042009 year 2 and 3 charter report 090416

8/14/2019 042009 Year 2 and 3 Charter Report 090416

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/042009-year-2-and-3-charter-report-090416 1/67

DIVISION OF R ESEARCH, EVALUATION, ASSESSMENT, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

BALTIMORE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Charter School Report

2005-06 to 2007-08 School Years

Charter schools in Baltimore City have experienced dramatic growth in number and enrollment, achieved generally stronge but uneven performance on objective outcomes, and evidenced superior satisfaction on climate measures.

April 16, 2009



i



ii

R EPORT HIGHLIGHTS • The number of charter schools increased from 12 in 2005-06 to 22 in 2007-08

• Enrollment in charter schools increased from 2,925 students in 2005-06 to 5,520 in 2007-

08, an increase of almost 89%.

• There is significant variation among charter schools on most measures of school and

student performance.

• On average, charter school students are less disadvantaged than non-charter school

students. Charter school students are less likely to be eligible for special education

services, to be over-age for their grade, or to be FARMS-eligible.

• Overall, charter schools do not enroll a higher proportion of students from outside the

district or from non-public schools than non-charter schools. There is, however,significant variation among individual schools in the enrollment of students new to City

Schools, with selected schools enrolling a larger proportion of students from outside the

district.

• Some charter schools attract a significant proportion of their enrollment from surrounding

non-charter City schools.

• Charter school students are less likely to leave the district at the end of the school year

and are more likely to re-enroll in their schools the following school year compared with

non-charter school students.

• Students who do leave charter schools are somewhat more likely to be eligible for special

education services, to be over-age for their grade, and at the middle school level to be

male.

• Six of 12 charter schools with tested grades achieved AYP in the 2005-06, 6 of 16

charters achieved AYP in 2006-07, and 15 of 22 charter schools achieved AYP in 2007-

08.

• Charter K-8s and elementary schools tend to have similar performance on the reading

MSAs and somewhat lower levels of performance on the mathematics MSA comparedwith non-charter schools. Charter middle schools exhibit significantly higher

performance levels on both the reading and mathematics MSAs.

• Charter school middle grade students achieve greater proficiency gains on the MSA than

do students attending non-charter middle schools.



iii

• Charter schools evidence higher rates of school attendance than non-charter schools with

the largest gaps appearing between charter and non-charter middle schools.

• Charter school parents, teachers, and students rate their school’s climate higher than do

parents, teachers, and students in non-charter schools at all grade levels.

• Charter school suspension rates tend to be lower than the rates of non-charter schools.



iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Report Highlights.......................................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... vi Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 3

Data Collection Sources and Methods...................................................................................................... 3 Characteristics of Baltimore’s Charter Schools.................................................................................. 3

Program......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Funding..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Charter School Approval and Review ...................................................................................................... 6 School Size .............................................................................................................................................. 7

Characteristics of

Students ....................................................................................................................... 8

Student Demographics.......................................................................................................................... 8 Special Education in Charter Schools............................................................................................. 9

Characteristics of Students Transferring to Charter Schools......................................................... 12 Charter School Enrollment Patterns.................................................................................................. 13

Are Charter Schools Attracting Students Into City Schools?.................................................... 14 Are Enrollments of Some Non‐charter Schools Disproportionately Affected by Charter

Schools?............................................................................................................................................. 16 Are Students Who Leave Charter Schools Different From Those Who Stay?........................ 21

Adequate Yearly Progress and Student Performance on State and Standardized Assessments

................................................................................................................................................................ 22



v

Adequate Yearly Progress.............................................................................................................. 22 MSA Performance of Special Education Students...................................................................... 26 Student‐level MSA Proficiency Gains .......................................................................................... 28 High School Assessments .................................................................................................................. 30 Stanford 10 Performance.................................................................................................................... 31

Stanford Grade 1 to 2 Student‐level Progress......................................................................... 34 Learning Environment of Charter Schools....................................................................................... 34

School‐level Attendance Rates ...................................................................................................... 34 School Climate ................................................................................................................................. 36 Student Discipline ........................................................................................................................... 38

Teacher Characteristics – Highly Qualified Status ......................................................................... 40 Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 42 Appendix A............................................................................................................................................... 43

Characteristics of BCPSS Charter Schools 2005‐2006 through 2007‐08.................................... 43 Appendix

B........................................................................................................................................... 55

Title I School Improvement Sanctions.......................................................................................... 55 Appendix C ‐ Computation of MSA Proficiency Level Gains ...................................................... 56 Appendix D – LRE Codes.................................................................................................................... 57



vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1.

Charter

School

Enrollment

by

Grade

Level

2005‐

06

to

2007‐

08 ...................................... 1

Table 2. Charter School Operation and Enrollment 2005‐06 to 2007‐08........................................ 5 Table 3. 2007‐08 Charter School Application Renewal Decisions.................................................. 7 Table 4. Number of Schools and Average Enrollment by Charter School and Non‐charter

School Status 2005‐06 to 2007‐08.......................................................................................... 8 Table 5. Comparison of Charter School Student Characteristics with Non‐Charter School

Students ................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 6. Percent Distribution of Special Education Students by LRE Classification................. 11 Table 7. Special Education LRE Status Change .............................................................................. 11 Table

8. Comparison

of

the

Characteristics

of

Charter

and

Non

‐Charter

School

Transfer

Students ....................................................................................................................................................

13 Table 9. Rate of Enrollment of Charter and Non‐Charter School Students not Previously

Enrolled in City Schools...................................................................................................... 15 Table 10. Schools With More than Two Percent Average Annual Enrollment Transferring to

Charter Schools, 2005‐06 to 2007‐08............................................................................... 17 Table 11. Charter Schools Receiving more than 15 Percent of their Transfers from a Single

Sending School, 2005‐06 to 2007‐08 .............................................................................. 18 Table

12. Percentage

of

Students

Exiting

City

Schools................................................................ 19

Table 13. Percentage of Students Returning to the Same School in the Following Year ........20 Table 14. Demographics of Charter School Students by Leaver Status (%) 2005‐06 through

2007‐08 School Years........................................................................................................ 21 Table 15. Charter Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2005‐06 to 2007‐08................................. 23 Table 16. Number of Schools Making AYP by Charter Status ................................................... 24 Table 17. AYP Percent of All Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced 2005‐06 to 2007‐08 25 Table 18. AYP Percent of Students Receiving Special Education Services Scoring Proficient

or Advanced 2005‐06 to 2007‐08..................................................................................... 27 Table

19. Change

in

MSA

Proficiency

Level

(Percent

of

Students) ........................................... 29

Table 20. Comprehensive HSA Performance 2006‐07 and 2007‐08 ........................................... 31 Table 21. Stanford 10 Grade 1 and 2 Reading National Percentile ............................................ 32 Table 22. Stanford 10 Grade 1 and 2 Mathematics National Percentile .................................... 33 Table 23. Stanford 10 Achievement Test Student Matched Pairs Average NCE Annual Gains

34 Table 24. School‐level attendance rates 2005‐06 to 2007‐08 by charter school status..............35



vii

Table 25. Measures of School Climate 2005‐06 through 2007‐08............................................... 37 Table 26. Suspension Rate by Charter School Status ................................................................... 39 Table 27. Highly Qualified Teacher Status....................................................................................41



DREAA Charter School Report 2005-06 through 2007-08 April 2009

2

The goal of this report is to provide additional information to the Baltimore City Board of School

Commissioners and the City Schools community as a whole about charter school operation and

the extent to which Baltimore’s charter schools provided students and families with positive and

effective educational options for the 2005-06 through 2007-08 school years.

Questions guiding the evaluation included:

1. How many charter schools operated during each of the school years? What were thecharacteristics and missions of the schools?

2. Who attended charter schools during the first three years of operation? What were thedemographic characteristics of charter school students in Baltimore? How do thecharacteristics of students who attended charter schools compare with those of studentswho attend City non-charter schools?

3. How long did students remain enrolled in charter schools? To what extent did students

transfer from charter schools? In what ways, if any, did students who transferred fromcharter schools differ from students who remain?

4. What were the academic outcomes of students who attended charter schools? How didthe outcomes of charter schools compare with those of other City Schools serving thesame grade levels? What were student outcomes in the areas of assessment performance,disciplinary actions, and promotion?

5. What type of learning environment did charter schools provide? To what extent did parents and students report that the schools had a positive climate? How frequently didcharter schools suspend students?

6. How did the proportion of teachers achieving highly qualified status compare for charter and non-charter schools?

The first section of this report describes data collection methods and sources. The second section

highlights different aspects of charter school operation including the initial charter application

and renewal process and the size of charter schools in comparison to non-charter schools. The

third section of the report examines demographic characteristics of students and reenrollment in

and transfer to charter schools. The fourth part explores student and school outcomes in the

areas of performance on state and standardized assessments and achievement of adequate yearly

progress. The next section looks at student attendance, climate, disciplinary exclusions, andteacher characteristics. The final section of the report highlights key findings and possible areas

of work for upcoming charter school evaluations.




3

METHODS

DATA COLLECTION SOURCES AND METHODS

As with the Year 1 report, the Division of Research, Evaluation, Assessment, and Accountability

(DREAA) used multiple data sources to examine the operation and impact of Baltimore’s charter

schools. Most data, including enrollment, attendance, suspension, and teacher qualifications

were gathered from district administrative records. Maryland School Assessment (MSA), High

School Assessment (HSA), and Stanford 10 data for both charter and non-charter City schools

were extracted from assessment files for each school year. DREAA used available data from the

district’s annual climate survey to gather information about the learning environment and parent,

staff, and student satisfaction with the schools.

CHARACTERISTICS OF BALTIMORE’S CHARTER SCHOOLS

Baltimore is home to a diverse array of charter schools which serve to increase the number of

educational options available to students and their families. Baltimore’s charter schools include

both those schools which have opened as new schools and schools which had previously

operated in the district and subsequently converted to charter school status. Of the 12 schools

which became charter schools through the conversion process, six were formerly non-charter public schools, and the remaining six conversions were among schools that originally started as

part of Baltimore’s New School Initiative that launched in the fall of 1997 (DREAA, 2002)

[Table 2]. The New Schools Initiative was a precursor to the charter school movement and

allowed independent operators to manage City public schools.

The conversion charter schools which previously operated as traditional public schools (City

Springs, Hampstead Hill, Collington Square, Wolfe Street Academy, Dr. Rayner Browne, and

Rosemont) continue to maintain their enrollment zones and primarily serve students who reside

within those zones. This differs from the other charter schools that enroll only students who

select the school and submit an application. None of the charter schools, however, applyselection criteria to students. All students who submit an application to a charter school may

attend unless the school is over-subscribed, and the school must sponsor a lottery to decide




4

which students will enroll for the following school year.2 Table 2 demonstrates the growth of

charter schools since 2005-06 in terms of the numbers of schools and students and grades served.

As detailed in Appendix A, the mission and focus of the city’s charter schools varies. Several

schools such as City Neighbors, Southwest Baltimore Charter, and The Crossroads School focus

on providing students opportunities in project-based or experiential learning. The Bluford-Drew-Jemison STEM Academy is a middle school for boys that focuses on increasing student exposure

to and achievement in mathematics and science while the Empowerment Academy attempts to

infuse the arts throughout the curriculum. The differences in school mission and focus provide

students with a broad array of educational choices and opportunities.

2 Students who require special education services must be evaluated to ensure that the school is able to

provide adequate supports and accommodations for students. Some charter schools may not be able to

provide the proper educational environment.




5

Table 2. Charter School Operation and Enrollment 2005‐06 to 2007‐08

Enrollment and Grades Served

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

School Name School

Type*

Enrollment Grades

Served

Enrollment Grades

Served

Enrollment Grades

Served

008 City SpringsElementary/Middle**

Conversion 383 PK-8 394 PK-8 520 PK-8

023 Wolfe StreetAcademy**

Conversion 161 K-5

025 Dr. Rayner BrowneElementary/Middle**

Conversion 228 PK-7

047 Hampstead HillElementary**


063 RosemontElementary/Middle**

Conversion 396 K-7 141 K-8

097 Collington SquareElementary/Middle**


262 The Empowerment

Academy


321 Midtown Academy Conversion 184 K-8 183 K-8 182 K-8323 The CrossroadsSchool

Conversion 148 6-8 149 6-8 148 6-8

324 KIPP Ujima VillageAcademy

Conversion 305 5-8 310 5-8 317 5-8

325 ConneXionsCommunity LeadershipAcademy

Conversion 159 6-9 195 6-10

326 City NeighborsCharter School

New 120 K-5 152 K-6 176

327 Patterson Park PublicCharter School

New 312 K-4 392 K-5 475

328 Southwest BaltimoreCharter New 64 K-1 120 K-2 161

329 Inner Harbor EastAcademy for YoungScholars Academy

New 184 K-3 220 K-4 240

330 Northwood AppoldCommunity Academy

New 113 K-2 166 K-3 202

331 Maryland Academyof Technology & HealthSciences (MATHS)

New 108 8 208

332 The Green School New 54 K-2 78 K-3333 BaltimoreInternational Academy

New

333Independence SchoolLocal I New

334 Bluford DrewJemison STEM Academy

New

432 Coppin Academy Conversion 251 9-11Total Number of Schools/ Enrollment

12 / 2,925 16 / 3,946 22 / 5,520

* Conversion schools previously operated as regular or independent public schools in the school district and were approved to convert to charter status. New charter schools have opened and have only operated as charter schools.




6

** These schools previously operated as traditional neighborhood schools and continue to maintain their enrollment zones and primarily servestudents from the enrollment zone.

PROGRAM

FUNDING

Conflict over the funding of charter schools marked Year 1. The charter school legislation

requires that charter schools receive funding that is “commensurate with the amount disbursed to

other public schools in the local jurisdiction.” Two charter schools sued the district in 2005

arguing that district did not meet the ‘commensurate’ standard (see Year 1 report for discussion).

The overall level of funding increased from $5,380 in 2005-06, to $5,859 in 2006-07, and then

up to $9,115 in 2007-08, reflecting a resolution of the lawsuit. After accounting for central costs

such as payroll costs, school police, and staff benefits, the per-pupil cash amount available to

schools increased from $5,380 in 2005-06 to $7,270 in 2007-08.

CHARTER SCHOOL APPROVAL AND R EVIEW

The Charter School Advisory Board (advisory board), comprised of City Schools staff, teacher

and administrator labor union representatives, a Parent Community Advisory Board (PCAB)

representative, and representatives from local community organizations and foundationscontinues to review all applications for initial charter approval and contract renewal.

Applications to open new charter schools are due to the district in early September of the year

prior to the anticipated school opening. Review procedures include the reading and scoring of

applications using a common rubric by the entire advisory board or by a subgroup of members

and in-person interviews with all applicants. Additionally in 2006-07 and 2007-08 charter

school applicants participated in a public hearing during which they discussed the plans for their

proposed schools.

After arriving at a consensus on applications, the advisory board submits its recommendation to

the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The CEO makes a recommendation to the Board of SchoolCommissioners (School Board) who then render the final judgments on charter school

applications and renewals. Thirteen prospective charter school operators submitted applications

during the 2006-07 review process. The School Board approved six of the applications, and the

schools opened for the 2007-08 school year. The School Board approved three of the six

applications submitted during the 2007-08 school year (2008-09 opening).




7

New charter schools continue to receive three-year contracts to open and operate schools. At the

end of the initial contract period, charter school operators may receive a two-year contract

extension, a new contract of five years, or the contract may be terminated by the School Board.

The process of renewing charter school applications is similar to that of the initial approval

process. School operators must first submit a renewal application documenting their accomplishments during the initial two years of the contract and identifying areas for change or

improvement. In addition, DREAA compiled written summaries of school performance in the

areas of student enrollment and retention, student attendance, measures of school climate;

performance on state and standardized assessments, and disciplinary actions for review by the

advisory board. Advisory board members score the applications using a common rubric and

provide recommendations to the CEO who then makes a recommendation to the School Board.

The first 12 charter schools that opened during the 2005-06 school year submitted their renewal

applications during the fall of the 2007-08 school year. The school board approved two-year

contract extensions for four schools and new five-year contracts for the remaining eight schools(Table 3).

Table 3. 2007‐08 Charter School Application Renewal Decisions

School Name Application Renewal Outcome

008 City Springs Elementary - Middle 2-year contract extension047 Hampstead Hill Academy 5-year contract renewal097 Collington Square Elementary-Middle

2-year contract extension

262 The Empowerment Academy 5-year contract renewal321 Midtown Academy 5-year contract renewal

324 The Crossroads School 5-year contract renewal323 Kipp Ujima Village Academy 5-year contract renewal326 City Neighbors Elementary-Middle 5-year contract renewal327 Patterson Park Public Charter 5-year contract renewal328 Southwest Baltimore Charter 2-year contract extension329 Inner Harbor East Academy 2-year contract extension330 Northwood-Appold CommunityAcademy

5-year contract renewal

SCHOOL SIZE

Baltimore charter schools continue to be smaller, on average, than other schools serving

comparable grade levels (Table 4). This characteristic is a reflection of the goal of many charter

school operators to provide smaller learning environments for students as well as the difficulty of

finding adequate space to accommodate larger student enrollments. Additionally, most schools

originally planned to open with only a few grades and are still adding grades and will continue to




8

do so during future school years until they reach full operation. As of 2007-08, only 9 of 22

schools enrolled the full number of grades they planned to serve (Appendix A).

Table 4. Number of Schools and Average Enrollment by Charter School and Non‐charter

School Status 2005‐06 to 2007‐08

Charter Schools Non-charter Schools

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Elementary Schools Number of Schools 6 7 7 87 84 68Average Enrollment 157 181 207 342 342 360

PK/K - 8

Number of Schools 4 5 8 26 27 44

Average Enrollment 382 390 342 536 519 474Middle Schools

Number of Schools 2 3 3 25 24 21

Average Enrollment 227 189 198 562 469 360Middle-High Schools Number of Schools -- 1 2 2 2 2Average Enrollment -- 159 202 151 181 177

High Schools Number of Schools -- -- 2 39 39 37Average Enrollment -- -- 168 621 610 608

CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS

STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

The demographic profile of students who attend charter schools suggests that they are somewhat

less disadvantaged than other students (Table 5). The proportions of students who are over-age

for their grade or are eligible for special education services are lower among charter schools than

non-charters at all grade levels. At the K-5 level, charter school students are less likely to be

eligible for free or reduced-price meals (FARMS) or to be a racial or ethnic minority compared

to non-charter students. Grade K-5 charter schools students are also more likely to have limitedEnglish proficiency, but those in higher grades are less likely to be limited English proficient.




9

Table 5. Comparison of Charter School Student Characteristics with Non‐Charter School

Students

Charter School Student Characteristics

SpecialEducation

Over-age

FARMSLimitedEnglish

ProficientMale Black White Hispanic Other

K-5

2005-06 9.0 12.0 78.5 3.6 49.6 77.6 15.0 6.0 1.4

2006-07 9.3 12.4 76.9 3.0 49.8 78.7 13.3 6.5 1.5

2007-08 8.7 14.3 75.2 5.6 50.5 79.4 10.8 8.6 1.2

6-8

2005-06 8.6 28.0 83.9 0.3 47.1 84.5 10.4 3.2 2.0

2006-07 9.4 28.1 78.7 0.1 47.6 87.3 8.6 2.6 1.5

2007-08 10.3 28.8 78.6 0.5 52.3 88.0 8.0 3.0 1.09-12

2006-07 8.3 30.6 66.7 0.0 55.6 97.2 2.8 0.0 0.0

2007-08 12.0 25.5 58.1 0.0 43.8 93.1 6.7 0.2 0.0

Difference between charter and non-charter students

K-5

2005-06 -5.3 -4.5 -5.3 1.6 -1.0 -10.1 6.0 3.7 0.5

2006-07 -5.5 -3.5 -6.5 1.2 -0.8 -9.0 4.7 3.8 0.5

2007-08 -4.4 -1.0 -6.2 3.3 -0.2 -8.5 2.5 5.9 0.1

6-8

2005-06 -7.4 -8.0 4.5 -0.5 -4.9 -5.6 2.6 1.8 1.2

2006-07 -8.2 -6.3 -1.3 -0.7 -4.0 -2.9 1.3 0.9 0.8

2007-08 -7.3 -4.2 0.0 -0.4 1.5 -2.0 0.5 1.2 0.4

9-12

2006-07 -5.3 -5.5 9.6 -0.7 7.9 6.0 -3.8 -1.3 -0.9

2007-08 -2.5 -11.7 -0.6 -0.9 -4.0 1.7 0.5 -1.3 -0.9

Notes:

A positive (negative) charter/non-charter difference indicates that the attribute is more (less) prevalent among studentsattending charter schools.

Statistics for grade 9-12 charter school students in 2006-07 should be treated with caution because of the small number of these students.

Special Education in Charter Schools

Available data do not allow for full explanation of the reasons for the differences in the

proportion of students eligible for special education services that attend charter and non-charter




10

schools. Some members of the charter advisory board explain that the smaller size and more

personal nature of some charter schools, along with a heightened expectation that diversified

instruction is provided in general education classrooms and a range of accommodations and

modifications are routinely applied, allows certain students to remain in general education who

may have been identified as students with disabilities and have IEPs in non-charter schools.

Additionally, other members of the board explained that there may be a perception in the

Baltimore community that charter schools only serve higher achieving students. Future

evaluations may explore the charter school selection and enrollment process for both students

receiving special education services and students overall in a more detailed manner. Future

research questions may include:

• Is the selection and enrollment process equitable?

• Are charter schools actually demonstrating success at including students in general

education settings and if so, why?

• Are charter schools pushing out students with complex needs because they cannot meet

the students' needs in general education settings?

• Is there a certain type of student who is pushed out?

• Will the new funding formula for special education allow additional resources to flow to

schools so that charters and non charters will be able to more effectively educate students

with disabilities in general education classrooms?

Most charter school students who are eligible for special education services receive services in

least restrictive environments (LRE) A and B. Students who are classified as LRE A are

educated within the general education classroom setting for 80% or more of instructional hours.

Students classified as LRE B receive between 40 and 79% of instructional hours within the

general education classroom setting. Students classified as LRE C spend less than 40% of

instructional hours in the general education setting. Students receive the remainder of

instructional hours away from the general education setting. While in the general education

classroom, special education students must continue to receive any support services and

accommodations required by their Individual Education Plan (IEP). See Appendix D for full

definition of all LRE codes.

In their initial applications, most charter school operators indicated a desire to serve all students

in an inclusive setting. This preference may be reflected in the proportion of students identified

for LREs A and B. During the 2007-08 school year nearly three-quarters of charter school

students receiving special education services were classified as LRE A compared with 42% of

students attending non-charter schools (Table 6).




11

Table 6. Percent Distribution of Special Education Students by LRE Classification

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Percent of Students Receiving Special Education by LRE Status

A B C Other A B C Other A B C Other

Charter

Schools69.3 7.9 12.7 10.1 59.6 7.9 17.5 15.0 72.3 6.9 9.1 11.7

Non-

Charter

Schools**

43.2 20.6 29.9 6.3 40.4 17.2 27.1 15.3 42.4 16.4 25.2 15.7

* Source Annual Child Count data files* Excludes schools serving only special education students

Table 7 provides a glimpse into the extent to which students who enroll in charter schools

experience a change in LRE status. The analyses compared the LRE status of the student in the

prior school year with the status during the subsequent school year. These analyses are

preliminary in nature but may indicate that charter schools may be somewhat more likely to

change special education students to less restrictive environments than non-charter schools. For

example in 2007-08, 18% of charter school students moved to a less restrictive environment

compared with 13% of non-charter school students. As discussed above, DREAA and the Office

of Special Education are developing plans to implement a more extensive examination of theexperiences of special education students in charter schools for the 2008-09 evaluation.

Table 7. Special Education LRE Status Change

Charter Schools Non-charter Schools

No change Up Down No Classification /

Exit

No change Up Down No Classification

Exit

2005-06 67.8 6.7 14.8 10.6 69.0 10.7 13.9 6.5

2006-07 62.8 3.6 18.7 14.8 65.1 8.5 13.4 12.9

2007-08 64.8 7.4 18.1 9.6 70.8 9.5 13.5 6.2




12

CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS TRANSFERRING TO CHARTER SCHOOLS

If charter schools are attracting a more advantaged student population than non-charter schools, a

key question is whether charter schools are drawing these students into City Schools for the first

time or whether they are attracting them away from other City Schools. Some evidence on this

question is furnished in Table 8, which shows the demographic characteristics of students

transferring into charter schools, broken down by whether they transferred from another City

school (within district transfers) or were new to City Schools (new transfers). Results vary by

grade level, but students transferring to charters from other City Schools generally tend to be

more representative of the non-charter student population than new students entering a City

School for the first time.

At the K-5 level, within-district transfers to charter schools are virtually indistinguishable from

non-charter students, but new transfers are less likely to be a racial or ethnic minority, to be

FARMS eligible, or to require special education services.

At the middle school level, both types of transfers to charter schools are less likely to be over-age

for their grade or to require special education services than non-charter students. However, the

gaps between charter and non-charter students on these features are roughly twice as large for

new transfers as they are for within-district transfers. For example, 17.5% of grade 6-8 non-

charter students required special education services. This compares to 11.7% for grade 6-8

students who transferred from another City School to a charter and 7.5% for new transfers to

charter schools. Thus, the charter/non-charter “gap” for special education is 5.7 percentage

points for within-district transfers and 10 percentage points for new transfers. Also at the middleschool level, within-district transfers to charter schools are more likely to be FARMs-eligible and

minority than non-charter students. By contrast, new transfers are less likely to be FARMs-

eligible and are equally likely to be a minority.

The same pattern appears among high school transfers to charter schools. Compared to non-

charter students, within-district transfers are more likely to require special education services and

to be FARMS-eligible, while new transfers are less likely require special education services or to

be FARMS-eligible. Both types of transfers to charter schools are less likely to be over-age for

their grade and to be minority than non-charter students, but the differences are greater for new

transfer students.




13

Table 8. Comparison of the Characteristics of Charter and Non‐Charter School Transfer

Students

Student Characteristics

SpecialEducation

Over-age

FARMSLimitedEnglish

Proficient

Male Black White Hispanic Other

Within-district transfers to charters schools

K-5 13.2 16.8 83.4 2.5 49.1 88.9 5.2 5.1 0.8

6-8 11.7 28.8 83.7 0.6 47.7 94.3 3.0 0.6 2.1

9-12 20.5 33.3 66.7 0.0 46.2 76.9 23.1 0.0 0.0

New transfers to charter schools

1-5 6.6 13.5 57.9 4.8 48.7 75.0 16.9 6.6 1.5

6-8 7.5 21.1 61.9 1.3 45.8 88.1 7.5 4.0 0.4

9-12 13.0 26.1 49.3 0.0 46.4 72.5 27.5 0.0 0.0

Difference between within-district transfers to charters and non-charters

K-5 -1.3 0.9 0.6 0.5 -0.2 1.1 -3.5 2.5 -0.26-8 -5.8 -5.7 4.4 -0.2 -0.6 4.2 -4.6 -1.0 1.4

9-12 5.8 -3.0 8.9 -0.8 -6.0 -14.2 16.5 -1.3 -0.9

Difference between new transfers to charters and non-charters

K-5 -7.9 -2.3 -24.9 2.8 -0.7 -12.8 8.3 4.0 0.5

6-8 -10.0 -13.4 -17.4 0.5 -2.5 -2.0 -0.1 2.3 -0.3

9-12 -1.7 -10.2 -8.5 -0.8 -5.8 -18.7 20.9 -1.3 -0.9

Notes:

A positive (negative) charter/non-charter difference indicates that the attribute is more (less) prevalent among studentsattending charter schools.Within-district transfers to charters exclude transfers among charters.

New transfers include transfers from non-publics and other districts; it excludes kindergarten students.

CHARTER SCHOOL ENROLLMENT PATTERNS

We pursue several questions about the enrollment patterns of charter school students in this

section: Where do charter schools draw their student bodies from? To what extent do they

attract students into City Schools from non-public schools or other school districts? Are within-

district transfers to charter schools concentrated among a few sending schools or broadly

dispersed? Do they have disproportionate effects on the enrollment of some City Schools? Are

charter school students less likely to leave City Schools than non-charter students? Are charter school students more likely to return to their school the next year than non-charter students?




14

Are Charter Schools Attracting Students Into City Schools?

The proportion of students new to City Schools (excluding kindergarteners) provides anindication of whether charter schools are attracting new students into the district (Table 9).

3

Overall, charter schools as a group do not appear to be attracting a higher proportion of new

entrants into City Schools than non-charter schools. In both types of schools, new entrants to

City Schools comprise about 30% of transfers to grades 1-5 and 20-25% of transfers to grades 6-

12 (Table 8). Beneath these aggregate numbers, however, there is considerable variation among

schools. Seven charter schools consistently draw more than 40% of their transferring students

from outside City Schools (Wolfe Street Academy, Hampstead Hill Academy, Midtown

Academy, City Neighbors Charter School, Northwood Appold Community Academy, The Green

School, and Baltimore International Academy). Others draw 80% or more of their transferring

students from other City Schools, including City Springs, The Crossroads Schools, KIPP Ujima

Village Academy, ConneXions Community Leadership Academy, and Bluford Drew Jemison

Academy.

3 Kindergarteners are excluded because many are not enrolled in a previous educational setting and

consequently the proportion newly enrolled in City Schools does not accurately reflect a parental choice

to switch from nonpublic or another district into City Schools.




15

Table 9. Rate of Enrollment of Charter and Non‐Charter School Students not Previously

Enrolled in City Schools

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

All Charter Schools

Grades 1-5 27.2 30.0 30.5

Grades 6-8 13.5 28.8 23.5

Grades 9-12 31.6 22.7

Non-charter Schools

Grades 1-5 32.5 32.3 31.3

Grades 6-8 18.9 21.5 24.2

Grades 9-12 17.3 18.9 20.0

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

326 City Neighbors Charter School 43.0 28.6 68.8330 Northwood Appold Community Academy 34.6 39.4 54.5

321 Midtown Academy 48.6 58.3 50.0

332 The Green School 48.4 50.0

023 Wolfe Street Academy 47.1

047 Hampstead Hill Academy 33.8 63.4 45.1

335 Baltimore International Academy 45.0

328 Southwest Baltimore Charter 37.5 25.7 41.9

327 Patterson Park Public Charter 28.7 38.4 38.1

329 Inner Harbor East Academy 13.1 25.0 34.8

097 Collington Square 20.8 17.9 34.7333 Independence School Local I 32.1

262 Empowerment Academy 40.9 43.8 30.8

331 Maryland Academy of Technology &Health Sciences (MATHS)

33.3 22.8

432 Coppin Academy 22.3

063 Rosemont 22.2 22.2

323 The Crossroads School 4.1 11.9 21.3

025 Dr. Rayner Browne 20.0

325 ConneXions Community LeadershipAcademy

22.4 15.5

324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 9.3 21.2 12.5008 City Springs 18.2 21.3 11.1

334 Bluford Drew Jemison STEM Academy 9.2

Notes:Statistics for grade 9-12 charter school students in 2006-07 should be treated with caution becauseof the small number of these students.




16

Are Enrollments of Some Non‐charter Schools Disproportionately Affected by

Charter Schools?

To address the question of whether charter schools are disproportionately affecting enrollments

at some schools, Table 10 lists all schools that have lost an annual average of at least 2% of their

enrollment to charter schools. Interestingly, two of the schools that have lost some of the largest

shares of students to charter schools during the 2005-06, 2006-07 school years – Wolfe Street

Academy and Dr. Rayner Browne – subsequently became charter schools themselves in 2007-08.

Transfers from non-charter schools to charter schools appear to be largely geographically based.

Patterson Park Public Charter has drawn heavily from schools surrounding Patterson Park. The

Inner Harbor East Academy draws students from a swath extending from the school site in the

Pleasant View Gardens complex at Orleans Street north to Cecil (school #7), just above North

Avenue, including Tench Tilghman Elementary, Johnston Square Elementary, and Dr. Bernhard

Harris, Sr. Elementary. KIPP Ujima Village Academy has attracted students from several

schools in the northwest: Langston Hughes Elementary, Pimlico Elementary, Falstaff

Elementary, Callaway Elementary, and Arlington Elementary. In the northeast, City Neighbors

has drawn students from Garrett Heights Elementary, Gardenville Elementary, and Glenmount

Elementary.




17

Table 10. Schools With More than Two Percent Average Annual Enrollment Transferring to

Charter Schools, 2005‐06 to 2007‐08

Annual Average

Transfers

Sending School (non-charter) Primary Receiving School (charter)

Number Percent of

Sending SchoolEnrollment

023 Wolfe Street Academy 327 Patterson Park Public Charter 23.5 19.1

027 Commodore John Rogers 327 Patterson Park Public Charter 18.7 8.5

215 Highlandtown # 215 327 Patterson Park Public Charter 25.0 6.1

005 Langston Hughes 324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 10.7 5.9

013 Tench Tilghman 329 Inner Harbor East Academy 14.3 5.3

025 Dr. Rayner Browne 329 Inner Harbor East Academy 6.0 4.4

086 Lakewood 329 Inner Harbor East Academy 5.3 4.2

229 Holabird 008 City Springs 7.0 4.0

250 Dr. Bernard Harris, Sr. 329 Inner Harbor East Academy 15.7 3.8223 Pimlico ES 324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 20.3 3.8

301 William S. Baer School 330 Northwood Appold Comm. Acad. 4.7 3.2

16 Johnston Square 329 Inner Harbor East Academy 10.3 3.2

007 Cecil 329 Inner Harbor East Academy 9.3 3.0

261 Lockerman Bundy 328 Southwest Baltimore Charter 4.7 2.9

083 William Paca 327 Patterson Park Public Charter 19.0 2.8

241 Fallstaff 324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 7.3 2.8

251 Callaway 324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 8.0 2.7

212 Garrett Heights 326 City Neighbors Charter School 8.3 2.5

211 Gardenville 326 City Neighbors Charter School 8.3 2.5235 Glenmount 326 City Neighbors Charter School 18.3 2.5

234 Arlington 324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 12.3 2.4

22 George Washington 047 Hampstead Hill Academy 5.5 2.4

010 James McHenry 328 Southwest Baltimore Charter 7.0 2.4

145 Alexander Hamilton 063 Rosemont 6.5 2.3

053 Margaret Brent 332 The Green School 5.0 2.3

004 Steuart Hill 328 Southwest Baltimore Charter 9.0 2.3

138 Harriet Tubman 063 Rosemont 3.7 2.1

254 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 10.3 2.0

230 Canton 331 MD Acad. of Technology & Math 6.0 2.0

247 Cross Country 324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 10.3 2.0

240 Graceland Park 047 Hampstead Hill Academy 4.3 2.0

Table 11 looks at non-charter schools that serve as large sources of transfers to charter schools

during the 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08 school years. Ten charter schools draw at least 15%

of their transfer students from a single non-charter school. Except for the Independence School




18

and Bluford Drew Jemison, proximity plays a key role, with nearby schools furnishing the lion’s

share of transfers to some charters. For example, Glenmount, which is only a few blocks away

from City Neighbors, supplied 41% of transfers to that school. Likewise, Hampden, located in

the neighborhood just north of the Green School (before it moved to its new site in 2008-09),

provided 32% of the Green School’s transfers. An interesting topic for further research would be

whether the quality of either sending or receiving schools is also a factor in charter school

choice.

Table 11. Charter Schools Receiving more than 15 Percent of their Transfers from a Single

Sending School, 2005‐06 to 2007‐08

Annual Average Transfers

Receiving school (charter) Sending school (non-charter)Number

Percent of Receiving School

Transfer Students

047 Hampstead Hill Academy 023 Wolfe Street Academy 9.0 20.9

324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 223 Pimlico ES 15.3 19.0

326 City Neighbors Charter School 235 Glenmount 10.3 41.2

327 Patterson Park Public Charter 215 Highlandtown # 215 18.3 17.7

329 Inner Harbor East Academy 250 Dr. Bernard Harris, Sr. 9.3 18.4

330 Northwood-Appold CommunityAcademy

242 Northwood 7.7 22.2

332 The Green School 055 Hampden 6.0 31.6

333 Independence School Local I 420 Dr. Samuel L. Banks 12.0 50.0

334 Bluford Drew Jemison 051 Waverly 6.0 21.4105 Moravia Park 6.0 21.4

335 Baltimore International Academy 236 Hamilton EM 13.0 22.8

Evidence on the question of whether transfers out of City Schools are lower among charter

schools is presented in Table 12. City Schools exit rates over the past three years ranged

between 9-12% among non-charters for grades PK-8, and 16-21% in grades 9-12. Exit rates

among charter school students were consistently lower, typically by 1-3 percentage points.

Relative to the City Schools average, exit rates were especially low at City Springs, Collington

Square, City Neighbors, ConneXions Community Leadership Academy, and Coppin Academy.Charter school exit rates were considerably higher than the City Schools average at Hampstead

Hill Academy, The Crossroads School, and, prior to 2007-08, Southwest Baltimore Charter.




19

Table 12. Percentage of Students Exiting City Schools

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

All Charter Schools

Grades PK-5 8.7 9.2 7.6

Grades 6-8 8.0 10.0 7.4

Grades 9-12 19.4 7.4

Non-charter Schools

Grades PK-5 11.3 10.4 9.2

Grades 6-8 12.1 12.3 10.1

Grades 9-12 21.2 21.1 15.6

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08




331 Maryland Academy of Technology &Health Sciences

7.4 10.6

333 Independence School Local I 10.0

324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 8.2 8.4 9.5







063 Rosemont 7.3 7.0330 Northwood Appold Community Acad. 7.1 13.9 6.9

334 Bluford Drew Jemison MST Academy 6.9



097 Collington Square 9.5 6.6 5.2



7.5 4.6

326 City Neighbors Charter School 8.3 6.6 3.4

008 City Springs 3.7 3.3 2.5

Statistics for grade 9-12 charter school students in 2006-07 should be treated with caution because of the small number of these students.

In addition to exiting City Schools at a lower rate, charter school students are less likely to

transfer to another school within the district than non-charter students, as shown in Table 13.

Among non-charters, roughly 80-84% of grades PK-8 students and 90% of high school students

returned to their schools in the following year. Compared to the non-charter rates, rates of return




20

for charter school students range from 2-8 percentage points higher for grades PK-8, and they are

roughly comparable at the high school level. Wolfe Street Academy, Hampstead Hill Academy,

Midtown Academy, and City Neighbors exhibit especially high return rates.4 No charter schools

consistently display return rates far below the City Schools average.

Table 13. Percentage

of Students

Returning

to

the

Same

School

in

the

Following

Year

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

All Charter Schools

Grades PK-5 85.0 86.5 86.8

Grades 6-8 90.0 86.2 86.4

Grades 9-12 69.0 91.3

Non-charter Schools

Grades PK-5 82.2 81.1 79.8

Grades 6-8 82.2 84.2 81.7

Grades 9-12 89.4 90.2 89.9

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08326 City Neighbors Charter School 87.3 97.2 98.2






330 Northwood Appold Community Acad. 86.7 88.8 92.0







84.4 86.0

008 City Springs 84.1 86.5 84.8

331 Maryland Academy of Technology &Health Sciences

72.0 81.7




063 Rosemont 78.7 80.4097 Collington Square 84.1 78.5 80.2



Excludes students who leave city schools and students in schools with no grade to accommodate them in the following year.

4 Hampstead Hill is an interesting case because it has one of the highest City Schools exit rates among

charter (Table 10) but also one of the highest return rates.




21

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08Statistics for grade 9-12 charter school students in 2006-07 should be treated with caution due to the small number of students.

Are Students Who Leave Charter Schools Different From Those Who Stay?

Table 14 provides information on the extent to which students who leave charter schools have

different demographic characteristics (leavers) than those student who remain enrolled (stayers).

Analyses reveal that students who leave charter schools are 1-2 percentage points slightly more

likely to require special education services than those who stay. For example, 11.7% of students

who left charters required special education, compared to 10.1% who stay. At the elementary

grade level, leavers are marginally more likely to be over-age for their grade, male, and minority.

At the middle and high school levels, the proportion of over-age students is much higher among

leavers than stayers. Leavers are also more likely to be boys. Leavers and stayers are similar in

terms of FARMS-eligibility and race/ethnicity at the middle and high-school levels.

As with explaining differences in student demographic data, no contextual data exists which

explains differences in the characteristics of students who leave and remain in charter schools.

In 2008-09, DREAA may administer an exit survey to the families of all students who

transferred from charter schools. Such information may yield a better understanding of why

students leave charter schools.

Table 14. Demographics of Charter School Students by Leaver Status (%)

2005‐06 through 2007‐08 School Years

Student CharacteristicsPercent of Students

Race/ethnicity

Spec.Ed

Over-age FARMs LEP Male Black White Hispanic Other

K-5

Leavers 10.5 14.5 78.4 2.5 51.8 81.6 10.8 6.0 1.6

Stayers 8.5 12.7 76.0 4.6 49.6 78.0 13.2 7.2 1.4

6-8

Leavers 11.7 36.4 78.4 0.3 54.0 86.5 8.1 3.6 1.8

Stayers 10.1 26.6 79.5 0.3 49.7 87.1 8.9 2.9 1.4

9-12

Leavers 12.4 39.2 57.7 0.0 46.4 93.8 6.2 0.0 0.0

Stayers 11.2 22.9 59.3 0.0 43.8 94.9 4.8 0.2 0.0




22

ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE ON STATE AND

STANDARDIZED ASSESSMENTS

The academic progress achieved by charter schools can be measured on two levels. The first

level looks at the school as a whole to determine the extent to which the school has achieved

adequate yearly progress (AYP) under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. Although

AYP is often the most visible measure of school progress, schools may demonstrate increases in

the number and proportion of students who achieve at the proficient or advanced levels on state

assessments but not evidence enough progress to achieve AYP. Thus, another way to measure

the impact and effectiveness of a school is to examine the extent to which individual students

make measureable progress in key areas.

Adequate Yearly Progress

Currently, an important metric for evaluating the overall health and performance of a school is

whether a school has made sufficient progress in the areas of reading and mathematics among

students overall and by student subgroup. Schools that fail to achieve AYP for two consecutive

school years in the same area are identified for improvement and are required to make differing

levels of instructional and administrative interventions to improve student achievement

(Appendix B). In 2007-08, the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) gained

approval from the U.S. Department of Education to implement a system of differentiated

accountability for schools that fail to make adequate progress. Schools that fail to make progress

in the ‘all students’ category or for three or more student subgroups are placed on the

Comprehensive Needs pathway. Schools that fail to make progress for one or two subgroups or

serve only students receiving special education services are placed on the Focused Needs

pathway. Six charter schools achieved AYP in both 2005-06 and 2006-07. In 2007-08, 15

charter schools made AYP (Table 15).




23

Table 15. Charter Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2005‐06 to 2007‐08

Adequate Yearly Progress/School Improvement StatusSchool Name

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

008 City Springs Elementary Not met / LocalAttention

Not Met / SchoolImprovement Year 1

Not Met / ComprehensiveDeveloping

023 Wolfe Street Academy -- -- Met / None025 Dr. Rayner BrowneElementary/Middle

-- -- Not met / ComprehensiveDeveloping

047 Hampstead Hill Elementary Met / None Not met / LocalAttention

Not met / FocusDeveloping

063 RosemontElementary/Middle

-- Met / None Met / None

097 Collington SquareElementary/Middle

Not met /Restructuring

Implementation

Not met /Restructuring

Implementation

Not met / ComprehensivePriority

262 The Empowerment Academy Met / None Met / None Met / None321 Midtown Academy Met / None Met / None Met / None

323 The Crossroads School Met / None Met / None Met / None

324 KIPP Ujima VillageAcademy

Met / None Met / None Met / None

325 ConneXions CommunityLeadership Academy

-- Not met / SchoolImprovement Year 1

Not met / ComprehensiveDeveloping

326 City Neighbors Charter School

Not met / LocalAttention

Met / None Not met /Local Attention

327 Patterson Park Public Charter School



Met / None

328 Southwest Baltimore Charter NA* NA* Met / None329 Inner Harbor East Academy

for Young Scholars Academy

Met / None Not met / Local

Attention

Met / None


NA* Not met / LocalAttention

Met / None

331 Maryland Academy of Technology & Health Sciences

-- Not met / LocalAttention

Not met / ComprehensiveDeveloping

332 The Green School -- NA* Met / None

333 Baltimore InternationalAcademy

-- -- Met / None

333Independence School Local I -- -- Met / None334 Bluford Drew JemisonSTEM Academy

-- -- Met / None

432 Coppin Academy Met / None

Number of Charter SchoolsAchieving AYP / Number of Schools Without Tested Grades

6 / 2 6 / 2 15 / 0

*The school did not enroll students in tested grades, grades 3-8.




24

Both charter and non-charter City Schools have achieved progress in the areas of reading and

mathematics on state assessments between the 2005-06 and 2007-08 school years (Table 17).

Overall, elementary and K-8 charter schools tend to perform at levels similar to those of non-

charter schools in reading and below the levels of non-charter schools in mathematics. However,

there are sometimes large differences among charter schools in the extent to which students score

at the proficient or advanced levels on state assessments with students in some charter schools

consistently exceeding non-charter schools and others performing at lower levels. The

performance of charter middle schools consistently exceeded that of non-charter middle schools

during all three school years. Overall, charter schools have consistently been more likely to

make AYP than non-charter schools (Table 16).

Table 16. Number of Schools Making AYP by Charter Status

Charter Schools Non-Charter Schools

#

Making

AYP

#

Schools

% Making AYP # Making

AYP

# Schools % Making

AYP

2005-06 6 10 60.0 75 180 41.7

2006-07 6 14 42.9 70 177 39.5

2007-08 15 22 68.2 89 171 52.0




25

Table 17. AYP Percent of All Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced 2005‐06 to 2007‐08

AYP - All Students Percent Proficient or Advanced

Reading Mathematics

School Name

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Charter SchoolsElementary 67.3 69.0 74.6 48.6 58.2 69.7

K-8 61.7 60.6 72.7 40.2 47.0 59.4

Middle 73.4 66.5 74.6 75.4 59.4 69.7

Middle-High 51.7 61.9 27.5 33.0

High 68.4 87.3

Non-Charter Schools

Elementary 65.3 68.1 77.1 62.2 67.3 74.0

K-8 62.3 65.8 71.9 49.7 56.3 59.4

Middle 37.2 38.1 47.2 19.5 21.2 22.8Middle-High 22.5 35.3 12.5 35.3

High 65.8 65.7

008 City Springs Elementary 52.0 46.8 59.3 34.8 33.8 28.1023 Wolfe Street Academy 74.2 81.0025 Dr. Rayner BrowneElementary/Middle

59.5 54.3

047 Hampstead HillElementary

72.6 69.8 75.3 46.2 45.2 73.1


77.0 88.2 75.0 80.3


50.7 43.3 61.9 24.3 30.7 41.0

262 The EmpowermentAcademy

85.7 80.8 83.5 81.0 75.6 87.4

321 Midtown Academy 80.8 74.2 83.6 73.3 60.8 78.7323 The Crossroads School 62.0 59.4 77.5 47.2 44.8 73.9324 KIPP Ujima VillageAcademy

79.4 73.9 80.5 90.1 79.9 82.5


62.4 51.7 66.7 37.6 27.5 29.9

326 City Neighbors Charter

School

72.7 78.2 85.2 45.5 66.7 61.1

328 Southwest BaltimoreCharter

71.1 81.6


55.4 58.3 67.0 37.2 56.4 59.2


68.4 59.7 85.2 41.2 30.6 71.6




26

AYP - All Students Percent Proficient or Advanced

Reading Mathematics

School Name

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08


82.5 83.6 55.0 78.1

331 Maryland Academy of Technology & HealthSciences

55.3 54.5 20.2 37.7

332 The Green School 93.8 87.5335 Baltimore InternationalAcademy

73.2 70.7

333Independence SchoolLocal I

25.0 25.0

334 Bluford Drew JemisonSTEM Academy

67.9 50.9

432 Coppin Academy 73.2 94.4

MSA Performance of Special Education Students

Not only are all public schools responsible for ensuring that all students achieve proficiency in

the areas of reading and mathematics, but they also must ensure that students in specific student

groups achieve at similarly high levels. As noted in the previous section (Table 5), on average

charter schools are less likely to enroll students who receive special education services than are

non-charter schools. In addition charter school special education students tend to be

concentrated in the LRE A and B categories, requiring fewer services outside of the general

education classroom setting. In 2008, 11 charter schools achieved performance goals for

students receiving special education services in the areas of reading and mathematics, 5 charter

schools did not achieve their performance goals in these areas, and 6 schools did not serveenough special education students to be held accountable for the student subgroup.

The comparatively small number of students enrolled in charter schools complicates the extent to

which one can draw reliable conclusions about student performance between charter and non-

charter schools. In addition, the distribution of special education students across charter schools

varies with some schools enrolling and testing more students than other schools. MSDE requires

a minimum of five students in a subgroup before a school is held accountable for the group’s

performance on state assessments. As noted above, in 2007-08 more than one-quarter of charter

did not meet this threshold and do not have data on the performance of their special education

student population. Among the schools that did have enough students, the number of tested

students ranged from a low of six students in MATHS to 43 students in Collington Square. Such

imbalances in the number of students served make it difficult to speak about the performance of

special education students in charter schools as a whole because such reports would be more

reflective of the influence of schools that enroll the largest numbers of students rather than of

charter schools as a whole.




27

Table 18. AYP Percent of Students Receiving Special Education Services Scoring Proficient or

Advanced 2005‐06 to 2007‐08

AYP – Special Education Students Percent Proficient or Advanced / Student Performance Goal Performance

Reading Mathematics

School Name

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

008 City Springs Elementary /Middle

20.0 / Not met

16.7 / Not met

26.7 / Notmet

26.7 /Met

11.1 / Not met

10.0 / Notmet

023 Wolfe Street Academy 72.7 /Met

63.6 /Met

025 Dr. Rayner BrowneElementary/Middle

17.6 / Notmet

29.4 / NotMet

047 Hampstead Hill Elementary 38.1 /Met

6.3 / Not met

40.7 / Notmet

9.5 /Met

6.3 / Notmet

44.4 / Notmet

063 Rosemont Elementary/Middle 57.1 /Met

67.5 / Met 35.7 /Met

50.0 / Met


0.0 / Not met

10.0 / Not met

30.2 / Notmet

2.9 / Not met

0.0 / Notmet

19.5 / Notmet

262 The Empowerment Academy -- -- -- -- -- --321 Midtown Academy 66.7 /

Met57.1 /Met

55.6 / Met 50.0 /Met

42.9 /Met

55.6 / Met

323 The Crossroads School 33.3 /Met

43.8 /Met

57.1 / Met 20.0 /Met

31.3 /Met

42.9 / Met

324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 46.2 /Met

35.0 /Met

51.4 / Met 76.9 /Met

50.0 /Met

42.9 / Met


16.7 / Not met

50.0 / Met 0.0 / Met 8.3 / Notmet

326 City Neighbors Charter

School

62.5 /

Met

66.7 /

Met

65.2 / Met 12.5 /

Met

50.0 /

Met

30.4 / Not

met328 Southwest Baltimore -- --327 Patterson Park Public Charter School

33.3 /Met

20.8 / Not Met

36.1 / Met 8.3 / Not met

25.0 /Met

22.2 / Met

329 Inner Harbor East Academyfor Young Scholars Academy

-- 60.0 /Met

85.7 / Met -- 40.0 /Met

85.7 / Met


-- -- 57.1 / Met -- -- 71.4 / Met

331 Maryland Academy of Technology & Health Sciences(MATHS)

50.0 /Met

0.0 / Notmet

37.5 /Met

16.7 / Met

332 The Green School -- --

335 Baltimore InternationalAcademy -- --

333Independence School Local I -- --334 Bluford Drew Jemison STEMAcademy

63.6 / Met 45.5 / Met

432 Coppin Academy




28

Table 18 demonstrates that charter schools vary in the extent to which they achieve performance

goals for special education students. The proportion of special education students meeting

performance goals may vary significantly from year to year. Such variations are more likely to

occur when the number of students is small as is the case with most charter schools. Some

schools such as Midtown Academy and Rosemont Elementary/Middle have consistently met

special education student performance goals while other schools such as City Springs and

Collington Square have failed to meet most performance targets since 2005-06.

Student‐level MSA Proficiency Gains

Table 19 presents data on the percentages of students moving up or down at least one proficiency

level, as well as percentages of students remaining at the same proficiency level. Students

maintaining performance at the highest proficiency level (advanced) are classified as moving up.

(See Appendix C for details on the derivation of these measures). Overall, charter school

students progress less than non-charter students moving from grade 3 to grade 4, but they

progress more than non-charter students between grades 5 and 6; 6 and 7, and 7 and 8. Charter

school students moving from grade 4 to grade 5 are more likely to maintain their status than are

non-charter school students who were more likely to change performance levels.

Both Midtown Academy and KIPP Ujima Village Academy consistently raised proficiency

levels or maintained highest level proficiency among 40% or more of their students over the full

three years. At KIPP, 57% of these students “moving up” achieved actual proficiency level

gains, while at Midtown Academy only 42% did so, with the others maintaining highest level

proficiency. Rosemont, City Neighbors, and Patterson Park Public Charter achieved strong

gains for the most recent two years. City Springs, ConneXions Community Leadership

Academy, Maryland Academy of Technology and Health Sciences, and Baltimore International

Academy have never improved scores among more than 20% of their students. It may be noted

that there is only one year of data for Baltimore International Academy, and most charters

performed weakly in their initial year of operation. City Springs has turned in three years of

consistently lackluster performance. Collington Square failed to produce significant gains in both

2005-06 and 2006-07, but its performance improved in 2007-08.




29

Table 19. Change in MSA Proficiency Level (Percent of Students)

Student Proficiency Level Change Status

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Down Same Up Down Same Up Down Same Up

All Charter Schools

Grade 3 to 4 21 64 15 8 60 32 7 51 42

Grade 4 to 5 14 67 19 14 63 23 15 49 37

Grade 5 to 6 11 58 32 14 58 28 12 45 43

Grade 6 to 7 14 60 25 28 60 12 11 49 39

Grade 7 to 8 6 54 40 14 61 26 4 62 34

Non-charter Schools

Grade 3 to 4 14 58 28 10 51 39 8 43 49

Grade 4 to 5 17 59 23 18 55 26 17 42 40

Grade 5 to 6 20 67 14 18 62 19 17 53 30

Grade 6 to 7 12 78 10 12 76 11 12 67 21

Grade 7 to 8 8 80 12 9 79 12 7 75 18

Charter Schools

008 City Springs 13 75 12 7 77 15 12 71 17

023 Wolfe Street Academy 0 30 70

025 Dr. Rayner Browne 8 68 24

047 Hampstead Hill Academy 17 65 17 13 65 22 6 48 46

063 Rosemont 22 46 33 7 30 63

097 Collington Square 7 79 13 10 75 15 8 59 32

262 Empowerment Academy 20 65 15 6 50 44 5 50 45

321 Midtown Academy 12 43 45 22 39 40 4 33 63

323 The Crossroads School 12 65 23 17 67 16 8 49 43

324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 13 39 48 22 42 37 15 36 49


22 70 8 15 67 18

326 City Neighbors Charter School 30 65 5 13 51 36 9 51 41

327 Patterson Park Public Charter 33 51 15 8 63 30 11 54 35

329 Inner Harbor East Academy 20 76 4 2 39 60

330 Northwood Appold Comm.Acad. 3 60 37

331 Maryland Academy of Technology & Health Sciences(MATHS)

18 73 9 7 75 18

334 Bluford Drew Jemison 24 50 26

335 Baltimore Int. Acad. 19 63 19

Notes: See Appendix C for details calculation of change in proficiency level.




30

High School Assessments

Students who entered high school for the first time during 2005-06 school year or later must pass

High School Assessments (HSAs) in the areas of Algebra 1, Biology, English 1, and American

Government to graduate. In 2008, MSDE implemented the Bridge Plan for Academic Validation

which allowed students who have difficulty passing the assessments after multiple attempts to

participate in independent study projects to fulfill the HSA requirements. In 2008-09, charter

schools will graduate their first significant number of students. Upcoming evaluations will

explore in-depth the extent to which charter school students are successful in meeting both the

HSA and other graduation requirements.

The 2006-07 school year was the first year City charter schools enrolled high school students.

Depending on their academic progress, some students may take the Algebra 1 assessment for the

first time during 8th grade. Table 20 displays the performance of students during the 2006-07

and 2007-08 school years. All students who took assessments are included. The Algebra I and

English II data should not be confused with the AYP data provided in Table 17. For 2006-07,

the AYP data reflect the pass rates for first-time takers of the Algebra and English assessments.

For 2007-08, AYP data reflect the status of 11th grade students actively enrolled as of the end of

the school year. Students may have passed the assessment in 2007-08 or during prior school

years. The comprehensive measure shows the extent to which schools are making annual

progress among all test takers.

As with other data presented in this report, charter schools vary greatly in the proportion of

students passing HSAs each year. For the Algebra I assessment, middle and K-8 schools

evidence the highest pass rates. This pattern likely reflects the selection of specific students to

take the test prior to the 9th grade. These are probably among the most capable students,

resulting in the high pass rates.

Among the charter schools that enroll students in high school grades, the performance of some

schools exceeds that of the district as a whole, while the performance of others falls below that of

the school district. For example, Coppin Students posted a 90% pass rate in American

Government in 2007-08, significantly above the 52% of the district. However, in English II,

students had a pass rate of approximately 33% slightly below the district rate of nearly 36%.

Student outcomes for charter high school students will become more visible as the schools enroll

larger numbers of high school students.




31

Table 20. Comprehensive HSA Performance 2006‐07 and 2007‐08

Percent Passing / Number of Takers

Algebra 1 Biology English II Government

2006-07 2007-08 2006-07 2007-08 2006-07 2007-08 2006-07 2007-08

Charter Schools 66.7 / 87 51.1 /

401

0 / 0 46.4 /

112

100.0 /

2*

35.5 /

149

0 / 0 82.5 /

103Non-charterSchools

28.3 /

10,143

31.5/

10,482

39.9 /

3,432

45.1 /

5,463

48.0 /

5,436

37.4 /

7,554

52.2 /

6,742

52.4 /

7,250

School

047 HampsteadHill Academy

-- 61.1 / 18 -- --‐‐

-- --‐‐

323 TheCrossroadsSchool

-- 100.0 /

11

-- -- ‐‐ -- -- ‐‐

324 KIPP UjimaVillage Academy

100.0 /

35

100.0 /

27

-- -- ‐‐ -- -- ‐‐

325 ConneXionsCommunityLeadershipAcademy

32.6 / 43 31.5 / 89 -- 50.0 / 22 -- 60.0 / 25 -- 61.5 / 26

331 MATHSHigh School

100.0 / 9 60.2 / 83 -- -- -- -- -- --

333IndependenceSchool Local I

-- 22.7 / 22 -- 19.0 / 21 -- 20.0 / 25 -- 83.3 / 6

432 CoppinAcademy

-- 48.3 /151

-- 53.6 / 69 -- 33.3 / 99 -- 90.1 / 64

*School-level detail is only provided for schools with at least 5 test takers.

Charter school special education students took a total of 62 HSAs in 2007-08. The small number of assessments makes comparisons with the district as a whole problematic. The largest number

of special education students took the Algebra I assessment (n=37), and 6 passed, yielding a pass

rate of approximately 16% compared with 6% of the nearly 1,700 special education students

who took the assessment in non-charter schools.

Stanford 10 Performance

The City Schools administers the Stanford 10 assessments to all 1st and 2nd grade students.

Administration of the Stanford is required by the Reading First grant for participating schools,

and the assessment is administered in all schools for consistency and to provide an early look at

student performance. As with the MSAs, the assessment also measures student performance in

the areas of reading and mathematics. Tables 21 and 22 demonstrate that the performance of

charter schools compared with that of non-charter schools is mixed. In reading, K-8 charter

school students score at a higher level than K-8 non-charter schools. Charter schools have

consistently underperformed non-charter schools in the area of 2nd grade mathematics. The




32

performance gap between charter and non-charter schools in 1st grade mathematics that existed

in 2005-06 was eliminated by 2007-08 with both elementary and K-8 charter schools exceeding

the district average percentile ranking.

The performance of individual charter schools on the Stanford 10 assessments varies both by

school and by school year. Some schools such as Rosemont Elementary/Middle have evidencedrelatively steady and consistent improvement in student scores. Other schools such as City

Neighbors have experienced both increases and decreases in student performance. Such

volatility is not unusual given the small number of students tested in some schools and the age of

students when they test.

Table 21. Stanford 10 Grade 1 and 2 Reading National Percentile

Reading National Percentile

Grade 1 Grade 2

School Name

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Charter SchoolsElementary 39 43 54 43 39 46

K-8 59 48 47 51 46 44

Non-Charter Schools

Elementary 46 46 48 42 44 41K-8 47 44 49 44 42 42

Charter Schools332 The Green School 87 85 62 76063 RosemontElementary/Middle

44 69 34 69

330 Northwood Appold

Community Academy

44 36 57 41 37 64

326 City Neighbors Charter School

36 34 45 66 48 63


54 39 52 36 47

047 Hampstead HillElementary/Middle

71 58 50 48 59 47

321 Midtown Academy 81 54 61 76 69 44097 Collington SquareElementary/Middle

26 52 39 30 26 44

329 Inner Harbor EastAcademy for Young Scholars

26 43 49 23 34 39

023 Wolfe Street Academy 51 38335 Baltimore InternationalAcademy

45 32

008 City Springs Elementary 56 51 31 48 42 32025 Dr. Rayner BrownElementary/Middle

34 27


27 29 29 31 23 27

262 The Empowerment 52 44 45 56 39 26




33

Reading National Percentile

Grade 1 Grade 2

School Name

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Academy

Table 22. Stanford 10 Grade 1 and 2 Mathematics National Percentile

Mathematics National Percentile

Grade 1 Grade 2

School Name

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Charter SchoolsElementary 40 49 63 38 43 43

K-8 53 55 59 36 49 46

Non-Charter SchoolsElementary 54 53 58 48 49 50

K-8 54 49 55 46 44 49Charter Schools330 Northwood AppoldCommunity Academy

50 40 69 26 41 74


74 85 63 70

332 The Green School 92 90 71 60326 City NeighborsCharter School

44 42 69 58 46 58

025 Dr. Rayner BrownElementary/Middle

27 53

262 The Empowerment

Academy

47 55 79 70 58 49

047 Hampstead HillAcademy

50 54 50 30 39 46

321 Midtown Academy 68 74 80 66 83 44335 BaltimoreInternational Academy

69 44


41 40 74 27 36

329 Inner Harbor EastAcademy for YoungScholars

27 40 36 16 33 35


32 41 36 14 15 28

023 Wolfe StreetAcademy

56 26


33 43 34 25 29 24

008 City SpringsElementary

62 59 33 42 47 21




34

Stanford Grade 1 to 2 Student‐level Progress

As with the progress measure on the MSAs, it is also possible to examine the extent to which

individual students make progress on the Stanford measures from grades 1 to 2. A matched pair

score is a repeated measure using the child as the unit of analysis. For 2007-08 gains, the 20071st grade scores were compared against the same child a year later in grade 2. Similarly, 2006-07

gains reflect the comparison between 1st

grade scores in 2006 with 2nd

grade scores in 2007.

The Title I evaluation model that was accepted for many years posited a 2 (normal curve

equivalent) NCE gain per child and in the aggregate. Comparing 2005-06 to 2006-07 and 2006-

07 to 2007-08 data, the system overall has declined by 6.0 and 4.9 NCEs in mathematics in both

respective years. The reading pattern is similar, having lost 4.5 and 4.9 NCEs in both respective

years. As revealed in Table 23 both charter and non-charter school students evidenced this

overall decline in both reading and mathematics performance for both the 2007 and 2008

measures.

Table 23. Stanford 10 Achievement Test Student Matched Pairs Average NCE Annual Gains

Average Annual NCE Change

2005-06 to 2006-07 2006-07 to 2007-08

Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics

Charter

Schools

-6.1 -5.4 -3.0 -7.5

Non-Charter

Schools

-4.3 -6.0 -5.1 -4.6

LEARNING ENVIRONMENT OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

School‐level Attendance Rates

Charter schools, on average, had slightly higher rates of attendance than non-charter schools at

all grade levels. Charter students of all grade levels were less likely to miss 20 or more days of




35

school than were non-charter school students. The attendance disparities are largest among

middle and middle/high schools. In 2007-08 the average attendance rate at charter middle

schools was 95.9% compared with 86.2% at non-charter middle schools. Six percent of charter

middle school students missed more than 20 days of schools compared with 38% of non-charter

middle school students.

Table 24. School‐level attendance rates 2005‐06 to 2007‐08 by charter school status

All Students Attendance Rates

Average Attendance

Rate

Percent of Students

Missing Less than 5

Days of School*

Percent of Students

Missing More than 20

Days of School *

School Name

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

All Charter Schools

Elementary 94.3 94.4 95.0 31.1 29.8 34.6 12.1 13.2 7.1

K-8 95.8 94.3 95.1 50.4 36.6 37.6 7.8 14.8 9.3Middle 96.0 94.8 95.9 50.5 33.6 44.9 5.1 9.1 6.0

High 91.7 17.0 29.7

Middle-High 99.4 94.1 23.4 38.6 8.9 11.6

Non-charter Schools

Elementary 94.1 94.0 94.1 38.0 37.2 37.8 12.5 13.2 11.9

K-8 93.8 93.8 93.8 34.4 35.0 35.1 14.2 14.3 13.8

Middle 85.7 84.9 86.2 17.8 14.5 17.5 38.5 43.4 37.8

High 83.7 18.4 41.2

Middle-High 79.9 68.0 25.9 25.1 63.7 70.0Charter Schools


96.3 97.1 93.8 64.9 69.4 37.5 5.1 6.2 10.9

023 Wolfe Street Academy 95.3 40.0 6.4

025 Dr. Rayner BrownElementary/ Middle

93.7 40.3 11.5

047 Hampstead HillAcademy

95.3 95.4 95.0 40.7 38.9 31.8 6.2 9.0 10.8

063 Rosemont Elementary/Middle

93.3 94.5 25.8 27.7 14.5 12.8

097 Collington SquareElementary/ Middle

96.1 90.8 96.4 54.7 16.3 53.9 10.5 30.1 7.7

262 The EmpowermentAcademy

95.2 95.6 95.8 32.4 34.1 28.2 5.6 2.4 2.7

321 Midtown Academy 95.4 95.6 96.2 33.7 32.7 37.7 9.8 13.0 5.6

323 The Crossroads School 95.4 95.7 95.3 39.0 32.4 39.7 6.2 8.3 6.4324 KIPP Ujima VillageAcademy

96.3 94.8 96.3 56.4 38.3 47.6 4.6 7.9 5.2

325 ConneXions 96.0 99.4 95.9 47.0 23.4 47.4 4.3 8.9 6.8




36

All Students Attendance Rates

Average Attendance

Rate

Percent of Students

Missing Less than 5

Days of School*

Percent of Students

Missing More than 20

Days of School *

School Name

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08Community LeadershipAcademy326 City Neighbors Charter School

96.9 96.7 96.6 51.5 47.3 40.1 3.0 3.1 3.3


93.5 93.4 95.1 21.0 24.6 33 17.6 19.0 5.3


90.6 92.6 94.2 27.3 21.9 31.1 27.3 17.8 13.4

329 Inner Harbor EastAcademy for YoungScholars

93.2 94.0 95.4 26.0 22.1 37.3 16.3 17.5 9.0


94.6 94.9 95.0 39.4 35.3 41.6 7.0 11.8 7.1

331 Maryland Academy of Technology & HealthSciences

93.3 92.4 21.8 30.2 13.9 16.1

332 The Green School 93.5 95.2 27.6 25 13.8 7.1333 Independence SchoolLocal I

94.3 20.7 25.6

334 Bluford Drew JemisonSTEM Academy

95.5 43.9 7.9


94.5 29.3 4.0

432 Coppin Academy 90.8 15.7 31.0 Note: * Includes only students enrolled at a school for at least 90 days.

School Climate

Table 25 demonstrates that charter school climate survey respondents rate their schools higher

than non-charter school respondents. This differential exists for all grade levels with the largest

disparities among middle school respondents. Nearly all schools evidenced at least a 75%

positive response rate in 2007-08. In 2007-08 85% of all charter elementary school surveyresponses were positive compared with 81% of responses for non-charter elementary schools.

The responses for charter and non-charter middle schools were 80.2 and 69.9, respectively.

As with other measures included in this report, ratings by school vary. For example, in 2007-08

63.6% of responses about Bluford-Drew-Jemison STEM Academy were positive compared with

93% of responses at The Crossroads School.




37

Table 25. Measures of School Climate 2005‐06 through 2007‐08

Mean Percent of Students, Parents, and Staff

Responding Positively to Climate Survey Items

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

All Charter SchoolsElementary 81.9 91.5 85.0

K-8 73.0 88.4 86.3

Middle 81.4 88.9 80.2

Middle-High 82.6 84.4

High 87.0

Non-charter Schools

Elementary 76.5 85.6 81.3

K-8 66.6 80.6 77.6

Middle 60.0 73.0 69.9

Middle-High -- --High 73.1

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

008 City Springs 73.7 87.5 79.7




063 Rosemont 88.2 86.6

097 Collington Square 71.2 86.6 85.0






82.6 91.9

326 City Neighbors Charter School 84.8 94.3 90.6




330 Northwood Appold Community Acad. 77.7 93.0 90.5

331 Maryland Academy of Technology &

Health Sciences

82.6 76.9









38

Notes: Students in grades 3-8 complete the climate surveyAggregations by school configuration reflect the grand mean (the mean of means)

Student Discipline

Charter schools tend to have lower suspension rates than non-charter schools. The elementary

school charter school suspension rate exceeded the rate for non-charter schools in 2006-07 and

the charter middle/high school rate exceeded the non-charter rate in 2007-08. The K-8 and

middle school charter school rates have consistently been lower than those of non-charter

schools. Although the overall rates tend to be lower among charter schools, the rates across

schools vary, sometimes by large margins. Some schools such as Collington Square, The Green

School, and The Empowerment Academy routinely post suspension rates of less than 5%. On

the other hand, other schools such as Patterson Park and MATHS have rates that exceed 20% of

enrollment. The cause of the variations in suspension rates is not available from current datasources. Future reports may explore this feature of charter schools in greater depth.




39

Table 26. Suspension Rate by Charter School Status

Incident Suspension Rate / Number of Suspensions

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

All Charter Schools

Elementary 8.6 / 81 14.3 / 181 9.9 / 144K-8 7.8 / 120 8.5 / 165 8.7 / 239

Middle 2.2 / 10 10.6 / 60 15.8 / 94

Middle-High 19.5 / 31 52.4 / 211

High .3 / 1

Non-charter Schools

Elementary 6.3 / 1,890 7.6 / 2,175 9.9 / 2,421

K-8 19.9 / 2,774 16.8 / 2,362 14.2 / 2,965

Middle 39.6 / 5,567 51.0 / 5,748 47.4 / 3,580

Middle-High 2.5 / 9 4.0 / 14

High 22.8 / 5,075Charter Schools

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

008 City Springs 5.5 / 21 6.3 / 25 8.8 / 46

023 Wolfe Street Academy 1.9 / 3

025 Dr. Rayner Browne 3.1 / 7

047 Hampstead Hill Academy 18.4 / 86 7.3 / 37 12.5 / 65

063 Rosemont 19.7 / 78 19.7 / 87

097 Collington Square 1.8 / 9 1.7 / 8 2.3 / 11

262 Empowerment Academy 2.0 / 3 1.8 / 3 .5 / 1

321 Midtown Academy 2.2 / 4 9.3 / 17 6.0 / 11323 The Crossroads School 0.0 / 0 2.0 / 3 10.1 / 15

324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 3.3 / 10 10.6 / 33 20.8 / 66


19.5 / 31 19.5 / 38

326 City Neighbors Charter School 4.2 / 5 21.7 / 33 6.3 / 11

327 Patterson Park Public Charter 20.5 / 64 25.0 / 98 20.4 / 97

328 Southwest Baltimore Charter 3.1 / 2 4.2 / 5 8.7 / 14

329 Inner Harbor East Academy 3.3 / 6 16.4 / 36 4.6 / 11

330 Northwood Appold Community Acad. .9 / 1 3.6 / 6 5.0 / 10

331 Maryland Academy of Technology &

Health Sciences

22.2 / 24 83.2 / 173

332 The Green School 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0

333 Independence School Local I 0.0 / 0

334 Bluford Drew Jemison MST Academy 10.0 / 13

335 Baltimore International Academy 6.8 / 9432 Coppin Academy .4 / 1

Notes:The incident suspension rate is the number of suspensions divided by the official enrollment.




40

TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS – HIGHLY QUALIFIED STATUS

NCLB regulations require that teachers in Title I schools be, ‘highly qualified’ for thecourses/classes they teach. Highly qualified status is determined both by the level of

certification and the actual courses/classes taught in a school. At the elementary school level,

charter schools have consistently posted lower proportions of highly qualified teachers than non-

charter schools while K-8 charters have had slightly higher proportions of highly qualified

teachers. Except for the 2007-08 school year, charter middle schools had similar rates to those of

non-charter middle schools. In 2007-08, charter high schools had highly qualified rates of 11

percentage points less than non-charter high schools. As with most other measures the

proportion of highly qualified teachers varies by both school and by schools year. During future

evaluations, DREAA may more closely examine the extent to which highly qualified status is

related to student performance.




41

Table 27. Highly Qualified Teacher Status

Average Percent Highly Qualified

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Charter Schools

Elementary 39.5 58.9 29.0

K-8 52.6 57.3 49.4Middle 32.1 49.3 36.1

Middle-High 43.2 61.4High 42.6

Non-Charter SchoolsElementary 52.1 60.0 50.0

K-8 49.7 52.5 47.0Middle 33.8 49.0 48.9

Middle-High 48.9 49.0High 53.9

008 City Springs Elementary 38.3 49.1 58.2023 Wolfe Street Academy 26.7025 Dr. Rayner BrowneElementary/Middle

63.3

047 Hampstead Hill Elementary 83.5 73.3 55.4063 Rosemont Elementary/Middle 68.6 61.0097 Collington SquareElementary/Middle

38.5 60.7 44.9

262 The Empowerment Academy 71.4 66.7 44.4321 Midtown Academy 50.0 34.6 24.0323 The Crossroads School 33.3 48.0 52.0324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 30.8 20.0 34.8325 ConneXions CommunityLeadership Academy

43.2 50.0

326 City Neighbors Charter School 66.7 70.0 43.7327 Patterson Park Public Charter School

51.5 63.6 40.5

328 Southwest Baltimore Charter 0.0 50.0 28.6329 Inner Harbor East Academy for Young Scholars Academy

4.2 45.5 15.8

330 Northwood Appold CommunityAcademy

42.9 50.0 37.5

331 Maryland Academy of Technology & Health Sciences

80.0 72.7

332 The Green School 66.7 42.9333Independence School Local I --334 Bluford Drew Jemison STEMAcademy

21.4


11.1





42

SUMMARY

The first three years of charter school operation in Baltimore have been marked by increases in

both the number of schools and the number and proportion of all City Schools students enrolled

in them. The enhanced levels of parent, student, and staff perception of the district’s charter

schools; the comparatively higher rates of attendance; and the higher levels of re-enrollment

provide evidence of, and justification for, the overall levels of satisfaction with the schools.

Charter schools exhibit variation in many of the student outcome measures included in this

report. Data indicate that some schools are experiencing high levels of success in maintaining or

improving the levels of student performance on the MSAs and HSAs while others struggle to

close the gap with non-charter schools on some measures. Such variations in performance—

coupled with the great expansion in the number of these schools—make it difficult to speak of

charter schools as a monolithic entity. Thus, it may now become more meaningful to look at

schools individually as occurs at initial application and at contract renewal. Contract renewal

requires that schools present information about their performance during the contract period and

allows for the School Board to judge whether each school, individually, has met performance

expectations.

This report has provided a comprehensive but somewhat limited view of charter school

performance. As indicated many times during the report, there are areas of charter school

operations and outcomes that may be explored during future school years, e.g., a more in-depth

look at the enrollment and performance of students eligible for special education services.

Beginning in 2008-09, DREAA will receive information about students who apply to attend

charter schools. Such information will allow greater insight into charter school selection and

enrollment processes. Another interesting area for future research will be to examine the

progress of students who complete 8th grade in charter K-8 or middle schools and continue to

other City high schools. Future research may examine the extent to which charter school

students exhibit different levels of performance during high school.

When charter schools became part of the City Schools’ portfolio, choice was a limited option for

many parents. In the several years since the first schools were charters, City Schools has become

a system of choice. Thus, what it meant to be a charter four years ago is quite different from

what it means to be a charter now. This will be the research mandate for the future.



Appendix A

Characteristics of BCPSS Charter Schools 2005‐2006 through 2007‐08

Charter School Missions/Focus2005-06

School Name

Number of Years

of

Operation

Charter

Type

Title I

Status

Planned Grade

Levels

Served

School Mission and Ins

008 City Springs

Elementary10 (1 year as charter) Conversion Yes PreK-8

Focus on improving reading, mathematithe implementation of the Direct Instruc


4 (1 year as charter)

Conversion Yes PreK-8

Focus on improving reading, mathematithe implementation of the Direct InstrucKnowledge in social studies and science

097 Collington SquareElementary


Conversion Yes PreK-8Focus on improving reading, mathematithe implementation of the Direct Instruc

262 EmpowermentAcademy


Conversion No PreK-8Focus on literacy through the arts; staff all areas of instruction.

321 MidtownAcademy


Conversion No K-8Focus on educating the whole child in ainstruction in Tae Kwon Do, Spanish, Aspecial education students.

323 The CrossroadsSchool


Conversion Yes 6-8Focus on implementation of a school-wExpeditionary Learning Outward Bound presentation of learning are key method




School Name

Number

of Years

of

Operation

Charter

Type

Title I

Status

Planned

Grade

Levels

Served

School Mission and Ins

324 Kipp UjimaVillage Academy

5 (1 year

as charter)

Conversion Yes 5-8Focus on preparing students to attend ri preparing for college; emphasis on disci

development.326 City NeighborsCharter School 1

Wholly New

No K-8Experiential, project-based learning witintegration of instruction across content

327 Patterson Park Public Charter School 1

Wholly New

No K-8Character education and development ouse of project-based curriculum and inq

328 SouthwestBaltimore Charter 1

Wholly New

No K-8Focus on experiential learning; school-wInstruction Plans for all students to imprinstruction.

329 Inner Harbor EastAcademy for YoungScholars Academy 1

Wholly New Yes K-8

Extension of Sojourner-Douglass Colleg

community development, and student em

330 NorthwoodAppold CommunityAcademy

1Wholly New

No K-8Regular integration of African Americanlessons; focus on the Freedom and DemVincent Harding.




School Name Number of

Years of

Operation

Charter

Type

Planned

Grade

Levels

Served

Defining Characteristics of School Mission


11(2 yearsas charter)

Conversion PreK-8Focus on improving reading, mathematics, and lanimplementation of the Direct Instruction program.


6 (2 yearsas charter)

Conversion PreK-8

Focus on improving reading, mathematics, and lanimplementation of the Direct Instruction program;studies and science.

063 Rosemont Academy 1 year ascharter

Conversion K-8

Focus on educating the whole child as part of their

which is operated by Coppin University, offer mus providing a differentiated approach to core academ


5 (2 yearsa charter)

Conversion PreK-8Focus on improving reading, mathematics, and lanimplementation of the Direct Instruction program.



Conversion PreK-8Focus on literacy through the arts; staff attempts toinstruction.

321 Midtown Academy 5 (2 yearsas charter)

Conversion K-8Focus on educating the whole child in a communitTae Kwon Do, Spanish, Art, and Music; full inclus

323 The Crossroads

School5 (2 yearsas charter) Conversion 6-8

Focus on implementation of a school-wide systemExpeditionary Learning Outward Bound; student plearning are key methods of assessment.

324 Kipp Ujima VillageAcademy


Conversion 5-8Focus on preparing students to attend rigorous highcollege; emphasis on discipline and character deve




School Name

Number of

Years of

Operation

Charter

Type

Planned

Grade

Levels

Served

Defining Characteristics of School Mission

325 ConneXionsCommunity Leadership

Academy

5 (1 year

as charter)

Conversion 6-12Focus on the whole child with a strong advisory. W

students choose from a visual or performing arts tr

326 City NeighborsCharter School 2 Wholly New K-8

Focus on experiential, project-based learning with integration of instruction across content areas.

327 Patterson Park PublicCharter School Public 2 Wholly New K-8

Character education and development of communi project-based curriculum and inquiry activities.

328 Southwest BaltimoreCharter 2 Wholly New K-8

Focus on experiential learning; school-wide themaPlans for all students to improve differentiation of

329 Inner Harbor East

Academy for YoungScholars Academy 2 Wholly New K-8

Extension of Sojourner-Douglass College’s vision

development, and student empowerment.

330 Northwood -AppoldCommunity Academy 2 Wholly New K-8

Regular integration of African American history anfocus on the Freedom and Democracy curriculum

331 MATHS High School 1 Wholly New 8-12Focus on an intellectually rigorous, personalized aeducation for 8th-12th grade students of Baltimore C biotechnology health science and bioengineering f

332 Green School 1 Wholly New K-5Focus on project- based learning with balanced liteeducational approach called, “Utilizing the Environ(EIC)”





School Name Number of

Years of

Operation

Charter

Type

Title I

Status

Planned

Grade

Levels

Served

Defining Characteristics of School M

335 BaltimoreInternational Academy

1Wholly New

No K-8

Focus on language immersion. Grades Mandarin Chinese, or Russian for a ful parents follow a partial immersion modlanguage.

334 Bluford DrewJemison STEMAcademy

1Wholly New

No 6-8Focus on STEM (science, technology, boy school has an extended day model

326 City NeighborsCharter School 3

Wholly New

No K-8Focus on experiential, project-based lefocus; integration of instruction across

008 City SpringsElementary 12 (3 years

as charter Conversion Yes PreK-8 Focus on improving reading, mathema

the implementation of the Direct Instru


6 (3 years ascharter)

Conversion Yes PreK-8Focus on improving reading, mathemathe implementation of the Direct Instru



Conversion No 6-12Focus on the whole child with a strong based school, students choose from a v

432 Coppin Academy4 (1 year as

charter)Conversion No 9-12

Focus on college preparation; school is

025 Dr. Rayner Browne

Elementary/Middle

1 (as acharter school)

Conversion Yes PreK-8Focus on improving reading, mathema

the implementation of the Direct Instru



Conversion Yes PreK-8Focus on literacy through the arts; stafall areas of instruction.

332 Green School 2Wholly New

No K-5Focus on project- based learning with ban educational approach called, “Utiliz




School Name

Number of

Years of

Operation

Charter

Type

Title I

Status

Planned

Grade

Levels

Served


Integrating Context (EIC)”

047 Hampstead Hill

Elementary 6 (3 years ascharter)

Conversion Yes PreK-8

Focus on improving reading, mathema

the implementation of the Direct InstruKnowledge in social studies and scienc

333 IndependenceSchool Local I

2 (1 year ascharter)

Wholly New

(createdfrom a

program)

No 9-12

Focus on authentic learning through thone mind at a time; and providing a forstrong social identity with respect to thIndependence students also learn the p


3Wholly New

Yes K-8Extension of Sojourner-Douglass Collecommunity development, and student e

323 KIPP UjimaVillage Academy 7 (3 years as

charter)Conversion Yes 5-8 Focus on preparing students to attend r

preparing for college; emphasis on disc

331 MATHS HighSchool

2Wholly New

No 6-12Focus on an intellectually rigorous, per preparatory education for 8th-12th gradea focus on the biotechnology health sc

321 Midtown Academy 6 (3 years ascharter)

Conversion No K-8

Focus on educating the whole child in instruction in Tae Kwon Do, Spanish, Aspecial education students.

330 Northwood-AppoldCommunity Academy 3

Wholly New

No K-8Regular integration of African Americlessons; focus on the Freedom and DemVincent Harding.

327 Patterson Park Public Charter School 3

Wholly New

Yes K-8Focus on character education and devestudents; use of project-based curriculu




School Name

Number of

Years of

Operation

Charter

Type

Title I

Status

Planned

Grade

Levels

Served


063 Rosemont

Elementary/Middle

2 years as

charter Conversion Yes K-8

Focus on educating the whole child as Rosemont, which is operated by Coppi

and technology while providing a diffeacademic subjects.

328 SouthwestBaltimore Charter 3

Wholly New

Yes K-8Focus on experiential learning; school-Instruction Plans for all students to imp

323 The CrossroadsSchool


Conversion Yes 6-8

Focus on implementation of a school-wExpeditionary Learning Outward Boun presentation of learning are key metho

023 Wolfe StreetAcademy

1 Conversion Yes PreK-5Focus on improving reading, mathemathe implementation of the Direct Instru




Demographic Characteristics of BCPSS Charter Schools2005-06 School Year

Percent of St

School Number and Name

Grades

Served Enrollment

Special

Education LEP FARMS

African-

AmericanW

008 City Springs School PreK-8 383 7.9 0.0 93.9 98.4

047 Hampstead Hill Academy PreK-7 467 6.9 6.9 78.3 24.0 5

097 Collington Square School PreK-8 495 11.7 0.0 94.3 99.6

262 Empowerment Academy Pre-K-4 150 0.0 0.0 77.2 100.0

321 Midtown Academy K-8 184 6.6 0.0 34.1 69.0 2

323 The Crossroads School 6-8 148 10.9 0.0 85.0 83.1

324 Kipp Ujima Village Academy 5-8 305 6.4 0.0 87.9 99.3

326 City Neighbors Charter School K-5 120 11.7 0.0 34.2 55.0 4

327 Patterson Park Public Charter School K-4 312 10.2 13.9 73.6 68.6

328 Southwest Baltimore Charter K-1 64 0.0 0.0 75.4 85.9 1

329 Inner Harbor East Academy for YoungScholars

K-3 184 8.6 0.0 90.2 100.0

330 Northwood-Appold Community

Academy

K-2 113 9.9 0.0 55.4 100.0





Percent of St


Grades

Served

Enrollment Special

Education

LEP FARMS African-

American

W

008 City Springs School PreK-8 394 10.5 0.0 90.7 97.2

047 Hampstead Hill Academy PreK-8 509 5.5 9.2 72.9 22.8

63 Rosemont Elementary/Middle Pre-K-7 396 12.3 0.0 88.2 100.0

097 Collington Square School PreK-8 468 12.9 0.0 92.4 99.4

262 Empowerment Academy Pre-K-5 166 0.0 0.0 74.6 100.0

321 Midtown Academy K-8 183 4.3 0.0 63.1 78.1

323 The Crossroads School 6-8 149 11.6 0.0 84.7 80.5

324 Kipp Ujima Village Academy 5-8 310 7.1 0.0 82.3 98.4

325 ConneXions CommunityLeadership Academy CommunityLeadership Academy

6-9 159 9.9 0.0 64.6 98.7

326 City Neighbors Charter School K-6 152 11.5 0.0 64.6 53.9

327 Patterson Park Public Charter

School

K-5 392 11.0 14.0 26.9 65.1

328 Southwest Baltimore Charter K-2 120 6.9 0.0 66.6 87.5

329 Inner Harbor East Academy for Young Scholars

K-4 220 6.3 0.0 681 99.5


K-3 166 7.8 0.0 86.1 99.4




Percent of St


Grades

Served

Enrollment Special

Education

LEP FARMS African-

American

W

331 Maryland Academy of Technology and Health Sciences

8 108 9.7 0.0 63.1 100.0

332 The Green School of Baltimore K-2 54 0.0 0.0 63.1 38.9





Percent of Stud

GradesServed

Enrollment Special Education

LEP FARMS African- American

Wh

008 City Springs School PreK-8 520 9.9 0.0 87.8 98.5 0.

023 Wolfe Street AcademyElementary

PreK-5 161 14.8 41.4 85.2 16.1 13

025 Dr. Rayner Browne Elem/Middle Pre-K-7 228 9.5 0.0 91.7 99.6 0.

047 Hampstead Hill Academy PreK-8 519 6.9 11.4 74.1 26.0 48

63 Rosemont Elem/Middle Pre-K-8 441 14.0 0.0 76.8 99.5 0.

097 Collington Square School PreK-8 480 11.0 0.0 92.3 99.2 0.

262 Empowerment Academy Pre-K-7 191 0.0 0.0 66.3 100.0 0.

321 Midtown Academy K-8 182 404 0.0 41.5 78.0 15

323 The Crossroads School 6-8 148 10.3 0.0 82.1 85.1 6.

324 Kipp Ujima Village Academy 5-8 317 11.1 0.0 82.9 97.5 0.

325 ConneXions CommunityLeadership Academy CommunityLeadership Academy

6-10 195 18.6 0.0 58.8 98.5 1.

326 City Neighbors Charter School K-7 176 14.2 0.0 25.6 54.5 43

327 Patterson Park Public Charter School

K-6 475 10.3 14.6 66.1 69.9 8.

328 Southwest Baltimore Charter K-3 161 5.5 0.0 65.9 90.1 7.




329 Inner Harbor East Academy for Young Scholars

K-5 240 5.8 0.0 78.6 99.6 0.

Percent of St


GradesServed

Enrollment Special Education

LEP FARMS African- American

W


K-4 202 6.8 0.0 56.8 98.5

331 MD Academy of Technology andHealth Sciences

8-9 208 9.9 0.0 62.4 98.6

332 The Green School of Baltimore K-3 78 11.3 0.0 37.5 41.0 5

333 Independence School Local I 9-12 84 24.4 0.0 59.3 61.9 3

334 Bluford Drew Jemison Academy 6 130 7.4 0.0 72.7 99.2

335 International AcademyElem/Middle

K-5 133 0.0 3.8 43.6 88.0 1

432 Coppin Academy High School 9-11 251 7.6 0.0 53.2 99.6



55

APPENDIX B

Title I School Improvement Sanctions

School Improvement for All Schools

• School Improvement (Years 1 and 2)

o Schools must develop two‐year school improvement plans designed to improve

each subgroup’s achievement

o Schools not making AYP for two years after entering School Improvement will

be identified for Corrective Action

• Corrective Action (Year 3)

o May include replacing school staff, adopting new curriculum, decreasing school‐

level management authority, and extending the school day or year

o Schools not making AYP after one year of Corrective Action will be identified for

Restructuring

• Restructuring

o Involves at least one of the following:

Replacing all or most of the staff who are relevant to the failure of making

AYP

4th Tier (year 5 or more): Corrective Action

3rd Tier (year 4): Supplemental Services, School Improvement Year 2

2nd Tier (year 3): Transfer Option, School Improvement Year 1

1st Tier (year 2): Technical Help

Transfer Option

SupplementalServices

[Technical Help]

Corrective

Action




56

Contracting with a management company to operate the school

Reopening schools as a public charter school

Other major restructuring actions that involve significant changes to

staffing and governance

APPENDIX C ‐ COMPUTATION OF MSA PROFICIENCY LEVEL GAINS

The gains in MSA proficiency level in Table 17 were derived by first coding of MSA proficiency level

scores as follows:

1=Basic

2=Proficient

3=Advanced.

These encoded proficiency levels were then summed (yielding a composite score ranging from 2-6) and

then recoded thus:

2, 3→ 1

4 → 2

5, 6→ 3.

Students who increased this resulting composite proficiency level between two sequential years are coded

as moving up; students who reduced their composite proficiency level are coded as moving down;students who remained at the same level are coded as unchanged, unless they were a 3 in both years, in

which case they were coded as moving up.

Although this approach may appear to be fairly crude, it was compared with several other approaches, and

they all produced roughly similar results. Therefore, it seems fair to conclude that it is a fairly reliable

measure of student-level growth. Perhaps its most serious weakness is that it treats students maintaining

highest level proficiency as moving up, and consequently biases results in favor of schools serving

students who are performing higher before they even enter the school.




57

APPENDIX D – LRE CODES

LRE Description

A INSIDE GENERAL EDUCATION (80% or more)

B INSIDE GENERAL EDUCATION (40% - 79%)

C INSIDE GENERAL EDUCATION (less than 40%)

D HOMEBOUND

E HOSPITAL

F PUBLIC SEPARATE DAY SCHOOL

G PRIVATE SEPARATE DAY SCHOOL

H PUBLIC RESIDENTIAL FACILITY

I PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY

J HOME

P IN THE REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM AT LEAST 80% OF

TIMEQ IN THE REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM AT LEAST 40% TO

79% OF TIME

R IN THE REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM LESS THATN 40% OFTIME

S SEPARATE CLASS

T SERVICE PROVIDER LOCATION

U CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

V PARENTALLY PLACED IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS



Baltimore City Public Schools

Board of School Commissioners

Brian D. Morris, Board Chair

Jerrelle Francois , Board Vice-Chair

Anirban Basu

James W. Campbell

Neil E. Duke

David Stone

Robert Heck

Maxine Johnson Wood

George M. VanHook, Sr.

Mitchell Generette, Student Commissioner

Andrés A. Alonso, Ed.D.

Chief Executive Officer

Baltimore City Public Schools offer equal employment and educational opportunities for all, regardless

of race, religion, color, age, sexual orientation, national origin, handicapping condition, veteran’s status

or any other occupationally irrelevant criteria.

042009 year 2 and 3 charter report 090416

Documents