5"5585555#v"#v#v8#v#v#v#v:V l   05"5585555/ 4p +$$If!vh5"5585555#v"#v#v8#v#v#v#v:V l   05"5585555/ 4p +$$If!vh5"5585555#v"#v#v8#v#v#v#v:V l   05"5585555/ 4p 9$$If!vh5"5585555#v"#v#v8#v#v#v#v:V l   05"5585555/ / 4p $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v :V l    05 / / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 /  / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5"5; 5) #v"#v; #v) :V l    05"5; 5) / 4alp\$$Ifl!vh5"5F555#v"#vF#v#v:V l      205"5F55/ / 4alp2$$Ifl!vh5"5F555#v"#vF#v#v:V l   05"5F55/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5"5F555#v"#vF#v#v:V l   05"5F55/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5"5F555#v"#vF#v#v:V l   05"5F55/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5"5F555#v"#vF#v#v:V l   05"5F55/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5"5F555#v"#vF#v#v:V l   05"5F55/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5"5F555#v"#vF#v#v:V l   05"5F55/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5"5F555#v"#vF#v#v:V l   05"5F55/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5d 5 #v #vd #v :V l    05 5d 5 / 4alp}$$Ifl!vh5 5j555#v #vj#v#v#v:V l      205 5j555/ / / 4alp2$$Ifl!vh5 5j555#v #vj#v#v#v:V l   05 5j555/ / 4alp  $$Ifl!vh5 5j555#v #vj#v#v#v:V l   05 5j555/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5j555#v #vj#v#v#v:V l   05 5j555/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l    055 / 4alp$$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5h55#vh#v:V l    05h5/ / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh5h55#vh#v:V l   05h5/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5h55#vh#v:V l   05h5/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5h55#vh#v:V l   05h5/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5h55#vh#v:V l   05h5/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5h55#vh#v:V l   05h5/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5h55#vh#v:V l   05h5/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5h55#vh#v:V l   05h5/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5h55#vh#v:V l   05h5/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5h55#vh#v:V l   05h5/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5h55#vh#v:V l   05h5/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5h55#vh#v:V l   05h5/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5h55#vh#v:V l   05h5/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5n 5 5 #vn #v :V l    05n 5 / / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh5n 5 5 #vn #v :V l   05n 5 / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5n 5 5 #vn #v :V l   05n 5 / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5n 5 5 #vn #v :V l   05n 5 / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5n 5 5 #vn #v :V l   05n 5 / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5n 5 5 #vn #v :V l   05n 5 / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5n 5 5 #vn #v :V l   05n 5 / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5n 5 5 #vn #v :V l   05n 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh505 5 #v0#v :V l    0505 / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh505555#v0#v:V l      20505/ / /  / / / /  / 4alp2$$Ifl!vh505555#v0#v:V l   0505/ / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh505555#v0#v:V l   0505/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh505555#v0#v:V l   0505/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh505555#v0#v:V l   0505/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh505555#v0#v:V l   0505/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh505555#v0#v:V l   0505/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh505555#v0#v:V l   0505/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l    05 5 / / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l    05 5 / 4alpR$$Ifl!vh5 5J5K5J5K#v #vJ#vK#vJ#vK:V l      205 5J/ / 4alp2$$Ifl!vh5 5J5K5J5K#v #vJ#vK#vJ#vK:V l   05 5J/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5J5K5J5K#v #vJ#vK#vJ#vK:V l   05 5J/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5J5K5J5K#v #vJ#vK#vJ#vK:V l   05 5J/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5J5K5J5K#v #vJ#vK#vJ#vK:V l   05 5J/ 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5J5K5J5K#v #vJ#vK#vJ#vK:V l   05 5J/ / 4alp '$$Ifl!vh5 5x5x5x#v #vx:V l     (5 5x/ /  /  / / / 4alp($$Ifl!vh5 5x5x5x#v #vx:V l   5 5x/  / /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5x5x5x#v #vx:V l   5 5x/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5x5x5x#v #vx:V l   5 5x/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5x5x5x#v #vx:V l   5 5x/ /  / / /  / 4alp v$$Ifl!vh555$ 5#v#v#v$ #v:V l     (0555$ 5/ /  / /  / / 4alp(x$$Ifl!vh55y5Q55y5y5z#v#vy#vQ#v#vy#vz:V l        F055y5Q55y5z/ / / / / / / / / / / / /  / / / 4alpF7kd$$Ifl֞G 9+"yQyyz        F04 lalpF$$Ifl!vh55y5Q55y5y5z#v#vy#vQ#v#vy#vz:V l   055y5Q55y5z/  / / /  / / / / /  / / /  / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55y5Q55y5y5z#v#vy#vQ#v#vy#vz:V l   055y5Q55y5z/  / / /  / / / / /  / / /  / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55y5Q55y5y5z#v#vy#vQ#v#vy#vz:V l   055y5Q55y5z/  / / /  / / / / /  / / /  / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55y5Q55y5y5z#v#vy#vQ#v#vy#vz:V l   055y5Q55y5z/  / / /  / / / / /  / / /  / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55y5Q55y5y5z#v#vy#vQ#v#vy#vz:V l   055y5Q55y5z/  / / /  / / / / /  / / /  / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55y5Q55y5y5z#v#vy#vQ#v#vy#vz:V l   055y5Q55y5z/ / / / / / / / / / / /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55y5Q55y5y5z#v#vy#vQ#v#vy#vz:V l   055y5Q55y5z/ / / / / / / / / / / /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55y5Q55y5y5z#v#vy#vQ#v#vy#vz:V l   055y5Q55y5z/ / /  / / / /  / / /  / / /  / 4alp  $$Ifl!vh5@ 5p5p#v@ #vp:V l    5@ 5p/ /  /  / / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh5@ 5p5p#v@ #vp:V l   5@ 5p/  / /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 5p5p#v@ #vp:V l   5@ 5p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 5p5p#v@ #vp:V l   5@ 5p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 5p5p#v@ #vp:V l   5@ 5p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 5p5p#v@ #vp:V l   5@ 5p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 5p5p#v@ #vp:V l   5@ 5p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 5p5p#v@ #vp:V l   5@ 5p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 5p5p#v@ #vp:V l   5@ 5p/ /  / / /  / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l    55p/ /  / /  / / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/  / /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p#v#vp:V l   55p/ /  / / /  / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5p5p#v` #vp:V l    5` 5p/ /  / /  / / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh5` 5p5p#v` #vp:V l   5` 5p/  / /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5p5p#v` #vp:V l   5` 5p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5p5p#v` #vp:V l   5` 5p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5p5p#v` #vp:V l   5` 5p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5p5p#v` #vp:V l   5` 5p/ /  / / /  / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5p5p#v` #vp:V l;    5` 5p/ /  / /  / / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh5` 5p5p#v` #vp:V l   5` 5p/  / /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5p5p#v` #vp:V l   5` 5p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5p5p#v` #vp:V l   5` 5p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5p5p#v` #vp:V l   5` 5p/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5p5p#v` #vp:V l   5` 5p/ /  / / /  / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5H5P5P#vH#vP:V l    5H5P/ /  / /  / / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh5H5P5P#vH#vP:V l   5H5P/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5H5P5P#vH#vP:V l   5H5P/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5H5P5P#vH#vP:V l   5H5P/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5H5P5P#vH#vP:V l   5H5P/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5H5P5P#vH#vP:V l   5H5P/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5H5P5P#vH#vP:V l   5H5P/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5H5P5P#vH#vP:V l   5H5P/ /  / / /  / 4alp q$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v:V l       <5 5/ /  / /  / / / 4alp<$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   5 5/  / /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / /  / 4alp q$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v:V l       <5 5/ /  / /  / / / 4alp<$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   5 5/  / /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / /  / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55P5P#v#vP:V l    55P/ /  / /  / / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh55P5P#v#vP:V l   55P/  / /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55P5P#v#vP:V l   55P/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55P5P#v#vP:V l   55P/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55P5P#v#vP:V l   55P/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55P5P#v#vP:V l   55P/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55P5P#v#vP:V l   55P/ /  / / /  / 4alp S$$Ifl!vh565r5r5r5r#v6#vr:V l      2565r/ /  / /  / / / 4alp2$$Ifl!vh565r5r5r5r#v6#vr:V l   565r/  / /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh565r5r5r5r#v6#vr:V l   565r/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh565r5r5r5r#v6#vr:V l   565r/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh565r5r5r5r#v6#vr:V l   565r/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh565r5r5r5r#v6#vr:V l   565r/ /  / / /  / 4alp S$$Ifl!vh565r5r5r5r#v6#vr:V l      2565r/ /  / /  / / / 4alp2$$Ifl!vh565r5r5r5r#v6#vr:V l   565r/  / /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh565r5r5r5r#v6#vr:V l   565r/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh565r5r5r5r#v6#vr:V l   565r/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh565r5r5r5r#v6#vr:V l   565r/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh565r5r5r5r#v6#vr:V l   565r/ /  / / /  / 4alp I$$Ifl!vh5 5555#v #v:V l      25 5/ /  /  / / / 4alp27$$Ifl!vh5 5555#v #v:V l      25 5/ /  / / / 4alp2$$Ifl!vh5 5555#v #v:V l   5 5/  / /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5555#v #v:V l   5 5/ /  / / /  / 4alp <$$Ifl!vh55555#v:V l      25/ /  /  / / / 4alp2J$$Ifl!vh55555#v:V l      25/ /  / / / / / 4alp2$$Ifl!vh555555#v#v:V l   55/  / /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55555#v:V l   5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55555#v:V l   5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55555#v:V l   5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55555#v:V l   5/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55555#v:V l   5/  / /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55555#v:V l   5/ /  / / /  / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5(5P5P#v(#vP:V l    5(5P/ /  / /  / / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh5(5P5P#v(#vP:V l   5(5P/  / /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5(5P5P#v(#vP:V l   5(5P/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5(5P5P#v(#vP:V l   5(5P/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5(5P5P#v(#vP:V l   5(5P/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5(5P5P#v(#vP:V l   5(5P/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5(5P5P#v(#vP:V l   5(5P/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5(5P5P#v(#vP:V l   5(5P/ /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5(5P5P#v(#vP:V l   5(5P/  / /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5(5P5P#v(#vP:V l   5(5P/ /  / / /  / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5V 5 5 #vV #v :V l4    5V 5 / / /  / 4alf4p$$Ifl!vh5V 585858585858#vV #v8:V l        F5V 58/ /  / / / /  / / / / / 4alpFkd $$Ifl֞V 6n"V 888888        F4 lalpF'$$Ifl!vh5V 585858585858#vV #v8:V l   5V 58/  / /  / /  / / / / 4alp '$$Ifl!vh5V 585858585858#vV #v8:V l   5V 58/ /  / /  / / / / / 4alp '$$Ifl!vh5V 585858585858#vV #v8:V l   5V 58/ /  / /  / / / / / 4alp 5$$Ifl!vh5V 585858585858#vV #v8:V l   5V 58/ /  /  / /  / / / /  / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5V 5 5 #vV #v :V l4    5V 5 / / /  / 4alf4p$$Ifl!vh5V 585858585858#vV #v8:V l        F5V 58/ /  / / / /  / / / / / 4alpFkdh$$Ifl֞V 6n"V 888888        F4 lalpF'$$Ifl!vh5V 585858585858#vV #v8:V l   5V 58/  / /  / /  / / / / 4alp '$$Ifl!vh5V 585858585858#vV #v8:V l   5V 58/ /  / /  / / / / / 4alp '$$Ifl!vh5V 585858585858#vV #v8:V l   5V 58/ /  / /  / / / / / 4alp 5$$Ifl!vh5V 585858585858#vV #v8:V l   5V 58/ /  /  / /  / / / /  / 4alp >$$Ifl!vh5|555#v|#v:V l     (05|5/ / /  / 4alp($$Ifl!vh5|555#v|#v:V ll   05|5/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5|555#v|#v:V l   05|5/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5|555#v|#v:V l   05|5/ /  / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 #v#v :V l   055 / / / /  4alp$$Ifl!vh55 #v#v :V l   055 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 #v#v :V l    055 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55 #v#v :V l   055 / / /  4alp ^$$Ifl!vh55p585#v#vp#v8#v:V ll     (055p585/ / /  / 4alp($$Ifl!vh55p585#v#vp#v8#v:V l   055p585/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p585#v#vp#v8#v:V l   055p585/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p585#v#vp#v8#v:V l   055p585/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p585#v#vp#v8#v:V l   055p585/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p585#v#vp#v8#v:V l   055p585/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p585#v#vp#v8#v:V l   055p585/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p585#v#vp#v8#v:V l   055p585/ / 4alp  $$Ifl!vh55p585#v#vp#v8#v:V l   055p585/ /  / 4alp .$$Ifl!vh555@ #v#v#v@ :V l    0555@ / / /  / 4alp$$Ifl!vh555@ #v#v#v@ :V l   0555@ / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh555@ #v#v#v@ :V l   0555@ / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh555@ #v#v#v@ :V l   0555@ / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh555@ #v#v#v@ :V l   0555@ / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh555@ #v#v#v@ :V l   0555@ / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh555@ #v#v#v@ :V l   0555@ / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh555@ #v#v#v@ :V l   0555@ / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh555@ #v#v#v@ :V l4L   0555@ / /  / 4alf4p R$$Ifl!vh5n 5555#vn #v:V l      205n 5/ /  / 4alp2$$Ifl!vh5n 5555#vn #v:V l   05n 5/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5n 5555#vn #v:V l   05n 5/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5n 5555#vn #v:V l   05n 5/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5n 5555#vn #v:V l   05n 5/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5n 5555#vn #v:V l   05n 5/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5n 5555#vn #v:V l   05n 5/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5n 5555#vn #v:V l   05n 5/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5n 5555#vn #v:V l   05n 5/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5n 5555#vn #v:V l   05n 5/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5n 5555#vn #v:V l   05n 5/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5n 5555#vn #v:V l   05n 5/ /  / 4alp L$$Ifl!vh5 5v5v5#v #vv#v:V l     (05 5v5/ /  / / 4alp($$Ifl!vh5##v#:V l4   05#/  4alf4p $$Ifl!vh5 5p5p5#v #vp#v:V l   0 5 5p5/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5p5p5#v #vp#v:V l   0 5 5p5/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5p5p5#v #vp#v:V l   0 5 5p5/ /  / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5##v#:V l4   05#/  4alf4p $$Ifl!vh5 5p5p5#v #vp#v:V l   0 5 5p5/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5##v#:V l4   05#/  4alf4p $$Ifl!vh5 5p5p5#v #vp#v:V l   0 5 5p5/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5p5p5#v #vp#v:V l   0 5 5p5/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5p5p5#v #vp#v:V l   0 5 5p5/ /  / 4alp I$$Ifl!vh55<5@ 5@ #v#v<#v@ :V l4     (0+55<5@ / /  / 4alf4p($$Ifl!vh55<5555#v#v<#v:V l4       <0+55<5/ / / 4alf4p<kd;$$Ifl4ֈ \$$Ifl!vh55Z 5Z 5Z #v#vZ :V l     (055Z / / /  / 4alp($$Ifl!vh55Z 5Z 5Z #v#vZ :V l   055Z / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55Z 5Z 5Z #v#vZ :V l   055Z / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55Z 5Z 5Z #v#vZ :V l   055Z / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55Z 5Z 5Z #v#vZ :V l   055Z / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55Z 5Z 5Z #v#vZ :V l   055Z / /  / 4alp >$$Ifl!vh5` 55P5P#v` #v#vP:V l     (05` 55P/ /  / 4alp($$Ifl!vh5` 55P5P#v` #v#vP:V l   05` 55P/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5!#v!:V l4   05!/  4alf4p $$Ifl!vh5` 55P5P#v` #v#vP:V l   05` 55P/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 55P5P#v` #v#vP:V l   05` 55P/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 55P5P#v` #v#vP:V l   05` 55P/ /  / 4alp >$$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v#v:V l     (05@ 55/ /  / 4alp($$Ifl!vh5 #v :V l4   05 /  4alf4p $$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v#v:V l   05@ 55/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v#v:V l   05@ 55/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v#v:V l   05@ 55/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 #v :V l4   05 /  4alf4p $$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v#v:V l   05@ 55/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v#v:V l   05@ 55/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v#v:V l   05@ 55/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v#v:V l   05@ 55/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v#v:V l   05@ 55/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v#v:V l   05@ 55/ /  / 4alp 4$$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l    0,5` 5 / / /  / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 5 5 #v` #v :V l   0,5` 5 / /  / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l <0,,5 5555/ / /  / / 4alp<kd;$$Iflֈ (X#  <04 lalp<$$Ifl!vh5X##vX#:V l4^   0,5X#/  4alf4p &$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   0,,5 5555/ / 4alp &$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   0,,5 5555/ / 4alp &$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   0,,5 5555/ / 4alp &$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   0,,5 5555/ / 4alp &$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   0,,5 5555/ / 4alp &$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   0,,5 5555/ / 4alp &$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   0,,5 5555/ / 4alp &$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   0,,5 5555/ / 4alp &$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   0,,5 5555/ / 4alp &$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   0,,5 5555/ / 4alp &$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   0,,5 5555/ / 4alp 4$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   0,,5 5555/ / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5X##vX#:V l4   0,5X#/  4alf4p $$Ifl!vh5X##vX#:V l4   0,5X#/  / 4alf4p &$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   0,,5 5555/ / 4alp &$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   0,,5 5555/ / 4alp &$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   0,,5 5555/ / 4alp &$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   0,,5 5555/ / 4alp 4$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   0,,5 5555/ / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5X##vX#:V l4   0,5X#/  4alf4p 4$$Ifl!vh5 55555#v #v#v#v#v:V l   0,,5 5555/ /  / 4alp R$$Ifl!vh55p5p5P#v#vp#vP:V l     (0,55p5P/  / / / 4alp($$Ifl!vh55p5p5P#v#vp#vP:V l   0,55p5P/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p5P#v#vp#vP:V l   0,55p5P/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p5P#v#vp#vP:V l   0,55p5P/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p5P#v#vp#vP:V l   0,55p5P/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p5P#v#vp#vP:V l   0,55p5P/  / / / / 4alp R$$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l     (0,5 5/ /  / / / 4alp($$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/  / / / / 4alp R$$Ifl!vh55p5p5p#v#vp:V l     (0,55p/ /  / / / 4alp($$Ifl!vh55p5p5p#v#vp:V l   0,55p/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55p5p5p#v#vp:V l   0,55p/  / / / / 4alp L$$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l     (05 5/ /  / / / 4alp($$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/  / / / / 4alp `$$Ifl!vh5 555x#v #v#vx:V l     (0,5 55x/ /  / / / 4alp($$Ifl!vh5 555x#v #v#vx:V l   0,5 55x/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555x#v #v#vx:V l   0,5 55x/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555x#v #v#vx:V l   0,5 55x/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555x#v #v#vx:V l   0,5 55x/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555x#v #v#vx:V l   0,5 55x/  / / / / 4alp `$$Ifl!vh5@ 5550#v@ #v#v0:V l     (0,5@ 550/ /  / / / 4alp($$Ifl!vh5@ 5550#v@ #v#v0:V l   0,5@ 550/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 5550#v@ #v#v0:V l   0,5@ 550/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 5550#v@ #v#v0:V l   0,5@ 550/  / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 5550#v@ #v#v0:V l   0,5@ 550/  / / / / 4alp `$$Ifl!vh5 555x#v #v#vx:V l     (0,5 55x/ /  / / / 4alp($$Ifl!vh5 555x#v #v#vx:V l   0,5 55x/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555x#v #v#vx:V l   0,5 55x/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555x#v #v#vx:V l   0,5 55x/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555x#v #v#vx:V l   0,5 55x/  / / / / 4alp D$$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l     (0,5@ 5/  / / / 4alp($$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   0,5@ 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   0,5@ 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   0,5@ 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   0,5@ 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   0,5@ 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   0,5@ 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   0,5@ 5/  / / / / 4alp `$$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l     (0,5 55/ /  / / / 4alp($$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l   0,5 55/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l   0,5 55/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l   0,5 55/  / / / / 4alp n$$Ifl!vh5@ 5505#v@ #v#v0#v:V l     (0,5@ 5505/ /  / / / 4alp(,$$Ifl!vh5@ 5505#v@ #v#v0#v:V l   0,5@ 5505/ / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5@ 5505#v@ #v#v0#v:V l   0,5@ 5505/ / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5@ 5505#v@ #v#v0#v:V l   0,5@ 5505/ / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5@ 5505#v@ #v#v0#v:V l   0,5@ 5505/  / / / / 4alp R$$Ifl!vh5` 555#v` #v:V l     (0,5` 5/ /  / / / 4alp($$Ifl!vh5` 555#v` #v:V l   0,5` 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 555#v` #v:V l   0,5` 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 555#v` #v:V l   0,5` 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 555#v` #v:V l   0,5` 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 555#v` #v:V l   0,5` 5/  / / / / 4alp R$$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l     (0,5@ 5/ /  / / / 4alp($$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   0,5@ 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   0,5@ 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   0,5@ 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   0,5@ 5/  / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh505 #v0#v :V l   0,505 / / / /  4alp:$$Ifl!vh5050550#v0#v0#v#v0:V l   0,5050550/ / / / / / 4alp :$$Ifl!vh5050550#v0#v0#v#v0:V l  0,5050550/ / / / / / 4alp :$$Ifl!vh5050550#v0#v0#v#v0:V l  0,5050550/ / / / / / 4alp :$$Ifl!vh5050550#v0#v0#v#v0:V l  0,5050550/ / / / / / 4alp :$$Ifl!vh5050550#v0#v0#v#v0:V l  0,5050550/ / / / / / 4alp :$$Ifl!vh5050550#v0#v0#v#v0:V l  0,5050550/ / / / / / 4alp :$$Ifl!vh5050550#v0#v0#v#v0:V l  0,5050550/ / / / / / 4alp :$$Ifl!vh5050550#v0#v0#v#v0:V l  0,5050550/  / / / /  / 4alp 4$$Ifl!vh5 5` 5` #v #v` :V l    0,5 5` / / / / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh5 5`555`55#v #v`#v#v`#v:V l   0,5 5`55`5/ / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5`555`55#v #v`#v#v`#v:V l   0,5 5`55`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5`555`55#v #v`#v#v`#v:V l   0,5 5`55`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5`555`55#v #v`#v#v`#v:V l   0,5 5`55`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5`555`55#v #v`#v#v`#v:V l   0,5 5`55`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5`555`55#v #v`#v#v`#v:V l   0,5 5`55`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5`555`55#v #v`#v#v`#v:V l   0,5 5`55`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5`555`55#v #v`#v#v`#v:V l   0,5 5`55`5/  / / / /  / / /  / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh55#v#v:V l   0,55/ / / / / 4alp,$$Ifl!vh5555T#v#v#vT:V l   0,555T/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555T#v#v#vT:V l   0,555T/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555T#v#v#vT:V l   0,555T/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555T#v#v#vT:V l   0,555T/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555T#v#v#vT:V l   0,555T/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555T#v#v#vT:V l   0,555T/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555T#v#v#vT:V l   0,555T/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555T#v#v#vT:V l   0,555T/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555T#v#v#vT:V l   0,555T/ / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5555T#v#v#vT:V l   0,555T/  / / / / 4alp <$$Ifl!vh5@ 5 5z #v@ #v #vz :V l    05@ 5 5z / / / / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh5@ 5555855#v@ #v#v#v8#v#v:V l   0,5@ 555855/ / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 5555855#v@ #v#v#v8#v#v:V l   0,5@ 555855/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 5555855#v@ #v#v#v8#v#v:V l   0,5@ 555855/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 5555855#v@ #v#v#v8#v#v:V l   0,5@ 555855/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 5555855#v@ #v#v#v8#v#v:V l   0,5@ 555855/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 5555855#v@ #v#v#v8#v#v:V l   0,5@ 555855/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 5555855#v@ #v#v#v8#v#v:V l   0,5@ 555855/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 5555855#v@ #v#v#v8#v#v:V l   0,5@ 555855/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 5555855#v@ #v#v#v8#v#v:V l   0,5@ 555855/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5@ 5555855#v@ #v#v#v8#v#v:V l   0,5@ 555855/  / / / /  / / /  / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh552#v#v2:V l   0550/ / / / 4alpl$$Ifl!vh55>55X5#v#v>#v#vX#v:V l   0,55>55X5/  / / / / / / / 4alp l$$Ifl!vh55>55X5#v#v>#v#vX#v:V l   0,55>55X5/ / / / / / / / 4alp l$$Ifl!vh55>55X5#v#v>#v#vX#v:V l   0,55>55X5/ / / / / / / / 4alp l$$Ifl!vh55>55X5#v#v>#v#vX#v:V l   0,55>55X5/ / / / / / / / 4alp l$$Ifl!vh55>55X5#v#v>#v#vX#v:V l   0,55>55X5/ / / / / / / / 4alp l$$Ifl!vh55>55X5#v#v>#v#vX#v:V l   0,55>55X5/ / / / / / / / 4alp l$$Ifl!vh55>55X5#v#v>#v#vX#v:V l   0,55>55X5/ / / / / / / / 4alp l$$Ifl!vh55>55X5#v#v>#v#vX#v:V l   0,55>55X5/ / / / / / / / 4alp l$$Ifl!vh55>55X5#v#v>#v#vX#v:V l   0,55>55X5/ / / / / / / / 4alp l$$Ifl!vh55>55X5#v#v>#v#vX#v:V l   0,55>55X5/ / / / / / / / 4alp l$$Ifl!vh55>55X5#v#v>#v#vX#v:V l   0,55>55X5/ / / / / / / / 4alp l$$Ifl!vh55>55X5#v#v>#v#vX#v:V l   0,55>55X5/  / /  / / / / / 4alp l$$Ifl!vh55>55X5#v#v>#v#vX#v:V l   0,55>55X5/  / /  / / / / / 4alp l$$Ifl!vh55>55X5#v#v>#v#vX#v:V l   0,55>55X5/  / / / / / / / 4alp l$$Ifl!vh55>55X5#v#v>#v#vX#v:V l   0,55>55X5/ / / / / / / / 4alp l$$Ifl!vh55>55X5#v#v>#v#vX#v:V l   0,55>55X5/ / / / / / / / 4alp l$$Ifl!vh55>55X5#v#v>#v#vX#v:V l   0,55>55X5/ / / / / / / / 4alp l$$Ifl!vh55>55X5#v#v>#v#vX#v:V l   0,55>55X5/ / / / / / / / 4alp r$$Ifl!vh55>55X5#v#v>#v#vX#v:V l4   0,55>55X5/ / /  / / / /  / 4alf4p  $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l    05 5 /  / / / 4alp $$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*555 #v #v*#v#v#v#v*#v#v#v :V l   0, 5 5*5555*555 /  / / / / / / / / / / /  /  4alp kd$$Ifl gdBl"% **   0$$$$4 lalp $$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*555 #v #v*#v#v#v#v*#v#v#v :V l   0, 5 5*5555*555 / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  4alp kd$$Ifl gdBl"% **   0$$$$4 lalp $$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*555 #v #v*#v#v#v#v*#v#v#v :V l   0, 5 5*5555*555 / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  4alp kd6$$Ifl gdBl"% **   0$$$$4 lalp $$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*555 #v #v*#v#v#v#v*#v#v#v :V l   0, 5 5*5555*555 / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  4alp kdQ$$Ifl gdBl"% **   0$$$$4 lalp $$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*555 #v #v*#v#v#v#v*#v#v#v :V l   0, 5 5*5555*555 / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  4alp kdl$$Ifl gdBl"% **   0$$$$4 lalp $$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*555 #v #v*#v#v#v#v*#v#v#v :V l   0, 5 5*5555*555 / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  4alp kd$$Ifl gdBl"% **   0$$$$4 lalp $$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*555 #v #v*#v#v#v#v*#v#v#v :V l   0, 5 5*5555*555 / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  4alp kd$$Ifl gdBl"% **   0$$$$4 lalp $$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*555 #v #v*#v#v#v#v*#v#v#v :V l   0, 5 5*5555*555 / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  4alp kd$$Ifl gdBl"% **   0$$$$4 lalp $$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*555 #v #v*#v#v#v#v*#v#v#v :V l   0, 5 5*5555*555 / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  4alp kd$$Ifl gdBl"% **   0$$$$4 lalp $$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*555 #v #v*#v#v#v#v*#v#v#v :V l   0, 5 5*5555*555 / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  4alp kd$$Ifl gdBl"% **   0$$$$4 lalp $$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*555 #v #v*#v#v#v#v*#v#v#v :V l   0, 5 5*5555*555 / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  4alp kd$$Ifl gdBl"% **   0$$$$4 lalp $$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*555 #v #v*#v#v#v#v*#v#v#v :V l   0, 5 5*5555*555 / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  4alp kd)$$Ifl gdBl"% **   0$$$$4 lalp $$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*555 #v #v*#v#v#v#v*#v#v#v :V l   0, 5 5*5555*555 / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  4alp kdD$$Ifl gdBl"% **   0$$$$4 lalp $$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*555 #v #v*#v#v#v#v*#v#v#v :V l   0, 5 5*5555*555 / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  4alp kd_$$Ifl gdBl"% **   0$$$$4 lalp $$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*555 #v #v*#v#v#v#v*#v#v#v :V l   0, 5 5*5555*555 / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  4alp kdz$$Ifl gdBl"% **   0$$$$4 lalp $$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*555 #v #v*#v#v#v#v*#v#v#v :V l   0, 5 5*5555*555 / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  4alp kd$$Ifl gdBl"% **   0$$$$4 lalp $$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*555 #v #v*#v#v#v#v*#v#v#v :V l   0, 5 5*5555*555 / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  4alp kd$$Ifl gdBl"% **   0$$$$4 lalp $$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*555 #v #v*#v#v#v#v*#v#v#v :V l   0, 5 5*5555*555 / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  4alp kd$$Ifl gdBl"% **   0$$$$4 lalp $$Ifl!v h5 5*5555*555 #v #v*#v#v#v#v*#v#v#v :V l   0, 5 5*5555*555 / / /  / / / /  / / /  / / /  /  4alp kd$$Ifl gdBl"% **   0$$$$4 lalp R$$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l  (0,5 55/  / / / 4alp($$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l   0,5 55/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l   0,5 55/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l   0,5 55/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l   0,5 55/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l   0,5 55/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l   0,5 55/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l   0,5 55/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l   0,5 55/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v#v:V l   0,5 55/  / / / / 4alp  $$Ifl!vh55#v#v:V l   0,55/ / / / 4alp,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/ / / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5555#v#v#v:V l   0,555/  / / / /  / 4alp B$$Ifl!vh5j5 5@ #vj#v #v@ :V l    0,5j5 5@ / / / / / 4alp$$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/ / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/  / / / / / /  / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/ / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/  / / / / / /  / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/ / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/ / / / / / / / / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5j55555`5#vj#v#v#v#v#v`#v:V l   0,5j5555`5/  / / / /  / / /  / / / / 4alp J$$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l  (0,,5 5/  / / / 4alp($$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/  / / / / 4alp D$$Ifl!vh5` 555#v` #v:V l  (0,5` 5/  / / / 4alp($$Ifl!vh5` 555#v` #v:V l   0,5` 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 555#v` #v:V l   0,5` 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 555#v` #v:V l   0,5` 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 555#v` #v:V l   0,5` 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 555#v` #v:V l   0,5` 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 555#v` #v:V l   0,5` 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 555#v` #v:V l   0,5` 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 555#v` #v:V l   0,5` 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 555#v` #v:V l   0,5` 5/  / / / / 4alp D$$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l     (0,5 5/  / / / 4alp($$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/ / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 555#v #v:V l   0,5 5/  / / / / 4alp f$$Ifl!vh5` 55 #v` #v#v :V l    05` 55 / / / / / / / / 4alp,$$Ifl!vh5` 55 #v` #v#v :V l   05` 55 /  / / /  / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5` 55 #v` #v#v :V l   05` 55 / / /  / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5` 55 #v` #v#v :V l   05` 55 / / /  / / / / 4alp ,$$Ifl!vh5` 55 #v` #v#v :V l   05` 55 / /  /  / / / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5` 55 #v` #v#v :V l   05` 55 /  / / / / / 4alp $$Ifx!vh5@ 5#v@ #v:V x44   5@ 5/ / / /  / 44 xaxf4pz$$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V x       <5@ 55/  / /  / / / 44 xaxp<($$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V x   5@ 55/  / / / / / / / 44 xaxp 6$$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V x   5@ 55/  / / /  / / / /  / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh5@ 5#v@ #v:V x4   5@ 5/ /  /  / 44 xaxf4p$$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V x      <5@ 55/ / / / / / / 44 xaxp<$$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V x   5@ 55/ / / / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V x   5@ 55/ / / / / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V x   5@ 55/ / / / / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V x   5@ 55/ / / / / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V x   5@ 55/ / / / / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V x   5@ 55/ /  / / / /  / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh5@ 5#v@ #v:V x4O   5@ 5/ /  /  / 44 xaxf4p$$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V xO      <5@ 55/ / / / / / / 44 xaxp<$$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V xP   5@ 55/ /  / / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V xO   5@ 55/ /  / / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V xP   5@ 55/ /  / / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V xO   5@ 55/ / / / / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V xO   5@ 55/ /  / / / /  / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh5@ 5#v@ #v:V x4m  5@ 5/ / /  / / 44 xaxf4p~$$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V x <5@ 55/ /  / / / / 44 xaxp<$$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V x   5@ 55/ / / / / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V x   5@ 55/ / / / / / / 44 xaxp $$Ifx!vh5@ 55555#v@ #v#v:V xk   5@ 55/ /  / / / /  / 44 xaxp  $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l    05 5 / / /  / 4alp$$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / /  / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l  05 5 / /  / 4alp$$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5 5 5 #v #v :V l   05 5 / /  / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5{5#v{#v:V l4   0+5{5/ / /  4alf4pK$$Ifl!vh5{5{5{5{5{#v{:V l4      20+5{/ / / 4alf4p2$$Ifl!vh5{5{5{5{5{#v{:V l   05{/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5{5{5{5{5{#v{:V l   05{/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5{5{5{5{5{#v{:V l   05{/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5{5{5{5{5{#v{:V l   05{/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5{5{5{5{5{#v{:V l   05{/ / 4alp $$Ifl!vh5{5{5{5{5{#v{:V l   05{/ /  / 4alp ^ 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH <`< NormalCJ_HmH sH tH 8@8  Heading 1$@&5>@>  Heading 2$$@&a$58@8  Heading 3$@&68@8  Heading 4$@&5>@>  Heading 5$$@&a$5:@:  Heading 6$@&56F@F  Heading 7$$H@&^Ha$5DA`D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k (No List 4@4 Header  !4 @4 Footer  !.)@. Page Number:@":  Footnote TextCJ@&@1@ Footnote ReferenceH*2B@B2 Body Text5DC@RD Body Text IndenttH ubR@bb Body Text Indent 2# pX @@@J`^``6P@r6 Body Text 2-D@Q@@ Body Text 3 $-Da$CJ0U0 Hyperlink>*B*0>0 Title$a$5PK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$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\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] .Ho̊EfŜMd:Ƭݬ%` _kop~v~w7y{Cř|u3Z7;x2n  !"#$%&'()&%ch0tK#> I  K2~fa-0c[$Wn$^ $G^ $x^ $^  ??????AAAAAAttttttvvvyο z%4[Jj +EoS V ^ .^E_b -+#',,6GVKjt@At *Ŏ4b͏ޏAcؕ>fޖ:ZŗoΛ#3MYiʜ"5ASנ#=JZp&3{ߤ,Ŧ)@Sjӧ7Ndmè٨ !9Qj}ԩ4{Ұߴ&7Xoõ#%Hq.Z~ 9\ @\-Z{s(4L~e|-:GZf~ (IYe. Yav5Jg}   !I!h!!!G'J1c1v11111232S2n222223=3U38;Y;;;<:<c<<< =5=b==CbDvDDDDDDJK=KTKjKKKK L)LNPPPPPPP-X[\ \6\L\`\q\%^{Ȅ 3Cpņ̆*1HP_,҉ 'D]Ë;eŌӎf͐<Spܗ4dۘ Toƚ7m*|>M\ix0jŪUv8gϰ2Njζ!λ2IjO :VqEdo+-V8*[tN`Ck8h9jn}& p&/Rfv/j4C`w-$r(((())/)D)X)u)))))))**3*J*U*12 3.3A3X3g33333334&404T4k4u4444444 55)5G5I5]57;;;;;;W>>>>>>?&?LCCCCFbGGGJ[JJJK9KsKOPPPQ:QTTU@U{UUYKYhYYYYYY Z\s]]]]+apaaaa bee f1fWf{ffjjk1kMklkptQuuuuu v8vpvyyzzzz{{){B{X{l{{{{{|J}Uz<ń~~Ĉ 5RiqЉ "^uÊ.Ô;uŕWߖ.Wӗ֚!H /;PyǨ9Up<xͰ Pٱ @.{!L۴׷5f}Ƹݸ %`wƹݹ;S̺ #c{ 7OԼ WnýڽݽStj +RgSr-JpBvx+HP$D]r'_s \Kfz3w@jJ %+6  9 Z ~   !f8YS:hmtQ V V       !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~     !"#$%&'()*+,-/0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?3:<hoqy!!8@0(  B S  ? _Hlt432576021lnln v%T v%tv%3 v%$$v%Lv%v%]v%Lv%v%v%,+v%|v% v% v%Tv%v%v%rv%v% v%L !v% "v% #v%D~55CLLTT\n     ?HHUU$$[bbn 8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType9 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState    vwx xx!xxxxy΅҅Î(1"ڡ "-/3@Cx}  "+&&C&L&''AACCu|]jfs6C   / 8 Zhdqdsdxd~ddee@nBnCnEnFnHnInKnLnnn"%IK o3y3ITTTff%g)gtt^ubuvv~CF¯Plbh2277::2;5;@3@\\bbbb޽Zn3333333333333333333333333333333333Z@nsn}nnnn{ Z@nsn}nnnnjX Z;  % I& 8 VE    r 8 u A 1 3 F& `U)  + rV,j4Drp7 =9 iF LR !GS q^ $t`d Ir I&s  Y$x Az |bS  hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`o(. hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`o(. hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`o(. hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(@hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`5>*OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`.hh^h`CJo(. hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`o(.Z;jXLR8 +rp7I&%iF`U)1 Y$xAzu 8!GSVE F&q^A$t`drV,rV,Ђr3|bSI&s=9IrP'`l@hh^h`.o R{ZZ_AMO_XmlVersionL.Empty@45gn @   @  @   @   @ D @ @UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * ArialkWP TypographicSymbolsCourier NewA BCambria Math"qhCD&CD&!4d\X\X3HX? R{2!xx.Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Year TwoTCERlworley                         Oh+'0  ( H T ` lx0Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Year TwoTCER Normal.dotmlworley2Microsoft Office Word@F#@8@V@V՜.+,0 hp  TCER\X /Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Year Two Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F`rVData ɩ1TablerXWordDocument^ SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjy  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q