N ATIONAL

S TUDY OF

C HARTER

S CHOOLS





       	 
   	   

OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION



	




	





       	 
   	   

OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

RPP INTERNATIONAL

Beryl Nelson

Paul Berman

John Ericson

Nancy Kamprath

Rebecca Perry

Debi Silverman

Debra Solomon

of

	




	
	



	

	

  






	

    





	

       










		
	 

!"#$% &

			

 	 #$%' "%	$!(

	$!
%)*$
$ 


$$		 	 '
    +   	 $! 	 ! '  #$%,	

%$'-	

!"##$$$
%&'

!	
 '		!.

	 %. %	(

	
			

/
 	
	



	

	
((( 	



	

	

)*+

The authors are grateful to the many people who contributed either directly or indirectly to this Report. Almost 1,000

directors of charter schools responded to our surveys, graciously taking time from their school responsibilities to

answer our questions, share their insights, and provide the data that serves as the basis for this report. Staff at many

state and national organizations focused on education policy or technical assistance also provided us with valuable

resources and information. We extend a special thanks to Field Research for the care and professionalism they displayed in administering our surveys and to the directors in the 37 state charter offices for their patient and timely

responses to our queries on the counts and status of charter schools in their states. We especially appreciate the

administrators, teachers, students, and parents of the 91 charter schools that generously agreed to be part of this longitudinal study. In successive years, they invited us into their schools and classrooms, shared their thoughts and feelings, provided key information on their schools and students, and helped us understand and learn from their struggles and triumphs. Together, these individuals and organizations have made our work and this report possible. We

offer this final yearly report as a token of appreciation for their efforts to improve education for all students. 

We would like to give a special thanks to our partner in the National Study of Charter Schools, the Institute for

Responsive Education (IRE), a non-profit research firm in Boston. IRE played an instrumental role in refining and

implementing the Study's research design. We would especially like to thank our esteemed colleague Abby Weiss

for her keen insight and tireless work. 

Many others read and provided invaluable feedback on 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.

In addition, a group of reviewers from the U.S. Department of Education reviewed the report and provided helpful

comments and insights that improved the Report. From the Department, we would like to thank Caroline Chang,

Office of Educational Research and Improvement; Alexander Choi, Office of Civil Rights; David Cleary, Office of

the UnderSecretary; Cathy Grimes-Miller, Office of the General Counsel; Judith Holt, Office of Special Education

and Rehabilitative Services; Lonna B. Jones, Office of the UnderSecretary; Alex Medler, Office of Elementary and

Secondary Education; Meredith Miller, Planning and Evaluation Service; and Robert Scott, Office of Vocational and

Adult Education. Three peer reviewers also provided helpful feedback on the content of this report-we appreciate

the helpful advice we received from Linda Brown, Massachusetts Charter Resource Center; Jeffrey R. Henig, the

George Washington University; and F. Howard Nelson, American Federation of Teachers.

The authors also would like to express our gratitude and appreciation to Pat Lines, Martin Orland, Judith Anderson,

and Joseph Conaty of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement for their support and guidance in shaping and implementing this Report and the Study. Our thanks are also extended to Deborah Gibbs who oversaw the

formatting and production of this report. 

While appreciating the contributions of all of the reviewers, the authors accept full responsibility for the content of

the Report.
	



	

	 ('

,   

)/01&#&/ 

&2&"3& ")
4 5

)60" 7 
&0
 8

) )& )/# 7)
&
 70019

5&+$
'%5

1'	 5

:/

(+	'	5;

6 6) 7)
)&
 0< 7)
&
 7001 5=

;&%! 5>

8* 

?
1 ' 

=

 ;

>%$	 	?

 "#&/ 0< 7)
&
 7001 9

9

@&%$	 :

5
@&#	! :

55
&'! <



(1 :;

5
	#	!	 :?

5:1%
&'	 
	 :>

# )
/A1&&//A)/# 6&/ )0"/)61& ;5

5;	
 ;

58%$%'	;;

5?)%
 ;?

5=)%
 
	;>

5>&+)!
' 8

59&+)!

$' 8

)!

)				%8;

)&/#2 8?

	

 

Charter schools are public schools that come into

existence through a contract with either a state agency

or a local school board. The charter—or contract—

establishes the framework within which the school

operates and provides public support for the school for

a specified period of time. The school’s charter gives

the school autonomy over its operation and frees the

school from regulations that other public schools must

follow. In exchange for the flexibility afforded by the

charter, the schools are held accountable for achieving

the goals set out in the charter including improving

student performance.

This Fourth-Year Report of the National Study of

Charter Schools provides descriptive information on

charter schools that were operating in the 1998–99

school year. Additional reports of the National Study

address broad policy issues concerning the charter

school movement and its potential effects on America’s

system of public education.

Growth Trends: The number of states with

charter legislation and the number of charter

schools continued to expand in 1999.

• During the 1999 legislative session, three states—

New York, Oklahoma, and Oregon—passed charter

legislation, bringing the total number of jurisdictions

with charter laws to 36 states and the District of

Columbia.. Charter laws have not remained static.

Several states amended their charter laws during the

1999 legislative session. One state increased the

number of charters that can be granted; two states that

previously only allowed pre-existing public schools

authorized newly created charter schools; two states

expanded the number of agencies allowed to grant

charters; and several states adjusted their charter school

financing mechanisms.

• Of the 36 states and the District of Columbia with

charter laws, 30 states and the District of Columbia had

operational charter schools as of September 1999.

Three of the 31 jurisdictions first opened charter

schools in September 1999. Twenty-eight jurisdictions

had operational charter schools at the time of our Spring

1999 survey. Nevada had only one operational charter

school in Spring 1999 and that school did not respond

to the survey, therefore, the school-level data reported

here rely on responses from schools in 27 states.

• An additional 421 charter schools opened in 1999,

bringing the total to 1,484 charter schools in operation

in 31 states and the District of Columbia as of

September 1999. Including multiple branches of a

school operating under the same charter, the total

number of charter school sites operating was 1,605 as of

September 1999

• The demand for charter schools remains high—7

of 10 charter schools reported that they have a waiting

list. This percentage is the same as reported for

1997–98.

• Twenty-seven charter schools closed during the

1998–99 school year. Since the first charter school

opened in 1992, a total of 59 charter schools—nearly 4

percent of all charter schools that have ever opened—

have closed. 

• The number of students in charter schools

increased in the 1998–99 school year by nearly 90,000,

bringing the total to more than 250,000 students. This

total represents 0.8 percent of all public school students

in the 27 states with open charter schools as of the

1998–99 school year. 

Characteristics of Charter Schools: Most charter

schools are newly created, small schools. 

• Most charter schools are small schools—the

median enrollment in all charter school sites is 137

students per school, whereas all public schools in the

charter states had a median enrollment of about 475

students. This is similar to the median charter school

size of 132 reported for 1998–99. 

• Nearly half of the charter schools have a grade

configuration that deviates from the traditional

elementary, middle, high school configuration. In

1998–99, one-quarter of the charter schools spanned

K–8, K–12, or were ungraded compared to less than

one-tenth of all public schools.

• Seven of 10 charter schools are newly created

schools. Schools that opened in the 1998–99 school

year continued the trend from previous years that most

schools opening in the year were newly created.

Newly created charter schools, with a median

enrollment of 128 students, are smaller, on average,

than converted pre-existing public schools. 



 	



• Eleven of the 36 states with charter laws allow

private schools to convert to charter schools. The

District of Columbia also allows private schools to

convert to charter status. Ten percent of all charter

schools were private schools prior to their conversion to

charter status. 

• The median student to teacher ratio for charter

schools, 16 students per teacher, was slightly lower than

the ratio for all public schools—17.2.

• About two-thirds of charter schools had a student

to computer ratio of fewer than 10 students per

computer. About two-thirds of all schools with

computers used for instruction had computers in 75

percent of their classrooms. 

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.

• White students made up about 48 percent of charter

school enrollment in 1998 compared to about 59

percent of public school enrollment in 1997–98. The

percentage of white students in charter schools is

slightly lower than reported in 1997–98

• Charter schools in several states—Connecticut,

Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan,

Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Texas—

enroll a much higher percentage of students of color

than all public schools in those states. Charter schools

in Alaska, California, and Georgia serve a higher

proportion of white students than do all public schools

in those states.

• Nearly 7 of 10 charter schools have a student

racial/ethnic composition that is similar to their

surrounding district. About 17 percent of charter

schools serve a higher percentage of students of color

than their surrounding district while about 14 percent

have a lower percentage of students of color.

• Charter schools enroll a slightly higher percentage

of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch than

do all public schools in the 27 charter states. 

• The estimated percentage of limited English

proficient (LEP) students in charter schools is about 10

percent, which is about the same as for all public

schools in the 27 charter states. The percentage of LEP

students is about the same as reported for 1997–98.

• Without regard to differences across states, the

reported percentage of students with disabilities at

charter schools is about 8 percent, which is lower than

the 11 percent for all public schools in these states.

The Founding of Charter Schools: Most charter

schools seek to realize an alternative vision of

schooling. 

• Nearly two-thirds of newly created charter schools

seek to realize an alternative vision of schooling, and an

additional one-quarter of newly created schools were

founded primarily to serve a special target population of

students. More than one-third of pre-existing public

schools report that they converted to charter status in

order to gain autonomy from district and state

regulations.

• Nearly 4 of 10 charter schools that were previously

private schools converted to charter status to realize an

alternative vision of education.

Challenges Implementing Charter Schools:

Practically all charter schools have had to

overcome obstacles during their development.

Many of the obstacles have to do with resource

limitations. 

• Most charter schools continue to cite resource

limitations—either lack of start-up funds or inadequate

operating funds—as serious challenges to their

implementation. 

• Newly created charter schools were more likely to

cite resource limitations as a major difficulty than preexisting charter schools. 

• A much lower percentage of charter schools that

first opened in the 1998–99 school year report that start

up funding was a major difficulty. For schools that

opened in 1998–99 school year, 39 percent cited start

up funds as a limitation, down from 59 percent for

schools that opened in 1997–98 school year. The

reduction is likely to reflect support from the federal

charter school start up funding program. 
	

 

• About 4 of 10 charter schools that were preexisting public schools reported that state or local board

opposition or regulations presented obstacles to their

school’s implementation. About 1 in 5 schools that

were formerly public indicated that they had difficulty

with teacher unions or collective bargaining

agreements. Fewer than 1 of 20 charter schools

reported implementation difficulty due to federal

regulations. 

Autonomy and Accountability: Charter schools

have considerable autonomy. They are also

held accountable to provide financial and

student achievement reports to different

constituencies. 

• The majority of charter schools reported they had

primary control over most areas critical to school

operations, including purchasing, hiring, scheduling,

and curriculum. Slightly fewer charter schools reported

that they had control over student admissions, student

assessment, and budget. Compared to newly created

charter schools, a lower proportion of pre-existing

public schools said they had primary control in every

category of control. 

• Most charter schools provide one or more noninstructional services (e.g., health services, social

services, and before and after school care). Newly

created charter schools that provided services were

about equally likely to provide the services themselves

or to make arrangements for an outside provider. In

contrast, about 6 of 10 pre-existing charter schools rely

on districts to provide services. Pre-existing private

schools were equally likely to provide services

themselves and use an outside provider. 

• More than 9 of 10 charter schools were monitored

for accountability in terms of school finances; nearly 9

of 10 for student achievement and for compliance with

regulations; more than 8 of 10 for student attendance;

and more than 6 of 10 for instructional practices. Each

of these represent an increase in the percentage of

schools reporting monitoring in these areas in 1996–97.

• The 27 charter states differ greatly in how they

approach accountability, with some following a

“centralized” state agency approach, others a “marketdriven” approach, and still others a “district-based”

approach that relies on local accountability within a

framework of state testing.

• More than 70 percent of charter schools (based on

a selected sample 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. 

• More than 9 of 10 charter schools used student

achievement tests, augmented by other measures of

student performance and school success, to make

reports to their chartering agency, the school’s

governing board, and/or parents. More than one-third

of charter schools used at least seven measures of

school performance, including standardized tests and

other measures of student achievement, parent and

student surveys, and behavioral indicators.

	

 

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 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 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

administration of teacher surveys to teachers in all field

visit sites; (5) analyses across states of charter laws,

state agency rulings and procedures, court rulings, and

education policies; and (6) an examination of how

charter school legislation and the existence of charter

schools have affected school districts. 

This Report, the fourth annual report from the Study,

presents findings that focus on describing how charter

schools are being implemented. Other Study reports

address the remaining 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.

Section A begins with an overview of the charter

movement. It describes the growth of charter schools,

paying particular attention 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. School

characteristics included in this section are school size,

grade level configuration, student to teacher ratio, and

student to computer ratio.

Section C focuses on student demographic features of

charter schools compared to other public schools. This

section 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 ways in which they may be

held accountable.

$"#"
% 	



The findings presented in this Report rely on four

waves of telephone surveys to all cooperating charter

schools that were open between the 1995-96 and 1998-

99 school years, 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, the school administrator was asked to respond to a

follow-up 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, 1998,

and 1999. 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 surveys in 1988 and

1999. 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

and the follow-up survey in 1999. For the fourth wave

of data collection (Spring 1999), an additional 401

charter schools had opened and were asked to respond

to the new school survey in 1999. Survey response

rates ranged from 78 to 91 percent. The number of

charter schools surveyed and the number that responded

are included in the table below.

In general, this Report relies on the most recent

information available but also draws from a range of

years (1996-99). Unless otherwise noted, all charter

school data presented in this report is drawn from the

annual telephone survey data. Where possible, 1999

data are used. If we did not have data from a 1999

survey, the information is taken from previous surveys,

the most recent of the 1998, 1997, or 1996 surveys. For

a small number of questions, we asked for information

only on selected surveys. In some cases, we only asked

a question on the initial survey and not the follow-up

survey. In those cases, we report the responses for all

operating charter schools at the time of their first

survey. In other cases, we only asked the question on a

follow-up survey. When we report on data gathered

only on a selected survey, we refer to a selected sample

of schools. Responses for questions asked only on the

1998 and 1999 follow-up survey represent 87 percent of

available charter schools (534 schools of a possible 614

responded). 

It should be noted that for tables in the Report that

present data by state, we have omitted states where

three or fewer charter schools responded to the survey

in order to protect school confidentiality. We make an

exception to this rule in reporting school enrollment

data and in reporting data on the charter creation status.

In addition, state-level data from states that have fewer

than 10 charter schools may not be meaningful and

should be interpreted with caution. 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 in the Report, 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 California, Colorado, the

District of Columbia, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio,

and Pennsylvania to include 1998-99 enrollment data

for 36 missing schools in those states. The number of

charter schools represented by these data is 1,011,

which is 94 percent of our estimate of the 1,078 charter

schools in operation during 1998-99. Enrollment for

schools with multiple branches was summed across all

branches.

1 The Study's definition of a charter school is a school operating under state charter legislation. 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 lowincidence 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 (Puerto Rico).

#" 
	

 &

'()*	

+,'+,

-,(./


-,0

-+0(+,1

22322%


/

00++,



	

22%322&


/

00++,



	

22&3224


/

00++,



	

2243222


/

22% 22& 224 222


	

-)*5

222

60 '7     






(./ ,70   	 	
 



!+ 60   
  	

	

78

(-

(./ ,70     



,0 60    	


	

78

(-

(./ ,70    


+0 60    

	

78

(-

(./ ,70     

2 This number does not reflect schools that opened during a particular year, but the number of schools surveyed. Schools may have been 

surveyed for the first time in a year later than they first opened because they were either non-respondents in a previous survey year or we 

were unable to identify them as an operational charter school in the school year in which they opened. 

3 This number includes 23 schools that were closed as of the 1998-1999 school year; 12 from the first wave of data collection (schools opened

prior to the 1995-96 school year), 6 from the second wave of data collection (schools opened as of the 1996-97 school year), and 5 from the

third wave of data collection (schools opened as of the 1997-98 school year). The 59 charter schools that have closed among all charter

schools include schools that closed before the Study began, schools that did not respond to the telephone survey, and schools that closed in

their first year before the Study was able to survey them. For the 1999 survey, an additional 60 schools were surveyed that had not responded

to previous new school surveys.

Some tables in this Report provide comparison

information about all public schools in the 27 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

1997-98. These data refer to all public schools

(including charter schools) in the 27 charter states. For

public school information on racial demographics,

1,177 schools or 2.1 percent of all 56,640 public

schools reported racial information that was considered

invalid because it did not match the total enrollment

information. An additional 714 public schools did not

report ethnicity data. The ethnicity tables are therefore

calculated on the basis of 54,749 public schools. In all

cases, we drew on the best comparative data available.

 	
  
 


  
	
 

   	
	
  

 


     
   




 



 
 !""
# $%

 	
  
 

Charter schools have spread rapidly across the country since the first two charter schools opened

in 1992. The number of states with charter legislation continues to rise, as does the number of

charter schools. State laws differ, but all grant charter schools some degree of autonomy over their

educational programs and operations in exchange for greater accountability for student outcomes.

• As of September 1999, 36 states and the District of

Columbia had passed charter legislation and charter

schools were in operation in 32 states. Three states—

New York, Oklahoma, and Oregon—enacted charter

legislation in the 1998–99 legislative session. 

• As of September 1999, more than 1,400 charter

schools were in operation. Counting “branch schools” in

Arizona, in which similar instructional programs are

operated at several school sites under one charter, there

were more than 1,600 charter school sites in operation. 

• Continuing the trend, the largest yearly increase in

the number of charter schools came in the most recent

year, with 421 new schools opened as of September,

1999. This growth in the number of charter schools was

driven in part by large increases in several states. In

Texas, 64 new schools opened in fall of 1999, while

California had 56 new schools open. Charter schools

continued to be concentrated in a small number of states:

50 percent of charter schools were located in Arizona,

California, Michigan, and Texas. 

• By the beginning of the 1999–2000 school year, 59

charter schools, nearly 4 percent of all charter schools

ever opened, had closed. The largest number of

closures, 16 schools, came in Arizona, also the state with

the largest number of charter schools. The closure rate

in Arizona is slightly larger than the national average

with more than 6 percent of schools closing.











	

	

	

	

	




 


 



 



 


 


 



 




&'(" ! )"* +$ #"" %# $%

%*',&'(" !)"* +$""
# $%-(."

 !""
# $% 

/)+,*+0""
# $ 1'+


%2*""0*%$* +(."%%,% !
)'("333

33 33 334 33 335 336 337 338 333

  



 !"

 !

#$% 

& 

'(

)$

*

'+

'+

,$

#$)-!

."

/!0

&1-

  "

, 

2

0

#$31

#!

"!

4%



#5

6!

715

0!

"

8!

9

#$:+

6+!-

6

%*',&'(" !""
# $%*+)"* +% !
)'("333-(.


&'(" !#""%# $%%"*+0*+."

339

34

3349

3

339

35

3359

36

3369

37

3379

38

3389

33

 $

%# $%

#$ %,% !


)333

2%# $%

% !
)

333

 $

%# $%

 )"*+0


)333

 $  4 6 5 78 83  53  -8

  
        


     
 
 
 
 

     
    

 !      
 
 

#$%         

&         

'(  
 
    

  
 
    

)$       

 !" 
     
 


'+      

,$      


,      

2 
     


0      

."   
   

4%    
  

  "     

*     


#$31    
 


#!   
  

715  
   

/!0     

"!    
 

0!    

    

#5    

6! 
   

#$:+ 
 


" 
 


8!  

6+!-  

#64;<4!"1!"-= !55"	!"!- !-1" $!! !=

  ! !=1!-4!"-= !!$=5 "!"-= !

" !- !	 "1'(	"--50! 	!"11 "

! ! 5 !$$  -% ! 5"1 ! !$!!

"$ !	!"1 " ! ! ! !4+ "-" !

" !>?	!"1-!!"-= !" !$	
>	@?

-=




68/;<4!"1    !-" "-!--51" 	

 "!--,"51>

A
?	 ! ! 	 ! !"  

1 The column “Total schools closed as of Sept. 1999” reflects the cumulative number of charter schools closed since 1992.

2 The number of schools that opened in the 1998–99 school year is slightly different for some states than the number of schools reported as of September

1998. The 1998–99 column includes several schools that opened later in the 1998–99 school year.


 



 
 !""
# $%


  
	
	

Charter schools are a state phenomenon. Each piece of legislation grows from a state context and

the laws create differences in the types and number of charter schools opened in each state, the

level of freedom afforded charter schools, and the amount of accountability required of the schools. 

• Who can grant charters: The number and types of

agencies allowed to grant charters differ by state. In 14

states, only the local board can grant charters and in 8 of

those states, the decision of the local board can be

appealed to a higher authority. In seven states, some

state level agency (usually the State Board of Education)

is the only charter granting agency. In the remaining 16

states, multiple agencies are authorized to grant

charters—usually local boards and a state body. In five

states with multiple charter granting agencies,

universities (IHEs) also can grant charters.

• Charter creation status: Charter schools can either

be newly created or can be schools that were previously

district public schools or private schools. Each of the 37

states with charter legislation allows pre-existing public

schools to convert to charter status. All states except

Mississippi allow newly created schools. Legislation in

10 states allows private schools to convert directly to

charter status, while an additional 3 states allow private

schools to become charters under specific conditions.

• Number of charter schools allowed: Thirteen of the

37 charter states do not limit the number of charter

schools allowed to open in the state. Two states (Texas

and Nevada) place some limit on the number of charter

schools but do not limit the number of schools that enroll

at-risk students. The remaining 22 states either limit the

total number of schools in the state, the number allowed

by district, or the number allowed per year. 

• Duration of charter term: Charter schools are

established as limited-term contracts—at the end of the

contract period, the charter must be renewed. Charter

terms range between 3 and 5 years in 31 states. Arizona

and the District of Columbia have the longest charter

terms—15 years although both states require a review at

the end of 5 years.

:.*'+%* +% !""0*%$* +-(.


""#"* +%&%


  #+0"+#"" 2$.

#",

"

/*%*+0

)&($*#

"

/*%*+0

)"*1

&'(" !#""

%# $%$$ 2,

&"* + !

#"""'

;."%<

'+ . = : : #  8


'( . =	=	

 !=

: : : #- 


'+ = : : # #- 

 . =@ : : # "1 


 . =@ : : # #- 


  " = : : #  


,$ . = 5

B$1 

: : # #- 

, . =	=	

 !=@

: : : "1 


2 . =@ : : # 6!- 

 = : : # #- 


)$ = : : # 
 

0! . =@ : : #  8


0 . =$!=5$@



: : # 
 C


* . = : : # 
 

." . ==@ : : #  


 !""
# $% 4


""0*%$* +

""#"* +%&%


  #+0"+#"" 2$.

#",

"

/*%*+0

)&($*#

"

/*%*+0

)"*1

&'(" !#""

%# $%$$ 2,

&"* + !

#"""'

;."%<

 !" . = 5

=$1 

: : # 
 


 ! . =0); : : : #- 8

 . =0);@ : : : #- 

 . == # : #  

" . =	0);	 --"1

 


: : : 6!- 
C

#5 B!. == : : # 6!- 

#$)-! . =@ : : # "1 


#$31 -- : : # 

 

#$%  . == : : # "1 


#$:+ . =	=	8#:=

"

: : # $D"-

"=  5




#! . =	=	0); : : :  


6! . == : : # #- 8


6+!- . =@ : : # 6!- 

6 . == : : # 6!- 8


715 . = : : : #- 


/!0 = : : #  8


"! . =@ : : : #- 

4% . = 5

=$1 

: : : #-  

 !

8! = : : #  

9 . = : : #   

&  . = : : : #- 8


&1- . = : : # #- 8


1 Although Florida's legislation 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 While Florida's 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.

3 Illinois' legislation stipulates that a private school must cease operation as a private school before applying for charter status. 4 Idaho's legislation limits the annual number of new charters to 12 with a statewide limit of 60.

5 Missouri's legislation limits charter schools to St. Louis and Kansas City with those districts, colleges and universities, and community colleges

authorized to grant charters only in St. Louis and Kansas City.

6 Missouri's legislation states that no more than 5 percent of the buildings used for instruction in a district may be converted to charter schools. 7 Nevada's legislation 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.

8 New Hampshire's legislation allows 10 new charters annually until the year 2000.

9 Charter legislation in New Jersey requires a legislative review (including a review of the number of charter schools allowed) in 2000. 10 New Mexico's legislation allows up to 20 new schools annually up to a maximum of 100 schools.

11 Oklahoma's legislation only allows charter schools in districts enrolling 5,000 or more students.

12 Oregon's legislation limits charter school enrollment to 10 percent of the total number of students enrolled in public schools in the district. 13 Texas' legislation does not limit campus charters (schools that were previously district public schools) but limits open-enrollment charters (newly

created schools or previously private schools) to 100 with no limit for charters serving at-risk students. 

14 Wisconsin's legislation allows the conversion of private schools only in Milwaukee.


 



 
 !""
# $%

   	
	
  



Charter school legislation allows charter schools to be created in several different ways. Groups

of parents, teachers, and community members can start newly created schools. In addition, public

and private schools may be able to convert to charter school status. Because the types of

authorized charter schools vary state by state, characteristics of charter schools often differ from

one state to another. Some states have many charter schools that were pre-existing public schools,

while in other states there are few. 

• As of the 1998–99 school year, 72 percent of all

charter schools were newly created schools. An

additional 18 percent had been pre-existing public

schools before becoming charter schools, while 10

percent had been pre-existing private schools.

• Newly created schools continued to make up the

majority of charter schools created in each year. Preexisting public schools, which constituted 44 percent of

all charter schools opened in the 1994–95 school year or

earlier, constituted only 15 percent of charter schools

opened in the 1998–99 school year. This decline in the

percentage of charter schools that converted from preexisting public schools was due in part to the fact

that 37 percent of charter schools that were pre-existing

public schools were located in California and converted

in the first years that California had a charter school law.

• Legislation in the 27 states with operating charter

schools in 1998–99 permits the conversion of existing

public schools to charter schools. In 26 of these states,

state charter legislation allows the creation of new

charter schools as well. Twelve states permit preexisting private schools to become charter schools,

although some states require that the private schools

disband and reconstitute themselves before applying for

a charter or limit the geographic areas in which private

schools may convert to become charter schools.

%*',"#+0 !""
# $%-(."* +
&%

#$1 E

7C%"= E

7C%5E

#64;<4!=-

 ! !!!"51'!"!#5!

 ! !!

A

 !1	! !!"51
 !""
# $% 5

42$.",+,"/*%*+0""
# $%

1 NA indicates that the state’s legislation did not allow for that type of charter school when the schools that responded to our survey received

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

2 Colorado does not allow private schools to become charter schools, but one charter school was a pre-existing program for adjudicated youth. 3 Although Florida’s law does not allow private schools to apply directly to become charter schools, private schools may disband, reincorporate

as new organizations with new boards, and apply for charters if they agree to enroll students through a public lottery. 

4 The original charter laws in Georgia, New Mexico, and Arkansas did not permit newly created charter schools, but legislative changes in

1998–99 have resulted in laws that now allow newly created charter schools.

5 Illinois charter legislation stipulates that a private school must cease operation as a private school before applying for charter status. 6 Kansas law does not allow private schools to become charter schools. We are still clarifying the status of one school that reported it was

previously a private school. 

7 New Mexico legislation was amended in 1999 to allow newly created schools, but this change was too early for newly created schools to be

surveyed for this report.

8 Wisconsin’s law allows for the conversion of private schools only in Milwaukee.

%*',&'("+,"#+0 !2$.",+,"/*%*+0""
# $%-(.

" !
# $)+*+0

&'(" !#""

%# $% 2$.#", "/*%*+0)&($*# "/*%*+0

)"*1

 $*+338933 375 7 74 38

= ! $ 7 77 

"#+0 !%# $%;=<

6

A

 
 
  

6


A
 
   


6

A
   
 


6

A
 
 
 
 


6

A

   
 

%*',&'("+,"#+0% !""
# $%-(."* +
&%+,


 $ 2$.#", "/*%*+0)&($*# "/*%*+0)"*1

$$%# $% F E F E F E

 $ 375 7 7 74 77 38 

'+      #' #'

'(  
    
 


 
 
 
   #' #'

 

 
     

  "      #' #'

,$      #' #'

, "-= 
      

2 
 
 
   
 

4 
    
 #' #'

)$      #' #'

0!   
  
 #' #'

0  
 
   
 

* 
      

."      #' #'

 !"      #' #'

 !  
   
  

       


  #' #'   #' #'

#$31      #' #'

#$%  
 #' #' 
  #' #'

#! 
      


6!      #' #'

715  
     

/!0   
  
 #' #'

"!   
  
  

4%  
 
 
   

&    
    


#64;<4!=-

 ! !!!"51 	 
 





















































 
 





























































 














































    















































  














































  
              
    
   


 	 


As in past years, charter schools enrolled a relatively small percentage of public school students

nationwide. Only three states had 2 percent or more of their public school enrollment in charter

schools, with the District of Columbia enrolling the greatest percentage of students in charter

schools. However, the number of students enrolled in charter schools continued to grow, with

California charter schools continuing to enroll the greatest number of students. As the number of

charter schools increases and student enrollment in charter schools expands, their potential impact

on public education also increases. 

• In 1998–99, the Study estimated that charter school

enrollment totaled 252,009 in the 27 states with open

charter schools. This enrollment was 0.8 percent of all

students in public schools in the 27 charter states.

• With 73,905 students in charter schools, California

had the most charter school students of any state. More

than half of all charter school students (52 percent) are

enrolled in charter schools in three states: Arizona,

California, and Michigan. 

• The District of Columbia, with an estimated 3,364

students enrolled in charter schools, had more than 4

percent of its public school students enrolled in charter

schools, the highest percentage of public school students

enrolled in charter schools in all 27 charter states.

Arizona had 4 percent of their public school students

enrolled in charter schools, while Colorado had 2 percent. 

• The percentage of public school students enrolled in

charter schools increased in all 27 charter states in the

1998–99 school year as compared to the 1997–98 school

year. 





 



  
!"! #$"%! %
&##'(

(!)*"! +,%#''* ,!),"%! %
&##'(",+''-.')&
&##'(),! /"%! %
!"! (


!"! 

"%! %(&##'

 ,%#''* ,!011211

''3-.')&(&##'

 ,%#''* ,!0"''11/

4#$3-.')&(&##'(!-+ ,!(

5#"% ),&"%! %(&##'(

#!"' 601 7060// 


 	
  


   	


 
 
	 


  

 


   


   


  !" 	 

 	
	

#  	 


$%  
 
	

& 
 
 
	

'( 
 			 


'   


) 	 	
 


*  

 


+( 
 	 


+(% 	 
 


+ 	
 

 


+,, 	 


 


- ./ 	 	 


- +0 	 
 
	

-(    


1(  
 


2/3 	
	  


4( ' 
  


5(  	 
 


60   


7  
 


8"%! %(&##' ,%#''* ,!),&'-+ (+"!"$#%0&"%! %(&##'(",+)(."( +#,% (3#,( ($%#*"''1/6#3 ,&"%! %

(&##'(!"!% (3#,+ +!#! (-%9 :0(-33' * ,! +5)!+"!"$%#*(!"! + 3"%!* ,!(#$ +-&"!)#,



8


 3"%!* ,!#$+-&"!)#,0"!)#,"' ,! %$#%+-&"!)#,
!"!)(!)&(0#**#,#% #$"!"
-%9 :011/21

 
!"! #$"%! %
&##'(
 1


,%#''* ,!.:
!"! 

"%! %
&##',%#''* ,!"(" %& ,!"; #$-.')&
&##',%#''* ,!0.:
!"! 

8 8 8 8 	8 8

7 

60

5( 

4( '

2/3 

1(

-( 

- +0 

- ./

+,,

+

+ (%

+ (

*

)

'

'(

&

$%

#

   !"



  









 %& ,! "; #$(! -+ ,! (),"''3-.')& (&## '(


9

9

1 We do not have 1998-99 data for Idaho, Mississippi, and Ohio because their charter schools were not open at the time of our 1998-99 survey. 

In 1997-98, the number of students enrolled in South Carolina charter schools was too small to register on the scale.




 



  
!"! #$"%! %
&##'(


 


As in past years, charter schools continued to be small schools. In fact, a high percentage of charter schools enrolled fewer than 200 students. Newly created charter schools especially continued

to enroll, on average, fewer students than other public schools. This tendency towards small

school size may reflect a desire on the part of charter school founders and parents for structuring

their schools in a way that enables them to provide intimate, nurturing school communities. 

• Charter schools tend to enroll, on average, fewer

students than all public schools. During the 1998–99

school year, the median number of students in charter

schools was 137, compared to a median of 475 in all

public schools. 

• Similar to data reported in previous years, in

1998–99 more than 3 times as many charter schools as

compared to other public schools enrolled fewer than

200 students (65 percent and 17 percent respectively).

Nearly 4 times as many charter schools as compared to

other public schools enrolled fewer than 100 students

(35 percent and 9 percent respectively).

• Newly created charter schools were especially likely to be smaller schools than other public schools, with a

median enrollment of 128. Charter schools that were

pre-existing public schools had a median enrollment of

368, much closer to the median enrollment of all public

schools. 

• Only 8 percent of charter schools enrolled more

than 600 students, as opposed to 35 percent of all public

schools. And only 1 percent of charter schools enrolled

more than 1,000 students, as compared to 11 percent of

all public schools. 

• Few newly created schools enrolled large numbers

of students, with only 10 schools, slightly more than 1

percent, enrolling more than 1,000. Pre-existing public

and all public schools each had approximately 10 percent of their schools enrolling more than 1,000 students.

Since the Study’s last report, the median size of newly

created charter schools increased from 111 to 128. 

(!)*"! +
&##'
)< $#%"%! %
&##'(",+''-.')&
&##'(),! /"%! %
!"! (

"%! %
&##'% "!)#,
!"!-(

''3-.')&

(&##'(

"%! %

(&##'()! ( 5':&% "! + %  =)(!),;3-.')&

%  =)(!),;

3%)9"! 

-*. %#$(&##'( 60 0 / /7 1

 +)",,-*. %#$(!-+ ,!( /6 7/  7 61


&##',%#''* ,!",; 4#$(&##'(

9 
 	
 
 
 



9 
 
	 
 

 



9 	
 
 
 

 


9 	
 
	 
	 

 


  ! 
 
 
	 
	 


-16:; 6( ( !  <( (=    	 ( (   "     ; >?

, !  , ( (  3"( ( ,  ( 3/  >? !    (

( ! @3
 6( ,%  ! 	     (  /,  ( (    


 ( ( ( ,  ( 3/A   "  " !  ( (   ( 

( (  (! !   " ! @3


51B4:; B
5
 ,!  : -  : 5 !!    53/ 
9

 
!"! #$"%! %
&##'(
 

6

&##'
)< 

(!)*"! +)(!%).-!)#,#$
&##'
)< $#%"%! %
&##'(",+''-.')&
&##'(

(!)*"! +)(!%).-!)#,#$
&##'
)< $#%5':% "! +",+%  =)(!),;"%! %
&##'(

8

8

8

8

	8

8

8

@ @ @ @   !


! -+ ,!  ,%# ''* ,!

 %& ,!";  #$ (&##'(

(  (

,"  (

8

8

8

8

	8

@ @ @ @   !

)(! %).-! )#,#$
&## '
)< 

 %& ,!";  #$ (&##'(

-/  

2 @0% ,"

2 @0% ,3 
  

State charter laws give charter developers the freedom to choose the grade structure and age range

of the students their schools will serve. A large number of charter schools have chosen to reduce

the number of transitions from school to school by keeping their students at the same school for an

extended period of time. At least twice as many charter schools as compared to all public schools

served students in K-8, K-12, or ungraded grade spans. In addition, the vast majority of charter

schools that reported "other" grade configurations served students in at least two of the traditional elementary, middle, and high school grade configurations.

• In 1998–99, about one-half (52 percent) of all charter schools were structured according to a traditional

grade-level configuration of elementary, middle, or high

school as compared to more than three-fourths (78 percent) of all public schools in the 27 charter states (in

1997–98). 

• In comparison to other public schools, almost 3

times as many charter schools spanned kindergarten

through 8th grade (16 percent), almost 4 times as many

charter schools spanned kindergarten through 12th grade

(8 percent), almost twice as many charter schools

spanned the middle-high grades (10 percent), and over

twice as many charter schools had “other” grade configurations (5 percent). 

• The highest percentage of both charter and other

public schools were elementary schools—but nearly

twice as many other public schools were elementary (47

percent) as compared to charter schools (25 percent). 

• The high school grade configuration was the only

one with approximately equal percentages in both charter (17 percent) and other public schools (15 percent).

Pre-existing public charter schools were more likely to

be high schools (23 percent) than were either newly created (16 percent) or pre-existing private charter schools

(10 percent). Charter schools that were pre-existing private or newly created were more likely to serve primary,

K–8, K–12, and other grade levels than were pre-existing public schools. 





 



  
!"! #$"%! %
&##'(

1 Grade levels are defined as follows: Primary includes only grades K–3; Elementary includes any of grades K–3 and at least one 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 grades 7–8

and no grades 9–12; Middle-high 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 breakdowns; Ungraded indicates that no grade levels are used at the school.

"%! %
&##'% "!)#,
!"!-(

''3-.')&

(&##'(

"%! %

(&##'( 5':&% "! + %  =)(!),;3-.')&

%  =)(!),;

3%)9"! 

-*. %#$(&##'( 60 1/6 / /7 1

4#$(&##'(

2!/ 
 
 
 	
 


:!/ 	
 
 
 
 
	

+ 
 

 
 
 


)9 
 

 
 
 


+@(%( 

 
 
 
 


&%( 
	 
 
 
 


)9 
 
 
 
 


1( 
 
 
 

 


B% 
 

 

 
 


-16:; 6(   "  , ! 
 , ( ( ( ,  ( 3/


51B4:; B
5
 ,!  : -  : 5 !!    53/ 
9


(!)*"! +%"+  9 ')(!%).-!)#,$#%"%! %
&##'(",+''-.')&
&##'(),! /

"%! %
!"! (
 
!"! #$"%! %
&##'(
 7


%"+  9 '#,$);-%"!)#,

(!)*"! +%"+  9 ')(!%).-!)#,$#%"%! %
&##'(

(!)*"! +%"+  9 ')(!%).-!)#,$#%"%! %
&##'(",+''-.')&
&##'(),! /

"%! %
!"! (

)@ 8

+@&%( 8

&%( 8

)@ 8 1( 8

B% 8

2!/ 8

:!/ 8

+ 8

8 8 8 8 	8 8

B%

1(

)@

&%(

+ @&%(

)@

+

:!/

2!/

 %& ,! "; #$(! -+ ,! (

(  (

,"  (




 



  
!"! #$"%! %
&##'(


   

Many charter school developers reported that they created their schools in part to provide smaller classes and that parents often chose their schools because their class sizes were low. Using a

common approximation of class size-the student to teacher ratio-we found that class sizes were

slightly smaller, on average, in charter schools than in other public schools, although there was

variation across schools with different grade configurations. Charter school class sizes varied

more than class sizes in other public schools. Class sizes at charter schools were likely to be smaller when compared to other public schools at schools that served younger students. Charter schools

that served high-school students tended to have class sizes that were the same or larger than other

public schools. 

• In 1998–99, most charter schools had a slightly

lower teacher to student ratio than did all public schools

in the 27 charter states (in 1997–98). The median student to teacher ratio for charter schools was 16.0 as compared to 17.2 for all public schools. 

• The difference between charter and all public

schools in the median teacher to student teacher ratio

was about two students per teacher at the primary, K–12,

and “other” grade levels. The gap was less than one at

the elementary, K–8, middle, middle-high, and high

school levels.

• The most noticeable difference between the charter

school and the all public school median student to

teacher ratio was at the ungraded schools, with ungraded charter schools having a much higher student to

teacher ratio, 18.8 students per teacher, as compared to

8.8 students per teacher in other public schools. 

• A higher proportion of all public schools had student to teacher ratios in the mid-range (16–20 students

per teacher), while charter schools were more likely to

have both smaller and larger class sizes. Some cases of

high student to teacher ratios for charter schools—especially at the high school level—may reflect the school’s

use of non-traditional educational approaches such as

self-paced computer assisted instruction and distance

learning.

1 We were able to obtain all public schools data on the number of students and the number of classroom teachers by school. Similarly, most of

the charter schools (828 out of 945) provided information on number of full-time equivalent teachers, including regular classroom teachers,

special area or resource teachers, and long-term substitutes. This number of teachers excludes instructional aides. Because of differing survey

questions from year to year, the remaining 117 schools that did not complete a 1999 survey were asked to provide information on instructional

staff, including certified classroom teachers, noncertified classroom teachers, resource teachers, certified special education teachers, and other

instructional staff (excluding instructional aides). The definition of number of classroom teachers will therefore vary somewhat according to

the year in which the school responded.

"%! %(&##'( ''3-.')&(&##'(

-*. %#$(&##'(  +)",(!-+ ,!! "& %

%"!)#

-*. %#$(&##'(  +)",(!-+ ,!! "& %

%"!)#

#!"' 16 
 6066 /


2!/ 

 
  



:!/  

 	 



)9  
  



+  
	  
	

+@(%(  
  	


&%( 	 
	 
 


)9 
 
 
 


1( 	 	
 
 


B% 
 
  


-16:; 6(   "  , ! 	  ( 
 , ( ( ( ,  ( 3/
 1 (

!%  (    ,  ( 3 3/ C   (( ,   

!3 ! ( !,


51B4:; B
5
 ,!  : -  : 5 !!    53/ 
9



!-+ ,!!# "& %"!)#$#%"%! %
&##'(",+"''-.')&
&##'(),! /"%! %


!"! (
 
!"! #$"%! %
&##'(
 6

/

!-+ ,!!# "& %"!)#

(!)*"! + %& ,!"; #$,(!%-&!)#,"'
!"$$),"%! %
&##'(",+''-.')&
&##'(),

! /"%! %
!"! (

' * ,! "%:
&## '(

8

8

8

8

	8

8

8

D                      E 


! -+ ,! ! # ! "& %%"! )#

 %& ,!";  #$ (&##'(

(

 (

,"

 (

 )++' 
&## '(

8

8

8

8

	8

8

8

D                      E 


! -+ ,! ! # ! "& %%"! )#

 %& ,!";  #$ (&##'(

(

 (

,"

 (

);
&## '(

8

8

8

8

	8

8

8

D                      E 


! -+ ,! ! # ! "& %%"! )#

 %& ,!";  #$ (&##'(

(

 (

,"

 (

  

Computers are essential tools in today's technological workplaces. One way in which schools can

help prepare their students for the future is to provide significant exposure to computers at an early

age. The varied nature of each school's educational vision in combination with often limited

finances may determine the extent to which schools view technology as a priority. Most charter

school classrooms were equipped with computers for instruction, student-computer ratios were

low, and the majority of computers were capable of running advanced applications. These findings are similar to the findings reported last year, although this year there was a decrease in the

percentage of schools reporting no classrooms with computers used for instruction.

• Averaging across schools, the estimated mean student to computer ratio in charter schools was 8.9 students per computer, which was slightly lower than the

estimated average (10.0 students per computer) for all

public schools in 1996-97.1 Two-thirds of our sample of

charter schools had a student to computer ratio of fewer

than 10 students per computer and almost one-third had

student to computer ratios of less than 5 students per

computer. Of the charter schools that reported having

computers, the estimated median student to computer

ratio was 6.2 students per computer.

• Of those charter schools that used computers for

instruction, nearly two-thirds (66 percent) had at leastthree-quarters of their computers capable of running

multimedia applications. Only a small proportion of

charter schools (6 percent) did not have any computers

capable of running advanced applications.

• The majority of charter schools made student use of

computers a part of classroom instruction—96 percent

of charter schools had classrooms equipped with computers. Approximately two-thirds (67 percent) of these

charter schools had computers available for instruction

in more than three-quarters of their classrooms. Only 13

percent of the schools with computers available for student instruction had no classrooms with 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 number of computers at

the school with one exception, schools with 10 or fewer computers are less likely to have multimedia capacity than schools with more than 10.

#!"'),("*3' >#$(&##'(1 4#$(&##'(

   (  

 


   (   


  ! 
 


 !,    
 	


"%! %(&##'(!"!"9 ! $#''#5),;3%#3#%!)#,#$

'"((%##*(5)!&#*3-! %(

-( +$#%),(!%-&!)#,

#*3-! %(5)!*-'!)* +)"&"3"&)!:

>#$(&##'( 4#$(&##'( >#$(&##'( 4#$(&##'(

#!"'),("*3'  /

-  
 	 


B,  @C 

 

  


1@C  @(  

  


1@(  (@C  

  



6(@C   
 
	 


-16:; 6(   "  , !   ( 
 , ( ( ( ,  ( 3/  ,3

!  !,   >	 (  0 " (   !,    (%(  "

 3?
 6(  "   (  , ( ( ( , (/ (    !,
 ' ! 

   (   ,  ,  ! ( !,   ! 	    (   ,  (

,%  !! !,


(!)*"! + %& ,!"; #$"%! %
&##'((),;#*3-! %(),! )%'"((%##*(",+

 %& ,!"; #$#*3-! %("3".' #$-,,),;-'!)* +)"33')&"!)#,(

(!)*"! +
!-+ ,!!##*3-! %"!)#$#%"
 ' &! +
"*3' #$"%! %
&##'(
 
!"! #$"%! %
&##'(
 /


#*3-! %($#%,(!%-&!)#,

(!)*"! +
!-+ ,!!##*3-! %"!)#$#%"
 ' &! +
"*3' #$"%! %
&##'(

(!)*"! + %& ,!"; #$'"((%##*(),"%! %
&##'(5)!#*3-! %(( +$#%

,(!%-&!)#,

8

8

8

8

	8

  !,  

 

B,      (    !


! -+ ,! ! # &#*3-! %%"! )#

 %& ,!";  #$ &"%! % (&##'(

8

8

8

8

	8

8

8


8

8

- B,   @C 1 @C 

 @(

1 @(  ( @

C

6( @C 



%#3#%! )#,#$& '"((%##*(

 %& ,!";  #$ &"%! % (&##'(

	


	 	
 

	
 	


	 







    	
	 	
 

 

 


 



 

 
	
 

	        	
	

	


	 	


Critics and advocates alike have feared that charter schools would primarily serve white students.

This has not turned out to be the case. Overall, charter schools enrolled a larger percentage of

students of color than all public schools in the states with open charter schools. Over the last 3

years, the percentage of white students served by charter schools has slightly declined. At the local

level, most charter schools had about the same proportion of white students (within 20 percent) as

their surrounding districts.

• In 1998–99, using the total number of students as

the base for calculation, charter schools enrolled

approximately 11 percent fewer white students than all

public schools (48 percent versus 59 percent) in the 27

charter states (in 1997–98). Charter schools were more

likely than all public schools to serve black students

(almost 24 percent versus 17 percent) and Hispanic

students (21 percent versus 18 percent). 

• In order to examine the racial/ethnic variability

across schools, we also calculated the average of the

schools’ racial/ethnic percentages. On average, charter

schools enrolled a significantly lower percentage of

white students (50 percent versus 63 percent) and a

much larger percentage of black students (27 percent

versus 17 percent) than all public schools in the 27

charter states.

• The percentage of white students in charter schools

declined from 52 percent in the 1996–97 school year to

about 48 percent in the 1998–99 school year.

• Sixty-nine percent of charter schools were within 20

percent of their surrounding district’s percentage of

nonwhite students, while almost 18 percent had a

distinctly higher percentage of students of color than

their surrounding district. Approximately 14 percent of

schools had a lower percentage of students of color than

their surrounding district.

	 	
	


  !"! #$	"%! %&##'(

1 The National Center for Education Statistics does not report an “other” racial category.

!)* +!( &##'(

,#$(!)* +!(-+&"! .#%/ 0#$(!)* +!(-+&"! .#%/

1 %". #$(&##'0#$

(!)* +!(-+%"&-"'

&"! .#%/

"&-"' !+-&&"! .#%- ( 	"%! %

(&##'(

''2)3'-&

(&##'(

	"%! %

(&##'(

''2)3'-&

(&##'(

	"%! %

(&##'(

''2)3'-&

(&##'(

#!"')43 % 566 5657 68 9586

		

	      

		

	      


      

 	!
"#      

 $"#	 %&      

'  %  %  % 

%'()*(#
	+	
+#	
	
	$	
	
		
	##

	,&-(		.	.&##/		.,$+	
,#

0	.1,		,#	$
	#(#	$
,#0

	$
			,	,##	

+#	
	
	$	
	


		
	##		,,&-#.&#	,#+#
#

2'345)*326
$	
)#,	%	5
	)#,	25	$$	5		
62,&-7

"&-"'!+-&	#42#(-!-#+#$	"%! %&##'!)* +!(	#42"% *!#'')3'-&&##'

!)* +!(-+! 8	"%! %!"! (
 !"! #$	"%! %&##'( 7

6!)* +!"&-"'!+-&	#42#(-!-#+

2 In general, we relied on schools to report their surrounding district when they responded to the survey. In a few cases where schools did not

report district information, we were able to match charter schools and districts by zip code using the 1997–98 Common Core of Data Survey.

	"%! %&##'+%#''4 +!3/"& 	#42"% *!#)3'-&&##'+%#''4 +!-+! 8

	"%! %!"! (

!)* +!"&-"'	#42#(-!-#+#$	"%! %&##'(	#42"% *!#! -%)%%#)+*-+.-(!%-&!(

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

   
 0!


"#

 $"#0

 %& 

'

"& -"'! +-& &"! .#%/

 %& +!".  #$ (!)* +!(

5 		

 
,+  		

8	
		

	#
	$#

9.8	
#

&:

8	
		

&	.8	;.

,##

9<8+	.#

&:

8	
		

&8	;.

,##

9<8+	&#

&:
	


	 



The racial/ethnic compoition of students in both charter schools and all public schools varies

greatly by state. In most states, the racial/ethnic distribution of charter schools did not mirror the

distribution in all public schools. Charter schools in approximately three-fifths of the charter

states enrolled a higher percentage of nonwhite students than all public schools in those states. In

slightly less than one-fifth of the charter states, charter schools enrolled a lower percentage of

nonwhite students. 

• In 1998–99, charter schools in 19 states enrolled an

equal or greater percentage (by at least 5 percent) of

nonwhite students than all public schools in those states

(in 1997–98). 

• In 14 states, the percentage of nonwhite students

enrolled in charter schools was higher (by at least 5

percent) than the percentage of nonwhite students in all

public schools. Charter schools in 6 of the 13 states that

had 20 or more charter schools—Massachusetts,

Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and

Texas—enrolled at least 20 percent more nonwhite

students than all public schools in those states.

• In six states, charter schools and all public schools

served approximately the same percentage of nonwhite

students (within 5 percent). Two of these states (Arizona

and Colorado) had more than 20 charter schools. 

• Charter schools in four states enrolled fewer

nonwhite students (by at least 5 percent) than all public

schools in those states. In 2 of the 13 states that had

more than 20 charter schools—California and Georgia—

charter schools enrolled at least 10 percent fewer

nonwhite students than all public schools in those states. 

• For students of color, the distribution of black

students in charter schools showed the greatest variation

in comparison to all public schools. Charter schools in

15 states enrolled a higher percentage of black students

(by at least 5 percent) than all public schools in those

states. Charter schools enrolled lower percentages of

black students (by at least 5 percent) than all public

schools in three states.

	 	
	


  !"! #$	"%! %&##'(

(!-4"! *1 %". #$&##'"&-"' %& +!". ("&%#((	"%! %&##'("+*'')3'-&

&##'(-+!"! (:-!4#% !"+	"%! %&##'(

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

 	

(=

!-& 

%	5	

%.>-

?	

? 

? ,

@	

A	#

5		#	

5
	

 B	

 %& +! ". #$: -! (! )* +! (

5 		

 
,+  		
 !"! #$	"%! %&##'( 

7!)* +!"&-"'!+-&-(!%-3)!-#+

1 The National Center for Education Statistics does not report an “other” racial category.

(!-4"! *1 %". #$&##'"&-"' %& +!". (&%#((	"%! %&##'("+*'')3'-&

&##'(

!"! ,#$

(&##'( 0-! 0'"&; 0
-(2"+-& 0(-"+

"&
(

04
+*-"+

'"(;""!-1 0! %7

         


,+      

 B	        


,+      

5
	        


,+      

5		#	        


,+      

5	,        


,+      

6	
5	,$+        


,+      

6.        


,+      

A	#        


,+      

@	        


,+      

"	        


,+      

C        


,+      

D	,        


,+      

?,        


,+      

?        


,+      

?	        


,+      

%.>-        


,+      

%.?=	        


,+      

%	5	        


,+      

'	        


,+      

!-&        


,+      

2	,5	        


,+      

(=        


,+      

	        


,+      

%'()*(#+#	
	
	$	
	
		
	##	,&-'
		

		E."#	?

#4	#"#F	#
-#++,	
.

		.
	&##
	$		0#+,	#
	$
, 		

&&##/		.,$+	
,#0	.1,		,#

	$
	#

2'345)*326
$	
)#,	%	5
	)#,	25	$$	5		
62,&-7




    	
	 	


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

common measure of economic disadvantage. Over the last 2 years, the percentage of eligible

charter school students has increased. In contrast to last year when charter schools served a

slightly lower percentage of economically disadvantaged students than all public schools in the 27

charter states, this year charter schools served a slightly higher percentage.

• In 1998–99, charter schools served a slightly higher

percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price

lunch than all public schools (in 1994–95) in the 27

charter states (39 percent versus 37 percent).

• The percentage of eligible charter students ranged

from 4 percent in Alaska to 95 percent in South

Carolina. This variation was much greater than in all

public schools in the 27 charter states, which ranged

from almost 23 percent in Connecticut to 60 percent in

the District of Columbia.

• In six of the charter states—Alaska, California,

Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, and New Mexico—the

percentage of eligible students was at least 10 points

lower in charter schools than in all public schools.

• The percentage of eligible students was at least 10

points higher in charter than in all public schools in 11 of

the charter states: Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas.

• In Michigan and California, the percentage of

eligible students charter schools and all public schools

enrolled was within 10 points last year. This year,

charters in Michigan served at least 10 percent more and

charters in California served at least 10 percent fewer

eligible students than all public schools in those states.

In Michigan, recently opened schools have higher

percentages of eligible students and in California

recently opened schools have lower percentages of

eligible students, especially in newly created schools.

	 	
	


  !"! #$	"%! %&##'(

(!-4"! *)43 %#$!)* +!('-.-3' $#%% "+* *)& *%-& )+&-+! 8

	"%! %!"! (

	"%! %(&##'(<766=66> ''2)3'-&(&##'(<766=69>

, '-.-3' (!)* +!( 0#$"''(!)* +!( , '-.-3' (!)* +!( 0#$"''(!)* +!(

#!"' 65 8 7757598 8

     

 B	    

5
	    

5		#	    

5	,    

6.    

6	
5	,$+    

A	#    

@	    

"	    

C    

D	,    

?,    

?    

?	    

%.>-    

%.?=	    

%	5	    

'	    

!-&    

2	,5	    

(=    

	    

%'()*(#+#	
	
	$	
	
		
	##	,&-'


				E."#	?

#4	#"#F	#
-#++,

	
.		
	&##
	$	+	,1,	#
	$
,(G(	H

	.,##
	$	


2'345)*(,$	E+-	,+-F.#.
	$326
$	
 ,,A		#%,	#

5	,$2&!	$"
	$	6&	
	7-+-.
,+#
	I,
,+		

(#	$	.#.
	$	




	
	326
$	
)#,	%	5
	

)#,	2E#F		+#
	$-		,$	
 !"! #$	"%! %&##'( 9

77!)* +!'-.-3-'-!/$#%% #% *)& *%-& )+&

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

 	

(=

2	,5	

!-& 

'	

%	5	

%.?= 	

%.>-

?	

? 

? ,

D	,

C

"	

@	

A	#

6 	
5	,$+

6.

5	  ,

5		#	

5
	

 B	

 

 %& +! ". #$(! )* +! (

5 		

 
,+  		

 %& +!". #$!)* +!('-.-3' $#%% #% *)& *%-& )+&-+	"%! %&##'("+*

'')3'-&&##'(
 

 




Like all public schools, charter schools are required to provide access and services to students with

disabilities. Over the last 3 years, charter schools have served a slightly lower proportion of

students with disabilities than all public schools in the charter states, and this finding continued to

be true this year. Across states, the percentage of students with disabilities served by charter

schools continued to vary significantly, in part because a higher proportion of charter schools in

some states were specifically designed to serve this population of students.

• In 1998–99, charter schools enrolled 3 percent

fewer students with disabilities than all public schools (8

percent versus 11 percent) in the 27 charter states (in

1997–98).

• The percentage of students with disabilities in

charter schools and all public schools was within 5

percent in most states. Ohio was the only state where the

percentage of students with disabilities was at least 5

points higher in charter schools than in all public

schools. The percentage of students with disabilities

was at least 5 points lower in charter schools than in all

public schools in six states: Alaska, Connecticut,

Delaware, Louisiana, Michigan, and New Jersey. 

• The percentage of students with disabilities varied

more from state to state for charter than for all public

schools in the 27 charter states. The percentage of

charter students with disabilities ranged from 5 percent

in Delaware and Louisiana to 18 percent in Florida. In

comparison, the percentage of students with disabilities

in all public schools in the 27 charter states ranged from

9 percent in Arizona to 16 percent in Massachusetts.

• Last year, the numbers of student with disabilities in

charter schools versus all public schools was more than

10 percent higher in Florida and more than 10 percent

lower in New Jersey. These differences decreased to 4

percent in Florida and 8 percent in New Jersey this year.

	 	
	


  !"! #$	"%! %&##'(

(!-4"! *)43 %"+* %& +!". #$!)* +!(:-!-("3-'-!- (-+! 8	"%! %!"! (

	"%! %(&##'(<766=66> ''2)3'-&(&##'(<7668=6>

,#$(!)* +!( 0#$(!)* +!( ,#$(!)* +!( 0#$(!)* +!(

#!"' 5987  59958 77

     

 B	    

5
	    

5		#	    

5	,    

6.    

6	
5	,$+    

A	#    

@	    

"	    

C    

D	,    

?,    

?    

?	    

%.>-    

%.?=	    

%	5	    

'	    

!-&    

2	,5	    

(=    

	    

%'()*(#+#		
	
		
	##	,&-#
	#,$+	
,#

.#+'
		+		E."#	?

#4	#"#F	#
-#

+,	
.		.
	&##
	$	+	,,#.#+#
	

$
,(G(	H	.,##
	$	


2'345)*(,$	E,$+	
,#&#,#"6) F.#.
	$
	


		


 !!


 "	
	#
	


326
$	
)#,	E
		$F(#	$	

E	$F.#.
	$326
$	
)#,	%	5
	)#,	25	$$	

5		
62,&-7
 !"! #$	"%! %&##'( 8

7!)* +!(:-!-("3-'-!- (

8 8 8 8 8

 	

(=

2	,5	

!-& 

'	

%	5	

%.?= 	

%.>-

?	

? 

? ,

D	,

C

"	

@	

A	#

6 	
5	,$+

6.

5	  ,

5		#	

5
	

 B	

 

 %& +! ". #$(! )* +! (

5 		

 
,+  		

(!-4"! * %& +!". #$!)* +!(:-!-("3-'-!- (-+	"%! %&##'("+*'')3'-&

&##'(


 

 
	


The percentage of limited English proficient (LEP) students served by charter schools and all

public schools was approximately the same; however, the number of LEP students in charter

schools and all public schools varied considerably by state. Over the past 3 years, the percentage

of LEP students enrolled in charter schools in all charter states has declined as more charter

schools have opened in states with lower concentrations of LEP students.

• Charter schools (in 1998–99) and all public schools

in the 27 charter states (in 1996–97) both served

approximately 10 percent limited English proficient

(LEP) students. 

• The percentage of LEP students in charter schools

varied widely across states. The states with very low or

very high percentages of LEP students in charter schools

were also the states with very small or very large

numbers of LEP students overall. 

• In 17 states, charter schools served approximately

the same number of LEP students (within 5 percent) as

all public schools in those states. Charter schools in

three states—Alaska, Colorado, and Florida—served a

lower percentage of LEP students than all public schools

in those states (by at least 5 percent). In Minnesota and

the District of Columbia, charter schools served a higher

percentage of LEP students (by at least 5 percent)

compared to all public schools in those states.

• The percentage of LEP students enrolled in charter

schools declined from almost 13 percent in the 1996–97

school year to 10 percent in the 1998–99 school year. 

	 	
	


  !"! #$	"%! %&##'(

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

(!-4"! *)43 %"+* %& +!". #$!)* +!(-+	"%! %&##'("+*'')3'-&

&##'(-+! 8	"%! %!"! (

(!-4"! *(!)* +!(

	"%! %(&##'(<766=66> ''2)3'-&(&##'(<766=68>

!"! ,#$(!)* +!( 0#$(!)* +!( ,#$(!)* +!( 0#$(!)* +!(

#!"' 5 66 575788 6

     

 B	    

5
	    

5		#	    

5	,    

6	
5	,$+    

6.    

A	#    

@	    

"	    

C    

D	,    

?,    

?    

?	    

%.>-    

%.?=	    

%	5	    

'	    

!-&   % % 

2	,5	    

(=    

	    

%'()*(#+#		
		
	##	,&-'
				
	$

E."#	?

#4	#"#F	#
-#++,
.		.


	&##
	$	+	,D)!,##
	$
,(G(	H	.,##
	$

A	
	
D)!,#	$
,#+-#&#,$+	
D)!,#+-	,$+	


	#,#

2'345)*'

	
,)#,	#?	-D, 

2,$$-4
		
2,&-	
2JD$#)

!	
2,## &+)#,	!	$#2&7*	65*326
$	
)#,	
 !"! #$	"%! %&##'( 6

7-4-! *+.'-(%#$-&- +!!)* +!(

8 8 8 8 8 8 8

 	

(=

2	,5	

!-& 

'	

%	5	

%.?= 	

%.>-

?	

? 

? ,

D	,

C

"	

@	

A	#

6.

6 	
5	,$+

5	  ,

5		#	

5
	

 B	

 

 %& +! ". #$(! )* +! (

5 		

 
,+  		

(!-4"! *)43 %"+* %& +!". #$!)* +!(-+	"%! %&##'("+*'')3'-&

&##'(

  		  	 






































 	 















































  

 



















































   
 	 
	 




























 
  

 






























 
  
 

































  	 				 

































	         
              
  




	

 



  !
	"#"!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()


  		  	

Educators, parents, and community leaders found charter schools for a variety of reasons.

Regardless of creation status, the primary motivation for founding a charter school was to seek an

alternative vision of schooling that could not be realized in the traditional public school system.

Newly created schools, in particular, reported on alternative curriculum and instructional

approaches and a vision for the organizational climate they wished to create. While vision was

also an important founding reason for public and private conversion schools, many pre-existing

public schools converted to charter status in order to gain increased autonomy, while many preexisting private schools sought to attain stable funding and attract students to their educational

approach. Increasingly, newly created and pre-existing charter schools are being founded to serve

a special population of students. About one in four charter schools established their charter to

serve a special population of students, often students considered "at-risk."

• Realizing an alternative vision for schooling was the

most important reason for founding charter schools—

three-quarters (75 percent) of charter schools cited

vision among other reasons for founding and 59 percent

of charter schools were founded primarily to realize an

alternative vision for schooling. 

• More charter schools opening in 1998–99 than those

founded prior to 1998 were founded to serve a special

population of students. In 1998–99, 28 percent of

charter schools were founded with the primary

motivation to serve a special population of students as

compared to 19 percent of all charter schools founded

prior to 1998. 

• Regardless of creation status, the primary reason for

founding charter schools was to realize an alternative

vision for schooling. However, a greater percentage of

newly created than pre-existing public or private

schools were founded primarily to realize an alternative

vision for schooling. About two-thirds of newly created

charter schools were founded primarily to realize an

alternative vision for schooling (64 percent) whereas

less than one-half of pre-existing public schools (44

percent) or pre-existing private schools (39 percent)

were founded primarily to realize an alternative vision. 

• Other important reasons for founding were

dependent on creation status. Approximately onequarter (26 percent) of the newly created schools were

founded primarily to serve a special population. Preexisting public schools were founded to gain autonomy

from state or district regulation (35 percent), or to serve

a special population (11 percent). Pre-existing private

schools converted to charter to serve a special

population (21 percent), to attract students (19 percent),

or for financial reasons (16 percent).

)"*+#"!,
!&'!-"#.!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()
/0
!#)$-)
%$&
$1-,*-.

	
	


	


	
			
	


	

		




				
	



  !2(0
'&!#"!, &!3!4*)"*-.

51/(*'

&!3!4*)"*-.

5&*6#"!

		


 789 7  9 7

!&'!-"#.!
$%
)' $$()
:;<

			
   !"" "# #$

%	&' (!$ $!  #" ""

)	
	 # " $  ((# ((

*	

 	( #$ # ($ ($

+	

  #  " (!

	 	$  $ #! ((

,-.	

			
		


		(		
			
	


	
	
		
	
		)

	/	
0

	
	

			
	
		
	/	
		+						1	


	/	
0	
	


		
	


		
			/
		
		
		+				
	#	

	!	1	




/	
0		

			
		

	
	
		
			
	

2	

			
		




	"!		
	(	
	


	
		


			

			
3((			

		($			


		
				
		
		
	"	

	!	
	
			
				
	

	

		
	


		(!$			(#		4'
		


1	 			$		4'
		


1

	!$$			 "		/		



 !
	"#"!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()


 =

9

 0
 #&"!&
	' $$()
#&!
	"#&"!,

!&'!-"#.!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()
/0
$)"
+5$&"#-"
!#)$-
%$&
$1-,*-.

!&'!-"#.!
$%
!2(0
&!#"!,
6!&)1)
&!3!4*)"*-.
 #&"!&
	' $$()
/0
$)"
+5$&"#-"

!#)$-
%$&
$1-,*-.

%				5

)				#5

*	

			"5

+	

			#5

	6			#5

		
			$5

 5

( 5

 5

# 5

" 5

 5

! 5

 5

		




%	



)	



* 	





+	





	

  

!#)$-
%$&
%$1-,*-.

!&'!-"#.!
 $%
 )' $$()

/ 	 

4'
	

4'
	 

	

 



  !
	"#"!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()



 	

Charter schools face significant challenges as they get underway and as they continue to implement

their programs. We asked a knowledgeable individual at each charter school to rate the difficulty

of overcoming each barrier in a list of possible barriers to implementation. Financial difficulties

continued to be among the largest challenges that charter schools faced, although there has been a

marked decline over time in the percentage of schools facing problems with start-up funding.

• In 1998–99, the most frequent barriers charter

schools faced during implementation were lack of startup and operating funds (49 and 37 percent respectively),

lack of planning time (35 percent), and inadequate

facilities (32 percent). 

• Schools first surveyed in 1998–99 were less likely

to face start-up funding difficulties than were schools

first surveyed in earlier years, decreasing from 59

percent in 1996 to 39 percent in 1999. This finding

likely reflects increased federal start-up funding for

charter schools and that some states are providing

charter school start-up funds. Schools surveyed more

recently were more likely to face difficulties with hiring

staff than schools in previous years. This finding may

reflect the nationwide teacher shortage.

• Newly created schools were more likely than preexisting schools to face difficulties with inadequate

operating funds, lack of planning time, inadequate

facilities, internal conflicts, school administration and

management, teacher turnover, community opposition,

and communication with parents.

• Pre-existing private and newly created charter

schools were more likely than pre-existing public

schools to face difficulties from lack of start up funds,

health and safety regulations, and teacher burnout. 

• Charter schools that converted from public status

were similar to newly created charter schools in that they

were more likely than pre-existing private schools to

find state or local board opposition, district resistance or

regulations, and hiring staff to be difficult barriers.

• Similar to last year, pre-existing private schools that

converted to charter status were more likely than newly

created or pre-existing public schools to report

difficulties with state department of education resistance

and teacher certification requirements.

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 these tables and the figure on the facing page represent the percentages of schools that rated each barrier difficult or very difficult.

$"#(
:;< !2(0
'&!#"!,
:;< &!3!4*)"*-.
51/(*'
:;< &!3!4*)"*-.
5&*6#"!
:;<

70		
		
 "$ # ! ""

68		
 #" " "  ###

70			#" #" $ #

68	
 # #" ( ""

)				
    " ( ("(

9
	

		
 ($ ( (# $

)				

(# ((# (# ("

6	


		
 (( (#( $! $

)
	
		 (  (" !# 

:
		
	
 (  (( # (# 

:	
 ( # ( ! (  !


	 " ( ! #$ (

*	8
 $ $ " $

70			
 $ $" ! #

;				
 $   !!


		8
 ! ! "$ $


	  !! #$ (

<		
 " " ( ((

<	
 "!  ($  

<	/
	
 " #  ($

+	
 "" " " ##

,-.	

			/		8

	
0			
	/	

	

			
		


						

		
	


	
				

	8

		+	8

3	
		

	1


	1	
	1	0			
1			/
	
3/	
0			
	(		(

/	


	

1	
		/	


		

	8

		=((		("	


>

)"*+#"!,
!&'!-"#.!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()
!5$&"*-.
*%%*'1("*!)
*-
+5(!+!-"*-.
 !*&
 #&"!&(
 !
	"#"!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()


 

9

+5(!+!-"#"*$-
 #((!-.!)

2 These data are drawn from the first charter school survey. In some cases, we were unable to identify and survey charter schools in their first year

of operation, but were able to later identify them and administer a “new school” survey. In these few cases, survey responses would not represent

the first year of school operation, during which implementation difficulties may be greatest.

)"*+#"!,
!&'!-"#.!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()
!5$&"*-.
	!(!'"!,
*%%*'1("*!)
*-
+5(!+!-"*-.

 !*&
 #&"!&)
/0
!#&
$%
 #&"!&
	1&6!0

$"#( 977
!2

	' $$()
	1&6!0

9778
!2

	' $$()
	1&6!0

977
!2

	' $$()
	1&6!0

9777
!2

	' $$()
	1&6!0

!&'!-"#.!
$%
)' $$()
:;<

70		
		
 "$ $$ " ( #(

68		
 #" #!# "( " #(

70			#" "  ##! #! # 

68	
 # #"$ "#" #! !

)				
   #! ( (# (

9
	

		
 ($ (# (!$  (!!

)				

(# (#  (( ( 

6	


		
 (( ($ (( $ $

:
		
	
 (  " ( (#( $

:	
 ( # (  "  (#(

 5 ( 5  5 # 5 " 5  5 ! 5

+	


< 	/
	


< 	


<  		


 
	 

 
	  	8


;				


7 0			


*   	8


 
	

:	


:
		
 	


)  
	
		

6	 


		  


) 			 	

 

9
 	

 		


) 		 		


68	


7 0			

68		


7 0		
		


!&'!-" #.!
$%
)' $$ ()

/ 	 	

4'
	

4'
	 

)"*+#"!,
!&'!-"#.!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()
!5$&"*-.
*%%*'1("*!)
-
+5(!+!-"*-.
 !*&

 #&"!&
/0
&!#"*$-
	"#"1)



	

 



  !
	"#"!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()




  



The increased level of autonomy called for by the charter concept enables educators, parents, or

community members to create schools that are alternatives to-and for-the current public system.

Charter schools are afforded flexibility to make independent decisions and set policy about both

educational and management issues, though some school decisions may be constrained either by

provisions of the state's charter legislation or by decisions and practices implemented by their

charter granting agency. Most charter schools felt they had considerable autonomy over decisions

and policy affecting most areas of education and management, except over student admissions

policies. More newly created than pre-existing public or private schools felt they had primary

control over decisions about educational and management issues-pre-existing public schools felt

they had the least autonomy. 

• In 1998–99, most charter schools had primary

control or authority over their administrative operations

including: the budget (73 percent), purchase of supplies

and equipment (88 percent), and hiring of teaching staff

(88 percent). In addition, most charter schools had

primary control over the operation of their education

program, including: the daily and yearly schedule (95

percent), curriculum (83 percent), discipline (87

percent), calendar (77 percent), and student assessment

policies (72 percent). A lower percentage of schools

reported that they had primary control over their student

admissions policies (59 percent). 

• In cases where charter schools did not have control,

primary authority rested with either the district, the

charter-granting agency, or with another source. 

• Charter schools that converted from private status

had a pattern of autonomy similar to newly created

schools in the areas of hiring teaching staff, establishing

curriculum, and determining the calendar. Pre-existing

public schools had less control than both newly created

and pre-existing private schools in all areas of decision

making and policy setting, including curriculum,

assessment, discipline, calendar, admissions, budget,

and daily schedule.

	$1&'!
$%
5&*+#&0
'$-"&$(

&!#
$%
'$-"&$(

	' $$( *)"&*'">' #&"!&

.&#-"*-.
#.!-'0 $" 
" !&

!&'!-"#.!
$%
)' $$()
:;<

?  (" # "



		

&8 $ !  "

)
	 !$ (! ( #

9	

"$   

)	



	
 ( ( ! $

)	


	
 " $  ( 

)	
$#  ( #!

-


		 $# ((#  #

:		
	
 $ " # "$

,-.	

			
		


		/					
			
	


	
	
		
	


)

	/	
0			
		

	
	
1	
		
			


		;		
	


	
/	@A

0/B			
		C
	


		
	@
B			
		1	
	
	
1		



		
		
	#	

			
			
			
	
			
				
		



		
	


		(#		4'
		


1	$		4'
		


1		/	 	

 "		/		


	=
	/		


	
	@A	0/B>

)"*+#"!,
!&'!-"#.!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()
/0
	$1&'!
$%
&*+#&0
$-"&$(
%$&
#&*$1)
	' $$(

!'*)*$-)
#-,

5!&#"*$-)
 !
	"#"!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()


 8

9

1"$-$+0
#-,
$-"&$(

)"*+#"!,
!&'!-"#.!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()
2*" 
&*+#&0
$-"&$(
/0
&!#"*$-
	"#"1)

 #&"!&
)' $$(
'&!#"*$-
)"#"1)

&!#
$%
'$-"&$(

!&'!-"#.!
$%
)' $$()
2*" 

5&*+#&0
'$-"&$(
:;< !2(0
'&!#"!,

:;<

&!3!4*)"*-.

51/(*'
:;<

&!3!4*)"*-.

5&*6#"!
:;<

?  "  !$ 



		

&8 $ $# $ $"

)
	 !$ $(! # $#

9	

"$  #( $$

)	



	
 ( !$  !$ 

)	


	
 " !  #(

)	
$#  ! ( $"

-


		 $# $!( (( $#

:		
	
 $ $# $ # $!

 5 ( 5  5 # 5 " 5  5 ! 5  5 $ 5  5 ( 5

:	) 

< 

9


*




*





)  


<

 



?

!&'!-" #.!
$%
)' $$ ()

/ 	 

4'
	

4'
	 

)"*+#"!,
!&'!-"#.!
$%
!2(0
&!#"!,
#-,
&!3!4*)"*-.
 #&"!&
	' $$()
2*" 
$-"&$(

$6!&
#&*$1)
	' $$(
!'*)*$-)
#-,

5!&#"*$-)



	

 



  !
	"#"!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()




   
 	 
	

The autonomy afforded by charter law allows charter schools not only to choose whether or not

they provide certain services but also to choose the service provider. On average, an almost equal

number of charter schools provided the services themselves through staff or volunteers, purchased

services from the district, or acquired services from an outside provider. Newly created and preexisting private schools differed from pre-existing public schools in the service providers used. Preexisting public schools were more likely to use the district whereas newly created and pre-existing

private schools were more likely to provide the service themselves or to rely on an outside provider.

Fewer schools in 1998-99 than in previous years shared the responsibility of providing services

with either the district or another provider. 

• Averaging across all service areas in 1998–99, more

than one-third of charter schools provided services

themselves (36 percent), about one-third of charter schools

used only an outside provider (34 percent), and slightly

more than one-quarter of schools used the district as the

sole service provider (26 percent). Newly created and preexisting private schools were much more likely to provide

services themselves or to secure services from an outside

provider whereas pre-existing public schools were most

likely to retain the district as the service provider.

• In 1998–99, nearly every charter school offered special

education testing (97 percent) and special education

services (95 percent). In addition, the majority of charter

schools offered one or more noneducational services to

their students—more than four-fifths of the schools had

social and/or health services (82 percent each), nearly

three-quarters had before and after school care (72 percent)

and/or food services (71 percent), two-thirds offered

transportation (66 percent), and over one-half had athletic

programs (54 percent). 

• Charter school staff most often provided such

noneducational services as before- and after-school care (65

percent), athletic programs (63 percent), and special

education services (39 percent). Charter schools most often

acquired transportation (42 percent) and food programs (39

percent) from districts and purchased special education

testing (36 percent) and social services (42 percent) from an

outside provider. When charter schools provided health

services, a nearly equal percentage of the services were

provided by the school (35 percent), the district (29

percent), or an outside provider (33 percent).

• Charter schools most often provided such

administrative services as purchasing (57 percent) and

custodial (45 percent) services. Charter schools most often

purchased payroll (46 percent), accounting (38 percent),

insurance (53 percent), and legal services (54 percent) from

an outside provider. The most frequent provider of building

maintenance was split between an outside provider (39

percent) and the school (36 percent).

6!&#.!
!&'!-"#.!
$%
	' $$()
	!(!'"*-.
#
*6!-
	!&6*'!
&$6*,!&
/0
&!#"*$-
	"#"1)


 5

( 5

 5

# 5

" 5

 5

! 5

 5

)  
	
	/	 9
 	
	 ,
	

/ 	 

4'
	

4'
	 

,-.		

			
		


		"		
			
	


	
	
		
	
		
	




	8

	/	
0			
	
			
		
	/	

	
		
	8
			

/
		
0		
	
				
1	
1	
			
		
	
		!					
	


		


8

		
	
1	
		
1		
		

	/				
	(	/	


	
	8
			
	;)	9		-		/
1	
1			

	8

			#!	


	


	
	
		(		
	/	
		

	'
	

	/
	
	

		
	


;/
	
		
	
	
				
			

	
						
	
		
	


	DD	/
					( 5	

	
	
	
	

	/	
		D?
D	
		

	
 !
	"#"!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()


 7

98

1"$-$+0
#-,
 $*'!
$%
	!&6*'!
&$6*,!&)

!&'!-"#.!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()
" #"

%%!&
	!&6*'!)
/0
&$6*,!&
#-,
&!#"*$-
	"#"1)

!&'!-"#.!
$%
)' $$()
:;<
2*" 
)!&6*'!)
5&$6*,!,
)$(!(0
/0

 #&"!&
'&!#"*$-
)"#"1) 	' $$(
#)
5&$6*,!& *)"&*'"
#)
5&$6*,!& 
1")*,!
5&$6*,!&

6!&#.!
$%
#((
)!&6*'!) =  ==8

!2(0
'&!#"!, =87 978 =8

&!3!4*)"*-.
51/(*' 9 7= 9=7

	!&6*'!)
5&$6*,!,
*-

' #&"!&
)' $$()

:5!&'!-"#.!
$%

)' $$()
2*" 

)!&6*'!)<

&!3!4*)"*-.
5&*6#"! == 8 7

$"#(
;
#'&$))
#((
"05!) 9= 77 

/	 !   

4'
	 $( ( ($



=(  5>

4'
	#" !( (

$"#(
;
#'&$))
#((
"05!) =9  =88

/	 #"$ (!" "(

4'
	 ( $" ((!

*

=(  5>

4'
	# #( !(

$"#(
;
#'&$))
#((
"05!) 9  

/	 ($   $!

4'
	 (( !" ($!

6


=5>

4'
	  ("

$"#(
;
#'&$))
#((
"05!) 8 9 98

/	 !( ( ((

4'
	 !! "# $(





=5>

4'
	" #( (!

$"#(
;
#'&$))
#((
"05!)  97 ==

/	 "!# (#( #

4'
	 ## # (

<


=$>

4'
	" #( " !

$"#(
;
#'&$))
#((
"05!) == 97 =8

/	 #$ ($ "#

4'
	 ( !# ((#

?	

=!$5>

4'
	"# ! "(

$"#(
;
#'&$))
#((
"05!) 99  9

/	 ($ ($(  

4'
	 ((#  ""

7	



= 5>

4'
	$ (( # 

$"#(
;
#'&$))
#((
"05!) = 7 =8

/	 # $ ##

4'
	 ( !#! ("

:
	



=$(5>

4'
	"(( $ "#

$"#(
;
#'&$))
#((
"05!)  = 

/	 ! ( "$

4'
	  # " 

)	



=$5>

4'
	#" !! #

$"#(
;
#'&$))
#((
"05!) 9 
77 97

/	 ! ( (

4'
	 "$ #  ( 

?&	





=#5>

4'
	!"! #$ # "

$"#(
;
#'&$))
#((
"05!) = =7 =

/	 # ##" #$ 

4'
	 ($ !! ("

+	
	= 5>

4'
	(! (" ##

$"#(
;
#'&$))
#((
"05!) 8= 9 8

/	 #(( #" #

4'
	 ("  ( !




=!5>

4'
	# (!" "(

$"#(
;
#'&$))
#((
"05!) == 9 9

/	 !" ((# ($"

4'
	 ""( ""( 	

*
	


=#5>

4'
	!! $#  $

$"#(
;
#'&$))
#((
"05!)  =97 =7

/	 $# ! #$

4'
	 ( !# ("

)	




=!5>

4'
	## (! ##

$"#(
;
#'&$))
#((
"05!) =7 8 9

/	 "(  !

4'
	  !"$ 	#

)	





="!5>

4'
	""$ (#$ #


	

 



  !
	"#"!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()


 
  



In exchange for freedom from state regulations (except those related to health, safety, and

nondiscrimination) charter schools are to be held accountable for school and student outcomes. In

order to determine whether and how schools are held accountable, the Study asked schools about

the external monitoring they underwent during the past school year. State legislation and

regulatory practices differ greatly across states, and charter schools reported varying amounts of

external monitoring as well as variation in which areas were monitored.

• In 1998–99, charter schools in a selected sample

most frequently reported monitoring in the areas of

school finances (94 percent), compliance with state or

federal regulations (88 percent), student achievement

(87 percent), and student attendance (81 percent).

• Across states, there was greater variance for some

areas of monitoring than for others. While a large

proportion of schools in most states reported monitoring

on student achievement and school finances, there was

far greater variance among the states in other areas, such

as student behavior and school governance.

• In those categories in which there was greater

variance, patterns emerged among states. While more

than 80 percent of charter schools in Louisiana reported

monitoring of instructional practices, student behavior,

or school governance, the proportion of schools

reporting monitoring was below 55 percent in each of

those areas in Florida, Minnesota, North Carolina, and

Wisconsin.

• In the five states in which there was only one

charter-granting agency, a pattern also emerged.

Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and

New Mexico all had high proportions (above 75 percent)

of schools reporting monitoring of instructional

practices and moderate to high proportions (greater than

50 percent) of schools reporting monitoring in the area

of school governance.

 5 ( 5  5 # 5 " 5  5 ! 5  5 $ 5  5 ( 5

< 	/





)  
	 
	

)  
	  

)  
	 	

) 	 

) 	

) 	 
 	

6
 	  


!&'!-" #.!
$%
)' $$ ()

)"*+#"!,
!&'!-"#.!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()
" #"
#&!
4"!&-#((0
$-*"$&!,
$-
''$1-"#/*(*"0

!#)1&!)
 !
	"#"!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()


 9

1 The number of schools responding varied across the individual areas of monitoring. The number of schools reported in column 2 represents the

largest number of schools responding to any one area.

2 Responses on school completion are based on 308 responses because the question was only posed to middle and high schools. The number of

responses for each state is displayed in parentheses before the proportion of schools reporting monitoring. 

3 New Jersey did not have any middle or high schools answering the 1998 or 1999 follow-up survey.

9

4"!&-#(
''$1-"#/*(*"0
#-,
$-*"$&*-.

!&'!-"#.!
$%
#
	!(!'"!,
	#+5(!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()
 $
!5$&"!,
4"!&-#(
$-*"$&*-.9

1+/!&
$%

)' $$()
*-

)#+5(!

-)"&1'"*$-#(

5&#'"*'!)

	"1,!-"

#' *!6!+!-"

	"1,!-"

/! #6*$&

	"1,!-"

#""!-,#-'!

!&'!-"#.!
$%
)' $$()
:;<









$"#( =9 8 8 = 

	*
0 ((  $  " "

	* (  $( $ #! $( 

	< $ !  $ "# $#

	< "" !#!  !(" $($

	<  $  #  

	+ $ ##  #! $

	% (! $(# (  !$$ $(#

	6
  $  (  "  (  

	7
 ! (  (  $## $##

	C




 ( $ $( #$ !

	C
 $   $( # "(

	C
  " # #($ #

	/	E
  (  $    !  

	/	C' "  (   (  

	
	< # "$ $ !( $ 

	
 "      

	'
  !! !# !! !

	F

 (" " ## "  $  

1+/!&
$%

)' $$()
*-

)#+5(!

$+5(*#-'!
2*" 

&!.1(#"*$-)

	' $$(

.$6!&-#-'!

	' $$(

%*-#-'!)

	' $$(

'$+5(!"*$-

!&'!-"#.!
$%
)' $$()
:;<









$"#( =9 = 9 7= 9

	*
0 (( (    (  =#>	(  

	* (  $ ( "# =>	$

	< $ $ ( $$ =!$>	#

	< "" $## "  # =# >	#!

	<  (  $ (  =>	  

	+ $ !" # (  =#>	!!

	% (! $(#  #$ =>	"  

	6
  $  !  (  =>	  

	7
 ! (  $## (  =>	(  

	C




 (   $ (  =(#>	("

	C
 $  (  "  ="">	

	C
  $($    =(>	!

	/	E
  (  !  (  *#

	/	C' " (    (  =">	  

	
	< # $   (  =#>	!!

	
 " (   (  =#>	(  

	'
  !# !# $( =(!>	!

	F

 (" $! ## $! 	=((>	!#!

,-.		F	
0	

	8
			
	($		(	/4	

	
		


			
	
			1


		


		#(	
	


1			
		
	
		
	'		
	
		
		

/	


		


	
				
			
				
				


		
	
		,	


#(	


1		


		!	

	=9/1	9
		<1	:/1	G

1	
	6
1		)
	<>			
	


		
	
	
	

	#		/	


	/

				

	8
		
	
		

		
	@B	/	
						
	
	




	

 



  !
	"#"!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()


 
  


Charter laws afford charter schools increased autonomy and require accountability measures.

Charter schools report about the school's progress toward its goals to a variety of key constituent

groups. Reporting requirements differ by state and by individual charter school. Nearly every

charter school in a selected sample reported or planned to report on the school's progress toward its

goals to its charter granting agency, school governing board, and parents in the 1998-99 school year.

• In 1998–99, the majority of charter schools open for

at least 1 year at the time of our survey said they made

or were planning to make a report on the school’s

progress toward its goals to key constituent groups: the

school’s governing board (96 percent), their chartering

agency (92 percent), and parents (89 percent). 

• Nearly all charter schools (99 percent) made or were

planning to make a report to at least one of the key

constituency groups and 81 percent of charter schools

made or were planning to make a report to all three key

constituent groups.

• The pattern of reporting progress toward goals to

other key constituents varied across states. For example,

in New Jersey, no charter schools made or planned to

make a report to the community or general public, while

in Louisiana, all the charter schools made or planned to

make a report to this group. The range for states with

charter schools that reported or planned to report to

private funders was between 7 and 60 percent. 

• State Departments of Education represent a key

reporting agency in some states’ charter laws. In every

state except California, at least two-thirds of schools had

made a report or planned to make a report to the State

Department of Education. Every charter school in

Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, New Mexico,

and Pennsylvania made a report or planned to make a

report to the State Department of Education. At least 80

percent of schools in Connecticut, Georgia,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina,

and Texas made or planned to make a report to their

State Department of Education. 

• More than 40 percent of charter schools made or

were planning to make a report to all five key constituent

groups (chartering agency, parents, community/general

public, school governing board, and State Department of

Education), not including private funders. At least threequarters of schools in Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, and

Louisiana made a report or planned to make a report to

the five key constituent groups. At least one-half of

charter schools in Alaska, Florida, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin made or were

planning to make a report to these five key groups.

)"*+#"!,
!&'!-"#.!
$%
#
	!(!'"!,
	#+5(!
$%
	' $$()
!5$&"*-.
&$.&!))
$2#&,
$#()
"$

 !*&
!5$&"*-.
.!-'*!)

#,!
#
&!5$&" (#--*-.
"$

+#?!
#

&!5$&"

$"
+#,!
$&

5(#--*-.
"$
+#?!

#
&!5$&"

$-@"

?-$2

$"

#55(*'#/(!

!&'!-"#.!
$%
)' $$()
:;<

<
	 ## " !! " 

	
 ("$ ($ #$ # # #


 "( "! 	 ! (

<&		 # #! #( ( 	"

)
		 !  #"$ #  !

)			1		


	

 "(  ( "

,-.	

	8
				
	($		(	/		

1	
		


		#"		
	


1

			
	'		
	
		
	
		
	

		
	
		

	


1	8	"$$	





	
	
		
	(	/4	
		"!	
	


	
	
		
	($			
	(	/4


		,	
		1	
	
		
		

/	
			


	
						

		


			
				


		
	
	
	
		
	($		(	/4	
		
			




	
	
		
	
			


	
	
		
	($		(	/4	
1		

	
		

	


		
	
		,	
	#"1		


		!	

	=9
		<1	9/1	:/1	G

1	
	6
1	


>			
		
		
	
	
	

	#		/	


	
				'

				
	
					
	@B	/	
						
	
	


 !
	"#"!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()


 =

97

4"!&-#(
''$1-"#/*(*"0
#-,
!5$&"*-.

!&'!-"#.!
$%
#
	!(!'"!,
	#+5(!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()
 #"
#,!
#
!5$&"
$&
2!&!
(#--*-.

"$
#?!
#
!5$&"
/0
!5$&"*-.
.!-'0


 5 ( 5  5 # 5 " 5  5 ! 5  5 $ 5  5 ( 5

<
	 

 	





<&	

)  
	 	

) 	9	

- 

!&'!-" #.!
$%
)' $$ ()

C		

	

0		

!&'!-"#.!
$%
#
	!(!'"!,
	#+5(!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()
 #"
#6!
!5$&"!,
$&
(#-
"$
!5$&"

$-
	' $$(
$#()
/0
	"#"!

!5$&"*-.
.!-'0

 #&"!&*-.

#.!-'0

&*6#"!

%1-,!&) #&!-")

$++1-*"0>

!-!&#(

51/(*'

	' $$(

.$6!&-*-.

/$#&, 	"#"!



!5$&"
"$


'$-)"*"1!-")

!&'!-"#.!
$%
)' $$()
:;<

1+/!&

$%

)' $$()









$"#( 79 =7  9 78 8  =

*
0  ($       !#! ((

* ##  $" ! ! $! "! ( 

< $    $   ! ( $

< 	 "$$  !$  !"# " ""

< (    $ $ (  $ $ 	$

+ 	!" (" $ ! !" (  #! $

% (  #(# 	$" $" (  "( $" (

6
 (  !  (  $  (  (  $  	

7
 (  ### (  (  (  (  (  	!

C




 (  ( (  ! 	  $( !( (

C
 ! " #$ !" (  $(# ( $

C
 	  "   !#!     

/	E
 $  "  !  	  $  (   	

/	C' (     (  (   	"


	< !! # " $# #( (# $! # " #


 (     (  (   	"

'
 $ "$( $$ ( 	!# $"! #"! 

F

 ## 	! ## $  ## $!   (


	

 



  !
	"#"!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()



  	 				

Charter schools are held accountable for the achievement of their students. Some charter

legislation speaks specifically of improving student achievement as a goal for charter schools;

nearly every charter school used standardized assessments to measure student achievement and

most used other nonstandardized assessments as well. More than one-third of the charter schools

used seven or more different types of assessments to measure student achievement and gauge

progress toward school goals.

• Typically, schools use the results of standardized

tests for accountability purposes. In 1998–99, nearly

every charter school used standardized assessments of

student achievement (96 percent), though a higher

percentage of charter schools used norm-referenced

assessments (86 percent) than criterion-referenced

assessments (62 percent). 

• The results in 1998–99 are similar to prior years’

results showing that assessment methods are generally

consistent across newly created and pre-existing

schools. The assessment methods with the most

variation (about 10 percent)—performance

assessments, parent satisfaction surveys, student

interviews or surveys, and behavioral indicators—were

used by a greater percentage of pre-existing public than

newly created or pre-existing private schools.

• The majority of charter schools also used

nonstandardized assessments. Charter schools

measured student achievement through student

demonstrations of their work (89 percent), student

portfolios (81 percent), and performance assessments

(74 percent). Charter schools used parent surveys (83

percent), behavioral indicators (76 percent), and student

surveys (71 percent) to measure progress toward other

school goals. 

• The use of assessments was generally consistent

across states. In every state except Ohio, at least 70

percent of charter schools used five or more methods of

assessing student achievement and progress toward

school goals. Every school in Kansas used at least five

of the seven types of assessments.

• Over one-third (34 percent) of charter schools used

all seven types of assessment to measure student

achievement and progress toward other school goals.

This pattern varied by type of charter school with a

higher percentage of pre-existing public schools (45

percent) than newly created (32 percent) or pre-existing

private (29 percent) using seven different methods of

assessment.

)"*+#"!,
!&'!-"#.!
$%
	' $$()
)*-.
#&*$1)
))!))+!-"
!" $,)

 #&"!&
)' $$(
'&!#"*$-
)"#"1)

05!
$%
#))!))+!-" !&'!-"#.!
$%

)' $$()
:;<

!2(0

'&!#"!,
:;<

&!3!4*)"*-.

51/(*'
:;<

&!3!4*)"*-.

5&*6#"!
:;<

)	




 	!" !# ( 

					<4	




 !( !( !($ !!

					4	




 $! $" $$$ ("

	




 # (" $ "

)	
 $(" $ $ # !

)	

		
	/0 $ $ $""  $

	

	

 $ $( $! !

)	/
		

 ( ! $ ("

?	
 ! "# $# ("

,-.		

	
	/					
	


	
	
		
	
		

	
	
		
0		
	
	/

	/4	

		
	

		
	
		

	


	6	(1	$	


	
/	
	/		/4


		(($	


A	


		/		($	

		)	




			
	4		

	




		
		
	8

		/

	
	
	




	/	4		4

	/	
0				(1				
		


		$		
	



 !
	"#"!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()


 



''$1-"#/*(*"0
#-,
	"1,!-"
))!))+!-"

1 The multiple assessment methods in this table and the preceding table refer to the seven different types of assessment common to the new and

follow-up surveys including standardized assessments, performance assessments, student portfolios, student demonstrations, parent surveys,

student interviews or surveys, and behavioral indicators.

'&$))3	"#"!
$+5#&*)$-
$%
)"*+#"!,
!&'!-"#.!
$%
	' $$()
)*-.
#&*$1)
))!))+!-")

	"#"!)
2*" 


$&
+$&!
)' $$()

:1+/!&
$%
)' $$()<

	"#-,#&,*A!,#))!))+!-")
:;<&*"!&*$-3&!%!&!-'!,#))!))+!-")
:;<$&+3&!%!&!-'!,#))!))+!-")
:;<!&%$&+#-'!#))!))+!-")
:;<	"1,!-"
5$&"%$(*$):;<	"1,!-",!+$-)"&#"*$-)
$%" !*&
2$&?
:;<#&!-"
)#"*)%#'"*$-)1&6!0)
:;<	"1,!-"
*-"!&6*!2)$&
)1&6!0)
:;<! #6*$&#(*-,*'#"$&)
:;<)!
#"
(!#)"
+!" $,)
:;<

$"#(
5!&'!-"#.! 79 9  8= 9 79  89= 88 

*
0	=(!> (  "! (  !$$ $(# #$   #  

*	=(!!> $ #  $ ( $ #"  !# # $#

<	=("> !! !# (  (# $ $  " $!!

<	=> $# #( "   $$( $" ! $#( $ 

<	=(!> 	#$ 	#$ 	!   $ #$ $(# 	 $(# $(

9/	="> (  (   (     (   (   

9
		<	=(> ## !! ## !! (  $! !  !  $! $!!

+	=!> ! ! $$ #$ $ $ " !#( ! $  

%	=> (  ### (  $  $" (  ! $" !  

6
	=(> (   (  $## !! $##   $## $##

G

	=(> (  ## ## ## $! (  $! (  $  (  

7
	=((> (  $($ $($ $($  $($      (

C




	=#"> (  !( $  ! " $" ( !($ " $#

C
	=(">   $# !!( !  # $#   #"  

C
	=#> "! !! $"$ $" $(( $ ( $#$ $" $#$

/	E
	=!> $"! "  ! !( 	! 	$"! ! $ $ $$ $ $

/	C'	=> (  !  "  $  !  (  !  (  (  $  


	<	=> $( "$ !"! !" ! $ $ !# !# (

,
	=> $ (" (" " $ $ ( (" (" 


	=#>  "# # $# $!  $# # # ("

)
	<	="> (   (   	  	     

'
	=> " !# $ !"  $$# $#( " $  $($

F

	=!> $ $ ! !  $$ $ $ $$ $"! $"! #(

!&'!-"#.!
$%
	' $$()
)*-.
1("*5(!
))!))+!-"
!" $,)

 #&"!&
)' $$(
'&!#"*$-
)"#"1)

1+/!&
$%
,*%%!&!-"
#))!))+!-")
1)!,(

!&'!-"#.!
$%

)' $$()
:;<

!2(0

'&!#"!,
:;<

&!3!4*)"*-.

51/(*'
:;<

&!3!4*)"*-.

5&*6#"!
:;<

,		
 $ "! (

+		
' ! ( !  # !

) ##$ # "" $!


	

 



  !
	"#"!
$%
 #&"!&
	' $$()


B

	
	


	

Column 2 in the table below shows the total number of survey responses on any one of the seven

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 1999 survey administration.

	"#"! 	1&6!0

!)5$-)!)

$"#(

 #&"!&

	' $$()

!&'!-"

!)5$-)!

:;<

(#)?# (! ( "

&*A$-# (!! ($ 

#(*%$&-*# (( (" $

$($&#,$  ! $

$--!'"*'1" (! (! ( 

!(#2#&! " " ( 

*)"&*'"
$%
$(1+/*# ( ( 

($&*,# !   

!$&.*#   #

#2#**   ( 

,# $   ( 

((*-$*) ( (# 

C#-)#) ( ( ( 

$1*)*#-# (( (( ( 

#))#' 1)!"") #" #" ( 

*' *.#- (" (#( 

*--!)$"# # #$ 

*))*))*55* ( ( ( 

$&" 
#&$(*-#  ! #

!2
D!&)!0 ! # $

!2
!4*'$   ( 


 *$  ( "

!--)0(6#-*# # #( "

 $,!
)(#-,   ( 

	$1" 
#&$(*-# "  $ 

!4#) $ (  

*)'$-)*- !