EfilC 

r-1111e-1m 

ED 430 323 

AUTHOR 

TITLE 

INSTITUTION 

SPONS AGENCY 

REPORT NO 

ISBN 

PUB DATE 

NOTE 

AVAILABLE FROM 

PUB TYPE 

EDRS PRICE 

DESCRIPTORS 

ABSTRACT 

DOCUMENT RESUME 

EA 029 862 

Berman, Paul; Nelson, Beryl; Perry, Rebecca; Silverman, 

Debra; Solomon, Debra; Kamprath, Nancy 

The State of Charter Schools. National Study of Charter 

School. Third-Year Report. 

RPP International, Emeryville, CA. 

National Inst. on Student Achievement, Curriculum, and 

Assessment (ED/OERI), Washington, DC.; Office of Educational 

Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. 

SAI-1999-3010 

ISBN-0-16-050048-6 

1999-06-00 

59p.; For the first and second year reports, see ED 409 620 

and ED 423 612. 

U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of 

Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328. 

Reports - Descriptive (141) 

MF01/PC03 Plus Postage. 

Annual Reports; *Charter Schools; Comparative Analysis; 

*Data Analysis; Elementary Secondary Education;

Nontraditional Education; Program Descriptions; Trend

Analysis

This report provides descriptive information on charter 

schools that were in operation during the 1997-98 school year. The report is 

part of a 4-year research program that will document and analyze the 

charter-school movement. Data were gathered using phone surveys, repeated 

field visits to a sample of charter schools and their surrounding districts, 

student achievement tests administered at a sample of charter schools, the 

collection of existing student assessments for a sample of charter schools 

and for other public schools, and other methods. The report opens with an 

overview of the charter movement, paying particular attention to the 

differences across charter states in terms of the number of charter schools. 

The next section summarizes basic characteristics of charter schools compared 

to other public schools, and includes such data as school size, grade-level 

configuration, percentages of certificated teachers, and student-to-computer 

ratios. The third section compares student-demographic features of charter 

schools to that of other public schools. The last section reviews data on 

several issues that are central to understanding how charter schools may 

operate differently from other public schools. Data show that an additional 

361 charter schools opened in 1998, raising the total number of charter 

schools to 1,050, operating in 27 states. (RJM) 

******************************************************************************** 

* 

* 

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made 

from the original document. 

*

* 

******************************************************************************** 
ofCharter

SCHOOLS

National Study of Charter Schools

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Educational Research end Improvement

EDUJATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced as

received from the person or organization

originating it.

0 Minor changes have been made to

improve reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this

document do not necessarily represent

official OERI position or policy.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

2
IS A

of Charter

SCHOOLS

Third-Year

RPP INTERNATIONAL

Paul Berman

Beryl Nelson

Rebecca Perry

Debra Silverman

Debra Solomon

Nancy Kamprath

Report

99

OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ii

U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

C. Kent McGuire

Assistant Secretary

National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum, and Assessment

Joseph C. Conaty

Director

Media and Information Services

Cynthia Hearn Dorfman

Director

June 1999

This study was funded by the U.S. Department of Education. The content does not necessarily

reflect the views of the Department or any other agency of the U.S. Government. This

publication is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part for

educational purposes is granted. The full text of this publication is available through the

Department's home page http://www.ed.gov

Tables and figures in this book that do not include source information are taken from the

surveys and site visits conducted in the National Study of Charter Schools.

4

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328

ISBN 0-16-050048-6

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the many people who contributed either directly and indirectly to

this Report. More than 600 directors of charter schools responded to our surveys, generously

taking time from handling their school operations. The information they provided formed the

basis of this Report. We extend a special thanks to the staff, students, and parents of the more

than 90 charter schools who allowed us to visit their schools, answered our questions, and

helped us learn from their experiences. They have madeand continue to makesignificant

contributions to our work.

Many others read and provided invaluable feedback on successive drafts of the Report. We

appreciate the thoughtful and insightful ideas, contributions, and comments of the Study's

Advisory Board. The members of the Advisory Board are: Jose Afonso, Massachusetts

Department of Education; William Lowe Boyd, Department of Education Policy Studies at The

Pennsylvania State University; Rexford Brown, P.S.1 Charter School; Joan Buckley, American

Federation of Teachers; Faith Crampton, National Education Association; Gary Hart, Institute

for Education Reform at California State University, Sacramento; Ted Kolderie, Center for

Policy Studies; and Joe Nathan, Center for School Change, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of

Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota.

A group of readers from the U.S. Department of Education reviewed drafts of the Report and

provided invaluable suggestions for improvement. This group included: Lisa Towne, Planning

and Evaluation Service; David Cleary, Budget Service; David Sweet and Duc-Le To, Office of

Educational Research and Improvement; Alex Medler, Office of Elementary and Secondary

Education; and Cathy Grimes-Miller from the Office of General Counsel.

The authors also would like to express their sincere appreciation to Judith Anderson and

Joseph Conaty of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement for their continuing

support for the research as well as for the considerable contributions they have made towards

shaping both the Study and this Report.

While appreciating the contributions of all of the reviewers, the authors accept full

responsibility for the content of the Report.

5

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

Executive Summary 1 About This Report 5

A. States and Charter Schools 9

1. The Expanding Charter School Movement 10

2. State Charter Legislation 12

3. Newly Created and Pre-existing Charter Schools 14

B. Basic Characteristics of Charter Schools 17

4. Enrollment by State 18

5. School Size 20

6. Grade-Level Configuration 22

7. Certificated Teachers 24

8. Computers for Instruction 26

C. Students of Charter Schools 29

9. Student Racial/Ethnic Composition 30

10. School Racial/Ethnic Distribution 32

11. Student Eligibility for Free and Reduced-Price Lunch 34

12. Students with Disabilities 36

13. Limited English Proficient Students 38

D. Starting, Implementing, and Being Accountable 41

14. Why Charter Schools are Started 42

15. Implementation Challenges 44

16. Autonomy and Control 46

17. Autonomy and Choice of Service Providers 48

18. External Accountability and Monitoring 50

19. External Accountability and Reporting 52

20. Accountability and Student Assessment 54

Appendix: Response Rate by State 56

G

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
Executive Summary

What sets charter schools apart from other public schools is their chartera contract with a state or

local agency that provides the school with public funds for a specified time. This contract frees charter

schools from a number of regulations that otherwise apply to public schools. In exchange, the charter

schools are accountable for improving student performance and achieving goals set out in the charter.

This Third-Year Report of the National Study of Charter Schools provides descriptive information on

charter schools that were operating in the 1997-98 school year. Subsequent reports of the National

Study will address broad policy issues concerning the charter school movement and its potential effects

on America's system of public education.

Growth Trends: The charter movement continued to expand in 1998

An additional 361 charter schools opened in 1998, bringing the total to 1,050 charter

schools in operation in 27 states plus the District of Columbia. Including multiple branches of a

school operating under the same charter, the total number of charter school sites operating was

1,129 as of September 1998.

The demand for charter schools remains high-7 of 10 report that they have a waiting list.

Thirteen charter schools closed in 1997-98. In total, 32 charter schoolswhich is about 3 percent

of all charter schoolshave closed since the first charter school opened in 1992.

The number of students in charter schools increased in 1997-98 by about 50,000, bringing the total

to about 160,000 students. This total represents only 0.6 percent of all public school students in the

23 charter states plus the District of Columbia that had open charter schools as of June, 1998.

During the 1998 legislative session, 4 new statesIdaho, Missouri, Virginia, and Utahpassed

charter legislation, bringing the total to 33 states and the District of Columbia. Several charter

states amended their lawstwo increased the number of charters that can be granted; two

expanded the number of agencies allowed to grant charters; one that previously only allowed preexisting public schools authorized newly created charter schools; two authorized funds for capital

improvement needs of charter schools; and 1 state increased the length of the charter term.

Characteristics of Charter Schools: Most charter schools are newly created, small

schools. The charter schools that opened during 1997-98 were more likely to be newlycreated, small schools than charter schools opening in prior years.

Even more so than in the past, recently opened charter schools are small. Currently, the median

enrollment of all charter schools is about 132 students per school, whereas all public schools in the

charter states have a median of about 486 students. The median size reported in the Second-Year

Report was about 149 students per charter school.

Many charter schools have atypical grade configurations. For 1997-98, 1 of 4 charter schools

spanned K-12, K-8, or were ungraded compared to fewer than 1 in 10 with similar configurations

for all public schools.

Seven of 10 charter schools are now newly created schools, compared to 6 of 10 for 1996-97. These

schools are smaller on average, than converted pre-existing public schools. Nine of the 33 states

with charter laws allow private schools to convert to charter schools. Private school conversions

represent 11 percent of all charter schools.

1 New York enacted charter legislation in December 1998. 7

1

The State of Charter
Most charter school teachers are certificated, but in those states that allow noncertificated

teachers charter schools have a somewhat lower percentage of certificated teachers than charter

schools in other states.

About 2 of 3 charter schools of a subsample of charter schools had a student to computer ratio of

fewer than 10 students per computer. The National Study estimates a median ratio for all charter

schools of six to one.

Students of Charter Schools: Nationwide, students in charter schools have similar

demographic characteristics to students in all public schools. However, charter schools

in some states serve significantly higher percentages of minority or economically

disadvantaged students.

Our data contain no evidence that charter schools disproportionately serve white and economically

advantaged students.

White students made up about 52 percent of charter school enrollment and about 58 percent of

public school enrollment in 1997-98. These figures are the same as in 1996-97.

Charter schools in several statesConnecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North

Carolina, and Texasserve a much higher percentage of students of color than all public schools

in those states.

Seven of 10 schools have a student racial/ethnic composition that was similar to its surrounding

districts. About 16 percent of charter schools serve a higher percentage of students of color than

their surrounding districts.

The estimated percentage of LEP students in charter schools is 10.1 percent, which is a slight drop

from the 12.7 percent reported for 1996-97. The comparable figure for all public schools in the 23

charter states and the District of Columbia is approximately 10.7 percent.

Without regard to differences across states, the reported percentage of students with disabilities at

charter schools is 8 percent, which is somewhat less than the 11 percent for all public schools in

these states.

The Founding of Charter Schools: Most charter schools aim to realize an alternative vision

of schooling.

Nearly 7 of 10 newly created charter schools seek to realize an alternative vision of schooling, and

an additional 2 of 10 were founded especially to serve a special target population of students. Four

of 10 public schools report that they converted to charter status in order to gain autonomy from

district and state regulations.

Many private schools that converted to charter status sought public funds so that they could

stabilize their finances and attract students.

8

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
Challenges Implementing Charter Schools: Practically all charter schools have had to

overcome obstacles during their development.

Most charter schools continue to cite resource limitations as a serious implementation difficulty.

Newly created charter schools were more likely to cite resource limitations as a major difficulty

than pre-existing charter schools.

About 3 of 10 charter schools that were formerly public schools reported that state or local board

opposition or regulations presented obstacles to their school's implementation. About one in five

schools that were formerly public indicated that they had difficulty with teacher unions or collective

bargaining agreements.

Autonomy and Accountability: Charter schools, particularly newly created ones, have

considerable autonomy. They provide standard financial and student achievement

reports to different constituencies depending on the state's approach to accountability.

The majority of charter schools felt they had primary control over most areas critical to school

operations. Fewer charter schools felt they had control over student admissions, budget, student

assessment, and school calendar. Compared to newly created charter schools, a lower proportion

of pre-existing public schools said they had primary control.

Most charter schools provide one or more non-instructional services (e.g., health services, social

services, and before and after schools care). Three of 10 newly created charter schools that provided

services chose to provide services themselves, with the remainder provided by districts and other

outside providers. In contrast, about 6 of 10 pre-existing charter schools rely on districts. Pre-existing

private schools were equally likely to provide services themselves and use an outside provider.

Nearly 9 of 10 charter schools were monitored for accountability in terms of financial accounts; 7

of 10 for student achievement and for student attendance; and 6 of 10 for compliance with

regulations and instructional practices.

The states differ greatly in how they approach accountability, with some following a "centralized"

state agency approach, others a "market" driven approach, and still others a "district-based"

approach that relies on local accountability within a framework of state testing.

More than 80 percent of charter schools (based on a subsample of schools) said they made reports

during the 1997-98 school year for accountability purposes to one or more constituencies, including

their chartering agency, school governing board, state Department of Education, parents, the

community, or private funders.

Almost 90 percent of charter schools (based on a subsample of schools) used student achievement

tests, augmented by other measures of student performance and school success to make reports to

their chartering agency, the schools governing board, and/or parents.

9

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
About This Report

The National Study of Charter Schools (the Study) is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education as

authorized by the 1994 Amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Study is a

4-year research program to document and analyze the charter school movement.

The Study's Focus. The Study addresses three major research questions:

How have charter schools been implemented?

Under what conditions, if any, have they improved student achievement?

What impact have they had on public education?

Drawing from research evidence, the Study also asks broad policy questions:

What models of education have charter schools developed that can be used by other public schools?

What lessons can be learned from the charter school experience for public education, and what

implications should be drawn for state and national policy?

How might charter schools evolve in the coming decade?

The Study's Research Approach. The Study's research consists of (1) annual phone surveys

of all charter schools; (2) repeated field visits to a sample of charter schools and their surrounding

districts; (3) the administration of student achievement tests over time at a sample of charter schools;

(4) the collection of existing student assessments for a sample of charter schools and for other public

schools at district and state levels; (5) analyzes across states of charter laws, state agency rulings and

procedures, court rulings, and education policy; and (6) case studies of how charter school policies and

local practices have worked and affected public education in five states.

This Report, the third annual report from the Study, presents interim findings that focus on describing

how charter schools are being implemented. Subsequent reports will address all of the questions listed

above. This Report in particular provides concise summaries of data that describe selected

characteristics of charter schools in comparison, wherever possible, to other public schools.

The Report's Organization. Section A begins with an overview of the charter movement. It

describes the growth of charter schools, with particular attention paid to the differences across the

charter states in terms of the number of charter schools and when they became operational. Since

charter school legislation is unique to each state, we summarize key characteristics of the charter laws

by state.

Section B summarizes basic characteristics of charter schools compared to other public schools. The

characteristics covered in this Report are school size, grade level configuration, percentages of

certificated teachers, and student to computer ratio.

Section C focuses on student demographic features of charter schools compared to other public schools.

This Report briefly describes the racial/ethnic composition of the schools, and the percentages of

students that are low income, have disabilities, or have limited proficiency in English.

Section D reviews data on several issues that are central to understanding how charter schools may

operate differently from other public schools. These issues include the reasons why charter schools

were started, challenges they have encountered during implementation, the autonomy they have for

making critical decisions, and the way in which they may be held accountable.

10

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
The Report's Data. The findings presented in this Report rely on three waves of telephone surveys

to all cooperating charter schools that were open to children during the 1997-98 school year, visits to 91

field sites across the country, and extensive analysis of state charter laws.

In the first year of a school's involvement in the study, a school administrator was asked to respond to

a new charter school telephone survey. In each subsequent year, they were asked to respond to a followup telephone survey. For the first wave of data collection (Spring 1996), 252 charter schools had opened

prior to or during the 1995-96 school year. These schools were asked to respond to the new school

survey in 1996 and follow-up surveys in 1997 and 1998. For the second wave of data collection (Spring

1997), 178 additional charter schools had opened and were asked to respond to the new school survey

in 1997 and the follow-up survey in 1988. For the third wave of data collection (Spring 1998), 284

additional charter schools had opened and were asked to respond to the new school survey in 1998.

Response rates for surveys ranged from 78 to 91 percent.

In general, this Report relies on the most recent information available but also draws from a range of

years (1996-98). Where possible, 1998 data are used. If we did not have data from a 1998 survey, the

information is taken from previous surveys, either the 1997 or the 1996 surveys.

In some cases we asked for information only on selected surveys. When we report on data gathered only

on a selected survey, we refer to a subsample of schools. Responses for questions asked only on the 1998

follow-up survey represent 79 percent of available charter schools (294 schools of a possible 373

responded). Responses for questions asked on both the 1997 and 1998 follow-up surveys represent 87

percent of available charter schools (326 schools of a possible 373 responded). Responses for questions

asked either on the 1997 new school survey or on a follow-up survey represent 97 percent of available

charter schools (361 schools of a possible 373 responded).

It should be noted that for tables that present data by state, we have omitted states with three or fewer

charter schools open to protect school confidentiality. In addition, data from states that have fewer than

10 charter schools may not be meaningful. It is also the case that some individual school data may be

incomplete if specific survey items were not answered. All figures and tables report the total number of

responses on which the findings are based.

For some tables, data other than the telephone survey were gathered. To estimate charter school

enrollment, we supplemented our telephone survey data with information from other sources. We drew

on state sources in Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan,

New Jersey, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania to include 1997-98 enrollment data for 59 missing schools in

those states. Where information was still unavailable for schools in those states, and in Georgia and

Texas, we were able to use enrollment information from the 1996-97 Common Core of Data Survey, Early

Release Files, published by the National Center for Education Statistics. The number of charter schools

represented by these data is 678, which is 94 percent of our estimate of the 717 charter schools in

operation during 1997-98.

i

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
Some tables in this Report provide comparison information about all public schools in the 24

states with operating charter schools.' [For the purposes of the remainder of this Report, we

refer to the District of Columbia as a "state] Public school data come from the U.S. Department

of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data Survey 1996-97

Early Release Files. These data refer to all public schools (including charter schools) in the 24

charter states. For public school information on racial demographics, 789 schools or 1.6 percent

of all public schools reported racial information that was considered invalid because it did not

match the total enrollment information, data is calculated on the basis of 49,316 public schools.

In all cases we drew on the best comparative data available.

NUMBER OF CHARTER SCHOOLS IN THE NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY

# schools for new

charter school survey

YEAR ASKED ANSWERED

# schools for first

follow-up survey

YEAR ASKED ANSWERED

# schools for second

follow-up survey

YEAR ASKED ANSWERED

Schools opened prior to

or during the 1995-1996

school year 1996 252 230 1997 228 178 1998 224 175

Additional schools opened

as of the 1996-1997

school year 1997 178 153 1998 149 118 X X X

Additional schools opened

as of the 1997-1998

school year 1998 284 246 X X X X X X

Total as of September, 1998 7172 629 377 296 175

I This definition excludes from the Study some charter-like schools. We have opted to exclude single state-sponsored specialty schools (e.g., state schools for the arts,

or schools for low-incidence special education students) even if they operate pursuant to the terms of a state-granted or charter-like contract. We have also excluded

some states that do not have formal charter legislation but have policies that create schools that share some charter-like characteristics (Oregon and Puerto Rico).

2 This number includes three schools that were open prior to or during the 1995-96 school year, but which were not reported as open at the time our survey was

conducted. These three schools were therefore not asked to respond to the survey

3 This number includes 10 schools that were closed as of the 1997-98 school year, 6 from the first wave of data and 4 from the second wave of data.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 12 The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
A. States and Charter Schools

THE EXPANDING CHARTER SCHOOL MOVEMENT 10

STATE CHARTER LEGISLATION 12

NEWLY CREATED AND PRE-EXISTING CHARTER SCHOOLS 14

13

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
THE EXPANDING CHARTER SCHOOL MOVEMENT

Charter schools have become an accepted part of the landscape of public education in 33 of the 50 states.

The 7 years since the 1991 passage of the first state's charter legislation have seen growth in both the

number of states with charter legislation and in the number of charter schools opening in those states.

While each state's law is unique, 34 states (including the District of Columbia) have legislation that

authorizes an entity to grant charters to schools that frees them from some or all of the state's

regulations in exchange for greater accountability for student outcomes.

As of September 1998, 34 states had enacted charter school legislation. The greatest increase in the

number of states with charter legislation was seen in 1996, with 8 states passing legislation in that year.

Four statesIdaho, Missouri, Virginia, and Utahenacted charter school legislation in the 1998

legislative session. Idaho's first two charter schools opened in September 1998, while the first charter

schools in Missouri, Virginia, and Utah are projected to open in the fall of 1999.

Twenty-eight states had operating charter schools as of September 1998. Although Arkansas, New

Hampshire, and Wyoming passed charter legislation during the 1995 legislative session, no charter

schools had opened in those states as of September 1998.

Since the first charter schools opened in 1992, the number of charter schools has grown rapidly with 361

new charter schools opening in September 1998. Demand for charter schools remains high; 70 percent

of the charter schools reported having a waiting list.

As of September 1998, the total number of charter schools in operation was approximately 1,050; if

multiple branches of Arizona schools operating under one charter were included, the total would be

approximately 1,129.

Charter schools are not distributed equally across states; 44 percent (457 schools) of charter schools are

located in 3 states: California, Michigan, and Arizona. On the other hand, 12 states have 15 or fewer

charter schools.

By the beginning of the 1998-99 school year, 32 charter schools had closed. This represents about 3

percent of the charter schools that had opened since 1992.

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF OPERATIONAL CHARTER SCHOOLS BY YEAR

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

1992

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999

1993 1994 1995 1996

14

1997 Sept. 1998
STATES WITH CHARTER LEGISLATION, BY YEAR, PASSED AS OF SEPTEMBER 1998

1771 177Z 177.3 177.4 1770 1770 177 / 1770

Minnesota California Colorado Arizona Alaska Connecticut Mississippi Idaho

Georgia Hawaii Arkansas District of Col. Nevada Missoul

Massachusetts Kansas Delaware Florida Ohio Virgink

Michigan New Hampshire Illinois Pennsylvania Utah

New Mexico Louisiana New Jersey

Wisconsin Rhode Island North Carolina

Wyoming South Carolina

Texas

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CHARTER SCHOOLS IN OPERATION AS OF SEPTEMBER 1998, BY STATE

Number of charter schools starting in the year closed as of

Total schools

operating

September 19982

New schools

September

1998

Total schools

September

1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998

Total 2 34 64 154 178 289 32 361 1,050

Minnesota 2 5 7 3 3 8 2 12 38

California 28 36 30 21 19 6 17 145

Colorado 1 13 10 8 19 1 10 60

Michigan 2 41 33 36 4 24 132

New Mexico 4 0 1 0 0 0 5

Wisconsin 2 3 6 7 0 12 30

Arizona 47 58 45 14 44 180

Georgia 3 9 9 1 7 27

Hawaii 2 0 0 0 0 2

Massachusetts 15 7 3 1 10 34

Alaska 2 13 0 2 17

Delaware 2 1 0 1 4

District of Columbia 2 1 1 16 18

Florida 5 28 1 38 70

Illinois 1 7 0 6 14

Louisiana 3 3 0 4 10

Texas 17 21 0 49 87

Connecticut 12 0 4 16

Kansas 1 0 14 15

New Jersey 13 0 17 30

North Carolina 34 1 26 59

Pennsylvania 6 0 25 31 Rhode Island 1 0 1 2

South Carolina 2 0 3 5

Idaho 2 2

Mississippi 1 1 Nevada

,... . 1 1 NOTE: The Study reports the number of charters given to individual entities, though some of these charters may use space within another school or be

connected to another school by some other arrangement. The number of charters listed above does not include the total number of school sites operating

under a charter. Some charters, particularly in Arizona, run similar programs in several sites around the state. In those cases, the Study only counts the

charter once. Several charters in California were awarded to districts or complexes of schools. Since each school within the group was previously a separate

school, the Study counts each school as a separate charter school. Taking into account multiple school sites operating under one charter, the Study

estimates that the total number of school sites operating under charters was 1,129 in September 1998.

1 New York enacted charter legislation in December 1998 as this Report was going to press.

2 The column "Total Schools Closed as of September 1998" reflects the cumulative number of charter schools closed since 1992.

3 The number of schools that opened in the 1997-98 school year is slightly different for some states than the number of schools reported lastyear as of

September 1997. The 1997-98 column includes several schools that opened later in the 1997-98 school year.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 15 The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
12

STATE CHARTER LEGISLATION

State authorizing legislation for charter schools establishes the state's charter school context; charter

legislation differs dramatically from state to state. In many ways, the 34 states with legislation

represent 34 different approaches to charter schools. Charter laws are not staticduring the 1998

legislative sessionqx states made significant changes in their laws. Charter laws differ on a number

of characteristics; some of the key characteristics are highlighted here.

Who can grant charters: State laws differ on the number and types of agencies that are allowed to grant

charters and whether potential charter schools can appeal those decisions. In 15 states, only local boards

can grant charters. Local boards are the final authority in seven of those states (Alaska, Kansas, Louisiana,

Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming), while local decisions can be appealed to another entity in

the other eight of those states (California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Montana, New Hampshire, and

South Carolina). Only the State Board can grant charters in six states (Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, New

Mexico, Rhode Island, and Utah). In New Jersey, only the State Commissioner can grant charters and in

Connecticut and Nevada both the local board and state board must approve a charter. The remaining 10

states allow multiple agencies to grant charters.

Types of charters allowed: Charter schools either come into existence as charter schools (newly created)

or were previously either public or private schools. State charter laws differ on the types of schools allowed.

All states allow the conversion of pre-existing public schools to charter status and all but three states

(Arkansas, Mississippi, and New Mexico) allow newly-created charter schools. Most states prohibit the

conversion of private schools to charter schoolspre-existing private schools are allowed to convert to

charters in just nine states (Arizona, District of Columbia, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina,

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin).

Number of charter schools allowed: State laws contain provisions governing the number of charter schools

allowed. Sixteen of the 34 states have no statewide limit on the number of charter schools allowed. The 18

remaining states limit either the absolute number of schools, the number allowed by district, or the number

allowed per year. In three states ( Mississippi, New Mexico, and Utah), the statewide limit on the number of

charter schools is fewer than nine schools.

Duration of charter term: Charter laws require schools to renew their charter after their charter term. The

length of the charter term ranges from an annual review required in Pennsylvania to 15-year charter terms

in Arizona and the District of Columbia. Most other states have charter terms ranging from 3 to 5 years.

Collective bargaining: Collective bargaining is allowed in all but three states with charter legislation.

Of the remaining 31 states, 22 had operating charter schools in the 1997-98 school year. The table

below shows the percentage of schools with teachers covered by collective bargaining agreements in

each of those 22 states.

KEY DIMENSIONS OF CHARTER LEGISLATION, BY STATE

State Who can grant charter Charter

Newly

created

creation

Preexisting

public

status

Preexisting

private

Number of

charter

schools

allowed

Duration of

charter term

Collective

bargaininc

allowed (%

of schools')

Alaska Local boards Yes Yes No 30 5 years Yes (100%)

Arizona Local boards, State board,

and State charter board Yes Yes Yes No limit 15 years Yes (2%)

Arkansas State board No Yes No No limit 3 years Yes

California Local boards + appeals Yes Yes No 100 annually'5 years Yes (57%)

Colorado Local boards + appeals Yes Yes No No limit 5 years Yes (8%)

Connecticut Both Local boards

and State board Yes Yes No 24' 5 years Yes (18%)

Delaware Local boards for

conversions and State

board for newly created Yes Yes No No limit 3 years Yes (0%)

District of Local boards,

Columbia State board, and State

charter board + appeals Yes Yes Yes 20 annually 15 years Yes (0%)

Florida Local boards + appeals Yes Yes No' Other limits' 3 years Yes 13%l The State "f Charter SCHOOLS 1999
13

KEY DIMENSIONS OF CHARTER LEGISLATION, BY STATE (CONTINUED)

State Who can grant charter Charter creation status Number of

charter

schools

allowed

Duration of

charter term

Collectiv

bargaininc

allowed (A

of schools',

Newly

created

Preexisting

public

Preexisting

private

Georgia State board Yes Yes No No limit 5 years No

Hawaii State board Yes Yes No 25 4 years Yes (100%

Idaho Local boards + appeals Yes Yes No 606 12 years Yes

Illinois Local boards with State

board review + appeals Yes Yes No' 45 3-5 years Yes (0%,

Kansas Local boards Yes Yes No 15 3 years Yes (100%

Louisiana Local boards and State

board + appeals Yes Yes No 42 5 years Yes (0%;

Massachusetts Local boards for

conversions and State

board for newly created Yes Yes No 50 5 years Yes (0%,

Michigan Local boards and IHEs Yes Yes Yes No limit Up to 10 years Yes (5%,

Minnesota Local boards and

IHEs + appeals Yes Yes Yes No limit 3 years Yes (8%

Mississippi Local boards and

State board No Yes No 6 4 to 6 Yes

Missouri Local boards + appeals Yes Yes Yes Other limits' 5-10 years Yes

Nevada Both Local boards

and State board Yes Yes No Other limits9 3 years Yes

New Hampshire Local boards

+ appeals Yes Yes No 10 annually'° 5 years Yes

. New Jersey State Commissioner Yes Yes No 135 4 years Yes (0%;

New Mexico State board No Yes No 5 5 years Yes (75%;

North Carolina Local boards,

State board, and IHEs Yes Yes Yes 100 5 years No

Ohio Local boards and

State board Yes Yes No No limit 3 years Yes

Pennsylvania Local boards Yes Yes Yes No limit Annual review Yes (0%;

Rhode Island State board Yes Yes No 20 5 years Yes (100%;

South Carolina Local boards

+ appeals Yes Yes Yes No limit 3 years No

Texas Local boards for

conversions and State Specified

board for newly created Yes Yes Yes No limit" in charter Yes (21%;

Utah State board Yes Yes No 8 3 years Yes

Virginia Local boards Yes Yes No 2 per district 3 years No

Wisconsin Local boards Yes Yes Yes'2 No limit Up to 5 years Yes (94N

lAlw,rrsinn I nrni Innnrric Vcc Voc Kin Kin limit Kin Voc

1 The last column of the table states whether collective bargaining is permitted in the state. The number in parentheses is the percentage of schools that have teachers who

are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. States with "Yes" without a percentage in parentheses had no operating schools during the 1997-98 school year.

2 In California, the cap was raised from 100 to 250 in 1997-98, with 100 additional charters allowed per year thereafter.

3 Charter legislation in Connecticut and New Jersey requires a legislative review (including a review of the number of charter schools allowed) in 1999 and2000 respectively

4 Although Florida's law does not allow private schools to apply directly for charter status, the state allows private schools to convert to charter statusif they disband,

reincorporate as a new organization with a new board, and enroll students in a public lottery

° The Florida legislation does not specify a statewide limit on the number of charter schools, the legislation does restrict the number of charters granted in each district

based on district size. The effective cap for the state is 974 schools.

6 The Idaho legislation limits the annual number of charters to 12 with a statewide limit of 60.

Illinois state legislation stipulates that a private school must cease operation as a private school before applying for charter status.

8 Missouri law states that no more than 5 percent of the buildings used for instruction in a district may be converted to charter schools.

9 Nevada law limits the number of charters granted in each district based on district size, creating an effective cap of about 17 schools, with an exception for schools focusing

on at-risk students.

19 The New Hampshire legislation allows 10 charters annually until the year 2000.

11Texas legislation does not limit campus charters, but limits open-enrollment charters to 100 with no limit for charters serving at-risk students.

12 Wisconsin's law allows the conversion of private schools only in Milwaukee.

BEST COM/AVAILABLE The State 13f Charter SCHOOLS 1999
14

NEWLY CREATED AND PRE-EXISTING CHARTER SCHOOLS

State charter legislation determines whether charter schools can be created from scratch and whether

previously public or private schools can convert to charter status. The states' charter laws differ

greatly in this regard. Some states restrict charter status only to previously operating public schools

while others allow newly created, pre-existing public, and pre-existing private schools to become

charters. Throughout this report and our previous reports, we show that newly created, pre-existing

public, and pre-existing private school conversions differ greatly in terms of school size, grade levels,

the reasons that charter schools were started, the difficulties they encounter during implementation,

and their autonomy.

State charter legislation in all 24 states that had operating charter schools in the 1997-98 school year

allowed for the conversion of public schools to charter status. Legislation in 22 states permitted the

creation of newly created charter schools. Laws in eight states allowed for the conversion of private

schools to charter status, but in two other statesFlorida and Illinoisprivate schools must cease

operation and be fully reconstituted if they are to convert into charter schools.

As of the 1997-98 school year, most charter schools-70 percentwere newly created, while 19 percent

were pre-existing public schools, and 11 percent were pre-existing private schools.

In Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, and Texas, one in five charter schools converted from private

schools. Each of these states permitted the conversion of private schools into charter status and had

more than 10 open charter schools in 1997-98.

The percentage of newly created charter schools has increased over time: 84 percent of the schools that

opened in 1997-98 were newly-created in contrast to 53 percent of schools that opened in the 1994-95

school year or earlier.

ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY CREATION STATUS

Pre-existing Private

11%

Pre-existing Public

19%

The State "f Charter SCHOOLS 1999

Newly Created

70%

18
ESTIMATED NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF NEWLY CREATED AND PRE-EXISTING CHARTER

SCHOOLS, BY YEAR OF SCHOOL OPENING

Charter Schools

Number of

created

Newly

public

Pre-existing

private

Pre-existing

Total in 1997-98 619 434 120 65

% of Total 70.1% 19.4% 10.5%

Opened 1994-95 or earlier 98 53.0% 43.9% 3.1%

Opened 1995-96 143 64.3% 21.0% 14.7%

Opened 1996-97 163 67.4% 16.0% 16.6%

Opened 1997-98 215 83.7% 9.8% 6.5%

ESTIMATED NUMBER AND PERCENTAGES OF CHARTER SCHOOLS, BY CREATION STATUS AND STATE, SPRING 1998

Total

All Schools

Newly created

# %

Pre-existing

#

public

%

Pre-existing

#

privatl

cA Total 619 434 70.1% 120 19.4% 65 10.57,

Alaska 12 12 100.0% 0 0.0% NA NA

Arizona 127 88 69.3% 14 11.0% 25 19.77,

California 120 68 56.7% 52 43.3% NA NA

Colorado 49 45 91.8% 4 8.2% NA NA

Connecticut 11 11 100.0% 0 0.0% NA NA

Delaware 3 3 100.0% 0 0.0% NA NA

District of Columbia 3 1 33.3% 1 33.3% 1 33.3%,

Florida 31 29 93.5% 0 0.0% 2' 6.5T(

Georgia 18 NA NA 18 100.0% NA NA

Hawaii 2 0 0.0% 2 100.0% NA NA

Illinois 6 4 66.7% 1 16.7% 12 16.7%,

Kansas 1 0 0.0% 1 100.0% NA NA

Louisiana 6 5 83.3% 1 16.7% NA NA

Massachusetts 21 19 90.5% 2 9.5% NA NA

Michigan 45 68 71.6% 7 7.4% 20 21.1%,

Minnesota 25 22 88.0% 2 8.0% NA (13) 4.07,

North Carolina 27 21 77.8% 1 3.7% 5 18.5%;

New Jersey 6 6 100.0% 0 0.0% NA NA

New Mexico 4 NA NA 4 100.0% NA NA

Pennsylvania 4 2 50.0% 0 0.0% 2 50.0%,

Rhode Island 1 0 0.0% 1 100.0% NA NA

South Carolina 1 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0

Texas 29 19 65.5% 3 10.3% 7 24.131

Wisconsin 17 10 58.8% 6 35.3% l 5.9°A NOTE: These data rely on responses from the 619 open charter schools that responded to the telephone survey

NOTE: NA indicates that the state's legislation did not allow for that type of charter school when the schools that responded to our 1998 surveyreceived

their charters. Several states have since changed their laws to allow more types of charter schools.

I Although Florida's law does not allow private schools to apply directly for charter status, the state allows private schools to convert to charter status if

they disband, reincorporate as a new organization with a new board, and enroll students in a public lottery

2 Illinois state legislation stipulates that a private school must cease operation as a private school before applying for charter status.

3 One Minnesota private nonsectarian school converted to charter status. The Minnesota Attorney General has issued an opinion that casts doubt on

whether other private schools can convert unless the developers had first tried to establish a newly created charter school and were denied.

4 Wisconsin's law allows for the conversion of private schools only in Milwaukee.

BESTCOPYAVAILABLE 13

15

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
B. Basic Characteristics of

Charter Schools

ENROLLMENT BY STATE 18

SCHOOL SIZE 20

GRADE-LEVEL CONFIGURATION 22

CERTIFICATED TEACHERS 24

COMPUTERS FOR INSTRUCTION 26

2 0

17

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
18

ENROLLMENT BY STATE

The number of students in charter schools varied greatly across the 24 states with operating charter

schools in the 1997-98 school year ranging from fewer than 100 students in Kansas to more than

50,000 students in California. Regardless of the size of the state's student population, charter schools

continued to enroll a small percentage of public school students.

During the 1997-98 school year, our data show that charter school enrollment totaled 162,130 in 678 of

the 717 open charter schools. This enrollment was 0.6 percent of the students in public schools (in

1996-97) in the 24 charter states that had operating charter schools.

California had the most charter school students-55,764 or 34 percent of all charter school students in

the 24 charter states. California charter school enrollment represented 1 percent of the total public

school enrollment in the state.

Arizona, the state with the second highest number of charter school students, had an estimated 25,128

students enrolled in charter schools. This enrollment was more than 3 percent of the state's public

school enrollment, which makes Arizona the state with the highest percentage of public school students

enrolled in charter schools.

Charter school enrollment in the remaining states (omitting Arizona) ranged from less than 0.1 percent

to 1.6 percent of public school enrollment.

ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT IN CHARTER SCHOOLS AND ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE 24 CHARTER STATES

State Charter school enrollment,

1997-98

All public school enrollment,

Fall 1996

% of public school students

who are in charter schools

Total 162,130 28,239,728 0.6%

Alaska

Arizona

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Illinois

Kansas

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Texas

Wisconsin

1,097

25,128

55,764

10,888

1,084

365

235

3,123

14,522

832

2,117

70

463

6,360

18,273

2,892

1,424

4,563

4,488

974

190

156

5,533

1,589

126,015

749,759

5,535,312

673,438

523,054

110,549

79,159

2,240,283

1,321,239

188,485

1,961,299

465,140

777,570

936,794

1,662,100

836,700

1,221,013

330,522

1,199,962

1,807,250

151,181

648,980

3,809,186

884,738

0.9%

3.4%

1.0%

1.6%

0.2%

0.3%

0.3%

0.1%

1.1%

0.4%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.7%

1.1%

0.3%

0.1%

1.4%

0.4%

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

NOTE: Charter school enrollment data includes data for 678 charter schools and is based on 3 sources of data: (1) responses from 618 of 619 charter schools

that responded to the Study's telephone survey (1 school did not provide enrollment information) supplemented with (2) enrollment information from state

data sources, and (3) the U.S. Department of Education National Center for Educational Statistics, Common Core of Data Survey, 1996-97 Early Release

Files.

21

The State Of Charter SCHOOLS 1999 BESTCOPYAVAILABLE
CHARTER SCHOOL ENROLLMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, BY STATE

Alaska

Arizona

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Illinois

Kansas

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Texas

Wisconsin

0 0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5%

Percentage of students in all public schools

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 22

19

The State ofCharter SCHOOLS 1999
20

SCHOOL SIZE

One of the most dramatic characteristics of the charter school movement is the very high percentage

of charter schools that are small schools. Our research suggests that both charter school founders and

parents highly value a small school environment and that small school size appears to be a principal

reason for the high demand for charter schools.

Approximately 65 percent of all charter schools were small schools enrolling fewer than 200 students in

1997-98. About 36 percent enrolled fewer than 100 students. In contrast, about 17 percent of all public

schools in the 24 charter states enrolled fewer than 200 students and only 8 percent enrolled fewer than 100

students (in 1996-97). The median number of students in charter schools is 132 compared to 486 in all public

schools.

Only about 10 percent of charter schools enrolled more than 600 students, compared to more than one-third

(36 percent) of all public schools.

Newly created charter schools were most likely to be small: 74 percent of newly created charter schools

enrolled fewer than 200 students, while 35 percent of charter schools that were pre-existing public schools

enrolled fewer than 200 students. The median number of students is significantly higher for pre-existing

public schools (385) than for either newly created (111) or pre-existing private (125).

Only 4 percent of newly-created charter schools enrolled more than 600 students compared to 35 percent

of charter schools that were pre-existing public schools, many of which were large secondary schools.

The enrollment distribution of charter schools that were pre-existing private schools more closely

resembles the enrollment distribution of newly created charter schools than pre-existing public schools.

ESTIMATED SCHOOL SIZE FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS AND ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE 24 CHARTER STATES

All public schools Charter schools

Lnarter cnooi urearion .1CITUS Newly created Pre-existing public Pre-existinc

privatE

Number of schools 50,105 678 433 120 65 Median number of students 486 132 111 385 12.! School Enrollment Range % of schools

1-99 8.2% 36.4% 43.4% 15.0% 33.8

100-199 8.3% 29.8% 30.9% 20.0% 43.1

200-599 47.3% 23.6% 21.5% 30.0% 18.5

600-999 25.2% 7.1% 2.8% 23.3% 3.1

1,000 or more 11.0% 3.1% 1.4% 11.77 1.5

NOTE: The third column called "Charter schools" includes data for 678 charter schools and is based on 2 sources of data: (1) responses from 618 open

charter schools that responded to the Study's telephone survey supplemented with enrollment information from state data sources and (2) the U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, Common Core of Data Survey 1996-97 Early Release Files. The percentages in

columns 4,5, and 6 for the different types of charter schools rely only on the first source of data, the responses from 618 charter schools. The distribution

of school size for the 618 is almost the same as that for the 678 charter schools. For the 618 charter schools, the median numberof students is 128. We

report size for 618 of 619 survey respondents because one school did not report enrollment information and we were unable to obtain this information

either from the school or from other sources at the time of this report.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD) Survey, 1996-97, Early Release Files. We

use the CCD data here rather than data from the Digest of Education Statistics because the enrollment distribution is based on school-by-school

enrollment figures; the Digest provided only overall enrollment figures for each state.

23

The State "f Charter SCHOOLS 1999
ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOOL SIZE FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS

AND ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Median number of students

Charter schools=132

Public schools=486

1-99 100-199 200-599

Student enrollment

600-999 1,000 or

more

ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOOL SIZE FOR NEWLY-CREATED

AND PRE-EXISTING CHARTER SCHOOLS

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

21

charter schools

ID all public schools

Newly created Pre-existing public

Creation status

Pre-existing private

2 4

less than 100

Li 100-199

200-599

ICI 600-999

1,000 or more

The State °Charter SCHOOLS 1999
/22

GRADE-LEVEL CONFIGURATION

State laws generally allow a charter school to choose the age range of students it will serve (from the

state's minimum to its maximum compulsory attendance age). About one-quarter of charter schools

have opted for K-8, K-12, or ungraded schools, returning to an older tradition in American education

where students are together for an extended time.

About half (52 percent) of all charter schools in 1997-98 had the traditional grade-level configurations of

elementary, middle, and high school, compared to 78 percent in all public schools in the 24 charter states

(in 1996-97). '

About 16 percent of charter schools spanned grades kindergarten through 8 compared to about 6 percent

of all public schools and about 8 percent of charter schools spanned kindergarten through grade 12

compared to about 2 percent of all public schools.

Nine percent of charter schools were exclusively primary schools, focused on early education in

kindergarten through grade 3. This compares to about 6 percent of all public schools in the 24 charter

states.

One-quarter of charter schools that were pre-existing public schools were high schools compared to 15

percent of all public schools. Charter schools that were pre-existing private schools were more likely to

be primary, K-8, middle-high, and K-12 grade level schools than were either newly created or preexisting public schools.

ESTIMATED GRADE-LEVEL DISTRIBUTION FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS AND ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE 24

CHARTER STATES

Charter School Creation Status

All public schools Charter schools Newly-created Pre-existing public Pre-existing

private

Number of schools 50,105 619 434 120 65

% of schools

Primary 5.9% 9.0% 9.9% 4.2% 12.3%

Elementary 47.3% 26.7% 24.0% 36.7% 26.2%

Middle 14.9% 10.0% 12.0% 8.3% 0.0%

K-8 5.9% 16.3% 16.8% 11.7% 21.5%

Middle-high 5.6% 10.7% 10.8% 7.5% 15.4%

High 15.2% 15.7% 14.5% 25.0% 6.2%

K-12 2.3% 7.9% 7.8% 5.8% 12.3%

Other 2.1% 2.7% 3.2% 0.8% 3.1%

Ungraded 0.8% 1.0% 0.9% 0.0% 3.1%

NOTE: These data rely on responses from the 619 open charter schools that responded to the telephone survey

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data Survey, 1996-97 Early Release Files,

I Grade levels are defined as follows: Primary includes only grades K-3; Elementary includes any of grades K-3 and any of grades 4-6; Middle includes

any of grades 5-8 and no grades K-4 or 9-12; K-8 includes any of grades K-1 and any of grades 4-6 and any of grades7-8 and no grades 9-12; Middlehigh includes any of grades 6-8 and any of grades 9-12 and no grades K-5; High includes any of grades 9-12 and no grades K-8; K-12 includes any of

grades K-3 and any of grades 4-6 and any of grades 7-8 and any of grades 9-12; Other includes all other grade-level breakdowns; Ungraded indicates

no grade levels used at the school.

1.

The State °fCharter SCHOOLS 1999
ESTIMATED GRADE-LEVEL DISTRIBUTION FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS

Primary

Ungraded

1% \--\ \ Other N \

3% N \

K-12

Elementary

27%

Middle

8% __------ 10%

High,

16%

Middle-high

11%

\ K-8

16%

GRADE-LEVEL DISTRIBUTION FOR ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE 24 CHARTER STATES

Ungraded

1%

2%

K-12

2%

Primary

6%

High

15%

Middle-high

6%

Elementary

/47%

K-8

6%

2 6

Middle

15%

23 \

The State ofCharter SCHOOLS 1999
24

CERTIFICATED TEACHERS

Charter legislation frees charter schools from many state regulations, but teacher certification is one

area in which the state charter laws vary in terms of how much freedom they allow charter schools.

More than half of the charter states require charter schools to hire certificated staff In the other states,

charter schools are free to hire noncertificated teachers.

Legislation in 14 of the charter states requires teacher certification. In most of those states, the

percentage of certificated teachers in charter schools was similar to the percentage in all public schools.

Four states-Delaware, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania-were exceptions to this

statement. Each of these states has at least 10 percent fewer certificated teachers in charter schools

than in all public schools.

Legislation in 10 of the charter states either does not require teacher certification or does not specify

whether teacher certification is required. Charter schools in six of these states-Arizona, Florida,

Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas, and the District of Columbia-hired at least 10 percent fewer certificated

teachers than all public schools in these states.

ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF CERTIFICATED STAFF IN CHARTER SCHOOLS AND ALL PUBLIC

SCHOOLS IN THE 24 CHARTER STATES

State law requires

State teacher certification

for charter school teachers'

% of certificated instructional staff

Charter schools All public schools

Alaska Yes 86.7% 91.5%

Arizona No 72.7% 87.5%

California No 79.5% 87.3%

Colorado Yes(1) 82.8% 91.4%

Connecticut No 83.7% 85.5%

Delaware Yes 79.2% 89.6%

District of Columbia No 50.6% 85.8%

Florida No 71.0% 89.8%

Georgia Yes(1) 92.5% 92.4%

Hawaii No 90.1% 83.0%

Illinois No 49.3% 93.6%

Kansas Yes 100.0% 98.4%

Louisiana Yes(2) 67.3% 89.4%

Massachusetts No 73.4% 93.7%

Michigan Yes 86.6% 87.3%

Minnesota Yes 87.4% 95.5%

New Jersey Yes 91.2% 96.3%

New Mexico Yes 90.6% 93.5%

North Carolina Yes(3) 64.7% 90.2%

Pennsylvania Yes (2) 70.0% 93.8%

Rhode Island Yes 100.0% 93.9%

South Carolina Yes (4) 86.7% 93.8%

Texas Not specified 70.2% 90.9%

Wisconsin No(5) 97.2% 95.7%

NOTE: This exhibit is based on responses from 608 of the 619 open charter schools that responded to the telephone survey. Percentage of

certificated staff is computed by dividing total number of certificated classroom and special education teachers by the total number of instructional

staff including certificated classroom and special education teachers, noncertificated classroom and resource teachers, and other instructional

staff, excluding aides and assistants.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical

Profile, 1993-1994. Certificated instructional staff include teachers with advanced, regular, and alternative certification.

1 "Yes" means that the state law required the same level of certification as in other public schools; waiver provisions in effect for other public

schools also apply to charter schools. (1) In Georgia and Colorado, certification requirements may be waived. (2) In Louisiana and Pennsylvania,

at least 75 percent of the staff must be certified. (3) In North Carolina, 75 percent of grade K-5 teachers and 50 percent of grade 6-12 teachers

must be certificated. (4) In South Carolina, in new schools at least 75 percent must be certified while in pm-existing schools, at least 90 percent

must be certified. (5) In Wisconsin, certification is not required if certified staff are not available.

"!

I The State °f Charter SCHOOLS 1999
25 \\

ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF CERTIFICATED STAFF IN CHARTER SCHOOLS AND ALL PUBLIC

SCHOOLS IN THE 24 CHARTER STATES

Alaska

Arizona

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Illinois

Kansas

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Texas

Wisconsin

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of teachers

2 8

charter schools

ID all public schools

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
COMPUTERS FOR INSTRUCTION

One of the seven priorities of the U.S. Department of Education is to have every classroom connected

to the Internet by the Year 2000 and to have all the students be technologically literate. In order for

public schools to make progress toward these goals, they must provide technology access for students

in the classroom. Unlike other public schools, howevei; some charter schools are new organizations

that face fiscal difficulties that may limit the schools' ability to purchase computers or to develop a

technologically strong academic program. On the other hand, a swprisingly large proportion of

charter schools use computers extensively and the majority of computers in charter schools have

multimedia capability.

The estimated average student to computer ratio in charter schools is 9.8 which is slightly less than the

estimated 10.0 average for all public schools in 1996-97.'

About two-thirds of our sample of charter schools had a student to computer ratio of fewer than 10

students per computer. The estimated median student to computer ratio is 6.0 to 1 across this sample of

charter schools.

About 6 of 10 charter schools have computers available for instruction in more than three-quarters of

their classrooms. However, 15 percent of charter schools have classrooms with no computers available

for instruction.

Regardless of the number of computers in charter schools, 60 percent of charter schools have a

large percentage (more than three-quarters) of computers capable of running advanced or

multimedia applications.

ESTIMATED STUDENT TO COMPUTER RATIO FOR A SELECTED SAMPLE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

# of schools % of schools

Total in sample 355

1 to less than 5

5 to less than 10

10 or more

0 computers used for instruction

117

123

96

19

33.0%

34.7%

27.0%

5.3%

ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS USING COMPUTERS IN THEIR CLASSROOMS

AND PERCENTAGE OF COMPUTERS CAPABLE OF RUNNING MULTIMEDIA APPLICATIONS

Charter schools that have the following proportion of

Classrooms with computers

used for instruction

Computers with

multimedia capacity'

Total in sample

# of schools

354

% of schools # of schools

332

% of schools

None 54 15.3% 27 8.1%

Up to one-quarter 34 9.6% 30 9.0%

One-quarter to one-half 36 10.2% 47 14.2%

One-half to three-quarters 13 3.7% 28 8.4%

Three-quarters to all 217 61.2% 200 60.2%

NOTE: These data are drawn from questions asked only in the 1997 new schools survey and the 1997 or 1998 follow-up surveys; resulting in

responses from 365 schools. Out of these 365 schools, 355 reported information on number of computers. Columns 2 and 3 in the second table are

based on responses from 354 of the 355 possible schools, one schools did not provide information about percent of classrooms using computers.

Columns 4 and 5 in the second table are based on responses from 332 of the 335 possible schools; 19 schools reported that they had no computers

available for instruction and thus the student to computer ratio could not be computed for these schools. Four additional schools did not report

information on multimedia computers.

1 Computers and Classrooms: The Status of Technology in U.S. High Schools. May 1997. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Policy

Information Center. This average represents all 50 states.

2 The distribution of schools with multimedia or advanced capacity is similar across charter schools without regard to the numbers of computers

at the school with the exception that schools with 10 or fewer computers are slightly less likely to have multimedia capacity than schools with

more than 10 computers.

The State Of Charter SCHOOLS 1999

2 kr), BEST COPY AVAILABLE
ESTIMATED STUDENT TO COMPUTER RATIO FOR A SELECTED SAMPLE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

1 to less

than 5

5 to

less than 10

10 or more

Student to computer ratio

0 computers

used for

instruction

ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF CLASSROOMS IN CHARTER SCHOOLS WITH COMPUTERS USED

FOR INSTRUCTION

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

None Up to One-quarter One-half to Three-quarters

one-quarter to three-quarters to all

one-half

BESTC 41,

Proportion of classrooms

PY AVAILABLE 3 0

27

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
C. Students of Charter Schools

STUDENT RACIAL/ETHNIC COMPOSITION 30

SCHOOL RACIAL/ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION 32

STUDENT ELIGIBILITY FOR FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE

LUNCH 84

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 36

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS 38

31

29

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
STUDENT RACIAL/ETHNIC COMPOSITION

One fear regarding the charter movement is that charter schools will be elitist schools, serving a lower

proportion of students of color than other public schools. Our research suggests that, in fact, most

charter schools had about the same percentage of white students as their district average. More than

70 percent of charter schools were within 20 percent of the average district percentage of white

students, while about 16 percent had a distinctly higher percentage of students of color than their

surrounding district. The remaining 12 percent of schools had a lower percentage of students of color

than their surrounding district.

This table shows two methods for comparing the racial/ethnic composition of charter schools to the

racial/ethnic composition of all public schools. Both methods indicate that charter schools have enrolled

a slightly larger percentage of students of color than all public schools.

When the total number of students is used as the base for calculation, slightly more than half (52

percent) of the charter school students (in 1997-98) were white, compared to almost 60 percent white

students in all public schools in the 24 charter states (in 1996-97). Charter schools were also slightly

more likely to serve black, Hispanic, and American Indian students (19,21, and 4 percent, respectively)

compared to all public schools in the 24 charter states that served 17 percent black students, 19 percent

Hispanic students, and 1 percent American Indian students.

Using the school as the base for calculation, the average estimated percentage of white students across

charter schools (55 percent) was somewhat lower than the average percentage of white students across

all public schools (63 percent). On average, charter schools enrolled a slightly larger percentage of black

students (22 percent) than all public schools (16 percent).

RACIAL/ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF CHARTER SCHOOL STUDENTS (1997-98), COMPARED TO ALL PUBLIC SCHOOL

STUDENTS IN THE 24 CHARTER STATES (1996-97)

Students

# of students in category

Schools

% of students in category

Average of school % of

students in racial category

Racial/ethnic categories Charter

schools

Public

schools

Charter

schools

Public

schools

Charter

schools

Public

schools

Total ' 138,935 27,886,307 589 49,316

White, not of Hispanic origin 71,943 16,367,055 51.8% 58.7% 55.0% 62.5%

Black, not of Hispanic origin 26,393 4,680,563 19.0% 16.8% 22.0% 16.0%

Hispanic 28,554 5,395,949 20.6% 19.3% 15.7% 16.6%

Asian or Pacific Islander 5,157 1,164,334 3.7% 4.2% 2.5% 3.3%

American Indian or Alaska Native 5,310 278,392 3.8% 1.0% 4.0% 1.6%

Other 2 1,578 NA 1.1% NA 0.8% NA

NOTE: These data rely on responses from 580 of 619 open charter schools that responded to the survey The 589 schools were those with valid racial data; that

is, schools where the number of students in the racial/ethnic categories was equal to the total student enrollment reported. Data from 30 schools were considered

invalid for this analysis.

1 These totals differ somewhat from totals presented earlier. The charter school total relies on 589 open charter schools as indicated above, while other figures

utilize different numbers of schools. The total for all public schools differs from that presented in exhibit 5 because it relies on data from differentsources and different years.

2 The National Center for Education Statistics does not report an "other" racial category

Ile State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999

32
CHARTER SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, BY RACE/ETHNICITY COMPARED

TO PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT IN THE 24 CHARTER STATES

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

charter schools

ID all public schools

White Black

II

Hispanic Asian/ American

Pacific Indian or

Islander Alaska

Native

Racial/Ethnic Category

Other

STUDENT RACIAL/ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF CHARTER SCHOOLS COMPARED TO THEIR

SURROUNDING DISTRICTS

72% of charter schools

are not distinct from the

district (within 20% of

district average)

16% of charter schools

have higher % non-white

students than the district

(>20% of the district

average)

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

12% of charter schools

have lower % non-white

students than the district

(<20% of the district

average)

33

31

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
32

SCHOOL RACIAL/ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION

The states vary greatly in the racial/ethnic composition of their public school students, and charter

schools generally mirror the state's racial composition. Howevei; charter schools in 14 of the 24 charter

states enrolled a considerably higher percentage of non-white students than do the other public schools.

In some cases, this focus results from provisions in state law that target charter schools toward serving

disadvantaged students.

In 14 states, the percentage of white students enrolled in charter schools in 1997-98 was lower (at least

5 percent lower) than the percentage of white students in all public schools in the state in 1996-97.

Of the 13 states with 10 or more charter schools, charter schools in 6 statesConnecticut,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Texasenrolled a much lower percentage of

white students than all public schools.

In four statesAlaska, California, Colorado, and Georgiacharter schools enrolled a higher

percentage of white students than all public schools. This percentage difference was greater than 10

percent in Alaska and Georgia.

Two statesArizona and Floridahad about the same (less than 5 percent difference) percentage of

white students in charter schools as compared to all public schools.

ESTIMATED AVERAGE OF SCHOOL PERCENTAGES OF WHITE STUDENTS ACROSS CHARTER

SCHOOLS AND ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN STATES WITH MORE THAN 20 CHARTER SCHOOLS

Arizona

California

Colorado

Florida

Michigan

Minnesota

North Carolina

Texas

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of white students

34

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999

charter schools

0 all public schools
ESTIMATED AVERAGE SCHOOL RACIAL/ETHNIC PERCENTAGES ACROSS CHARTER SCHOOLS AND

ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS

State # of schools % White % Black % Hispanic % Asian/ % American Indian % Other'

Pacific Island Alaska Native

Alaska charter 10 81.6% 2.3% 1.1% 3.2% 11.6% 0.2%

all public 482 63.1% 4.7% 2.9% 4.5% 24.8%

Arizona charter 118 56.1% 9.8% 18.6% 1.3% 13.8% 0.4%

all public 1,281 56.7% 4.3% 30.1% 1.8% 7.1%

California charter 115 48.1% 10.2% 31.7% 6.5% 1.8% 1.7%

all public 7,980 39.5% 8.7% 39.7% 11.2% 0.9%

Colorado charter 46 77.9% 5.7% 13.0% 2.2% 1.2% 0.0%

all public 1,468 72.0% 5.5% 18.8% 2.6% 1.1%

Connecticut charter 11 27.0% 49.7% 22.9% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0%

all public 1,023 71.7% 13.5% 11.9% 2.6% 0.3%

Florida charter 29 51.8% 41.3% 4.9% 1.2% 0.7% 0.1%

all public 2,789 56.7% 25.4% 15.9% 1.8% 0.2%

Georgia charter 17 72.6% 18.8% 4.9% 2.4% 0.2% 1.1%

all public 1,798 57.9% 37.7% 2.6% 1.7% 0.1%

Ilinois charter 6 16.6% 60.5% 22.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0%

all public 4,171 63.0% 21.1% 12.7% 3.1% 0.1%

_ouisiana charter 6 32.2% 64.8% 1.1% 0.6% 0.9% 0.4%

all public 1,468 50.5% 46.4% 1.2% 1.3% 0.6%

Massachusetts charter 19 47.2% 27.1% 19.3% 1.1% 0.4% 4.9%

all public 1,810 77.9% 8.5% 9.4% 4.0% 0.2%

Michigan charter 92 49.9% 42.8% 3.8% 0.9% 2.4% 0.2%

all public 3,002 83.3% 11.1% 2.9% 1.7% 1.0%

Minnesota charter 25 52.6% 23.6% 2.0% 13.0% 7.9% 0.9%

all public 1,785 86.4% 5.2% 2.2% 4.2% 2.0%

\lew Jersey charter 4 29.3% 30.1% 35.5% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0%

all public 2,278 62.5% 18.5% 13.5% 5.3% 0.2%

slew Mexico charter 4 39.8% 3.9% 43.9% 2.5% 9.9% 0.0%

all public 729 38.6% 2.4% 47.5% 1.0% 10.5%

\lorth Carolina charter 27 42.6% 53.1% 1.4% 0.3% 1.8% 0.8%

all public 1,997 63.9% 30.8% 2.3% 1.5% 1.5%

Dennsylvania charter 4 27.1% 67.7% 3.8% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0%

all public 3,110 80.2% 14.2% 3.7% 1.8% 0.1%

rexas charter 28 12.9% 26.9% 58.1% 1.2% 0.0% 0.9%

all public 6,875 45.6% 14.3% 37.4% 2.4% 0.3%

Nisconsin charter 17 73.6% 19.4% 3.1% 3.1% 0.7% 0.1%

all public 2,092 82.7% 9.6% 3.5% 2.9% 1.3%

NOTE: These data rely on response from 578 out of the 619 open charter schools that responded to our survey Of the 578 schools, 11 schools in 6 states

(Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kansas, Rhode Island, and South Carolina) have been omitted from this exhibit because each state has fewer than 3

charter schools and therefore numbers are small and percentages are not meaningful. All schools in this chart have valid racial data; that is, schools wherethe

number of students in the racial/ethnic categories was equal to the total student enrollment reported.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data Survey 1996-97 Early Release Files.

I The National Center for Education Statistics does not report an "other" racial category

BEST C PYAVAILABLE

The State °Charter SCHOOLS 1999
STUDENT ELIGIBILITY FOR FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH

Do charter schools serve the same proportion of economically disadvantaged students as other public

schools? Students' eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch under the National School Lunch program

is one measure of economic disadvantage that allows us to compare students in charter schools to those

in all public schools. Charter schools serve a significantly higher proportion of economically

disadvantaged students compared to all public schools in eight states. In some of those states, charter

legislation targets low-income or at-risk students. Charter schools serve a distinctly lower proportion

of economically disadvantaged students in three states.

In the 1997-98 school year, 37 percent of charter school students in the 24 states with charter schools were

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, a figure very similar to the 38 percent of students eligible for free

or reduced-price lunch in all public schools in those states.

The percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunch is at least 10 percentage points higher in

charter schools than in all public schools in eight of the charter states: Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana,

Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

In five charter states-Alaska, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, and New Mexico-the percentage of eligible

students is at least 10 percentage points lower than in all public schools.

In seven charter states, the percentage of eligible students in charter schools is within 10 percentage

points of that for all public schools. Four of these states have large numbers of charter schools-Arizona,

California, Colorado, and Michigan.

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF STUDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH

Charter schools (1997-98) All public schools (1994-95)

# eligible students % of all students # eligible students % of all student

Total 53,970 36.7% 10,146,087 37.65

Alaska 60 7.0% 32,340 25.75

Arizona 9,640 39.4% 284,357 40.15

California 17,820 35.4% 2,257,008 42.45

Colorado 1,967 18.1% 174,023 27.85

Connecticut 521 49.6% 113,221 22.85

Florida 1,080 37.7% 895,510 43.95

Georgia 3,803 29.4% 501,824 40.65

Illinois 1,396 88.5% 583,238 30.85

Louisiana 344 74.3% 474,608 59.35

Massachusetts 2,490 45.1% 225,110 25.65

Michigan 5,540 34.1% 459,747 28.75

Minnesota 1,502 52.5% 217,376 26.85

New Jersey 201 43.1% 326,022 28.35

New Mexico 1,167 30.1% 159,740 49.65

North Carolina 1,465 40.1% 413,729 36.55

Pennsylvania 399 69.3% 541,793 31.15

Texas 3,456 68.7% 1,662,900 46.15

Wisconsin 438 27.6% 210,011 24.95

NOTE: The total number of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch is based on 566 of the 619 open charter schools that responded tothe

survey. Of the 566 schools, 9 schools in 6 states (Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kansas, Rhode Island, and South Carolina) are not

displayed in the table because each state has 3 or fewer charter schools and percentages are not meaningful. The "Total" row includes data from

all 24 charter states, including the 6 states not included in the table. For each state, the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced-price

lunch is computed by dividing the number of eligible students by the total number of students enrolled in schools in that state.

SOURCE: The percentage of students in all public schools eligible for free and reduced-price lunch was computed using two sources. The source for

the numerator (eligibility counts by state) were the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, Program Information

Division, for the 1994-95 school year. The data for the denominator (total student enrollment) were derived from the Digest of Education

Statistics, 1997, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

n

The State °Charter SCHOOLS 1999

BEST COPY AVAILABLE
35

PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH IN

CHARTER SCHOOLS AND ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Alaska

Arizona

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Illinois

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Texas

Wisconsin

L

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of students

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 3 7

all public schools

D charter schools

The State °Charter SCHOOLS 1999
36

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

Although charter schools are freed from many of the state regulations that govern schools, they are

still subject to laws requiring them to provide access to students with disabilities. Our previous

reports have documented that sonic charter schools are specifically designed to serve students

with disabilities.

In the 1997-98 school year, students with disabilities made up 8 percent of the student population in

charter schools in the 24 charter states, compared to 11 percent of students with disabilities in all public

schools in those states.

The percentage of students with disabilities varied little from state to state for all public schools, while

this percentage varied greatly across the charter schools. In the 1997-98 school year, the percentage of

students with disabilities ranged from about 2 percent of students in New Jersey to a high of about 25

percent of students in Florida.

In most states, the percentage of students with disabilities in charter schools was similar to the

percentage of students with disabilities in all public schools. The percentage of students with disabilities

was at least 10 percentage points higher in charter schools than in all public schools in Florida. The

percentage of students with disabilities was more than 10 percentage points lower in charter schools

than in all public schools in New Jersey (which had only six open charter schools).

ESTIMATED NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

Charter schools (1997-98) All public schools (1996-97)

# of students % of students # of students % of students

Total 12,243 8.3% 3,185,443 11.2%

Alaska 43 5.0% 15,744 12.1%

Arizona 1,730 7.1% 71,742 9.0%

California 3,576 7.1% 528,273 9.4%

Colorado 857 7.9% 64,275 9.5%

Connecticut 84 8.0% 73,578 14.0%

Florida 720 25.1% 295,762 13.2%

Georgia 1,122 8.7% 126,856 9.4%

Illinois 172 10.9% 239,415 12.1%

Louisiana 30 6.5% 83,277 10.5%

Massachusetts 546 9.9% 144,488 15.5%

Michigan 853 5.3% 175,219 10.5%

Minnesota 491 17.2% 90,353 11.4%

New Jersey 10 2.1% 185,635 15.5%

New Mexico 673 17.4% 44,440 13.5%

North Carolina 523 14.3% 137,013 11.3%

Pennsylvania 77 13.4% 194,953 10.8%

Texas 362 7.2% 428,859 11.2%

Wicrnncin 117 SI Ac7- OA ARO 1 1 noz NOTE: The total number of students with disabilities is based on 554 of the 619 open charter schools that responded to the survey, although theexhibit

does not show breakdowns for states with 3 or fewer charter schools. The percentage of students with disabilities in Florida is inflated by one school

that reported large numbers of charter students with disabilities. The total number of students with disabilities is based on 554 of the 619 open charter

schools that responded to the survey. Of the 554 schools, an additional 10 schools in 6 states (Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kansas, Rhode

Island, and South Carolina) are not displayed in the table because each state still has 3 or fewer charter schools and percentages are not meaningful.

The "Total" row includes data from all 24 charter states, including the 6 states not included in the table.

SOURCE: The national figures rely on two sources. The source for the numerator (the number of students served under IDEA) was: Twentieth

Annual Report to Congress of the Implementation of the Indiuiduals with Disabilities Education, Act, U.S. Department of Education,

(forthcoming). The source for the denominator (enrollment in the 24 charter states) was U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics, Common Core of Data Survey, 1996-97 Early Release Files.

3 .9

The State (if Charter SCHOOLS 1999 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN CHARTER SCHOOLS

AND ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Alaska

Arizona

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Illinois

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Texas

Wisconsin

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Percentage of students

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

all public schools

ci charter schools

3"C.1

37

The State "1Charter SCHOOLS 1999
738

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS

Limited English Proficient (LEP) students are concentrated in a few states in both charter and all

public schools. Across the 24 charter states, the percentage of LEP students in charter schools is

similar to that of all public schools, but the state-by-state picture reveals great variation.

In the 1997-98 school year, the percentage of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students enrolled in

charter schools was similar to the percentage Of LEP students in all public schools in the 1994-95 school

year, both charter schools and all public schools enrolled about 10 percent LEP students.

There was wide variation across states in the percentage of LEP students in charter schools, ranging

from lows of less than 1 percent in nine states to a high of 24 percent in New Mexico.

The largest percentages of LEP students in both charter and other public schools were in California,

New Mexico, and Texas. Charter schools in New Mexico enrolled about the same percentage of LEP

students as the total of all public schools in the state, while charter schools in Texas enrolled a larger

percentage of LEP students than other public schools in the state. Charter schools in California enrolled

a smaller percentage of LEP students than other public schools.

Charter schools in Alaska and Florida enrolled a much lower percentage of LEP students than all public

schools in the state, while charter schools in Minnesota and Texas enrolled much larger percentages

than all public schools in the state.

ESTIMATED NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF LEP STUDENTS

Estimated LEP students

Charter schools (1997-98) All public schools (1994-95)

# of students % of students # of students % of students

Total 1 14,856 10.1% 2,814,982 10.7%

Alaska 6 0.7% 34,942 27.7%

Arizona 1,643 6.7% 93,528 11.9%

California 9,208 18.3% 1,381,393 24.6%

Colorado 120 1.1% 24,675 7.4%

Connecticut 8 0.8% 19,819 3.8%

Florida 7 0.2% 288,603 12.2%

Georgia 382 3.0% 14,339 1.1%

Illinois 54 3.4% 118,246 6.0%

Louisiana 2 0.4% 6,494 0.9%

Massachusetts 339 6.1% 44,394 4.7%

Michigan 407 2.5% 25,988 1.6%

Minnesota 321 11.2% 28,237 3.4%

New Jersey 3 0.6% 49,300 4.0%

New Mexico 954 24.6% 78,107 24.0%

North Carolina 90 2.5% 24,771 2.0%

Pennsylvania 20 3.5% NA NA

Texas 1,140 22.7% 513,634 13.4%

Wicrnricin 99 1 A% 9'1 97n

NOTE: The total number of LEP students is based on 611 of the 619 open charter schools that responded to the survey, although the exhibit does

not show breakdowns for states with 3 or fewer charter schools. For each state, the percentage of LEP charter school students is computed by

dividing the number of LEP students by the total number of enrolled students. The total number of LEP students is based on 611 of the 619 open

charter schools that responded to the survey Of the 611 schools, an additional 9 schools in 6 states (Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kansas,

Rhode Island, and South Carolina) are not displayed in the table because each states has 3 or fewer charter schools and the percentages are not

meaningful. The "Total" row includes data from all 24 charter states, including the 6 states not included in the table.

SOURCE: Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs, Summary Report of the Survey of the States' Limited English

Proficient Students and Available Educational Programs and Services 1996-1997: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1998.

The total excludes data from the state of Pennsylvania, which did not report information on LEP students for all public schools.

4 0 BESTCOPY AVAILABLE

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
39

ESTIMATED NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF LEP STUDENTS IN CHARTER SCHOOLS

AND IN ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Alaska

Arizona

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Illinois

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Texas

Wisconsin

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Percentage of students

41

charter schools

o all public schools

The State "f Charter SCHOOLS 1999
D. Starting, Implementing, and Being Accountable

WHY CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE STARTED 42

IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES 44

AUTONOMY AND CONTROL 46

AUTONOMY AND CHOICE OF SERVICE PROVIDERS 48

EXTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND MONITORING 50

EXTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING 52

ACCOUNTABILITY AND STUDENT ASSESSMENT 54

4 2

41

The State ° C h a der SCHOOLS 1999
r 42

WHY CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE STARTED

Why are charter schools Thunded? Each founding story is unique, but broad patterns are discernible

across different types of charter schools. Charter schools begin from the inspiration of educators,

parents, or community leaders who want to create a different learning environment for children. As

the founders see it, most seek an alternative vision of schooling that they could not realize in the

general public school system. Newly created schools in particular report on curriculum and

instructional approaches they want to establish and the organizational climate they wish to create.

Many pre-existing public schools converted to charter status in order to gain increased autonomy,

while many pre-existing private schools sought to attain stable funding and attract students to their

approach. Finally, some charter schoolsabout one in fourestablished their charter to serve a

special population of students, often ones that were "at risk" in the general public school system.

Three of 4 charter schools reported that realizing an alternative vision for schooling motivated the school's

founding. Nearly 6 of 10 charter schools reported realizing an alternative vision for schooling as their most

important reason for becoming a charter school.

More than a quarter of charter schools (26 percent) reported that serving a special population was a reason

for founding, and one-fifth said that serving a special population was their most important motivation.

Newly created and pre-existing schools differ on their primary founding reasons. Newly created were

much more likely to be founded primarily to realize an alternative vision (68 percent) than were preexisting public schools (40 percent) or pre-existing private schools (35 percent).

In contrast, nearly as many pre-existing public schools sought to gain autonomy from state or district

regulation (38 percent) as sought primarily to realize an educational vision (40 percent).

Pre-existing private schools converted to charter for a combination of reasonsto attract students (22

percent), to serve a special population (19 percent), or for financial reasons (19 percent).

ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY REASONS FOR FOUNDING

Reason for founding Percentage that

charter school cited each reason

Percentage that cited most important reason

charter school creation status

Total Total

Newly

created

Pre-existing

public

Pre-existing

private

615 595 422 115 58

Realize an alternative vision 73.0% 58.9% 67.5% 40.0% 34.5%

Gain autonomy/flexibility 16.3% 10.3% 3.6% 38.3% 3.4%

Serve special population 26.2% 19.5% 22.7% 7.8% 19.0%

Attract students 10.2% 3.9% 1.9% 1.7% 22.4%

Financial reasons 8.6% 3.9% 0.9% 7.0% 19.0%

Parent involvement 10.2% 3.6% 3.3% 5.2% 1.7%

NOTE: These data rely on responses from 615 out of 619 open charter schools that responded to the survey Schools were asked about their reasons for

founding the first time they were surveyed. In one survey question, schools were asked the reason for founding their schools and they could reply with

more than one reason (reported in column 2 above). In a separate question, schools were asked to choose one of the named reasons as the primary

reason for founding their school (reported in columns 3 through 6 above); the data from 595 of the 615 charter schools are included for columns 3 through

6 because 20 schools did not choose a primary reason. The data presented in columns 4 through 6 represent the percentage of the total number of each

type of school. The valid number of pre-existing public schools is 115 out of 120 possible open schools; the valid number of pre-existing private schools

is 58 out of 65 possible open schools; the valid number of newly created charter schools is 422 out of 434 possible open schools. The difference between

the valid and possible number of schools is because some schools did not select a primary reason their charter school.

The State "ICharter SCHOOLS 1999 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
PERCENTAGE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS, BY MOST IMPORTANT REASON FOR FOUNDING

Realize a vision

60%

Gain autonomy

10%

Special population

19%

Attract students

4%

----- Parent

involvement

Financial 3%

reasons

4%

PERCENTAGE OF NEWLY CREATED VERSUS PRE-EXISTING CHARTER

SCHOOLS, BY MOST IMPORTANT REASON FOR FOUNDING

newly created CIPre-existing public Pre-existing private

70%

60%

40%

30%

a)

g? 20%

10%

0%

Realize a

vision

Gain Special

autonomy population

Attract

students

Reasons for founding

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Financial reasons

4 4

Parent

involvement

The State olCharter SCHOOLS 1999
44

IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES

Our research suggests that many charter founders face significant challenges in starting and

operating a charter school. We asked a knowledgeable respondent at each charter school in every year

of the Study to rate the difficulty of overcoming each barrier in a list of possible barriers to charter

school implementation. The most pressing challenges for newly created charter schools concern

financial difficulties and other problems akin to starting a new business. Many pre-existing public

schools that converted to charter status also have experienced political and bureaucratic difficulties

during development and implementation.

Most charter schools reported that fiscal obstacles, including funding for start-up and ongoing

operations, were difficult challenges during implementation. Lack of planning time and facilities also

caused problems for charter schools.

Newly created and pre-existing public charter schools that converted to charter status showed different

patterns of barriers to implementation.

A higher percentage of newly created charter schools faced greater difficulties than pre-existing public

schools with both start-up and operating funding, facilities, and health and safety regulations.

Compared to newly created charter schools, a higher proportion of pre-existing public schools reported

great difficulty with state or local board opposition, state department of education resistance, and

collective bargaining agreements.

In addition to financial matters, especially a lack of start up funds, about 18 percent of pre-existing

private schools that converted to charter status cited state department of education resistance or new

requirements for health and safety as challenges they had to face.

ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS REPORTING DIFFICULTIES IN IMPLEMENTING THEIR CHARTERS'

Total Newly

created

Pre-existing

public

Pre-existing

private

Lack of start-up funds 54.7% 60.4% 34.6% 52.7%

Lack of planning time 37.4% 39.7% 34.8% 26.7%

Inadequate facilities 35.8% 39.1% 25.2% 31.5%

Inadequate operating funds 41.4% 44.6% 34.2% 32.7%

State or local board opposition 20.7% 19.2% 29.1% 15.1%

District resistance or regulations 19.9% 20.6% 22.8% 10.2%

Internal processes or conflicts 14.2% 15.5% 11.7% 10.0%

State department of education resistance 13.5% 11.8% 17.7% 18.3%

Health and safety regulations 11.3% 12.6% 2.7% 18.3%

Union or bargaining unit opposition 9.8% 9.1% 13.3% 8.6%

Accountability requirements 8.9% 8.5% 9.0% 11.6%

Hiring staff 8.8% 8.9% 10.7% 5.0%

Collective bargaining agreements 7.0% 4.8% 18.0% 1.7%

Community opposition 6.0% 7.8% 2.7% 0.0%

Federal regulations 5.6% 5.4% 4.4% 10.0%

Teacher certification requirements 4.9% 4.5% 7.2% 3.4%

NOTE: These data are drawn from questions asked only in the new school surveys. Responses to these questions about barriers represent a range of 204

to 210 out of 230 open charter schools that responded to the 1996 new schools survey; 120 to 149 out of 153 open charter schools that responded to the

1997 new schools survey; and 238 to 244 out of 246 open charter schools that responded to the 1998 new schools survey. Overall, the responsesrepresent

a range of 571 to 601 out of 619 open charter schools that responded to one of the 3 new school surveys.

1 We asked schools to rate the difficulty of each barrier on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all difficult and 5 being very difficult. The percentages

in this table represent the percentages of schools that rated each barrier difficult or very difficult.

4 )

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
PERCENTAGE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS REPORTING DIFFICULTIES, BY CHARTER

CREATION STATUS

Ilnewly created 0 Pre-existing public Pre-existing private

Lack of

start-up funds

Inadequate

operating funds

Lack of

planning time

Inadequate

facilities

State or local

board opposition

District resistance

or regulations

Internal processes

or conflicts

State department of

education resistance

Health and safety

regulations

Union or bargaining

unit opposition

Accountability

requirements

Hiring

staff

Collective

bargaining agreements

Community

opposition

Federal

regulations

Teacher certification

requirements

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Percentage of schools

BEST COPYAVAILABLE

The State °Charter SCHOOLS 1999
AUTONOMY AND CONTROL

The increased autonomy inherent in the charter concept allows charter schools the flexibility to make

independent decisions about both educational and management issues. In some cases, schools'

decisions are constrained either by provisions of the state's charter legislation or by decisions and

practices implemented by their charter granting agency. One measure of a school's autonomy is the

extent to which it can exercise control over critical decisions affecting its performance. Using school

reports on their sense of control over critical decisions, we find that most charter schools feel they

have considerable autonomy, except over student admissions policy. However, charter schools that

converted from public school status appear to have less autonomy than newly created charter schools.

In the 1997-98 school year, most charter schools reported that they had primary control or authority over

their administrative operations (budget, purchase of supplies and equipment, and hiring teaching staff)

and the operation of their education program (daily and yearly schedule, curriculum, student

admissions, discipline, and student assessment). A lower percentage (64 percent) of schools reported

that they had control over their student admissions policies.

In cases where charter schools reported that they did not have control, control rested with either the district

or the charter granting agency or was shared between the charter school and one of those agencies.

A higher percentage of newly created schools compared to pre-existing public schools reported having

primary control over all areas of decisionmaking. In particular, pre-existing public schools have less

control over their daily schedule, school calendar, and budget, as well as their student admissions policy.

Charter schools that converted from private status have a pattern of autonomy similar to newly created

schools, except that a lower percentage felt they had control over admissions policy (52 percent) and

student assessment policies (68 percent).

ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS, BY SOURCE OF PRIMARY CONTROL FOR VARIOUS SCHOOL

DECISIONS AND OPERATIONS

Source of primary control

Area of control School District/ charter

granting agency

Both Other

Budget 76.3% 18.9% 2.4% 2.4%

Purchase of supplies/equipment 91.1% 7.0% 0.8% 1.1%

School calendar 78.9% 18.8% 1.0% 1.3%

Daily schedule 95.3% 2.4% 1.0% 1.3%

Student assessment policies 76.6% 16.7% 3.6% 3.1%

Student admissions policies 63.7% 26.9% 6.5% 2.9%

Student discipline 92.1% 3.9% 1.5% 2.5%

Establishment of curriculum 86.1% 8.8% 2.1% 3.0%

Hiring of teaching staff 89.3% 6.3% 1.6% 2.8%

NOTE: These data rely on responses from between 614 and 618 out of 619 open charter schools that responded to the telephone survey Schools were asked to rate

each of these items separately, resulting in the range of responses. One school did not respond to this survey item and 5 schools answered "don't know" for certain

items. The data presented in columns 3 through 5 of the table on the facing page represent the percentage of each type of school respondingto each item. The valid

numher of pre-existing public schools ranges from 118 to 120 schools; the valid number of open pre-existing private schools ranges from 63 to 65 open schools; the

valid number of open newly created schools ranges between 431 to 434 schools. The difference in range is because some schools responded "don't know."

4 7 BEST COPYAVAILABLE

The State °f Charter SCHOOLS 1999
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS WITH PRIMARY CONTROL, BY CREATION STATUS

Area of control Percentage

of schools with

primary control

Charter school creation status

Newly

created

Pre-existing

public

Pre-existing

private

Hiring of teaching staff 89.3% 90.8% 84.0% 89.2%

Establishment of curriculum 86.1% 88.2% 77.1% 87.7%

Student discipline 92.1% 93.1% 90.0% 89.2%

Student admissions policies 63.7% 66.7% 58.8% 51.6%

Student assessment policies 76.6% 78.9% 72.5% 68.3%

Daily schedule 95.3% 96.3% 72.5% 93.8%

School calendar 78.9% 83.6% 58.3% 85.9%

Purchase of supplies/equipment 91.1% 92.4% 85.0% 93.8%

Budget 76.3% 80.5% 60.2% 76.0%

ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF NEWLY CREATED AND PRE-EXISTING CHARTER SCHOOLS WITH

CONTROL OVER VARIOUS SCHOOL DECISIONS AND OPERATIONS

newly created 0 Pre-existing public 0 Pre-existing private

Hiring staff

Curriculum

Discipline

Admissions

Assessment

Schedule

Calendar

Purchasing

Budget

I I I 1 I1_11_1

1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of schools

4 8

BESTCOPMAILASLE

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
(48

AUTONOMY AND CHOICE OF SERVICE PROVIDERS

The autonomy afforded by the charter allows charter schools to make alternative arrangements for

the acquisition of both goods and services. Autonomy also affords charter schools the opportunity to

choose the mix of services offered to their students and families. Some charter schools have taken

advantage of the flexibility provided by the charter to rethink how services are provided, including

providing some services with either school staff or volunteers, purchasing the services from the

district, or purchasing the services from an outside provide?: Newly created, pre-existing public, and

pre-existing private schools differ in the sources from which they acquire services.

About two-thirds of charter schools provided one or more noneducational services to their students,

including transportation, food service, and before and after school care. More than three-quarters of the

schools provided social and/or health services.

When charter schools provided health services, about an equal percentage of the services were provided

by the school (35 percent), the district (30 percent), or an outside provider (33 percent). Most charter

schools that offered before and after school care provided the services themselves (64 percent). When

charter schools offered social services, an outside provider (41 percent) was most often the source. When

charter schools offered food programs/services or transportation services, the district was most often

the provider of these services (40 percent and 41 percent, respectively).

Averaging across all service areas, about one-third of charter schools provided services themselves to

their students, about one-third of charter schools used an outside provider, and less than one-third used

the district as the service provider.

Newly created schools and pre-existing private schools were much more likely to either provide services

themselves or to secure services from an outside provider. Between half and 80 percent of newly created

and pre-existing private schools provided their own purchasing services, custodial services, and

before/after school care.

Pre-existing public schools were much more likely to seek services from their districts. More than half

of pre-existing public schools sought payroll, accounting, purchasing, health, food programs, legal

services, custodial, building maintenance, and transportation services from the district.

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF SCHOOLS SELECTING A GIVEN SERVICE

PROVIDER, BY CHARTER SCHOOL CREATION STATUS

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

-

Newly

created

Pre-exis ing

public

Pre-exis ing

private

school as own provider

I=Idistrict as provider

Eloutside provider

NOTE: These data rely on responses from 618 out of 619 open charter schools that responded to the telephone survey These data are drawn

from questions asked only in the first year of administration of the new school survey. This exhibit represents non-weighted averages across all

service areas. Unweighted averages are used so as to not inflate the average for services that are more commonly provided.

4 9

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999

BESTCOPYAVAILABLE
PERCENTAGE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS THAT OFFER SERVICES, BY CHARTER CREATION STATUS

Services

provided in

charter schools

(percentage of

schools with

services)

Percentage of schools with services provided solely by

Charter creation status School as provider District as provider Outside provider

Average of all services1

Newly created

Pre-existing public

Pre-existing private

34.3%

36.2%

22.2%

46.0%

27.0%

21.1%

58.9%

3.5%

33.3%

36.9%

13.6%

47.1%

Payroll Total % across all types 22.5% 32.7% 41.1%

(100.0%) Newly created 24.5% 26.1% 45.5%

Pre-existing public 7.5% 73.3% 17.5%

Pre-existing private 36.9% 1.5% 55.4%

Accounting Total % across all types 33.2% 23.9% 33.5%

(100.0%) Newly created 35.8% 17.8% 37.4%

Pre-existing public 22.5% 58.3% 9.2%

Pre-existing private 35.4% 1.5% 52.3%

Insurance Total % across all types 19.3% 30.5% 47.8%

(99.8%) Newly created 19.6% 23.8% 53.5%

Pre-existing public 12.5% 70.0% 15.8%

Pre-existing private 29.2% 1.5 69.2%

Purchasing Total % across all types 57.2% 23.0% 13.3%

(99.8%) Newly created 61.9% 17.3% 15.0%

Pre-existing public 28.3% 55.0% 5.8%

Pre-existing private 79.6% 1.6% 15.6%

Custodial Total % across all types 45.5% 20.4% 31.1%

(97.7%) Newly created 47.0% 14.0% 35.4%

Pre-existing public 33.6% 53.8% 11.8%

Pre-existing private 57.8% 0.0% 39.1%

Building maintenance Total % across all types 37.0% 19.4% 36.2%

(95.4%) Newly created 37.5% 14.9% 39.6%

Pre-existing public 28.6% 57.1% 8.2%

Pre-existing private 43.6% 5.1% 46.2%

Legal services Total % across all types 18.4% 27.7% 50.0%

(93.4%) Newly created 18.9% 22.1% 54.6%

Pre-existing public 10.4% 61.7% 23.5%

Pre-existing private 30.5% 0.0% 69.5%

Health services Total % across all types 35.2% 29.8% 32.6%

(80.9%) Newly created 38.9% 23.5% 34.9%

Pre-existing public 20.6% 60.7% 16.8%

Pre-existing private 40.8% 6.1% 51.0%

Social services Total % across all types 26.8% 24.4% 40.7%

(79.6%) Newly created 25.4% 20.0% 46.0%

Pre-existing public 23.8% 47.6% 20.0%

Pre-existing private 40.4% 5.8% 48.1%

Before/after school Total % across all types 64.2% 10.4% 18.5%

care (70.1%) Newly created 69.1% 4.2% 19.4%

Pre-existing public 48.4% 33.7% 8.4%

Pre-existing private 66.0% 2.0% 32.0%

Food programs Total % across all types 24.5% 40.0% 29.8%

(66.8%) Newly created 22.9% 35.4% 35.4%

Pre-existing public 15.7% 64.7% 13.7%

Pre-existing private 57.5% 7.5% 32.5%

Transportation Total % across all types 28.0% 41.2% 25.3%

(65.2%) Newly created 32.4% 34.4% 25.9%

Pre-existing public 14.6% 70.9% 12.6%

Pre-existing private 34.1% 9.8% 53.7%

The numbers in each of the "Total" rows do not add to 1000/0 across the columns because respondents were also offered "Both" as a response.

sn

49

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
50

EXTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND MONITORING

Regardless of state law, charter schools enter into contracts with sponsoring entities in which

freedom from regulations (except those related to health, safety and nondiscrimination) is traded for

increased accountability for outcomes. However, such external accountability is effective only if

charter-granting or other agencies monitor charter schools in those areas for which they are to be held

accountable. State legislation as well as regulatory practices vary greatly across states in the extent

to which they do monitoringand, indeed, in the extent to which they take a regulatory approach to

holding charter schools accountable.

In 1997-98, the main areas in which charter schools (in a selected sample) said they were monitored

were in school finances (87 percent), student academic achievement (73 percent), student attendance

(70 percent), and compliance with state or federal regulations (63 percent).

A lower percentage of charter schools reported that they were monitored for the school's governance or

decisionmaking structure (34 percent), student behavior (30 percent), and school completion rates (24

percent).

The pattern of monitoring across states differs greatly depending on the state's approach to

accountability. For example, compared to Arizona schools, a much higher proportion of schools in

Massachusetts reported they were monitored on student achievement, instructional practices, and

school governance. Massachusetts follows a "centralized" state agency approach to charter school

accountability, whereas Arizona takes a "market-driven" approach. States like California and Colorado

have created, in law and practice, a "district-based" approach that relies on local accountability within

a state framework of testing.

ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS THAT ARE EXTERNALLY MONITORED ON ACCOUNTABILITY

MEASURES

Instructional practices

Student academic achievement

Student behavior

Student attendance

School completion

Governance/decisionmaking

Financial record keeping

Compliance with federal or state regs

The State °f Charter SCHOOLS 1999

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of schools

51
PERCENTAGE OF A SELECTED SAMPLE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS ON AREAS OF EXTERNAL

MONITORING, BY STATE

# of Schools

in Sample

Instructional

Practices

Student

Achievement

Student

Behavior

Student

Attendance

Total 284 58.5% 73.1% 30.3% 69.7%

State

Arizona 64 70.3% 65.6% 26.6% 81.3%

California 71 47.9% 74.6% 33.8% 76.1%

Colorado 30 46.7% 90.0% 33.3% 66.7%

Georgia 8 50.0% 87.5% 37.5% 75.0%

Massachusetts 15 93.3% 93.3% 26.7% 53.3%

Michigan 53 66.0% 64.2% 26.4% 56.6%

Minnesota 15 46.7% 60.0% 6.7% 53.3%

New Mexico 4 50.0% 75.0% 25.0% 75.0%

Texas 14 42.9% 71.4% 50.0% 78.6%

Wisconsin 10 50.0% 70.0% 20.0% 40.0%

# of Schools School School School Compliance

in Sample Completion Governance Finances with Regulations

Total 284 23.8% 33.7% 87.4% 62.9%

State

Arizona 64 29.7% 31.3% 84.4% 70.3%

California 71 25.4% 28.2% 91.5% 54.9%

Colorado 30 30.0% 23.3% 83.3% 63.3%

Georgia 8 12.5% 37.5% 75.0% 37.5%

Massachusetts 15 6.7% 80.0% 100.0% 46.7%

Michigan 53 13.2% 41.5% 86.8% 75.5%

Minnesota 15 13.3% 13.3% 93.3% 66.7%

New Mexico 4 50.0% 75.0% 75.0% 25.0%

Texas 14 28.6% 21.4% 92.9% 57.1%

Wisconsin 10 30.0% 30.0% 60.0% 50.0%

NOTE: The percentages in the table show the number of schools that reported monitoring during the year in each area divided by the total numberof

schools in each state. This figure reports data from 294 charter schools referred to as a selected sample in the text. This question only appeared on the

1998 follow-up survey and so only schools that responded to the 1998 follow-up survey answered this question. This omits charter schools in their first

year of operation. Schools in 16 states responded to the original survey and were approached with the follow-up survey. The data for 10 schools are not presented by state because the schools are in 5 states (Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, and Louisiana) that have 3 or fewer schools.

The "Total" row does include data from these 10 schools.

5 2

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
52

EXTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING

In exchange for freedom from laws and regulations that apply to other public schools, charter schools

have increased accountability and reporting requirements. Reporting requirements and audiences

for reporting differ by state and by individual charter school. Charter schools made reports to various

comstituencies on the school's progress towards its goals. All of a selected sample of charter schools

have made or plan to make a report to at least one interested constituency.

In 1997-98 the majority of a selected sample of charter schools said they had made or were planning to

make a report on the school's progress toward its goals to key constituent groups: their chartering

agency (90 percent), parents (88 percent), or the school's governing board (92 percent).

State departments of education represent a key reporting agency in some states. At least 75 percent of

schools in Alaska, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Mexico had made or planned

to make a report to their State Department of Education.

The pattern of reporting progress toward goals shows some variation across states in reporting to key

constituents, but the majority of charter schools in every state (two-thirds or more) had made or planned

to make a report to their chartering agency, their parents, or their school governing board.

The pattern of reporting progress toward goals to other constituencies varies across states. For example,

in 11 states, half or more of the schools had made or planned to make a report to the community or general

public, while in 4 states fewer than 50 percent planned to report to the community.

ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF A SELECTED SAMPLE OF SCHOOLS REPORTING PROGRESS TOWARD GOALS TO

THEIR REPORTING AGENCIES

Made a report Planning to

make a report

Not made or

planning to

make a report

Don't know Not

applicable

Chartering cigency 55.4% 34.4% 8.5% 0.7% 1.0%

Private funders 15.3% 10.2% 35.4% 38.4% 0.7%

Parents 56.5% 31.3% 10.5% 1.7% 0.0%

Community/general public 36.1% 17.0% 41.5% 4.8% 0.7%

School governing board 65.0% 26.5% 6.8% 1.0% 0.7%

State department of

education, not chartering

agency 43.9% 16.7% 32.7% 5.4% 1.4%

NOTE: These data are based on responses from all 294 charter schools that responded to the 1998 follow-up survey referred to as a selected sample in

the text. This question only appeared on the 1998 follow-up survey and so only schools that responded to the 1998 follow-up survey answered this question.

5 3 BESTCOPYAVAILABLE

The State °Charter SCHOOLS 1999
PERCENTAGE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS THAT HAVE MADE A REPORT OR ARE PLANNING TO

MAKE A REPORT, BY REPORTING AGENCY

Chartering agency

Private funders

Parents

Community/ general

public

School governing board

State Department of

Education

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Made a report

o Planning to make a

report

PERCENTAGE OF A SELECTED SAMPLE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS THAT HAVE REPORTED OR PLAN TO REPORT,

BY STATE

Reporting Agency

Community/ School Number

Chartering Private General governing of

Agency Funders Parents Public board State DOE Schools

Percentage of Schools

Total 89.8% 25.5% 87.8% 53.1% 91.5% 60.6% 294

Arizona 92.2% 23.5% 90.6% 50.1% 90.7% 59.4% 64

California 85.9% 14.1% 84.5% 43.7% 92.9% 24.0% 71 Colorado 100.0% 40.0% 83.4% 60.0% 93.3% 66.7% 30

Georgia 87.5% 12.5% 100.0% 75.0% 87.5% 87.5% 8

Massachusetts 93.3% 60.0% 93.4% 80.0% 100.0% 93.3% 15

Michigan 88.7% 16.9% 92.4% 58.5% 92.5% 79.3% 53

Minnesota 100.0% 26.7% 80.0% 53.4% 86.7% 93.4% 15

New Mexico 100.0% 25.0% 100.0% 75% 75.0% 75.0% 4

Texas 78.5% 57.2% 78.6% 50.0% 100.0% 71.4% 14

IA/ie,/, Inc; rs 7n rwz ln ns on ns cr) noz. 7i11155 cn nw., In

I The percentages in the table show the number of schools that reported or plan to report progress in each area divided by the total number of schools

in each state. The data for 10 schools are not presented by state because the schools are in 5 states (Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia,

Florida, and Louisiana) that haveS or fewer schools. The "Total" row does include data from these 10 schools.

5 4 The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
r 54

ACCOUNTABILITY AND STUDENT ASSESSMENT

Charter schools are held accountable for the achievement of their students. Some charter legislation

speaks specifically to improving student achievement as a goal for charter schools. Charter schools

report using a number of measures of student achievement, some of them are traditional standardized

assessment methods and others more innovative methods like portfolios and student demonstrations.

Most charter schools report that they use standardized assessments of student achievement (86 percent)

and 75 percent of charter schools use the tests that are part of the state's assessment program.

Standardized tests and the state's assessment test are the most typical method of reporting for

accountability purposes.

Charter schools also report using a number of other assessment methods. Most charter schools (85

percent) report using student demonstrations of their work as a way of measuring student achievement.

Most schools also report using student portfolios (79 percent) and performance assessments (70

percent) to measure student progress.

Many charter schools also report using parent surveys (81 percent), behavioral indicators (75 percent),

and student surveys (70 percent).

Assessment methods are generally consistent across newly created and pre-existing public schools. Preexisting private schools are slightly less likely to use performance assessments, student portfolios, parent

surveys, and behavioral indicators. Pre-existing public schools are slightly more likely to use student

surveys and behavioral indicator.

ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF SCHOOLS USING VARIOUS TYPES OF ASSESSMENT METHODS

Charter school creation status

Type of assessment Percentage of

schools

Newly

created

Pre-existing

public

Pre-existing

private

Standardized assessments 86.4% 87.6% 84.2% 83.1%

State assessment program 74.8% 77.1% 70.0% 69.23(

Performance assessments 69.6% 70.3% 70.8% 63.15i

Student portfolios 78.8% 81.5% 78.3% 63.1%

Student demonstrations of their work 85.0% 85.7% 81.7% 87.7%

Parent satisfaction surveys 80.6% 82.2% 79.1% 73.8%

Student interviews or surveys 70.4% 69.1% 79.2% 64.6%

Behavioral indicators 75.1% 73.7% 85.0% 67.73i

NOTE: This exhibit draws on either 589 or 618 out of a possible 619 open charter schools that responded to the telephone survey Three of the

methods of assessments (standardized assessments, locally developed performance assessments, national or state performance assessments)

were items only asked about on the new schools surveys. For these 3 items, the total number of valid charter schools is 589, with resultsreflecting

responses from the year of administration of the new school survey The remaining items have been asked consistently on both the new and followup surveys and the results reflect the most recent school responses.

5 5

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999

BEST COPY AVAILABLE
PERCENTAGE OF SCHOOLS THAT USE VARIOUS METHODS OF ASSESSMENT

Standardized assessments (n=535)

State assessment program (n=463)

Performance assessments (n=431)

Student portfolios (n=488)

Students demonstrations (n=526)

Parents satisfaction surveys (n=499)

Student interviews or surveys (n=436)

Behavioral Indicators(n=465)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of schools

ACROSS-STATE COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF SCHOOLS USING VARIOUS

TYPES OF ASSESSMENTS

States (with 5 or

more schools)

Standardized

assessments

State

assessment

program

Performance

assessments

Student

portfolios

Student

demonstrations

of their work

Parent

satisfaction

surveys

Student

interviews

or surveys

Behaviora

indicator!

Total percentage 86.4% 74.8% 69.6% 79.0% 85.1% 80.6% 70.6% 75.231

Alaska (12) 100.0% 66.7% 58.3% 66.7% 75.0% 83.3% 75.0% 50.031

Arizona (127) 92.1% 70.9% 71.7% 81.1% 86.6% 68.5% 66.1% 69.331

California (119) 86.7% 60.5% 74.2% 88.2% 82.4% 84.9% 75.6% 69.731

Colorado (49) 87.8% 87.8% 79.6% 67.3% 75.5% 87.8% 55.1% 83.731

Connecticut (11) 100.0% 100.0% 63.6% 90.9% 81.8% 81.8% 100.0% 81.831

Florida (31) 93.5% 77.4% 74.2% 90.3% 83.9% 77.4% 74.2% 77.431

Georgia (18) 100.0% 66.7% 61.1% 72.2% 94.4% 77.8% 66.7% 77.831

Illinois (6) 100.0% 83.3% 83.3% 50.0% 100.0% 33.3% 33.3% 66.731

Louisiana (6) 100.0% 50.0% 66.7% 66.7% 83.3% 66.7% 33.3% 50.031

Massachusetts (21) 85.7% 90.5% 76.2% 95.2% 76.2% 95.2% 76.2% 85.731

Michigan (95) 77.9% 75.8% 61.1% 68.4% 91.6% 88.4% 73.7% 74.731

Minnesota (25) 80.0% 84.0% 60.0% 84.0% 80.0% 96.0% 92.0% 88.031

North Carolina (27) 88.9% 88.9 63.0% 81.5% 88.9% 81.5% 63.0% 77.831

New Jersey (6) 100.0% 66.7% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 33.3% 83.331

Texas (29) 72.4% 93.1% 65.5% 69.0% 86.2% 79.3% 69.0% 89.731

Wisconsin (17) 52.9% 88.2% 88.2% 70.6% 94.1% 76.5% 70.6% 82.431

5G

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
( 56

APPENDIX: RESPONSE RATE BY STATE

Column 2 in the table below shows the total number of survey responses on any one of the five administered

surveys by state. The total number of charter schools in column 3 reflects the number of charter schools open

at the time of the 1998 survey administrations.

State Survey Responses Total Charter Schools Percent Response

Alaska 12 15 80%

Arizona 127 135 94%

California 120 129 93%

Colorado 49 50 98%

Connecticut 11 12 92%

Delaware 3 3 100%

District of Columbia 3 3 100%

Florida 31 34 91%

Georgia 18 21 86%

Hawaii 2 2 100%

Illinois 6 8 75%

Kansas 1 1 100%

Louisiana 6 6 100%

Massachusetts 21 24 88%

Michigan 95 109 87%

Minnesota 25 27 93%

North Carolina 27 34 79%

New Jersey 6 13 46%

New Mexico 4 5 80%

Pennsylvania 4 6 67%

Rhode Island 1 1 100%

South Carolina 1 2 50%

Texas 29 41 71%

Wisconsin 17 17 100%

t-7

The State of Charter SCHOOLS 1999
9

ISBN 0- 6-050048-6

178 60

0 1 1 500480

9 0 0 0 0

1
D

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

®

ERIC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release

(Blanket) form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all

or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,

does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

u1( This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to

reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may

be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form

(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (9/97)