Status report on Georgia's charter schools 2002-03 school year

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox
State Superintendent of Schools
Status Report on Georgia's Charter Schools 2002-03 School Year
Charles R. Drew Charter School, Dekalb County
State Board of Education March 2004
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 1 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3

INTRODUCTION

5

CHARTER SCHOOLS IN GEORGIA

5

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

8

METHODOLOGY

8

DEMOGRAPHICS

11

RESULTS

14

Student Academic Achievement

14

Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT)

14

Comparison of Charter Schools and Statewide Averages

15

High School Assessments

16

Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT)

16

Comparison of Charter School/State GHSGT Scores

16

Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)

16

Comparison of Charter School/State SAT Scores

17

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

18

Overall Achievement Summary

18

CHARTER SCHOOL GOALS

18

Goals Most Often Included in the Charters of Schools Active in 2002-03

19

Comparison of Charter Goals with Annual Report Goals

21

Keys to Achieving Charter School Goals

22

CHARTER SCHOOL GOVERNANCE

26

Stakeholder Involvement

26

Leadership Styles of Charter School Principals

27

Educational Management Organizations (EMOs)

29

Governing Boards and School Councils

30

CHARTER SCHOOL INNOVATIONS

31

Individual Assessment

31

Focus on the Child

32

Focus on Learning and Assessment

32

Specialized Learning Opportunities

32

CHARTER SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY

34

Accountability Through the Charter

34

Accountability to Parents

35

Charter Schools and State Testing

36

PARENT AND TEACHER SATISFACTION WITH CHARTER SCHOOLS

37

ISSUES FACING CHARTER SCHOOLS

39

Facilities and Finances

39

Relationship with Local School Districts

41

CONCLUSION

43

REFERENCES

44

Appendix A: Charter Schools in Georgia, 2002-03

47

Appendix B: Interview Protocols for Principals

50

Appendix C: Discussion Group Questions for Parents and Teachers

53

Appendix D: Parent and Teacher Survey Information

57

Appendix E: CRCT Scores

66

Appendix F: High School Assessments

70

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 2 of 71 All Rights Reserved

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following are key points from the 2002-2003 Georgia Charter Schools Annual Report:
Demographics: An examination of charter schools from 1995-96 through 2002-03 reveals steady growth.
From 1995 to the beginning of the 2002-03 school year, fifty-four charter schools became active in Georgia.
There were 36 active charter schools in Georgia in 2002-2003.
48% of students in Georgia charter schools are minority students. This is compared to 38% of minority students in the state as a whole.
The percentage of parents who chose to enroll their child in a charter school and whose child also qualified for either free or reduced lunch has increased from 20% in 1999 to 32% in 2002.
Achievement: A greater percentage of students from charter schools in all grade levels scored at the
"Meets" and "Exceeds the Standards" levels on the CRCT than did students on average for the state as a whole.
A greater percentage of charter school students achieved a passing score in all areas represented by the GHSGT than the state average for those tests. Charter school scores over the past two years have remained stable.
High school students who attended charter schools scored higher in both Verbal and Quantitative categories on the SAT than did students on average from the state. Average charter school scores dropped from the previous year while state averages went up.
24 of the 31 eligible charter schools (74%) made AYP. Statewide, 64% of public schools made AYP.
The retention rate (the percent of students retained in grade) in charter schools remained stable and continued to be lower than the overall state retention rates.
Dropout rates in charter schools were slightly lower than the state dropout rates.
Goals: All charter schools have goals related to academic achievement. Most goals include an
increase in the national percentile ranking of students on norm-referenced tests and an
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 3 of 71 All Rights Reserved

increase in the number of students who "Meet" or "Exceed the Standard" on state criterionreferenced tests. Two goals were reported most frequency in both charters and annual reports. These are goals related to student academic achievement and parental involvement. Parent and Teacher Satisfaction: 94% of parents responding to the survey indicated that having more input in school decisions was an important or very important reason they chose a charter school. More than 95% of respondent parents indicated that the "school's new and different ways of teaching students" was an important or very important reason for choosing the school. Additionally, 94% of teachers felt their schools were either successful or very successful at "developing an innovative curriculum". They also believe (89%) that they are either successful or very successful "sharing innovation with the larger education community." Teacher respondents to the charter school survey reported overall levels of high satisfaction with their schools. 95% of parent respondents said that they would recommend their school to other parents.
Charter School Issues: Education Management Organizations' involvement with charter schools is a national hot
topic. One source of confusion for charter schools is the difference between school councils and
their governing boards. The biggest issues facing charter schools include facility financing and relations with local
boards.
Mercer Middle School, Chatham County
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 4 of 71 All Rights Reserved

INTRODUCTION
Georgia law requires the State Board of Education to provide to the General Assembly an annual report on the status of the charter school program (O.C.G.A. s.20-2-2070).
The 2002-2003 Status Report on Georgia Charter Schools was prepared by the Georgia Department of Education in conjunction with selected researchers from Georgia State University. In addition to the annual statistics on charter schools, this report also incorporates a separate review of charter school governance, accountability, innovation, student achievement, and parent and teacher satisfaction with their charter school. The report's emphasis is on the data. However, some areas merit a further analysis of national trends and policy implications.
CHARTER SCHOOLS IN GEORGIA
Georgia's original public charter school law became effective April 19, 1993. According to that law, only existing public schools could convert to charter status and that status would last for one to three years. To convert to charter status, over two-thirds of teachers and parents had to support the conversion, and the school needed the approval of both state and local boards. Charter schools had to provide a plan in their charters for improvement to meet national and state educational goals. The original charter school law has been amended four times. A summary of the revisions are as follows:
1995: The amendments allowed a school to convert to charter status with only a simple majority of teacher support. Additionally, the charter period was extended to five years, and the charter had to present a plan for improvement to meet America 2000 national goals and state educational goals.
1998: The new law allowed private individuals and organizations or state or local entities to operate charter schools (excluding home study programs or schools; sectarian or religious schools; private for profit schools; private educational institutions not established, operated, or governed by the State of Georgia; and existing private schools.) Charter schools were required to have a governing body consisting of a majority of parents with students at the school and to present an improvement plan to meet the minimum state standards.
2000: The law was amended to allow charter petitioners denied approval by their local boards of education to apply to the State Board of Education. This amendment also required charter schools to participate in the State Accountability System established under HB 1187.
2002: This amendment clarified funding, required the local board to provide written explanation for petition denial, required that the initial term of the charter must be a minimum of three years not to exceed five years, removed the requirement of a majority
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 5 of 71 All Rights Reserved

of parents on the governing board, and removed the provision for a "blanket exemption" so that now the petitioner must specifically identify state and local rules, regulations, policies, and procedures, or provisions of state school law to be waived. The charter school must designate how the waiver will improve student performance.
There are four types of public charter schools in Georgia:
1. Conversion: a charter school that existed as a local school prior to becoming a charter school. To apply as a conversion, a majority of the faculty and instructional staff members and a majority of parents or guardians of students enrolled in the petitioning school must vote by secret ballot to approve applying for a charter.
2. Start-up: a charter school created by a petition brought forth by private individuals, private organizations, or a state or local public entity.
3. Local Educational Agency (LEA) Start-up: a charter school created by submission of a petition by the LEA to the local school board.
4. State Chartered Special School: a charter school created as a special school that is operating under the terms of a charter between the charter petitioner and the state board. Petitioners may apply to become a state chartered special school if their petition is first denied by the local board and they apply for state chartered special status to the state board. Conversion charter school petitioners may not apply to be state chartered special schools.
It is important to note that of the four types of charter schools in Georgia, conversions, start-ups, and LEA start-ups are under the management and control of the local board with the state board as a third party to the contract. State chartered special schools are only under the management and control of the state board of education. Also, start-ups, LEA start-ups, and state chartered special schools are all created as new schools and cannot be existing public or private schools. Only conversion charter schools may be a previously existing public school.
These four types of charter schools give many options to petitioners and encourage LEAs to use chartering as a means for improving student achievement in their school district. For example, Coweta County School System developed Central Educational Center in response to local business concerns over the work ethic and technical skills of the public school system students. Also, Thomas County School System developed Bishop Hall Charter School to address the needs of at-risk students and subsequently decreased the entire system's drop-out rate by five percent.
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 6 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Number of Schools

Figure 1. Num ber of Charter Schools in Georgia from 1995-96 to 2002-03.

45

40

35 30

38

39

36

33

25

28

20

15

19

10

10

5

3

0

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

An examination of charter schools from 1995-96 through 2002-03 reveals steady growth. From 1995 to the beginning of the 2002-03 school year, 54 charter schools became active in Georgia. Although the percentage of charter conversions has decreased due to non-renewals, the number of start-ups has continued to increase. In sum, there were 36 active charter schools in Georgia in 2002-2003. (See Appendix A).
Figure 2 depicts the proportion of the 36 charter schools active in 2002-03 that are conversion, start-up, or LEA schools, and Figure 3 depicts the growth in these types of charter schools over time. There is only one state chartered special school and it is included with the "start-ups".

Figure 2. Proportion of Conversion, Start-up, and LEA Charter Schools in
Georgia 2002-03.

LEA

Conversion

19%

39%

Number of Schools

Start-up 42%

Figure 3. Number of Conversion, Start-up, and LEA Start Up Charter Schools from 1995-96 to 2002-03

30 25 20 15 10
53 0

26

26

27

24

21

14 15

10

9

1 1

33

65

6

7

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

Conversions Start-ups LEA Start-ups

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 7 of 71 All Rights Reserved

As can be seen in Figure 4, Eleven schools (31%) serve traditionally elementary grades (K-5). Eight schools (22%) serve only high school grades, 7 schools serve only middle grades (19%), and 10 schools (28%) serve a combination of elementary, middle, or high school grades; for example, one school serves grades 6-12, while another serves grades K-6, and another serves grades K-8.

Figure 4. Grade Levels Served by Charter Schools in Georgia, 2002-03

High School 17.9%

Combination 28.0%

Middle 15.4%

Elementary 46.2

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This report was designed to provide information concerning the implementation of charter schools in Georgia and their impact on student achievement. To this end, this report addresses charter school goals, governance, innovations, accountability, student achievement, and teacher/parent satisfaction.
METHODOLOGY
This report is based on data collected in 2002-03 through five methods: discussion groups with charter school stakeholders (parents and teachers); site visits and observations at a sample of charter schools; interviews with charter school principals; collection of documents that provided evidence of school practices; and surveys of charter school and non-charter school teachers, and charter school parents. In addition, student demographic and achievement data were obtained from state records and charter school annual reports were reviewed.
Discussion groups with charter school stakeholders, including charter school teachers and parents, were conducted by Georgia State University (GSU) during the spring of the 2002-03 school year. A total of 133 participants (66 teachers and 67 parents) attended 17 discussion group meetings. Twenty-two charter schools and 11 school systems participated in one or more
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 8 of 71 All Rights Reserved

of the discussion groups. Of the 22 participating charter schools, there were 10 conversion schools, 7 start-up schools, 4 LEA start-ups, and 1 state special charter school.

Schools were selected for participation in the discussion groups and observation portion of the evaluation based on three characteristics location within the state, grade levels of the school, and type of charter school. Every effort was made to obtain proportional representation within the sample by region, by school level, and school type. See Table 1 for a list of participating schools, their type, district and state region.

All 22 principals of the schools participating in the discussion groups were interviewed by telephone in February (See Appendix B for interview protocol). The interviews ranged in length from 30 minutes to 1 hour 30 minutes. The interviews were taped and transcribed. Interview transcriptions were sent to the principals for approval. GSU research team members were trained on interview techniques mock interviews were conducted and analyzed to assure accuracy and consistency across interviews.

Principals were also asked during the interview to submit supporting documents including school budgets, information about governing board members, school schedules, and lists of special services or extra-curricular activities offered. These documents collected and assembled by GSU researchers. These documents were reviewed and provided substantiation for issues raised during interviews, discussion groups, and school visits.

Charter school parents and teachers were identified through the efforts of charter school principals, who distributed flyers to all teachers and children in their school. The flyers described the research being conducted and asked teachers and parents to contact GSU directly if they were interested in participating in focus group interviews at their school. Information on the flyers was provided in both English and Spanish. GSU researchers tracked those interested in participation. If interest exceeded the discussion group limit (10 people), then teachers and parents were selected at random from those who had expressed interest. Both teachers and parents were paid a small stipend for participation.

Table 1: Sample by School Type, Region, and District

Type of Charter School Sample Schools by Region

Southeast

State Charter

Charter Conservatory for Liberal

Arts and Technology

Conversion

Mercer Middle School

Conversion

Charles Ellis

LEA Start-up

Savannah Arts Academy

Start-up

Oglethorpe Academy

Southwest

Start-up LEA Start-up

Baconton Community Charter Bishop Hall Charter

School System
Bulloch
Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham
Mitchell Thomas

Northeast
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 9 of 71 All Rights Reserved

New LEA Start-up LEA Start-up

Technical Career Academy NE Oglethorpe

Taliaferro County Charter

Taliaferro

Conversion Conversion Conversion New Start-up
New Start-up Start-up Start-up Start-up Non-renewed Conversion Non-renewed Conversion

Atlanta Metro Sedalia Park Elementary Walton High School Peachtree Middle Atlanta University Center Academy Fulton Science Academy Drew Charter Fulton County High Kingsley Elementary Druid Hills High Mt. Bethel Elementary

Cobb Cobb Dekalb Atlanta
Fulton Atlanta Fulton Dekalb Dekalb Cobb

Conversion Non-renewed Conversions Non-renewed Conversion

Northwest Georgia Emerson Elementary Adairsville Elementary Pine Log Elementary

Bartow Bartow Bartow

In the discussion groups, participants responded to a set of questions concerning charter school initiation, implementation, and assessment. See Appendix C for the discussion group questions. A team of two interviewers conducted the focus group interviews. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The transcripts were sent to all participants to check for accuracy. Unless otherwise noted, findings from these discussion groups are only presented in this report if the issue was raised in 2/3 or more of the discussion groups. When findings are reported that are specific to one school, one type of charter school, or one type of respondent (for example, teachers only), this will be noted in the report.

The observations were conducted by GSU researchers at 14 charter schools (7 conversions, 4 start-ups and 3 LEAs) located throughout Georgia. During each visit, two GSU researchers toured the school, observed classrooms and conducted interviews with teachers and parents. Informal conversations were also conducted with administrators in each school during the course of school tours. Further documents were also collected from each of these schools including information related to curricula and academic offerings and examples of communications with parents. During these visits, information concerning instruction and curriculum, assessment, and progress toward goals was also obtained.

The teacher survey was developed by Georgia Department of Education (GDOE) Research Evaluation and Testing staff, and was administered to teachers in the 36 charter schools and in 36 non-charter comparison schools in the fall of 2002. These comparison schools were chosen for participation based on their similarity to the charter schools in geographical location, proportion of students eligible for free/reduced lunch, and proportion of minority students (these same schools were used as comparison schools in achievement analyses). These surveys
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 10 of 71 All Rights Reserved

collected information on teacher demographics, teachers' instructional practices and autonomy, and satisfaction with various aspects of their schools. See Appendix D for this survey. The parent survey was also developed by GDOE Research Evaluation and Testing staff and was administered in the fall of 2002 to the 32 charter schools that had been in operation for one full year (note that all other data collection was based on the 36 charter schools that were in operation during 2002-2003). This survey collected information on parents' satisfaction with their child's charter school and their reasons for sending their child to a charter school. See Appendix D for this survey.
The analyses of demographic and student achievement data were conducted by Research Evaluation and Testing and Policy and External Affairs staff at the GDOE. Several measures of achievement were analyzed, including:
Criterion-Referenced Competency Test (CRCT) data for schools serving 4th, 6th, and 8th grades,
Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT) data for schools serving 11th grade, SAT scores for high schools, and AYP.
When possible, five years of achievement data were analyzed (1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-2002, 2002-03). The final synthesis of the data was conducted by GDOE staff.
DEMOGRAPHICS
To examine charter school student demographics, information about students attending charter schools in Georgia from 1997 to 2003 was obtained from the State Report Card database.
The data presented here describe students by race, socio-economic status (as measured by eligibility for free or reduced price lunch), and participation in English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), special education, and gifted programs. Information on retention and dropout rates is also included.
Racial Composition The comparisons of racial composition and free/reduced lunch rates between charter schools and the state of Georgia are presented in Figures 5 and 6. As can be seen in Figure 5, Georgia's charter schools served a slightly larger percentage of white students. Additionally, as can be seen in Figure 6, students from lower socio-economic families (i.e., students who receive free or reduced price lunch) were underrepresented in the state's charter schools. However, the percentage of parents who chose to enroll their child in a charter school and whose child also qualified for either free or reduced lunch has increased from 20% in 1999 to 32% in 2003.
Many charter schools are taking steps to inform minority parents about the option of public charter schools. In fact, some schools, such as the Drew Charter School in Atlanta and the
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 11 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Sedalia Park Elementary School in Cobb County, actually have a higher minority student population than their respective local districts.
Figure 5. Racial Composition in Charter Schools and in the State

Percent

70 60

60

55

50

38

40

30

30

20

10

7

10

0

58 54
38 30

11

8

59 30

53 38

57 35

11

9

8

52 38
10

1999-00 Charter Schools 1999-00
State 2000-01 Charter Schools 2000-01
State 2001-02 Charter Schools 2001-02
State 2002-03 Charter Schools 2002-03
State

White Black Other

Percent

Figure 6. Free/Reduced Lunch Composition in Charter Schools and in
the State

50

45

40 35

33 32 33 33

30

26

25 20 20

15

10

5

0

Charters

4343 43 43 44 45 State

97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 12 of 71 All Rights Reserved

ESOL/Gifted/Special Education The comparisons of ESOL, gifted, and special education program enrollment rates between charter schools and the state are presented in Figures 7-9. ESOL participation rates in charter schools were similar to the statewide averages. Charter schools now serve a slightly higher percentage of gifted students than does the state. The charter school special education participation rates have remained stable over the past five years and are consistent with statewide averages.

Percent
Percent

Figure 7. ESOL Participation Rates in Charter Schools and the State

5

4
333 3
22 2
1 1

22222 1

0 Charters

97-98 01-02

98-99 02-03

State

99-00

00-01

Figure 8. Gifted Rates in Charter Schools and the State

12

10

9 1010 10 8

8
6 6

7 7 77 7 6

4

2

0 Charters

State

97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03

Percent

Figure 9. Special Education Participation Rates in Charter
Schools and the State

12

11 1212 12 12

12

11

11 10 10

10

9 Charters

12 11 11 11
1010
State

97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 13 of 71 All Rights Reserved

The comparisons of retention and dropout rates between charter schools and the state are presented in Figures 10 and 11. As seen in Figure 10, the retention rate (the percent of students retained in grade) in charter schools remained stable and continued to be lower than the overall state retention rates. As seen in Figure 11, dropout rates in charter schools were slightly lower than the state dropout rates.

Percent Percent

Figure 10. Retention Rates in Charter Schools and the State

6
5
4
33 3
3
222
2
1
0 Charters

5 55 44 4
State

97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03

Figure 11. Dropout Rates in Charter Schools and the State
(Grades 9-12)

7

6

6

5 555

5
4
4

3

2

1

0 Charters

77 7 6 6 6
State

97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03

RESULTS
Student Academic Achievement There are several positive indicators for charter school student achievement. However, it is important to note that there were a relatively small number of start-up and LEA schools compared to the state as a whole, which typically serve a small number of students. This distinction is important when comparing charter school populations with district and state populations.
Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT) The Georgia Quality Basic Education Act, O.C.G.A. 20-2-281, legislates the development of a criterion-referenced test to measure student acquisition of the knowledge and skills set forth in the revised Quality Core Curriculum (QCC) in the areas of Reading, English/Language Arts, and Mathematics for grades 1-8, and Science and Social Studies for grades 3-8. The CriterionReferenced Competency Tests were first given in the spring of 2000 in the areas of Reading, English/Language Arts, and Mathematics for grades 4, 6, and 8. They were repeated in those subjects and grades in the spring of 2001, and administered in all grades and subject areas in the spring of 2002. Charter school data are summarized below:
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 14 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Percentages indicate the percent of charter schools that showed stability or increase in the percentage of students who "met" or "exceeded" the standard. Schools were included if they had test results from the previous three years.

Grade 4 (13 charter schools)

o Reading: 77%

(88% previous year)

o Mathematics: 77% (25% previous year)

Grade 6 (11 charter schools):

o Reading: 82%

(75% previous year)

o Mathematics: 55% (25% previous year)

Grade 8 (6 charter schools):

o Reading: 100%

(33% previous year)

o Mathematics: 100% (100% previous year)

Comparison of Charter Schools and Statewide Averages Figures 12 and 13 present a comparison of the 2002-03 performance in Reading and Mathematics of students who attend charter schools and students from the state as a whole. As can be seen from the charts, a greater percentage of students from charter schools in all grade levels scored at the "Meets" and "Exceeds the Standards" levels than did students on average for the state as a whole.

Figure 12. Percentage of Students in Charter Schools and the State
Scoring "Meets" or "Exceeds the Standard" in Reading on the 2002-03
CRCT

90

86

81 80

82

78

74 70

Grade 4

84 82 Grade 6

86 81
Grade 8

Charters State

Figure 13. Percentage of Students in Charter Schools and the State
Scoring "Meets" or "Exceeds the Standard" in Mathematics on the
2002-03 CRCT

80 74 74
76 72 68 64 60
Grade 4

73 70
Grade 6

73 66
Grade 8

Charters State

Percents Percents

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 15 of 71 All Rights Reserved

High School Assessments

Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT) The GHSGT is administered in the fall and spring of a students' junior year in high school. Tests in the areas of English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies are given in the spring.
The percentages of first time test takers from charter high schools passing the GHSGT are presented in Appendix F, Table 1. Results from the past three years are available for seven charter high schools
Comparison of Charter School/State GHSGT Scores Figure 14 represents a comparison of the first attempt pass-fail rate for high school students in charter schools with the state averages for 2002-03. As can be seen from the chart, a greater percentage of charter school students achieved a passing score in all areas represented by the GHSGT than the state average for those tests.
The scores remained stable for charter schools and the state from the previous year.

Percents

Figure 14. A Comparison of First Attempt Pass-Fail Rates for Charter High School Students and Students Statewide on the 2002-03 GHSGT

100

98 95

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

English/Language

Arts

96 91 Mathematics

84 69

91 81

Science

Social Studies

Charters State

Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) Table 2 in Appendix F provides data related to the scores charter schools students achieved on the SAT from 1998-2003. There were four schools that had students participate in the SAT for the past four years.

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 16 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Comparison of Charter School/State SAT Scores Figure 15 presents a comparison of the SAT scores of charter high school students and students statewide. As can be seen from the figure, high school students who attended charter schools scored higher in both Verbal and Quantitative categories than did students on average from the state.

Figure 15. 2002-03 SAT Achievement Comparison, Charter Schools and State
1200 1061 980
1000

800

600

535 490

526 490

400

200

0

Verbal

Quantitative

Total

Charter Schools

State

Average charter school scores dropped from the previous year while state averages went up. See Table 2 below.

Table 2: Average Charter School/State SAT Scores Over Two Years

VERBAL

MATHEMATICS

TOTAL

Charters State

Charters State

Charters State

02-03 535

490

526

490

1061

980

01-02 539

486

546

489

1085

974

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 17 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Under No Child Left Behind, adequate yearly progress was determined for all schools in Georgia. Twenty four (24) of the 31 eligible schools (74%) made AYP. Statewide, 64% of public schools made AYP. Some charter schools (4) report test data to a home school and one school has a testing waiver under an old state law. Seven (7) schools did not make adequate yearly progress.
Overall Achievement Summary These positive results mirror charter school student achievement rates throughout the nation. In a 2003 national study, researchers found that untargeted (traditional student population) charter schools "made math test score improvements that were ... 3 percentile points greater than those of neighboring public schools during a one year period." Reading test score results showed 2 percentile points "greater improvement in untargeted charter schools than in their closest regular public schools over the course of a year." The authors concluded that "we can be very confident that the charter schools in our study did have a positive effect on test scores." (Greene, et al. 2003).
Baconton Community School, Mitchell County
CHARTER SCHOOL GOALS
For this section, charter school goals were identified and compared using two sources school charters and the charter school reports provided to the Georgia Department of Education. Qualitative data gathered from discussion groups with parents and teachers and from interviews with principals is presented to discuss the processes used by charter schools to achieve their goals.
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 18 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Goals Most Often Included in the Charters of Schools Active in 2002-03 All charter schools are required to identify specific goals they strive to accomplish during their term as a charter. These goals are supplied to the state in their charter petitions and are summarized below. Goals were difficult to categorize and summarize because the schools did not use consistent terminology. However, thirty-seven broad categories of goals were identified in schools' charters. These goals were independently rated as to their presence or absence. Raters discussed and reconciled the differences. The top fifteen goals identified by this method are represented in Figure 16. An explanation of each goal in order of frequency cited, most to least, follows Figure 16.

Figure 16. Fifteen Goals Most Often Included in the Charters of Schools Active in 2002-03.

Number of Charter Schools Including the Goal.

40
36 35

30

25

22

20

19 18 18

15

14 14

10 11 11

10

877 7

6

5

0 AcadIenmniocvAaPtcaivhreeienAvteasmlsIenesnvsotmlveenmt ePPnrrotoScgaerfdaemutCyroe/ECsmvoammluufSaonttriiuttoy/dDneIinsnvctoiMplvleiennmetaelnHtCeinaulrttrhhiceuSlucmhoSIontulSndocehvnaottoiAol tnItnevnodlvaGenmcoeveCenrtunrianrinCcCcuhoealmurmamcAutPenlerliietEgyrndTmuucetaontrtiionwngit/hAIndQcuCrletCaMsseendtoDriipnlgoma Rate

Academic Achievement. All charter schools have goals related to academic achievement. Most goals include an increase in the national percentile ranking of students on norm-referenced tests and an increase in the number of students who "Met" or "Exceeded the Standard" on state criterion-referenced tests. Some schools provide their own assessment and report goals related to an increase in achievement on those measures.
Parental Involvement: Most schools reported goals related to increasing parental involvement in the school. This took the form of increased attendance at Parent Teacher Organization meetings and increased parental representation on Governance boards or in other organizations. Schools also reported the involvement of parents as tutors or mentors and for other kinds of volunteer work within the school.

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 19 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Assessment: In addition to the state-wide testing program several schools provided goals concerning the development of their own assessment procedures, such as the use of student portfolios and/or the purchase of additional assessment instruments.
Evaluation: Many schools included the establishment of program evaluation methods and research as a part of their goals. Most of these schools indicated that parent, teacher, and student satisfaction was an important goal for their programs and cited specific ways of ascertaining the level of that satisfaction.
Safety, Comfort, Discipline: Many schools' charters provided goals related to student discipline and school safety and comfort. Included in this category are goals related to school climate and a healthy learning environment.
Mental Health: Several schools reported goals related to students' mental health and social needs, educating the "whole child," and supporting a work ethic.
Community Involvement in the School: Over a third of schools' charters cited goals related to involving the community at large in the school as business partners, student mentors, or in other ways.
Innovative Curriculum: Over a fourth of the schools' charters provided goals related to curricula innovation. These included the use of specific reading, math, or science programs, individualized instruction, brain-based learning, and the creative use of technology.
Student Attendance: Over a fourth of the schools' charters provided goals related to increasing the average daily attendance of their students.
Governance: Several schools listed goals related to school leadership, governance, planning councils, and decision-making in general in their charters.
School Involvement in the Community: Several charters listed goals related to student community service.
Character Education: Several schools provided goals related to character education and citizenship in their charters.
Curriculum Alignment: Some schools listed specific goals related to curriculum alignment with Georgia's Quality Core Curriculum (QCCs).
Peer Tutoring/Mentoring: Some schools provided goals involving the use of peer tutors or adult mentors in their charters.
Increased Diploma Rate: Schools that serve high school-aged students generally had goals related to increasing the number of students who graduate from high school
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 20 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Comparison of Charter Goals with Annual Report Goals Charter schools are mission-oriented and must fulfill their goals stated in their charter. Each year, according to State Board Rule 160-4-9-.04, charter schools must submit annual reports on progress toward achieveing their goals to the state, local board of education, and parents. Therefore, a comparison of the goals worked on during the year with the original goals stated in the charter is a good measure of the charter school's adherence to their mission.
This year, 32 active charter schools submitted yearly reports to the state. State guidelines suggest that charter schools submit a report that provides student achievement data and reports progress toward meeting the goals set out in their charters. Charter school reports varied in quality and in the amount of information provided to the State. They ranged in size from one half of a page to over twenty pages, including appendices. As was the case for goals included in schools' charters, schools did not use uniform terminology in their reports. Thus, as was the case for the charters, two raters from Research, Evaluation, and Testing rated the inclusion status of information related to the 37 broad categories of goals identified in the charter school charters and differences were reconciled for this report.
Two goals were reported most frequency in both charters and reports. These are goals related to student academic achievement and parental involvement. However, many charter schools provided information in their reports about their progress toward meeting goals that were not identified in their charters. Thus, the following list of goals about which charters provided information differs from the list of goals identified in the charters (Figure 16) both in the frequency at which goals were identified and the goals themselves. Figure 17 provides a graphic representation of the 15 goals most identified in charter schools' reports. An explanation of additional goals found in charter schools' annual reports follows:
Professional Development: About half of all charter schools provide information related to the professional development of their staff in their charter school reports.
Budget/Expenditure of Funds: Several reports provided detailed information about charter schools' budgets and funding.
After School Programs: A third of charter schools provide after school programs for their students and included information about those programs in their reports.
Scheduling Innovations: Roughly a third of charter schools provided information related to scheduling innovations. These included extended school days and years and flexible scheduling within the school day.
Extracurricular Activities: Schools provided goals related to the formation of student clubs, athletic activities, drama, music, and other extracurricula activities.
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 21 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Figure 17. Fifteen Goals Most Often Identified in the Reports of Charter Schools Active in 2002-03

Number of Charter Schools Including the
Goal

35
32

30

28

25

25 24 22 21

20 15

17 18 16 16 15 14 12 12 10

10

5

0
AcadCeommPicamrAeuncnhtiatiyel vIInnevvmooellvvnGeetommveeenrCnntStuaairnnfreicAcSteyucs,lhsuCSeomoscosmhlPImnoPrfnoooerorflonetvIg,tnsaDrsvtaiiiomosolcnnvEieapmvlliaDneleuenvatetiinloonCpAmoBtmMeteuAnmendtfnudtgetnaaerSnitltSiccHynhcegehe/a/CFdolhtuuohanllirnPdagircnotIggenrrn/aEomvxsatrtaiocnusrric...

Figures 16 and 17 above show how charter school goals stated in the charter and in the annual report may vary. Theoretically, goals in both documents of each charter would match. However, charter schools may identify new goals as they mature or may implement smaller goals in order to achieve their larger aims.
Keys to Achieving Charter School Goals Discussion group participants consistently mentioned four key elements in achieving charter school goals: strong parental involvement, provision of an alternative to traditional public schools, promotion of individualized assessment and learning, and flexibility to use special learning formats. Description and explanation of these processes follows:
Strong Parental Involvement: Almost all of the charter schools sampled in the study identified strong parental involvement as a primary method for achieving school goals. Discussion group participants indicated that this factor is rooted in the desire for parents to have more independence from the standard curriculum and structure of traditional public schools. In about two-thirds of the discussion groups, parents and school personnel reported that traditional learning formats had often resulted in unsuccessful learning experiences for their children. Parents in over three-fourths of the discussion groups consistently felt that their involvement was wanted and appreciated by the charter school.
Start-Up Charter Schools: For example, one parent at a start-up school stated:
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 22 of 71 All Rights Reserved

It is easier to get involved. At other schools I found it harder to get involved and it was very closed. At this school, everybody wants your participation.
In two-thirds of the charter schools, the appreciation of parent participation and volunteer efforts led to the perception that overall levels of parental involvement were much stronger than at traditional public schools. For example, one parent at a conversion charter believed parents that are involved really have the opportunity to make a difference in their child's education. This is supported by the fact that parents at this school were involved in the writing and renewal decisions concerning the school's charter.
Conversion Charter Schools: Even though participation is often perceived as high, one parent at a conversion charter believed that parents are always welcome at the school but that active parental involvement is not really advertised. This highlights a key difference between start-up charter schools and conversion charter schools. While discussion group participants in both types of schools profess to have strong parental involvement, the presence of examples and documentation of involvement were often much higher at start-up charter schools. To provide a further example of this difference, a parent at a non-renewed charter school stated:
There are loads of parents that don't participate... The school may be open to it, but as far as parents' participation, it needs a little work. Two explanations for this difference were provided by start-up school parents. First, a majority of these parents were displeased with the traditional public school options in their communities, and therefore, they opted to start a school and used the charter option to design a school that met their specific needs. Thus, they were initially more active than most parents. Second, these parents indicate that the start-ups are plagued by problems that conversion schools do not have, such as needing personnel for facility maintenance and administrative tasks, and this forces the parents at start-ups to fill these roles in order to keep the school going.
Alternative to Traditional Public Schools: More than three-fourths of parents that participated in focus groups stated that the decision to send their children to a charter school was based on negative past experiences with traditional public schools. These parents reported unsuccessful experiences due to a variety of factors ranging from poor academic standards and an inflexible administration to learning environments that ignored their children and their children's learning styles or needs.
Parents who have had negative experiences with their former public schools see the charter as a positive and much needed alternative.
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 23 of 71 All Rights Reserved

In other cases it appears that parents want alternatives for children that were left behind in traditional public schools. As one parent from a start-up charter spoke of her child:
She needed more guidance than she got, she could handle the schoolwork, but she was misunderstood. She wasn't getting good grades and can get that extra individual attention here.
Charter school parents, as well as teachers, principals, and staff, believe that a charter school's ability to tailor classroom instruction to a child's individual educational needs is a major benefit and key difference from the traditional public school. Another important difference, cited by at least two-thirds of all participants, is the ability of charter schools to employ specialized learning formats that include the arts, technology, and/or character education, which are sometimes neglected in traditional public schools. Such flexibility allows public charter schools to achieve both academic and social/emotional goals for children.
Individualized Assessment and Learning: A charter school's flexibility and smaller class size allows for a more individualized assessment of each student, according to three-fourths of discussion participants. For example, a parent at a start-up charter school commented:
They identify the individual students' strengths and interests and then load the curriculum around them. Children work toward their individual goals.
One start-up charter school promotes individualized assessment and learning through the use of an on-line portfolio. Each student has an individualized education plan and work products serve as evidence of objective completion. These work products are posted in their portfolios and are available for parents to see and track progress. The on-line format also allows them to post "nontraditional" evidence of learning such as video clips of performances and pictures of art projects.
Fully three-fourths of the charter schools in this evaluation provided either individualized learning plans or some form of individualized assessment such as a learning portfolio.
Flexible or Special Learning Formats: The majority of discussion group participants from charter schools overall and over three-fourths of the start-up school participants discussed multiple learning experiences both in and outside of the classroom that tailor to the students' interests and needs. They report that these experiences are used to enhance the overall educational opportunities for students. For example, one conversion school teacher stated:
We look to see what will help the individual child. We have computerized instruction, handson instruction, standard instruction, and enrichment.
Another teacher from a start-up charter explained:
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 24 of 71 All Rights Reserved

To serve a different type of student who has not enjoyed the traditional school; that is looking for something with a little more freedom and liberty....We use the constructivist model or learning by doing and the multiple intelligence model.
Another also stated:
We have a relationship with [the] tech school and the students take at least one class there. We take them on exploratory trips and have small class sizes. We encourage the kids to be proactive about their education.
Discussion group participants reported that charter schools are organized in ways that take advantage of the flexibility offered them and enhance individualizing the curriculum. One teacher at a conversion charter stated for example:
...it's [the charter] committed to tailoring our staff development programs to meet the areas we feel that we need to be working on. It's really tailored to our kids.
As another example, one conversion charter school provides students the opportunity to explore subjects in "academy clusters." This school works hard at bringing in outside teachers and community members to provide students with the opportunity to learn curricular objectives through avenues that interest them. These ranged from fly-fishing to chess to musical recording.
In another example, a parent at a start-up charter school praised the flexibility in curriculum structure by stating:
The poets and artists of the world are OK here.
At approximately half of the conversion schools, the participating parents were unclear about their charter school's goals. Further, these parents were unable to articulate or provide examples of differences between current goals and practices and those in place when the school was not a charter. For example, parents at one recently non-renewed conversion school were not even aware that the school was no longer a charter school:
I didn't know that they weren't chartered anymore and I wish we did have some say in that....Or at least understand what the pros and cons were so you could understand their thinking.
Many parents remarked that the old goals and processes in operation at the traditional public school did not noticeably change when that school attained charter status. The lack of difference between pre-charter and post-charter status was a recurring theme among conversion schools.
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 25 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Bishop Hall Charter School, Thomas County
CHARTER SCHOOL GOVERNANCE
Stakeholder Involvement Charter school principals, parents, and teachers feel that governance of these schools is more participative then they have experienced with other types of schools. Figure 18 summarizes teachers' survey responses to questions concerning participation in school decisions. As the figure illustrates, a large majority of charter school teachers believe that they have influence in school decision making. Additionally, 94% of parents responding to the survey indicated that having more input in school decisions was an important or very important reason they chose a charter school.

Figure 18: Teacher Responses to Survey Questions Concerning Decision-making

percentage agreeing with statement

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Teacher input is weighed Authority in this school is

in decision-making

dispersed

These findings were consistent with the results of the focus group interviews. Charter school teachers and parents believe they have more input into school decisions than they had at their previous traditional public schools. As one teacher stated:

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 26 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Here it is not a top down process, we have a more entrepreneurial approach and we all want to make it work.
This teacher went on to add that if a decision needed to be made, it could be made very quickly which was not often the case at other public schools. One parent claimed that the school "takes the issues to the parents." Another stated, when discussing school governance:
Anything that I wanted to have happen at the school, I was able to call up and have done the next day. At the previous school where my child was, it would take an act of Congress to change.
Leadership Styles of Charter School Principals
Conversion Charter Schools Conversion charter school principals identified two governance styles in their schools participative and situational. Over half of the conversion principals described the governance style in their school as democratic, participative, or site-based. For example, one principal commented:
The main difference is more ... shared decision making now than there has been previously or prior to it being a charter, but of course the big difference is getting the parents and having the governing board be allowed to make the final decision on issues such as budget and space, those kinds of things.
Approximately one-third of conversion charter school principals described their management style as situational. That is, the decision making process varied with the type of decision to be made. For example, one conversion principal stated:
Each situation demands a different style. [For example,] if we're going to fire somebody we're not going to do a consensus, we are going to do a more hierarchal or dictatorial `This is what you need to do'. Overall it is an eclectic style.
All of the conversion charter school principals believed their governance style had not differed from the styles they used in previous non-charter school positions. When asked if his governance style differed from styles he had used in non-charter schools, one conversion charter school principal responded:
No, you have to understand we were a non-charter school before we became a charter school. We're a local public school with a residential population. What we've changed is how we do business not what business we do.
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 27 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Principals of non-renewed charter schools also employed democratic or situational governance methods, mirroring the style of conversion charter school principals.
Start-Up Charter Schools Principals of start-up charter schools consistently claimed to use a participative or democratic style. There was very little variability in their characterizations of school governance at these schools with all claiming or describing democratic decision-making as their predominate style. For example, one principal of a start-up school described decision making processes as:
We meet once a week as a faculty when decisions have to be made. The teachers have tremendous input. The faculty can vote as a consensus to make decisions. The departments [also] meet about every two weeks, and talk about where the department is as a whole and where the budget is.
Another start-up principal described the governance processes this way:
I am the principal, but the management is shared. We have a partnership here. Teachers are asked to take ownership of the school as well. We're a small family so we work together.
In addition to being more consistent in their claims of utilizing a participative governance style, principals in start-up schools were also more likely than conversion school principals to claim that their style was different in the charter school than it had been in non-charter schools. For example, one start-up principal stated:
I'm more flexible, I'm more open to sit down with teachers to see what is working. When I was in the other district before I transferred here it was top down management style where we made the decisions and told the teachers what our decisions were. But now it's like bottom up where everyone is included.
Other start-up principals also emphasized the role parents play in this participative governance style and how their involvement was different from traditional public schools:
I don't think you will find much parental involvement in non-charter schools as far as sharing management.
And:
The main thing I do differently here is to maximize parent participation. One of our goals is trying to bring parents in and maximize their participation.
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 28 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Based on observations and site visits made to the schools, decision making in charters schools most often involves gathering input from a variety of actors including parents, students, community business people, and school staff. Two examples of structures to support this style of governance are worth highlighting:
One conversion charter school has 6-8 design teams. Each team has teachers, students, parents, and business people who serve as members. The teams each have an area on which they focus facilities, curriculum, budget, etc. All school issues are referred to the appropriate decision team. The design teams then consider whether actions are needed. They make decisions related to their area. The design teams make the daily management decisions needed in the school. If they believe school policy related action is necessary, they make a recommendation to the Governing Board. The Governing Board then takes a vote on the policy recommendation all students, teachers, and parents would be allowed to vote on policy changes.
One start-up charter school has a collaborative team in addition to their governing board. The collaborative team is made up of people from various levels of the school grade level representatives, parents, and other school staff. The collaborative team serves as the first place that school issues will be raised and discussed. They serve as the representative body and conduit to the Governing Board who make policy decisions.
As these examples illustrate, it is more than participant perception that charter school governance is democratic and participative. Charter schools have implemented governance structures that facilitate involvement of multiple levels of stakeholders.
Educational Management Organizations (EMOs) Teachers and parents at the one charter school in the sample being run by an education management organization felt they had very little input into school decisions. They further characterized communication between the school and the management company as being problematic. One teacher commented:
The management company is not located in the school and they don't know the needs of the teachers and the students.
Another teacher claimed:
If we are going to operate as a charter school it would be helpful to know all the players involved in this process. We have a CFO, we have a lawyer, we have these people, but we have never met them. I just know that we get an allocation of funds, we get a lump sum and we have to decide what we're going to us it for. But as teachers we do not have input in these decisions.
The information concerning this school should be used as a caution for all charter school operators to involve the school staff and community stakeholders in school processes to ensure optimal effectiveness.
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 29 of 71 All Rights Reserved

EMOs will continue to appear in editorials and research articles as they are of great interest in the education reform movement. Some research states that EMOs provide critical capital funding which may attract more start-up schools (Scott & Holme, 2002). Other research has found that some EMOs charge excessive management fees (Richards et al., 1996; Scott & Holme, 2002; Tock, 1998; Winerip, 1998).
On the student achievement side, a recent report, the "Brown Center Report on American Education, Part III Charter Schools: Achievement, Accountability, and the Role of Expertise" states that EMO-operated charter schools show greater gain scores than non-EMO charter schools This could be because, according to the study, EMOs typically target low-achieving students and are successful bringing them closer to grade level.
Even with the emerging research, there are too few EMO-operated charter schools in Georgia to reach any general conclusions. Besides parent and teacher communication concerns, none of the national problems have occurred with EMOs in Georgia.
Governing Boards and School Councils One source of confusion for charter schools is the difference between school councils and their governing boards. Teachers and parents in the focus groups and principals in individual interviews varied in their perceptions of the school council requirement. Close to one-half of all participants believed charter schools to be automatically exempt from the school council requirement or they had requested exemption from their LEA. One-third of participants felt they were required to have both types of boards. These participants expressed confusion and difficulty in discerning the roles these two bodies might play. For example, one principal claimed:
Those are two separate entities. The school council members are better about attending and asking questions about the school....Since it has been approved by the board, I think that they feel more responsibility to be there and ask questions. But I am not sure curriculum wise, I think the council feels unsure of its role.
Still another one-third of participants felt they had to combine the requirements and functions of the two bodies. A principal of a new start-up claimed:
We kind of combine both, the state dictated to us that every school must have a school council. We had already started our charter and so we increased the number of the board by two people and let that board act as both.
Another start-up principal stated:
Our governance council is twice as large as the school council. Our governance council serves in place of the school council.
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 30 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Thus, no clear and consistent reaction to the school council requirement can be ascertained among the charter schools. Considerable confusion about the requirement, its relationship to their existing governing boards, and the charter schools' necessary responses exists.
CHARTER SCHOOL INNOVATIONS
An overwhelming majority of charter school teachers and parents who responded to the survey believe their school to be innovative. More than 95% of respondent parents indicated that the "school's new and different ways of teaching students" was an important or very important reason for choosing the school. Additionally, 94% of teachers felt their schools were either successful or very successful at "developing an innovative curriculum". They also believe (89%) that they are either successful or very successful "sharing innovation with the larger education community."
Examples of innovation included the way that the curriculum is designed to meet the students' needs and the organization or processes that the teachers, administration and parents employ to meet the needs of the students. Parents, teachers and principals in charter schools provided specific examples of practices they considered to be innovative. The following bullets show examples that were discussed by participants in at least 75% of the schools. Each of these is discussed in more detail in the following sections:
Catering to individual student needs through personalized assessment Providing for the child as a person, not just as a student Focusing more on the process of learning during the activity, then assessing and
evaluating the finished product. Providing specialized learning opportunities such as:
o Academy clusters and discovery classes o Guest lectures from community members and special assemblies o Hands-on learning o Mixed grade classes
Individual Assessment One perceived innovation at many charter schools is the process that goes into providing an individualized learning assessment for each student. The following vivid description was provided by teachers at a start-up charter school and illustrates the individualized focus of assessment and learning found in at least 75% of all charter schools:
Each student has a prep folder, which is a personal education plan that teachers go through and periodically update on what the students need help on. Students can also assess their own needs and add to the folder. There is information on behavior and learning disabilities and assessment of the students learning styles is in the folder. It also serves to teach the teachers about the student.
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 31 of 71 All Rights Reserved

This example shows how a well-rounded approach to developing and maintaining a learning plan for each student is considered to be an innovative practice and was seen to be greatly beneficial by the teachers at this school.
Focus on the Child Another perceived innovative practice found in charter schools is a focus on the social and emotional well-being of each child. More than 80% of the charter schools consider "non academic" development as important as academic development. The following example provides illustration:
One start-up charter school conducts personal interviews with each student at the beginning of the school year followed by a weekly counseling session with each student. The primary interview of each student is done to get information on other things in their life outside of school that the teachers and principal believe impact the students' comfort and success at school. The counseling sessions are not mandatory, but each student may attend once a week if they wish.
This practice supports the common belief at many charter schools that the school is much more of a family than often found at traditional public schools. As stated by one teacher:
We really do stress the social aspect of learning and that we are a community and family.
Focus on Learning and Assessment One process that was seen as being unique to the charter school format by some parents was the emphasis on real learning rather than simply completing the assignments. This theme occurred in at least 75% of the schools visited. While the traditional way of assessing student progress is through task or assignment completion, at some charter schools, there is much more of a focus on the actual process of learning or learning by doing. Students are encouraged to "engage" in the learning and use good learning processes. After the learning has been completed, then the assessment of the outcomes of the total learning experience can be made. An example that supports this practice comes from a teacher at a start-up charter who stated:
We mainly look at process during the week and we evaluate the final product at the end. We believe the reality of the classroom should be the reality of the real world. We try to teach them to produce something but focus on real learning while they are completing an assignment.
Specialized Learning Opportunities Perceived by 90% of focus group participants to be the most striking innovation at many charter schools is having the flexibility to use specialized learning opportunities. These opportunities include taking non-academic courses, using outside lecturers, providing hands-on learning experiences, and using multi-age class groupings. For example:
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 32 of 71 All Rights Reserved

One start-up charter school requires its students to take one discovery class each term that is selected by the teacher and student together. This class is seen as an opportunity for students to learn a new skill that they had interest in or possibly expose them to an area of learning in which the student had not considered to be of their interest.
One conversion charter school offers lectures by community members to its students that parallel the character trait being taught each month. This outside speaker experience is viewed as more beneficial to the students than having teachers provide the lecture because the speakers can offer "real-life" experiences.
Another start-up charter school requires its students to engage in hands-on learning exercises for each content area. For example, when studying poverty, students were asked to go with their parents to the grocery store and purchase one week's worth of food that would provide wellbalanced nutrition on a budget that would be similar to that of a person living at poverty level. This activity allowed the students to experience a more reality-based learning experience than the traditional textbook.
The use of multi-grade classrooms is also seen as an innovative practice that is used in approximately 30% of the sampled charter schools. Whereas in traditional public schools, the students usually participate only in activities and lessons with grade level peers, many of the charters allow students from a range of grades to participate together in a learning activity. Focus group participants perceived this to be beneficial to the students because it teaches social skills and cooperation with other children.
As with the other focus areas of this evaluation, there were differences in the degree of innovation found in charter schools by type. While the conversion schools examined in this evaluation perceived themselves to be using techniques that are different from those used at traditional public schools, they were not as creative or innovative as the start-up charter schools. This is likely due to existing standards or traditions that were developed in the school prior to its transition from a traditional public school to a charter school. The start-ups were in many cases combining multiple "innovative" practices whereas the conversion schools may have described the implementation of one such practice.
Although charter schools have the flexibility to be more innovative than public schools, it is also important to note that it does not always mean that innovation is good. One parent at a start-up charter school noted that in some cases the innovative practices were not working to improve the faults that had been experienced at previous public schools. Also, it appears that practices can be interpreted as innovative simply because they have not been experienced during previous public school experiences. As noted by one parent who had expressed concern with the non-responsive nature of the public school where their child attended prior attending the charter school:
Simply being responsive to the concerns of parents is innovative if other schools aren't doing it.
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 33 of 71 All Rights Reserved

In the majority of cases, the innovative practices identified by the schools could be classified as "retrovation." These schools engage in educational practices that are not unique and are in fact a return to traditional practices valued by parents. Georgia's charter schools are not alone in this "retrovation." While many believe charter schools to be laboratories for innovation, researchers are starting to note that there are very few differences between charter school practices and traditional school practices. In a study comparing Michigan charter schools to traditional public schools, Mintrom (2000) found that charter schools are only innovative in a minimal sense and many of the practices they employ are prevalent in other schools. Earlier studies by Horn and Miron (1999) and Reynolds (2000) came to similar conclusions. They believe when innovation does occur it is in organization and governance.
Research on charter school innovation and the results of this evaluation suggest that a large number of parents are not seeking innovation but a back to basics or "retrovation" approach (Miron and Nelson, 2002). In fact, 96% of Georgia charter school parents who responded to the survey indicated that the "school's emphasis on basic skills (reading, writing, math)" was important or very important to them.
CHARTER SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY
Accountability Through the Charter
Start-up Charter Schools Participants in this evaluation are almost unanimously less concerned with state or local accountability systems than they are with meeting the expectations of their charter and their constituents. When asked how they were held accountable, 90% of all participants at start-up charter schools referred first to the provisions in their charter. For example, one start-up principal reported:
Part of our charter is that we do a cohort model and track our students from year to year. We are required by our charter to track our individual students' growth.
Another start-up principal stated:
Basically, we're tied to a few things, testing and the QCC's. But other than that we make our own decisions. The charter is the ultimate box and we use it. The governing board uses it. We go back to it when we come to making decisions we need to make. It is essentially what runs us.
When asked about the new state accountability requirements, 75% of start-up principals reiterated that they were already held accountable to their charter and to their parents. For example, one principal commented:
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 34 of 71 All Rights Reserved

I don't think it has had a major impact one way or another because we have already changed our methods of delivering instruction and measuring with the charter. So we just continue what we are doing.
Another stated:
Basically, the charter has outweighed the reform act because that basically gave us the leverage to make the modification in teaching strategies and whatever we decide.
Conversion Charter Schools Conversion charter schools were less likely to list their charter as the primary accountability mechanism and 50% more likely to list state or local accountability requirements. For example, one conversion principal stated:
We are now very test conscious. We have purchased many more test prep materials in the format of CRCT so that the kids are familiar with it. We are looking for an adoption for a reading program for the county and we are making sure it specifically has materials written into it that incorporates the CRCT format.
Another conversion school principal claimed:
The local school system holds me accountable in every way in the world. While conversion participants were more likely to identify with state or local accountability provisions, approximately 60% of these respondents felt that their charter status prepared them well for these new accountability requirements.
Accountability to Parents Approximately 80% of both conversion school participants and start-up participants mentioned communication with parents as a primary accountability mechanism in their schools. Most schools reported multiple forms of communication with parents. At one conversion school, a teacher reported:
A lot of parents here don't have email. We send a newsletter once a week and we have a phone tree with people who can speak 40 different languages.
A principal at a start-up school explained:
All the teachers send home weekly folders with student information, we have monthly newsletters, all our children 3rd grade or above receive a computer to take home so that
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 35 of 71 All Rights Reserved

ensures our parents have access to email, listserves, and teacher websites. We have mandatory parent conferences and non-mandatory conferences where parents can schedule them at their convenience. Teachers send home mid-quarter progress reports and our report card is a narrative where teachers can explain things to parents. Finally, there are times when parents come in unscheduled and speak to faculty.
When asked how parents were informed about the school, one start-up parent listed: The principal's letter, volunteer coordinators letter, governing board, calendar for the entire school, information online, and the PTA keeps parents informed of things that are happening for the entire school. They are also good at returning phone calls.
A conversion parent reported: They send us lesson plans, work plans, and homework packets. We know where they are; what stage they are on. We have an agenda book. There is a place on the agenda book for the parent to sign.
These responses from focus group participants and individual principals illustrate well the beliefs of parent respondents on the charter school survey. Ninety-eight percent of parent respondents stated that "good communication between parents and teachers" was important or very important. When asked how satisfied they were with the communication they had with their charter school, approximately 94% of respondents indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied. Non-renewed charter schools, all of which were previously conversion schools, did not identify parents as a primary mechanism for accountability. In fact, 4 out of the 5 non-renewing schools in this evaluation identified their PTA/PTO as their primary means of communication between the school and parents.
Charter Schools and State Testing A final accountability issue that arose during the focus group and interview portion of this evaluation was the appropriateness of state testing and accountability for the charter schools. Many of the charter schools (more than 80%) believed they were already held highly accountable through their charter. However, a more important issue raised was whether the state testing system matched the unique curricular aspects of these schools (e.g. Montessori, arts-based, constructivist, etc.) and were appropriate measures of their students' abilities. As one principal of a start-up school commented:
The charter schools have been left out and we should have a choice. They [charter schools] can be held accountable to traditional measures of public schools but the fact that we are held more accountable than traditional public schools we should have a choice about being judged on those particular objectives.
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 36 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Another stated:
I would really like the issues of accountability for charter schools addressed separately from other public schools.
Some research conducted on charter schools does not support the participants' claims that their charters hold them accountable. Wells (2002) states, "There is no strong or consistent evidence that charter schools ... are being held more accountable for academic outcomes than regular public schools."
A consistent concern raised in the research literature is the lack of consequences in most states for charter schools that do not perform well and the absence of measurable goals in most school charters (See, for example, Henig, Holyoke, Lacireno-Paquet & Moser, 2001; Miron & Nelson, 2000; Public Sector Consultants, 2000; Texas Center for Educational Research, 2001; Willard & Oplinger, 2000).
Most accountability and oversight mechanisms in place for charter schools are related to financial accountability. Very few states have accountability systems in place that measure school performance on goals outlined in charter documents (Wells, 2002).
Accountability for Georgia's charter schools will be enhanced by the annual yearly progress requirement of the No Child Left Behind legislation. Furthermore, the Georgia Department of Education is reviewing its charter school operations to ensure that they promote transparency and support the vision of leading the nation in improving student achievement.
PARENT AND TEACHER SATISFACTION WITH CHARTER SCHOOLS
Teacher respondents to the charter school survey reported overall levels of high satisfaction with their schools. Figure 19 summarizes the results. A small percentage of charter school teachers, while still satisfied with their schools overall, reported some dissatisfaction with their nonteaching duties. This most likely reflects the burden placed on teachers of these schools to contribute to the maintenance and organization of school operations.
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 37 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Figure 19. Percentage of Teachers Satisfied or Very Satisfied

100 95
90
80

97 95

97

89

91 89 90

94

76

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Educational PhFileolsloowphTyeaPcahCreeurnsrtraicQluIunluavlmoitlyveomf IennsttArudcmtiionGniosNvtoreanrtn-otirensagSccBhhionoagordlRCelsimpoaCnteusilbtuilrietieosf School

Similarly, parents who responded to the survey reported high levels of satisfaction with their schools. Figure 20 summarizes their levels of satisfaction to related survey questions. In addition, parents were asked whether they would recommend their school to other parents and whether they would recommend charter schools in general. Ninety-five percent of parent respondents said that they would recommend their school to other parents. Another 94% of parent respondents would recommend charter schools in general.

Figure 20. Percentage of Parents Satisfied or Very Satisfied

97
97 96 95 94 93 92

96 94

95
93 92

91

90

89
Educational PhilosoSpuhbyjectsQTuaaulgithytoSftaTnedacahrdinsgfoRreILnsepdaoirvnnidsinuegatloACtotenncteiornnsGiven to ...

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 38 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Georgia's parent satisfaction with charter schools mirrors other national research. In a 2003 survey, 69.1% of charter school parents in Florida gave their charter school a grade of "A+" or "A". This is impressive considering a 2003 national PDK/Gallup poll found only 29% of public school parents would grade their child's school an "A" or higher. (Solmon et al, 2003).
ISSUES FACING CHARTER SCHOOLS
Facilities and Finances A large majority (80%) of participants in this evaluation see the lack of capital outlay for buildings and building improvements as the most important issue facing all the charter schools. Start-up schools are in especially dire need of facilities help. These principals commented:
The only things that are negative are the facilities, which have the darkest effect on teachers and students. If we could get the facilities up to speed, our school will have the potential to be a focal point of the community.
With rent and utilities we will not survive the year, well we might survive the school year but barely. In other words we are not doing well financially.
The school would not have opened if a group of 20 parents had not signed a personal guarantee to renovate the building.
Currently there is nothing being allocated for charter school [buildings]. If the facilities were not able to grow along with the population we would be one of the first charter schools to fail.
Conversion schools also have their facilities problems, but these seem to be limited to the lack of repairs and maintenance done on their buildings. For example, a conversion school parent commented:
We can't add another computer because we are maxed out electrically. At [this school] a lot of teachers have left to go to other schools because they were more technologically advanced and the buildings were better.
Conversion teachers made comments such as:
The facilities are inadequate for what we're trying to achieve.
The plumbing is a problem.
The building is over 100 years old. It originally was a bomb shelter.
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 39 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Many participants (approximately 75%) also expressed a general concern for the lack of funding provided to charter schools. In particular, most charter schools feel they are not receiving their share of funds from the localities. For example, principals at both types of charter schools (conversion and start-up) noted:
Currently we are only receiving funding for 297 students; however 330 are enrolled.
The [system] allotment to regular schools is twice as large as what this charter school gets, and we are expected to do better than regular public schools. Charter school principals reported that districts hold back between 15% and 60% of the perpupil-expenditure for the district. This phenomenon was compounded in the one school run by a management company. That school reported that both the district and their management company took a share of the per-pupil allotment. Because of this they were unable to make payroll on more than one occasion. As one principal concluded: Money weighs heavily.
Again, other research on charter schools indicates that the facilities and financial problems facing the charter schools in this evaluation are not unique to Georgia. Researchers have consistently identified this as a key threat to the continuation of the charter school movement (See, for example, Wells, 2002; Murphy & Shiffman, 2002; Miron & Nelson, 2002). Lack of viability due to financial constraint (most often because of facilities costs) is the most prevalent reason for charter school failure (Wells, 2002). In general, charter schools are funded at a lower level than other public schools, especially when their costs for facilities are taken into account (Public Sector Consultants & Maximus, 1999; Texas Center for Educational Research, 2001).
Oglethorpe Academy, Chatham County
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 40 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Relationship with Local School Districts Relationships with local school districts are characterized as poor by approximately 75% of the start-up charter school participants. Approximately 60% of conversion charter school participants characterized the local school district as interfering. School staff in start-up charter schools consistently (across 75% of the schools) reported that their relationship with the local district was "bad" or "strained." Examples include school districts refusing to allow charter schools to participate in district-wide competitions (such as science fairs), of being talked about negatively by district administrators (both privately and in the news media), and of being denied services by the district (including special education services).
Start-up Charter Schools In two cases, start-up charter schools were suing their districts at the time of the evaluation over such issues. Comments from start-up principals that illustrate these relationships include:
The relationship with the local system started bad to begin with and the relationship has not changed over time....We are suing the local school board to pay for facilities that were in the charter contract.
Our relationship is strained, lacks communication. We're left out of press releases and not acknowledged. The superintendent does not control the charter school even though he would like to. Prior superintendents have just ignored us and that was better than trying to be controlled.
Teachers in start-up charter schools were also aware of the poor relationships these schools often have with districts. Participating teachers reported:
We want to have the respect, communication, and support from the board of education and not be seen as the `red headed step child'; to not have disparaging remarks said by our superintendent in the newspaper.
We are not allowed to apply for a lot of things. We can't enter contests. We have to meet everybody at fieldtrips because [the district] won't let us use their buses.
Conversion Charter Schools While conversion schools reported better relationships with their districts, they are not without problems. Rather than suffering from neglect as the start-ups claim, 60% of participants at conversion schools report being plagued by interfering districts. One conversion school principal commented:
I would like less fooling around. I'd like less initiatives, kinds of things we have to do for the local school board.
Another conversion principal commented:
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 41 of 71 All Rights Reserved

I would like to see the local school system step back in a lot of areas and let us do what is in our charter without arguing with us. Still another conversion principal commented: It's open warfare, it's a marriage of convenience. I feel like we get plenty, fine from the local school district as far as attention. And I'm going to be honest with you. I hate the attention from the local board. I just want to be left alone. Overall, teachers responding to the charter school survey reported being less satisfied with their local school district relationship than with other aspects of the charter school experience. Wells et al. (2002) argue that expecting charter schools and districts to work together harmoniously is "wishful rationalism". Based on their study of charter schools in California, they contend that "freeing" schools one by one while leaving the districts still under regulation results in tensions, ambiguity and resistance among school district officials who see themselves caught between autonomous schools and the regulations of the public system (See also, Hill & Lake, 2002; Murphy & Shiffman, 2002 who have raised similar concerns about charter school/district relations). Although charter schools and school districts do not always have a harmonious relationship, recent research reveals that school districts are becoming more customer-friendly and have made educational changes in response to charter schools being located in their communities. (Greene, et al 2003)
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 42 of 71 All Rights Reserved

CONCLUSION
Charter schools in Georgia possess a combination of traits that include: School goals specific to their student population; Increased student achievement; A degree of flexibility in achieving these goals; Participatory governance structures; Innovation in curricular activities; Accountability to their charter and parent constituents; Increased parental involvement; Strained relationships with local districts; and Concern over facilities and financing.
The degree to which individual schools possess any or all of these traits varies considerably among the charter schools that participated in this evaluation. For the most part, start-up schools are more likely than conversion schools (and non-renewed schools) to possess all of these traits. Further, start-up schools, as a matter of degree, are also more likely to possess each individual trait. That is, start-up schools are more participatory in their governance structures, have more parental involvement, are more innovative with school processes, and have more problems with their district, etc. than conversion schools. If these traits are essential for charter schools and measure a degree of "charter-ness," then the Georgia start-up charter schools are "more charterlike" than the Georgia conversion schools. Many of Georgia's conversion schools have more traits in common with traditional public schools than they have in common with the startup charter schools.
The GDOE Charter Schools Unit, which is charged by law to administer the charter schools program, is excited and motivated to highlight and expand the achievement and success found in Georgia's charter schools and will simultaneously address the issues and concerns presented in this report.
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 43 of 71 All Rights Reserved

REFERENCES
Ascher, C., Jacobwitz, R., and McBride, Y., (1999). Charter School Access: A Preliminary Analysis of Charter School Legislation and charter School Students. New York: New York University, Institute for Education and Social Policy.
Center for Education Reform (2003). Nine Lies About School Choice: Proving Critics Wrong. Available: www.edreform.com.
Cobb, C.D., & Glass, G.V. (1999). Ethnic segregation in Arizona charter schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives [online serial]. Available: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n1
Downey, Maureen. (2003). Black Schools White Schools. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Atlanta, Georgia.
Frankenberg, E. and Lee, C., (2002, July). Charter Schools and Race: A Lost Opportunity for Integrated Education. Boston, MA: Harvard University, The Civil Rights Project.
Frankenberg, E. and Lee, C., (2003, July). Charter Schools and Race: A Lost Opportunity for Integrated Education. Boston, MA: Harvard University, The Civil Rights Project.
Greene, J., Forster, G., and Winters, M., (2003). Apples to Apples: An Evaluation of Charter Schools Serving General Student Populations. New York, NY: Manhattan Institute.
Henig, J., Holyoke, T., Lacireno-Paquet, N., and Moser, M., (2001). Growing Pains: An Evaluation of Charter Schools in the District of Columbia 1999-2000. Washington, DC: George Washington University, Center for Washington Area Studies.
Hill, P., and Guin, K., (2002). Baseline Assessment of Choice Programs. In P. Hill (Ed.), Choice With Equity. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, pp. 15-49.
Hill, P., and Lake, R., (2002). Charter Schools and Accountability in Public Education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 56-57.
Horn, J., and Miron, G. (2000). An Evaluation of the Michigan Charter School Initiative: Performance, Accountability, and Impact. Kalamazoo, MI: Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University.
Horn, J., and Miron, G. (1999). Evaluation of Michigan Public School Academy Initiative. Kalamazoo, MI: Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University. [On-line]. http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/charter/michigan/.
Loveless, T. (2003). Brown Center Report on American Education: How Well Are American Students Learning? Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 28-36.
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 44 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Massachusetts State Auditor. (2001, October 22). Independent State Auditors Report on the Activities of the Executive Office of Education's and the Department of Education's Administration of the Charter School Program. Boston: Author.
Mintrom, M. (2000). Leveraging Local Innovation: The Case of Michigan's Charter Schools. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Miron, G. and Nelson, C. (2002). What's Public About Charter Schools? Lessons Learned About Choice and Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Miron, G. and Nelson, C. (2000). Autonomy in Exchange for Accountability: An Initial Study of Pennsylvania Charter Schools. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University, Evaluation Center.
Miron, G. and Nelson, C., & Risley, J. (2002). Strengthening Pennsylvania's charter school reform: Findings from the statewide evaluation and discussion of relevant policy issues. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University, Evaluation Center.
Murphy, J., and Shiffman, C., (2002). Understanding and Assessing the Charter School Movement. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 213-215.
Public Sector Consultants. (2000). Issues in Michigan's Public School Academy Initiative Phase 2. Lansing, MI: Author.
Public Sector Consultants and Maximus, Inc. (1999). Michigan's Charter School Initiative: From Theory to Practice. Lansing, MI: Author.
Reynolds, K. (2000). Innovations in Charter Schools: A Summary of Innovative or Unique Aspects of Michigan Charter Schools. Kalamazoo, MI: The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University.
Richards, C., Shore, R., & Sawicky, M. (1996). Risky Business: Private Management of Public Schools. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Scott, J. (2002). Charter Schools, Privatization and the Search for Educational Empowerment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Scott, J., and Holme, J. (2002). Public Schools, Private Resources: The Role of Social Networks in California Charter School Reform. In A. S. Wells, (Ed.). Where Charter School Policy Fails: The Problems of Accountability and Equity. New York: Teachers College Record Press, pp. 102128.
Solmon, L., Weiderhorn, J., Rippner, J. (2003). Florida Charter School Parent Satisfaction Survey. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 45 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Texas Center for Educational Research. (2001, September). Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Fourth-Year Evaluation. Executive Summary. Austin, TX: Author with University of Texas, Arlington, School of Urban and Public Affairs; University of North Texas, & University of Houston, Center for the Study of Education Reform; Center for Public Policy. Toch, T. (1998, April 27). Education Bazaar. U. S. News and World Report, pp. 35-46. Wells, A., (Ed.), (2002). Where Charter School Policy Fails: The Problems of Accountability and Equity. New York: Teachers College Record Press. Wells, A.S. (1998). Beyond the rhetoric of charter school reform: A study of ten California school districts [online]. Available: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/docs/charter.pdf Wells, A., Holme, J., Lopez, A., & Cooper, C., (2000). Charter Schools and Racial and Social Class Segregation: Yet Another Sorting Machine? In R. Kahlenberg (Ed.). A Notion At Risk: Preserving Education as an Engine for Social Mobility. New York: Century Foundation Press, pp. 169-222. Wells, A., Vasudeva, A., Holme, J., and Cooper, C., (2002). The Politics of Accountability: California School Districts and Charter School Reform. In A. S. Wells, (Ed.). Where Charter School Policy Fails: The Problems of Accountability and Equity. New York: Teachers College Record Press, pp. 29-53. White Schools Black Schools. (2003, June 22). The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, p. E1-3. Willard, D., and Oplinger, D., (2000, September). Whose Choice? An Introduction. Teachers College Record [On-line] http://www.tcrecord.org. Winerip, M. (1998, June 14). Schools for Sale. New York Times Magazine, pp. 42-48, 80, 86-89.
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 46 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Appendix A: Charter Schools in Georgia, 2002-03

2002-03 ACTIVE CHARTER SCHOOLS

SCHOOL
Academy of Lithonia Addison
Elementary Atlanta
University Center
Academy Baconton Community Charter Bishop Hall Charter Central Educational
Center Chamblee High School Charles Ellis
Charter Conservatory
for Liberal Arts and Technology Chesnut Elementary Drew Charter School
Emerson Elementary

SYSTEM Dekalb Cobb Atlanta Public Schools Mitchell
Thomas Coweta
Dekalb Chatham Bulloch
DeKalb Atlanta Public Schools Bartow

GRADE LEVEL
K-6
PK-5
K-8

TYPE CHARTER
Start-up
Conversion
Start-up

PK-7

Start-up

6-12 10-12

LEA Start-up LEA start-up

9-12
PK-6 3-12

Conversion
Conversion State Charter

PK-5 K-8
PK-5

Conversion Start-up
Conversion

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 47 of 71 All Rights Reserved

SCHOOL
Fargo Elementary Fulton County Charter H.S. Fulton Science Academy Futral Road Elementary International Community
School Kingsley Elementary Kipp Path Academy MARDS Charter
Mercer Middle School
Neighborhood Charter
Oglethorpe Academy Opportunity Academy Peachtree Middle Rainbow Elementary School for Integrated Academics and Technology Savannah Arts Academy Sedalia Park Elementary Talbot Co. Charter Alternative Academy

SYSTEM Clinch
Fulton
Fulton
GriffinSpalding Dekalb
DeKalb
Dekalb
Atlanta Public Schools Chatham
Atlanta Public Schools Chatham
GriffinSpalding DeKalb
DeKalb
APS
Chatham
Cobb
Talbot

GRADE LEVEL
K-4
9-12
6-8
K-5
K-2

TYPE CHARTER LEA Start-up
Start-up
Start-up
Conversion
Start-up

PK-5 5-8 K-5

Start-up Start-up Start-up

7-9

Conversion

K-5

Start-up

5-8 8 6-8 PK-6 9-12

Start-up LEA Start-up Conversion Conversion
Start-up

9-12

LEA Start-up

K-5

Conversion

9-12

Start-up

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 48 of 71 All Rights Reserved

SCHOOL
Taliaferro Co. Charter Technical Career
Academy NE Trion Middle
School Victory Charter School Walton High School Woodland Elementary

SYSTEM Taliaferro Oglethorpe
Trion City Fulton Cobb Fulton

GRADE LEVEL
K-12
10-12

TYPE CHARTER LEA Start-up
LEA Start-up

6-8 K-6 9-12 PK-5

Conversion Start-up
Conversion Conversion

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 49 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Appendix B: Interview Protocols for Principals
Interview Protocol for Principals
Prior to the interviews, principals were asked to send in: a list of their governing board members and their backgrounds, a copy of this year and last year's school budgets, a copy of their instructional schedule and school calendar, and a list of extra-curricular activities offered at the school.
Questions about school goals
What are the goals of your charter school?
How have you worked to meet these goals? Probe for each goal if not mentioned for example, "You've mentioned how you've worked to meet goals A and B; what have you done to obtain goal C?"
How successful do you feel you've been at obtaining these goals? Probe for each goal if not mentioned for example, "You've mentioned the progress you've made in meeting goals A and B; what progress have you made in obtaining goal C?"
Questions about school management and governance
How would you characterize your management style of this school? How does this style differ from styles you've used with non-charter schools?
What kinds of input do teachers and parents have in the management of the school? Does this input make a difference in how the school operates on a day-to-day basis?
What role does the governing board play in the management of this school? How would you characterize your relationship with the governing board?
How are governing board members selected?
How is the governance board different from or similar to the newly required school councils? How is the use of the school council influencing the management of your school?
How would you characterize the school's relationship to the local system? How has this relationship changed over time? What kinds of influence does the local school system have on your school?
What types of autonomy does the school have (what kinds of decisions/activities can you make or do as a charter school that you couldn't do otherwise)?
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 50 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Questions about accountability
In what ways are you accountable to your governing board? What types of accountability information do you provide to the governing board?
In what ways are you accountable to your local school system? What types of accountability information do you provide to the school system? What type of help have you received from the school system with regard to accountability?
How are you held accountable for school finances? What types of financial information must you provide to your board? To the local school system? Is an independent financial audit conducted? How often?
How has the administration of standardized measures of student achievement required by the A+ Education Reform Act of 2000 changed they way you teach or assess your students? What other measures of student achievement and student outcomes are used by your school?
How is the school doing financially? Besides teacher salaries, what is the largest budget item for your school? How much money do parents contribute to the operation of the school? How much money is provided by foundations or through grants?
Questions about instruction
Does your school have a dominant instructional philosophy? If so, what is it?
What teaching methods are used that would be consistent with this philosophy? Would these be the primary methods used? Or are there other methods that are used more often? What are these methods?
Have you been allowed to apply for and participate in any whole school reform initiatives (e.g. Georgia's Choice, Success for All)?
Have you been allowed to participate in grant applications for Reading Excellence or other statesponsored initiatives?
How would you describe the teaching methods that are used most often in this school?
Have you adopted curricula specific to your school's instructional goals? If so, what was adopted? How was the decision made to adopt the curricula? Who made the final decision?
What type of schedule are you using in your school? (block, year-around, etc)
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 51 of 71 All Rights Reserved

How was the decision made to adopt this schedule? Who made the final decision? Who makes textbook selections? How is the decision made? How do you implement the QCCs in your school? What types of teacher-parent contact or communication exist in this school? How extensive is this contact? What types of extracurricular activities does your school offer? Questions about renewal and non-renewal Why did your school choose not to renew its charter? (For non-renewed schools) Were there factors, external to the school, that played a role in your decision to not renew? How will your school be different now that it's not a charter school? Why did your school choose to renew your charter? Were there factors, external to the school that played a role in your decision to renew? Why did your school choose to become a charter school? (For new schools) Were there factors, external to the school that played a role in the decision to become a charter?
Questions about satisfaction and the future What factors are contributing to the success or failure of your school? How would you describe the working conditions in your school? Are you satisfied with these conditions? What would you like to have improved? What other school or instructional issues would you like to see addressed in the coming school year?
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 52 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Appendix C: Discussion Group Questions for Parents and Teachers
Focus Group Protocol for Parents
Questions about school goals
What are the goals of your children's school?
How does the school work to meet these goals? Probe for each goal if not mentioned for example, "You've mentioned how they work to meet goals A and B; what have they done to obtain goal C?"
How successful do you feel the school has been at obtaining these goals? Probe for each goal if not mentioned for example, "You've mentioned the progress made in meeting goals A and B; what progress has been made in obtaining goal C?"
Questions about school management and governance
How would you characterize the management style used in your children's school? How different is this style than those you've experienced in other non-charter schools?
What kinds of input do you have in the management of this school? Does this input make a difference in how the school operates on a day-to-day basis?
What type of input do you have with the governing board? Does this input make a difference in how the governing board acts?
How would you characterize the school's relationship to the local system? How has this relationship changed over time?
What types of autonomy does the school have (what kinds of decisions/activities can you make or do as a charter school that you couldn't do otherwise)?
Questions about instruction
Do you think your children's school has a dominant instructional philosophy? If so, what is it?
What teaching methods or activities are used that would be consistent with this philosophy? Would these be the primary methods used or are there other methods that are used more often? What are these methods?
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 53 of 71 All Rights Reserved

If there isn't an instructional philosophy present, how would you describe the teaching methods or activities that are used most often in this school? How successful have these activities or methods been at improving your child's achievement or other school outcomes? What level of involvement would you say you have in the instructional practices of this school? Beyond this instructional involvement, what other types of teacher-parent contact or communication exist in this school? How extensive is this contact? Questions about renewal and non-renewal Why did your children's school choose not to renew its charter? Were there factors, external to the school, that played a role in your decision to not renew? How will the school be different now that it's not a charter school? Why did your children's school choose to renew your charter? Were there factors, external to the school, that played a role in your decision to renew? Questions about satisfaction and the future What factors are contributing to the success or failure of your school? How satisfied are you with your children's school? What school or instructional issues would you like to see addressed in the coming school year?
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 54 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Focus Group Protocol for Teachers
Questions about school goals
What are the goals of your charter school?
How have you worked to meet these goals? Probe for each goal if not mentioned for example, "You've mentioned how you've worked to meet goals A and B; what have you done to obtain goal C?"
How successful do you feel you've been at obtaining these goals? Probe for each goal if not mentioned for example, "You've mentioned the progress you've made in meeting goals A and B; what progress have you made in obtaining goal C?"
Questions about school management and governance
How would you characterize the management style used for this school? How different is this style than those you've experienced in other non-charter schools?
What kinds of input do you have in the management of this school? Does this input make a difference in how the school operates on a day-to-day basis?
What type of input do you have with the governing board? Does this input make a difference in how the governing board acts?
How would you characterize your school's relationship to the local system? How has this relationship changed over time?
What types of autonomy does your school have (what kinds of decisions/activities can you make or do as a charter school that you couldn't do otherwise)?
Questions about instruction
Does your school have a dominant instructional philosophy? If so, what is it?
What teaching methods are used that would be consistent with this philosophy? Would these be the primary methods used or are there other methods that are used more often? What are these methods?
If there isn't an instructional philosophy present, how would you describe the teaching methods that are used most often in this school?
How do you implement the QCCs in your lessons?
What types of teacher-parent contact or communication exist in this school?
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 55 of 71 All Rights Reserved

How extensive is this contact? How has the administration of standardized measures of student achievement required by the A+ Education Reform Act of 2000 changed they way you teach or assess your students? What other measures of student achievement and student outcomes are used by your school? Questions about renewal and non-renewal Why did your school choose not to renew its charter? Were there factors, external to the school, that played a role in your decision to not renew? How will your school be different now that it's not a charter school? Why did your school choose to renew your charter? Were there factors external to the school that played a role in your decision to renew? Questions about satisfaction and the future What factors are contributing to the success or failure of your school? How would you describe the working conditions in your school? Are you satisfied with these conditions? What would you like to have improved? What other school or instructional issues would you like to see addressed in the coming school year?
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 56 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Appendix D: Parent and Teacher Survey Information
Georgia Department of Education Charter School Parent Survey

The Georgia Department of Education (GDOE) is currently conducting a study to find out how charter schools are working in Georgia and how they are affecting student achievement. This survey is a part of this study, and the information you provide on this survey will help us find out why parents send their children to charter schools and if they are satisfied with their child's school. Your answers will be kept anonymous--please do not write your name or your child's name on the survey. Please return your survey in the enclosed postage-paid enveloped by September 15, 2002. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Dr. Malina Monaco at (404) 657-6168. Thank you for your help.

Directions: Please use a #2 pencil to bubble in your answers and erase any stray marks. If you have more than one child, please answer the questions about the child that has attended the school the longest.

1. How many years has your child attended this school? 1 2 3 4 5 6+

2. What type of school did your child attend before attending this school?

another public

has only

private

home

1 school (non-charter) 2 attended this school 3 school

4 school

other 5 (specify)

3. In what grade was your child in the 1999-00 school year?

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

4. What is your relationship to this child?

1 Mother 2 Father 3 Grandparent 4 Guardian 5 Other (specify)

5. Are you aware of the goals of your child's school?

1 Yes 2 No

6. If yes, to what extent are the goals being met? 1 Not at all 2 Somewhat 3 Fairly well 4 Very well

7. How often do you volunteer for your child's school?

1 Once a year or less

2 Once every few months

3 Once a month

4 At least once a week 5 Every day

8. If you volunteer for your child's school, to what extent do you feel that...

...the school has benefited from your volunteering?

Not at all

...you have benefited from your volunteering?

Not at all

...your relationship with your child has benefited from your

Not at all

volunteering?

Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat

A great deal A great deal A great deal

9. How has your child changed since attending this charter school in regard to:

much a little

no a little

worse

worse change better

Liking of learning

1

2

3

4

Performance in school (grades)

1

2

3

4

Attendance in school

1

2

3

4

Satisfaction with teachers

1

2

3

4

much better
5 5 5 5

no improvement was needed (NI)
NI NI NI NI

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 57 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Attitudes toward school

1

2

3

4

5

NI

Mastery of basic skills (reading, writing, math) 1

2

3

4

5

NI

10. If you have children not yet in school, do you plan to send them to this school?

Yes No

11. Do you plan to keep your child in this school as long the school serves students your child's age? Yes No

12. Would you recommend this school to other parents?

Yes No

13. Would you recommend charter schools in general to other parents?

Yes No

14. Please choose one of the following. 1 My child is attending this school because he/she was assigned to this school by the school system. 2 My child is attending this school because I made special arrangements for him/her to attend this school.

15. How satisfied are you with the following features of your child's school?

very

dissatisfied dissatisfied

Principal's and teachers' beliefs about education

and learning

1

2

Values taught

1

2

School size (number of students attending the

1

2

school)

Class size

1

2

Subjects and classroom material taught

1

2

School safety

1

2

The way my child's special needs are met

1

2

Quality of teaching

1

2

My involvement in school decisions

1

2

My communication with teachers

1

2

Location

1

2

Standards for student learning

1

2

Emphasis on basic skills (reading, writing, math)

1

2

Building and grounds (classrooms, playground,

cafeteria, etc.)

1

2

Transportation to and from school

1

2

Discipline

1

2

Amount of individual attention paid by teachers to

my child

1

2

Technology (computers, etc.)

1

2

Extracurricular activities (sports, clubs, etc.)

1

2

School's responses to my concerns

1

2

very don't know

satisfied satisfied

(DK)

3

4

DK

3

4

DK

3

4

DK

3

4

DK

3

4

DK

3

4

DK

3

4

DK

3

4

DK

3

4

DK

3

4

DK

3

4

DK

3

4

DK

3

4

DK

3

4

DK

3

4

DK

3

4

DK

3

4

DK

3

4

DK

3

4

DK

3

4

DK

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 58 of 71 All Rights Reserved

16. If this school was not the school to which your child was originally assigned to attend by the school system, but you made special arrangements to send your child to this school, please rate the importance of the following factors in your decision to send your child to this school. very unimportant unimportant important very important

Principal's and teachers' beliefs about education and learning 1

2

3

4

Values taught at this school

1

2

3

4

School size (number of students attending the school)

1

2

3

4

Class size at the school

1

2

3

4

Subjects and classroom material taught at this school

1

2

3

4

Safety for my child

1

2

3

4

School's new and different ways of teaching students

1

2

3

4

My child had special needs that were not being met at his/her

previous school

1

2

3

4

Quality of teaching at this school

1

2

3

4

The more say parents have in decisions at this school

1

2

3

4

The good communication between teachers and parents at

this school

1

2

3

4

Location of the school

1

2

3

4

My child wanted to attend this school

1

2

3

4

Reputation of charter schools

1

2

3

4

I preferred a private school but could not afford it

1

2

3

4

School's high standards for child's learning

1

2

3

4

School's emphasis on basic skills (reading, writing, math)

1

2

3

4

Amount of individual attention paid by teachers to my child 1

2

3

4

17. Were any other factors important in your decision to enroll your child in this school? If so, what were they?

18. If your child attended this school when the vote to convert to charter school status occurred, please choose one of the following options. This question does not apply to charter schools that
were not traditional public schools before becoming charter schools.

1 I voted to convert to a charter 2 I voted against converting to a charter 3 I did not vote on charter school

school

school

status

19. If you voted against charter school status, why did you do so?

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 59 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Georgia Department of Education Charter School Teacher Survey

The Georgia Department of Education (GDOE) is currently conducting an evaluation of charter schools in Georgia, and this survey is a part of that evaluation. Although your participation is voluntary, it is critical to the GDOE's efforts to evaluate charter schools in Georgia, and your responses will provide valuable information concerning charter school teachers' instructional practices and satisfaction with various aspects of their school programs. Your answers will remain anonymous--do not write your name on this survey. Please seal the survey in the envelope that accompanies the survey and return it to your school's main office by September 15, 2002. If you would prefer to return your survey directly to the DOE, please mail it to: Dr. Malina Monaco, Georgia Department of Education, 1754 Twin Towers East, Atlanta, GA 30334. If you have any questions, please call Dr. Malina Monaco at (404) 657-6168.

Directions: Please answer the following questions by filling in the space associated with the appropriate answer category with a pen or pencil. Please mark only one response, unless otherwise directed.

1. What is your current teaching certification status? Certified to teach in this state Certified to teach in another state

Not currently certified

2. With which grades do you work? (Mark all that apply)
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

3. What subjects do you teach? (Mark all that apply) English/Language Arts Math Reading

Science

9 10 11 12
Social Studies Special Ed

Technology/Career Prep Fine Arts Foreign Language Other ______________

4. How many years have you been teaching? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or more

5. How many years have you been teaching at this school? 1 2 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 25 or more

4 5 6 7 19 20 21

6. What is your average class size? 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 30-32 33-35 >35

15-17

18-20

21-23

24-26

27-29

7. Where did you teach before teaching at this school?

A public school

A charter school

A private school

Other _______________________

Have only taught at this school

8. What is the highest level of education you have achieved?

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 60 of 71 All Rights Reserved

College degree Master's degree Specialist degree

Doctorate Other

9. Do you hope to teach at this school next year?

Yes

No

10. Are you aware of the goals of this school?

Yes

No

11. If yes, to what extent are the goals being met? Not at all Somewhat well

Fairly well

Very

12. In the current semester, how often have you used each Almost of the following instructional strategies in your every day class(es)?
Provide instruction to the class as a whole Facilitate a discussion Demonstrate a concept using the board or overhead projector Work with individual students Demonstrate a concept using a computer, videotape, or other electronic medium Lecture Work with small groups of students Lead question-and-answer session Demonstrate a concept using manipulatives, models, other tools or objects
Administer a test or quiz Worked cooperatively in groups to solve a problem 13. In your class(es) in the current semester, how often Almost
have planned in-class activities require that students: every day
Respond orally to questions Use school- or student-owned calculators Lead whole-group discussions Listen or observe teacher presentations Use hands-on materials or objects Complete a worksheet emphasizing routine practice Use a textbook Engage in discussion primarily with the teacher Use school computers for writing Use supplementary printed materials other than textbooks Engage in discussion primarily with other students Respond orally to open-ended questions Work on a performing arts project 14. In the current semester, how often have you used the
Quality Core Curriculum (QCC) as the basis for your lesson plans?

Once or twice a week
Once or twice a week

Once or Once or twice a twice a month semester
Once or Once or twice a twice a month semester

Less than once or twice a semester
Less than once or twice a semester

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 61 of 71 All Rights Reserved

15. Please indicate the frequency with which students have done the following in your class(es) in the current semester.
Explained how what they learned in class related to the real world Worked individually on projects or presentations

Almost every day

Once or twice a week

Once or Once or twice a twice a month semester

Less than once or twice a semester

Worked on projects that required at least one week to complete

Evaluated and improved their own work

Worked on problems for which there were several appropriate methods of solutions

Worked on problems for which there were several appropriate answers Worked as part of a group on projects or presentations to earn individual grades Evaluated the work of other students

Worked as part of a group on projects or presentations to earn a group grade

Put events or things in order and explained why they were organized that way

Discussed with the whole class solutions developed in small groups Conferred with other students about their work

16. In your class, how often have students utilized the following activities related to computer technology?

Almost every day

Once or twice a week

Once or twice a month

Word processing on the school computer Information gathering/research on the Internet. Classroom software for information gathering/research Drill and practice exercises. Computer games. 17. How satisfied are you with the availability of the following?

Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied

Computer diskettes Paper for printer Computer software Ink cartridges for printers Digital camera availability Current computer technology (speed, memory, etc.) Scanner availability Staff development for computer use in the classroom Staff development for computer software Technology staff support

Once or twice a semester
Very Satisfied

Less than once or twice a semester
Don't Know/
Not Applicable

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 62 of 71 All Rights Reserved

18. Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement with the following statements.
I select the teaching methods and strategies that I use with my students.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree
nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

I am free to be creative in my teaching approach.

My job does not allow for much discretion on my part.

The selection of student learning activities in my class is under my control. What I teach in my class is determined for the most part by myself. The content and skills taught in my class are those that I select.

My teaching focuses on those goals and objectives that I select.

Teachers are involved in making important decisions in this school. Decisions that affect teaching and learning at this school are made collectively.

The concerns and input of teachers are weighed in the decision-making process at this school. Teacher-led decision teams at this school cut across both grade level and curriculum. Authority in this school is dispersed broadly.

The following questions (19 and 20) ask about your classroom use of student portfolios, which are collections of student-generated products that provide evidence over the semester or year about the range
and extent of individual student performance and growth.

19. In what content areas were portfolios used with your class? (Mark all that apply)

None English/Language Arts Math Social Studies Science

Art Music Home Economics Foreign Language

Reading Other_________

20. In which of the following ways did you use student portfolios in your class(es) this semester or

grading period? (Mark all that apply)

I did not use portfolios

Training students to reflect upon and assess their academic progress

Planning for future lessons

Determining student grades or other formal progress reports

Making informed decisions about Providing information for program or school accountability

student placement

21. Please evaluate your school's success in the following areas:
Providing an educational alternative for children who need it Developing a strong curriculum Developing an innovative curriculum

Don't Know/

Very Un- Unsuccess

Very

Not

successful

ful Successful Successful Applicable

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 63 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Building a high quality staff

Running smoothly as an organization

Obtaining necessary resources

Involving parents

Setting and maintaining high academic standards

Providing for students' safety

Maintaining discipline
Providing necessary professional development
Using appropriate student assessment techniques
Educating hard-to-educate students
Involving teachers in decision making
Providing teachers with the instructional supplies and materials they need Sharing innovation with the larger education community Having a positive influence on education in this community Increasing student achievement

22. How satisfied are you with the following features

of your school?

Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Educational philosophy (principal's and teachers'

beliefs about education and learning)

Fellow teachers

Values taught

Satisfied

School size (number of students attending the school)

Class size

Curriculum

Safety

Teachers' level of involvement in school decisions

Parents' level of involvement in school activities

Parents' level of involvement in school decisions Standards for student learning Emphasis on basic skills (reading, writing, math) Building and grounds (classrooms, playground, etc.) Amount of individual attention I can give to students

Technology (computers, etc.)

Professional development opportunities

Salary

Benefits

Relationship with local school system Quality of instruction Administrators

Don't Know/

Very

Not

Satisfied Applicable

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 64 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Governing board Level of autonomy teachers have in the classroom Resources available for instruction Ability to meet individual students' needs Financial resources School climate Performance of students Non-teaching responsibilities Student assessment practices Discipline General atmosphere/culture of the school Relationship with principal Relationship with parents
Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 65 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Appendix E: CRCT Scores

Table 1. Fourth Grade CRCT Results by School.

4th Grade Reading

4th Grade Mathematics

School

System Year

% Does Not Meet % Meets % Exceeds Sum Last Two Categories Total Percent % Does Not Meet % Meets % Exceeds Sum Last Two Categories Total Percent

Academy of Lithonia Addison Elementary Atlanta University Community Baconton Community Charter
Charles Ellis Elementary Charter Conservatory Chestnut Elementary Drew Charter
Emerson Elementary

Dekalb Cobb APS Mitchell
Chatham Bulloch DeKalb Atlanta
Bartow

2001-02 2002-03 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 1999-00 2000-01

27 50 23 55 100 50 45 0 45 100 38 33 29 62 100 86 14 0 14 100 24 33 43 76 100 25 59 16 75 100 12 44 44 88 100 22 61 17 78 100 10 33 57 90 100 13 58 29 87 100 4 27 69 96 100 5 58 37 95 100 44 41 15 56 100 74 23 3 26 100 21 53 26 79 100 21 74 5 79 100 19 29 52 81 100 29 62 10 72 101 8 43 50 93 101 15 63 23 86 101 40 33 27 60 100 45 49 6 55 100 29 31 40 71 100 43 43 14 57 100 26 38 36 74 100 44 50 6 56 100 30 33 38 71 101 47 47 7 54 101 13 29 58 87 100 21 71 8 78 99 24 30 46 76 100 29 48 23 71 100 17 37 46 83 100 22 52 26 78 100 21 27 52 79 100 25 49 27 76 101 69 21 10 31 100 79 21 0 21 100 48 44 8 52 100 67 31 2 33 100 33 45 21 66 99 48 50 2 52 100 33 42 25 67 100 31 55 14 69 100 23 38 39 77 100 31 51 18 69 100

2001-02 10 51 39 90 100 24 54 21 75 99

2002-03 14 46 40 86 100 20 56 25 81 101

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 66 of 71 All Rights Reserved

School
Futral Road Elementary Kingsley Elementary Rainbow Elementary Sedalia Park Elementary Taliaferro County Charter Victory Charter Woodland Elementary

% Does Not Meet % Meets % Exceeds Sum Last Two Categories Total Percent % Does Not Meet % Meets % Exceeds Sum Last Two Categories Total Percent

4th Grade Reading

4th Grade Mathematics

System Year

GriffinSpalding
DeKalb
DeKalb
Cobb Taliaferro
Fulton Fulton

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2001-02 2002-03 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2001-02 2002-03

38 36 26 62 100 46 51 3 54 100 16 47 38 85 101 36 57 6 43 99 13 39 48 87 100 19 73 9 82 101 15 43 43 86 101 33 58 8 66 99 18 33 49 82 100 17 62 21 83 100 16 41 43 84 100 24 59 17 76 100 3 35 62 97 100 12 67 22 89 101 14 25 61 86 100 20 57 23 80 100 45 34 21 55 100 40 50 10 60 100 29 42 29 71 100 46 47 7 54 100 18 53 29 82 100 29 62 9 71 100 17 49 34 83 100 22 58 19 77 99 24 42 34 76 100 25 60 15 75 100 20 40 39 79 99 29 55 16 71 100 14 39 47 86 100 25 53 22 75 100 21 36 43 79 100 32 48 20 68 100 58 21 21 42 100 75 25 0 25 100 52 32 16 48 100 77 23 0 23 100 37 47 16 63 100 64 34 1 35 99 23 52 26 78 101 49 51 0 51 100 51 34 15 49 100 51 46 2 48 99 14 39 47 86 100 23 51 26 77 100 14 31 55 86 100 17 54 29 83 100

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 67 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Table 2. Sixth Grade CRCT Results by School.
6th Grade Reading

6th Grade Mathematics

School

System Year

% Does Not Meetdnm % Meets % Exceeds Sum of Last Two Categories Total Percent % Does Not Meet % Meets % Exceeds Sum of Last Two Categories Total Percent

Adacemy of Lithonia

DeKalb 2001-02 44 22 2002-03 20 52

Baconton Community Mitchell 2001-02 19 24 2002-03 6 47

1999-00 6 78

Charles Ellis

Chatham 2000-01 27 23 2001-02 14 37

2002-03 5 23

Charter Conservatory Bulloch 2002-03 6 6

Drew

Atlanta 2001-02 27 48 2002-03 21 44

1999-00 38 35

Mercer Middle

Chatham 2000-01 24 44 2001-02 23 43

2002-03 28 45

1999-00 23 36

Oglethorpe

Chatham 2000-01 19 42 2001-02 11 32

2002-03 13 39

Peachtree Middle

DeKalb 2001-02 10 29 2002-03 13 23

Taliaferro

Taliaferro 2001-02 71 14 2002-03 41 41

1999-00 15 44

Trion Middle School Trion City 2000-01 10 38 2001-02 4 29

2002-03 3 35

Victory Charter

Fulton 2001-02 19 56 2002-03 33 43

33 55 99 44 56 0 56 100 28 80 100 44 52 4 56 100 57 81 100 10 67 24 91 101 47 94 100 24 53 24 77 101 17 95 101 37 53 11 64 101 50 73 100 23 55 23 78 101 49 86 100 37 51 11 62 99 73 96 101 27 36 36 72 99 88 94 100 11 50 39 89 100 24 72 99 42 54 4 58 100 35 79 100 48 43 9 52 100 28 63 101 40 41 18 59 99 32 76 100 32 53 15 68 100 34 77 100 43 43 14 57 100 28 73 101 43 46 11 57 100 41 77 100 31 52 17 69 100 39 81 100 33 58 10 68 101 57 89 100 22 55 23 78 100 48 87 100 28 48 25 73 101 62 91 101 14 49 37 86 100 65 88 101 17 44 39 83 100 14 28 99 74 22 4 26 100 18 59 100 41 46 14 60 101 41 85 100 18 56 26 82 100 51 89 99 18 61 21 82 100 67 96 100 7 49 44 93 100 62 97 100 7 47 47 94 101 25 81 100 44 50 6 56 100 24 67 100 60 33 7 40 100

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 68 of 71 All Rights Reserved

% Does Not Meetdnm % Meets % Exceeds Sum Of Last Two Categories Total Percent % Does Not Meet % Meets % Exceeds Sum Of Last Two Categories Total Percent

Table 3. Eighth Grade CRCT Results by Schools.
8th Grade Reading 8th Grade Mathematics

School

System Year

Baconton Community Charter Charles Ellis Charter Conservatory Fulton Science Academy Mercer Middle
Oglethorpe
Opportunity Academy Peachtree Middle Taliaferro
Trion

Mitchell 2002-03

Chatham Bulloch Fulton Chatham
Chatham
Spalding DeKalb Taliaferro
Trion City

2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2001-02 2002-03 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

5 43 52
14 50 36 7 27 67 4 16 80
11 19 70 40 35 25 20 40 40 23 42 35 23 42 35 10 34 56
7 34 59 8 32 59 50 48 2 33 54 14 37 49 14 14 30 55 14 23 63 47 53 0 41 35 24 15 36 49 10 14 76 4 31 66 7 32 61

95 100 14 57 29
86 99 43 36 21 94 101 20 67 13 96 100 24 48 28 89 100 16 51 32 60 100 59 34 7 80 100 55 39 6 77 100 43 44 14 77 100 41 50 9 90 100 29 55 16 93 100 21 60 19 91 99 25 50 25 50 100 89 11 0 68 100 88 12 0 63 100 80 20 0 85 99 26 54 20 86 100 24 52 24 53 100 65 35 0 59 100 47 53 0 85 100 36 53 11 90 100 32 61 7 97 101 14 62 24 93 100 12 68 19

86 100
57 101 80 100 76 100 83 99 41 100 45 100 58 100 59 100 71 100 79 100 75 100 11 100 12 100 20 100 74 100 76 100 35 100 53 100 64 100 68 100 86 100 87 99

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 69 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Appendix F: High School Assessments

Table 1. Percent of Grade 11 First-Time Regular Program Test-Takers Passing the

GHSGT at Charter High Schools, 1997-98 through 2002-03.

%

%

Passing %

%

Passing

Lang. Passing Passing Social

School

System

Year Arts Math Science Studies

Bishop Hall

Thomas

99-00 100 60

60

33

00-01 93

79

43

58

01-02 92

69

25

33

02-03 73

55

64

60

Chamblee High

DeKalb

01-02 99 96

89

96

02-03 98 97

83

91

Druid Hills High

DeKalb

97-98 94 89

73

80

98-99 98 91

82

84

99-00 94 94

71

85

00-01 93 91

75

84

01-02 95 92

78

87

02-03 96 93

67

83

Savannah Arts Academy Chatham

98-99 97 90

74

88

99-00 98 94

86

97

00-01 98

93

79

93

01-02 100 100 96

98

02-03 100

99

94

96

Taliaferro High

Taliaferro

01-02 93

67

40

53

02-03 67

64

50

43

Walton High

Cobb

97-98 100 100 95

96

98-99 100 99

94

97

99-00 99

99

92

97

00-01 98

98

92

96

01-02 99 100 96

99

02-03 99

99

93

97

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 70 of 71 All Rights Reserved

Table 2. Average SAT Scores for Charter High Schools, 1997-98 to 2002-03.

School

System

Year Verbal Math

Druid Hills DeKalb

97-98 508

495

High

98-99 498

494

99-00 513

509

00-01 499

512

01-02 505

502

02-03 498

494

Chamblee High DeKalb

01-02 545

541

02-03 551

551

Savannah Arts Chatham

98-99 501

469

Academy

99-00 506

464

00-01 523

493

01-02 495

464

02-03 529

489

Walton High Cobb

97-98 542

551

98-99 544

558

99-00 555

562

00-01 551

563

01-02 557

579

02-03 560

581

Georgia Department of Education Kathy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools
February 25, 2004 Page 71 of 71 All Rights Reserved