Year 2 and 3 Charter Report 090416

Charter School Report

2005-06 to 2007-08 School Years
Charter schools in Baltimore City have experienced dramatic growth in number and enrollment, achieved generally stronger
but uneven performance on objective outcomes, and evidenced superior satisfaction on climate measures.
April 16, 2009
DIVISION OF RESEARCH, EVALUATION, ASSESSMENT, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

BALTIMORE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

i

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS
• The number of charter schools increased from 12 in 2005-06 to 22 in 2007-08
• Enrollment in charter schools increased from 2,925 students in 2005-06 to 5,520 in 2007-
08, an increase of almost 89%.
• There is significant variation among charter schools on most measures of school and
student performance.
• On average, charter school students are less disadvantaged than non-charter school
students. Charter school students are less likely to be eligible for special education
services, to be over-age for their grade, or to be FARMS-eligible.
• Overall, charter schools do not enroll a higher proportion of students from outside the
district or from non-public schools than non-charter schools. There is, however,
significant variation among individual schools in the enrollment of students new to City
Schools, with selected schools enrolling a larger proportion of students from outside the
district.
• Some charter schools attract a significant proportion of their enrollment from surrounding
non-charter City schools.
• Charter school students are less likely to leave the district at the end of the school year
and are more likely to re-enroll in their schools the following school year compared with
non-charter school students.
• Students who do leave charter schools are somewhat more likely to be eligible for special
education services, to be over-age for their grade, and at the middle school level to be
male.
• Six of 12 charter schools with tested grades achieved AYP in the 2005-06, 6 of 16
charters achieved AYP in 2006-07, and 15 of 22 charter schools achieved AYP in 2007-
08.
• Charter K-8s and elementary schools tend to have similar performance on the reading
MSAs and somewhat lower levels of performance on the mathematics MSA compared
with non-charter schools. Charter middle schools exhibit significantly higher
performance levels on both the reading and mathematics MSAs.
• Charter school middle grade students achieve greater proficiency gains on the MSA than
do students attending non-charter middle schools.
ii

• Charter schools evidence higher rates of school attendance than non-charter schools with
the largest gaps appearing between charter and non-charter middle schools.
• Charter school parents, teachers, and students rate their school’s climate higher than do
parents, teachers, and students in non-charter schools at all grade levels.
• Charter school suspension rates tend to be lower than the rates of non-charter schools.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Report Highlights..........................................................................................................................................ii
List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................................vi
Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 1
Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Data Collection Sources and Methods...................................................................................................... 3
Characteristics of Baltimore’s Charter Schools.................................................................................. 3
Program......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Funding..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Charter School Approval and Review ...................................................................................................... 6
School Size .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Characteristics of Students ....................................................................................................................... 8
Student Demographics.......................................................................................................................... 8
Special Education in Charter Schools ............................................................................................. 9
Characteristics of Students Transferring to Charter Schools......................................................... 12
Charter School Enrollment Patterns.................................................................................................. 13
Are Charter Schools Attracting Students Into City Schools? .................................................... 14
Are Enrollments of Some Non‐charter Schools Disproportionately Affected by Charter
Schools?............................................................................................................................................. 16
Are Students Who Leave Charter Schools Different From Those Who Stay? ........................ 21
Adequate Yearly Progress and Student Performance on State and Standardized Assessments
................................................................................................................................................................ 22
iv

Adequate Yearly Progress.............................................................................................................. 22
MSA Performance of Special Education Students...................................................................... 26
Student‐level MSA Proficiency Gains .......................................................................................... 28
High School Assessments .................................................................................................................. 30
Stanford 10 Performance.................................................................................................................... 31
Stanford Grade 1 to 2 Student‐level Progress ......................................................................... 34
Learning Environment of Charter Schools....................................................................................... 34
School‐level Attendance Rates ...................................................................................................... 34
School Climate ................................................................................................................................. 36
Student Discipline ........................................................................................................................... 38
Teacher Characteristics – Highly Qualified Status ......................................................................... 40
Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 42
Appendix A............................................................................................................................................... 43
Characteristics of BCPSS Charter Schools 2005‐2006 through 2007‐08.................................... 43
Appendix B........................................................................................................................................... 55
Title I School Improvement Sanctions.......................................................................................... 55
Appendix C ‐ Computation of MSA Proficiency Level Gains ...................................................... 56
Appendix D – LRE Codes.................................................................................................................... 57
v

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Charter School Enrollment by Grade Level 2005‐06 to 2007‐08 ...................................... 1
Table 2. Charter School Operation and Enrollment 2005‐06 to 2007‐08........................................ 5
Table 3. 2007‐08 Charter School Application Renewal Decisions .................................................. 7
Table 4. Number of Schools and Average Enrollment by Charter School and Non‐charter
School Status 2005‐06 to 2007‐08 .......................................................................................... 8
Table 5. Comparison of Charter School Student Characteristics with Non‐Charter School
Students ................................................................................................................................... 9
Table 6. Percent Distribution of Special Education Students by LRE Classification................. 11
Table 7. Special Education LRE Status Change .............................................................................. 11
Table 8. Comparison of the Characteristics of Charter and Non‐Charter School Transfer
Students ....................................................................................................................................................
13
Table 9. Rate of Enrollment of Charter and Non‐Charter School Students not Previously
Enrolled in City Schools ...................................................................................................... 15
Table 10. Schools With More than Two Percent Average Annual Enrollment Transferring to
Charter Schools, 2005‐06 to 2007‐08............................................................................... 17
Table 11. Charter Schools Receiving more than 15 Percent of their Transfers from a Single
Sending School, 2005‐06 to 2007‐08 .............................................................................. 18
Table 12. Percentage of Students Exiting City Schools................................................................ 19
Table 13. Percentage of Students Returning to the Same School in the Following Year ........ 20
Table 14. Demographics of Charter School Students by Leaver Status (%) 2005‐06 through
2007‐08 School Years........................................................................................................ 21
Table 15. Charter Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2005‐06 to 2007‐08................................. 23
Table 16. Number of Schools Making AYP by Charter Status ................................................... 24
Table 17. AYP Percent of All Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced 2005‐06 to 2007‐08 25
Table 18. AYP Percent of Students Receiving Special Education Services Scoring Proficient
or Advanced 2005‐06 to 2007‐08..................................................................................... 27
Table 19. Change in MSA Proficiency Level (Percent of Students) ........................................... 29
Table 20. Comprehensive HSA Performance 2006‐07 and 2007‐08 ........................................... 31
Table 21. Stanford 10 Grade 1 and 2 Reading National Percentile ............................................ 32
Table 22. Stanford 10 Grade 1 and 2 Mathematics National Percentile .................................... 33
Table 23. Stanford 10 Achievement Test Student Matched Pairs Average NCE Annual Gains
34
Table 24. School‐level attendance rates 2005‐06 to 2007‐08 by charter school status.............. 35
vi

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

CHARTER SCHOOL REPORT

INTRODUCTION
This report provides a comprehensive look at of Baltimore City Public Schools (City Schools)
charter schools for the 2005-06 through 2007-08 school years. The first three years of operation
of Baltimore’s charter schools have been marked by increases in both the number of charter
schools and the number of students enrolled in charter schools.
The Maryland State Legislature enacted charter school legislation in May 2003, and the first
schools opened at the beginning of the 2005-06 school year. 1 During the 2006-07 and 2007-08
school years, Baltimore continued to be home to the largest number of charter schools in the
state. The total number of charter schools in Maryland in 2006-07 was 23, with 16 of these
schools located in Baltimore. In 2007-08, 22 of 30 charter schools in Maryland were located in
Baltimore (Maryland State Department of Education, 2007). As the number of charter schools
increased, the number of students enrolled nearly doubled, increasing from 2,925 in 2005-06 to
5,520 in 2007-08 (Table 1). The proportion of City Schools students attending charter schools
also doubled, increasing from 3.4% in 2005-06 to 6.8% of total district enrollment in 2007-08.
The proportion of students attending charter schools is highest among students in grades K-5 and
6-8 (8.8% and 8.2% respectively in 2007-08) and lowest among high school students (2.3% in
2007-08) [Table 1]. Enrollment in high school grades will grow as the number of charter high
schools increases during future school years.
Table 1. Charter School Enrollment by Grade Level 2005‐06 to 2007‐08
K-5 6-8 9-12 Total
Number of City Schools Students Enrolled in Charter Schools
2005-06 2,165 760 2,925
2006-07 2,743 1,167 36 3,946
2007-08 3,554 1,441 525 5,520
Percent of City Schools Students Enrolled in Charter Schools

2005-06 5.4 3.7 3.4
2006-07 7.0 6.2 0.1 4.8
2007-08 8.8 8.2 2.3 6.8

1 Monocacy Valley Montessori Charter School opened in Frederick County in 2002‐03, prior to enactment
of the state legislation.

1

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

The goal of this report is to provide additional information to the Baltimore City Board of School
Commissioners and the City Schools community as a whole about charter school operation and
the extent to which Baltimore’s charter schools provided students and families with positive and
effective educational options for the 2005-06 through 2007-08 school years.
Questions guiding the evaluation included:
1. How many charter schools operated during each of the school years? What were the
characteristics and missions of the schools?
2. Who attended charter schools during the first three years of operation? What were the
demographic characteristics of charter school students in Baltimore? How do the
characteristics of students who attended charter schools compare with those of students
who attend City non-charter schools?
3. How long did students remain enrolled in charter schools? To what extent did students
transfer from charter schools? In what ways, if any, did students who transferred from
charter schools differ from students who remain?
4. What were the academic outcomes of students who attended charter schools? How did
the outcomes of charter schools compare with those of other City Schools serving the
same grade levels? What were student outcomes in the areas of assessment performance,
disciplinary actions, and promotion?
5. What type of learning environment did charter schools provide? To what extent did
parents and students report that the schools had a positive climate? How frequently did
charter schools suspend students?
6. How did the proportion of teachers achieving highly qualified status compare for charter
and non-charter schools?
The first section of this report describes data collection methods and sources. The second section
highlights different aspects of charter school operation including the initial charter application
and renewal process and the size of charter schools in comparison to non-charter schools. The
third section of the report examines demographic characteristics of students and reenrollment in
and transfer to charter schools. The fourth part explores student and school outcomes in the
areas of performance on state and standardized assessments and achievement of adequate yearly
progress. The next section looks at student attendance, climate, disciplinary exclusions, and
teacher characteristics. The final section of the report highlights key findings and possible areas
of work for upcoming charter school evaluations.
2

METHODS
DATA COLLECTION SOURCES AND METHODS
As with the Year 1 report, the Division of Research, Evaluation, Assessment, and Accountability
(DREAA) used multiple data sources to examine the operation and impact of Baltimore’s charter
schools. Most data, including enrollment, attendance, suspension, and teacher qualifications
were gathered from district administrative records. Maryland School Assessment (MSA), High
School Assessment (HSA), and Stanford 10 data for both charter and non-charter City schools
were extracted from assessment files for each school year. DREAA used available data from the
district’s annual climate survey to gather information about the learning environment and parent,
staff, and student satisfaction with the schools.
CHARACTERISTICS OF BALTIMORE’S CHARTER SCHOOLS
Baltimore is home to a diverse array of charter schools which serve to increase the number of
educational options available to students and their families. Baltimore’s charter schools include
both those schools which have opened as new schools and schools which had previously
operated in the district and subsequently converted to charter school status. Of the 12 schools
which became charter schools through the conversion process, six were formerly non-charter
public schools, and the remaining six conversions were among schools that originally started as
part of Baltimore’s New School Initiative that launched in the fall of 1997 (DREAA, 2002)
[Table 2]. The New Schools Initiative was a precursor to the charter school movement and
allowed independent operators to manage City public schools.
The conversion charter schools which previously operated as traditional public schools (City
Springs, Hampstead Hill, Collington Square, Wolfe Street Academy, Dr. Rayner Browne, and
Rosemont) continue to maintain their enrollment zones and primarily serve students who reside
within those zones. This differs from the other charter schools that enroll only students who
select the school and submit an application. None of the charter schools, however, apply
selection criteria to students. All students who submit an application to a charter school may
attend unless the school is over-subscribed, and the school must sponsor a lottery to decide
3

which students will enroll for the following school year.2 Table 2 demonstrates the growth of
charter schools since 2005-06 in terms of the numbers of schools and students and grades served.
As detailed in Appendix A, the mission and focus of the city’s charter schools varies. Several
schools such as City Neighbors, Southwest Baltimore Charter, and The Crossroads School focus
on providing students opportunities in project-based or experiential learning. The Bluford-Drew-
Jemison STEM Academy is a middle school for boys that focuses on increasing student exposure
to and achievement in mathematics and science while the Empowerment Academy attempts to
infuse the arts throughout the curriculum. The differences in school mission and focus provide
students with a broad array of educational choices and opportunities.

Students who require special education services must be evaluated to ensure that the school is able to
2
provide adequate supports and accommodations for students. Some charter schools may not be able to
provide the proper educational environment.
4

Table 2. Charter School Operation and Enrollment 2005‐06 to 2007‐08
Enrollment and Grades Served
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
School Name School Enrollment Grades Enrollment Grades Enrollment Grades
Type* Served Served Served
008 City Springs Conversion 383 PK-8 394 PK-8 520 PK-8
Elementary/Middle**
023 Wolfe Street Conversion 161 K-5
Academy**
025 Dr. Rayner Browne Conversion 228 PK-7
Elementary/Middle**
047 Hampstead Hill Conversion 467 PK-7 509 PK-8 519 PK-8
Elementary**
063 Rosemont Conversion 396 K-7 141 K-8
Elementary/Middle**
097 Collington Square Conversion 495 PK-8 468 PK-8 480 PK-8
Elementary/Middle**
262 The Empowerment Conversion 150 PK-4 166 PK-5 191 PK-6
Academy
321 Midtown Academy Conversion 184 K-8 183 K-8 182 K-8
323 The Crossroads Conversion 148 6-8 149 6-8 148 6-8
School
324 KIPP Ujima Village Conversion 305 5-8 310 5-8 317 5-8
Academy
325 ConneXions Conversion 159 6-9 195 6-10
Community Leadership
Academy
326 City Neighbors New 120 K-5 152 K-6 176 K-7
Charter School
327 Patterson Park Public New 312 K-4 392 K-5 475 K-6
Charter School
328 Southwest Baltimore New 64 K-1 120 K-2 161 K-3
Charter
329 Inner Harbor East New 184 K-3 220 K-4 240 K-5
Academy for Young
Scholars Academy
330 Northwood Appold New 113 K-2 166 K-3 202 K-4
Community Academy
331 Maryland Academy New 108 8 208 8-9
of Technology & Health
Sciences (MATHS)
332 The Green School New 54 K-2 78 K-3
333 Baltimore New 133 K-5
International Academy
333Independence School New 84 9-12
Local I
334 Bluford Drew New 130 6
Jemison STEM Academy
432 Coppin Academy Conversion 251 9-11
Total Number of Schools 12 / 2,925 16 / 3,946 22 / 5,520
/ Enrollment
* Conversion schools previously operated as regular or independent public schools in the school district and were approved to convert to charter
status. New charter schools have opened and have only operated as charter schools.
5

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

Conflict over the funding of charter schools marked Year 1. The charter school legislation
requires that charter schools receive funding that is “commensurate with the amount disbursed to
other public schools in the local jurisdiction.” Two charter schools sued the district in 2005
arguing that district did not meet the ‘commensurate’ standard (see Year 1 report for discussion).
The overall level of funding increased from $5,380 in 2005-06, to $5,859 in 2006-07, and then
up to $9,115 in 2007-08, reflecting a resolution of the lawsuit. After accounting for central costs
such as payroll costs, school police, and staff benefits, the per-pupil cash amount available to
schools increased from $5,380 in 2005-06 to $7,270 in 2007-08.
CHARTER SCHOOL APPROVAL AND REVIEW

The Charter School Advisory Board (advisory board), comprised of City Schools staff, teacher
and administrator labor union representatives, a Parent Community Advisory Board (PCAB)
representative, and representatives from local community organizations and foundations
continues to review all applications for initial charter approval and contract renewal.
Applications to open new charter schools are due to the district in early September of the year
prior to the anticipated school opening. Review procedures include the reading and scoring of
applications using a common rubric by the entire advisory board or by a subgroup of members
and in-person interviews with all applicants. Additionally in 2006-07 and 2007-08 charter
school applicants participated in a public hearing during which they discussed the plans for their
proposed schools.
After arriving at a consensus on applications, the advisory board submits its recommendation to
the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The CEO makes a recommendation to the Board of School
Commissioners (School Board) who then render the final judgments on charter school
applications and renewals. Thirteen prospective charter school operators submitted applications
during the 2006-07 review process. The School Board approved six of the applications, and the
schools opened for the 2007-08 school year. The School Board approved three of the six
applications submitted during the 2007-08 school year (2008-09 opening).
6

New charter schools continue to receive three-year contracts to open and operate schools. At the
end of the initial contract period, charter school operators may receive a two-year contract
extension, a new contract of five years, or the contract may be terminated by the School Board.
The process of renewing charter school applications is similar to that of the initial approval
process. School operators must first submit a renewal application documenting their
accomplishments during the initial two years of the contract and identifying areas for change or
improvement. In addition, DREAA compiled written summaries of school performance in the
areas of student enrollment and retention, student attendance, measures of school climate;
performance on state and standardized assessments, and disciplinary actions for review by the
advisory board. Advisory board members score the applications using a common rubric and
provide recommendations to the CEO who then makes a recommendation to the School Board.
The first 12 charter schools that opened during the 2005-06 school year submitted their renewal
applications during the fall of the 2007-08 school year. The school board approved two-year
contract extensions for four schools and new five-year contracts for the remaining eight schools
(Table 3).
Table 3. 2007‐08 Charter School Application Renewal Decisions
School Name Application Renewal Outcome
008 City Springs Elementary - Middle 2-year contract extension
047 Hampstead Hill Academy 5-year contract renewal
097 Collington Square Elementary- 2-year contract extension
Middle
262 The Empowerment Academy 5-year contract renewal
321 Midtown Academy 5-year contract renewal
324 The Crossroads School 5-year contract renewal
323 Kipp Ujima Village Academy 5-year contract renewal
326 City Neighbors Elementary-Middle 5-year contract renewal
327 Patterson Park Public Charter 5-year contract renewal
328 Southwest Baltimore Charter 2-year contract extension
329 Inner Harbor East Academy 2-year contract extension
330 Northwood-Appold Community 5-year contract renewal
Academy

SCHOOL SIZE

Baltimore charter schools continue to be smaller, on average, than other schools serving
comparable grade levels (Table 4). This characteristic is a reflection of the goal of many charter
school operators to provide smaller learning environments for students as well as the difficulty of
finding adequate space to accommodate larger student enrollments. Additionally, most schools
originally planned to open with only a few grades and are still adding grades and will continue to
7

do so during future school years until they reach full operation. As of 2007-08, only 9 of 22
schools enrolled the full number of grades they planned to serve (Appendix A).
Table 4. Number of Schools and Average Enrollment by Charter School and Non‐charter
School Status 2005‐06 to 2007‐08
Charter Schools Non-charter Schools

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Elementary Schools
Number of Schools 6 7 7 87 84 68
Average Enrollment 157 181 207 342 342 360
PK/K - 8
Middle Schools
Middle-High Schools
Number of Schools -- 1 2 2 2 2
Average Enrollment -- 159 202 151 181 177
High Schools
Number of Schools -- -- 2 39 39 37
Average Enrollment -- -- 168 621 610 608
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS

STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

The demographic profile of students who attend charter schools suggests that they are somewhat
less disadvantaged than other students (Table 5). The proportions of students who are over-age
for their grade or are eligible for special education services are lower among charter schools than
non-charters at all grade levels. At the K-5 level, charter school students are less likely to be
eligible for free or reduced-price meals (FARMS) or to be a racial or ethnic minority compared
to non-charter students. Grade K-5 charter schools students are also more likely to have limited
English proficiency, but those in higher grades are less likely to be limited English proficient.
8

Table 5. Comparison of Charter School Student Characteristics with Non‐Charter School
Students
Charter School Student Characteristics
Limited
Special Over-
FARMS English Male Black White Hispanic Other
Education age
Proficient
K-5
2005-06 9.0 12.0 78.5 3.6 49.6 77.6 15.0 6.0 1.4
2006-07 9.3 12.4 76.9 3.0 49.8 78.7 13.3 6.5 1.5
2007-08 8.7 14.3 75.2 5.6 50.5 79.4 10.8 8.6 1.2
6-8
2005-06 8.6 28.0 83.9 0.3 47.1 84.5 10.4 3.2 2.0
2006-07 9.4 28.1 78.7 0.1 47.6 87.3 8.6 2.6 1.5
2007-08 10.3 28.8 78.6 0.5 52.3 88.0 8.0 3.0 1.0
9-12
2006-07 8.3 30.6 66.7 0.0 55.6 97.2 2.8 0.0 0.0
2007-08 12.0 25.5 58.1 0.0 43.8 93.1 6.7 0.2 0.0
Difference between charter and non-charter students
K-5
2005-06 -5.3 -4.5 -5.3 1.6 -1.0 -10.1 6.0 3.7 0.5
2006-07 -5.5 -3.5 -6.5 1.2 -0.8 -9.0 4.7 3.8 0.5
2007-08 -4.4 -1.0 -6.2 3.3 -0.2 -8.5 2.5 5.9 0.1
6-8
2005-06 -7.4 -8.0 4.5 -0.5 -4.9 -5.6 2.6 1.8 1.2
2006-07 -8.2 -6.3 -1.3 -0.7 -4.0 -2.9 1.3 0.9 0.8
2007-08 -7.3 -4.2 0.0 -0.4 1.5 -2.0 0.5 1.2 0.4
9-12
2006-07 -5.3 -5.5 9.6 -0.7 7.9 6.0 -3.8 -1.3 -0.9
2007-08 -2.5 -11.7 -0.6 -0.9 -4.0 1.7 0.5 -1.3 -0.9
Notes:
A positive (negative) charter/non-charter difference indicates that the attribute is more (less) prevalent among students
attending charter schools.
Statistics for grade 9-12 charter school students in 2006-07 should be treated with caution because of the small number of
these students.
Special Education in Charter Schools

Available data do not allow for full explanation of the reasons for the differences in the
proportion of students eligible for special education services that attend charter and non-charter
9

schools. Some members of the charter advisory board explain that the smaller size and more
personal nature of some charter schools, along with a heightened expectation that diversified
instruction is provided in general education classrooms and a range of accommodations and
modifications are routinely applied, allows certain students to remain in general education who
may have been identified as students with disabilities and have IEPs in non-charter schools.
Additionally, other members of the board explained that there may be a perception in the
Baltimore community that charter schools only serve higher achieving students. Future
evaluations may explore the charter school selection and enrollment process for both students
receiving special education services and students overall in a more detailed manner. Future
research questions may include:
• Is the selection and enrollment process equitable?
• Are charter schools actually demonstrating success at including students in general

education settings and if so, why?
• Are charter schools pushing out students with complex needs because they cannot meet
the students' needs in general education settings?
• Is there a certain type of student who is pushed out?
• Will the new funding formula for special education allow additional resources to flow to
schools so that charters and non charters will be able to more effectively educate students
with disabilities in general education classrooms?
Most charter school students who are eligible for special education services receive services in
least restrictive environments (LRE) A and B. Students who are classified as LRE A are
educated within the general education classroom setting for 80% or more of instructional hours.
Students classified as LRE B receive between 40 and 79% of instructional hours within the
general education classroom setting. Students classified as LRE C spend less than 40% of
instructional hours in the general education setting. Students receive the remainder of
instructional hours away from the general education setting. While in the general education
classroom, special education students must continue to receive any support services and
accommodations required by their Individual Education Plan (IEP). See Appendix D for full
definition of all LRE codes.
In their initial applications, most charter school operators indicated a desire to serve all students
in an inclusive setting. This preference may be reflected in the proportion of students identified
for LREs A and B. During the 2007-08 school year nearly three-quarters of charter school
students receiving special education services were classified as LRE A compared with 42% of
students attending non-charter schools (Table 6).
10

Table 6. Percent Distribution of Special Education Students by LRE Classification
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Percent of Students Receiving Special Education by LRE Status
A B C Other A B C Other A B C Other
Charter
69.3 7.9 12.7 10.1 59.6 7.9 17.5 15.0 72.3 6.9 9.1 11.7
Schools
Non-
Charter 43.2 20.6 29.9 6.3 40.4 17.2 27.1 15.3 42.4 16.4 25.2 15.7
Schools**
* Source Annual Child Count data files

* Excludes schools serving only special education students
Table 7 provides a glimpse into the extent to which students who enroll in charter schools
experience a change in LRE status. The analyses compared the LRE status of the student in the
prior school year with the status during the subsequent school year. These analyses are
preliminary in nature but may indicate that charter schools may be somewhat more likely to
change special education students to less restrictive environments than non-charter schools. For
example in 2007-08, 18% of charter school students moved to a less restrictive environment
compared with 13% of non-charter school students. As discussed above, DREAA and the Office
of Special Education are developing plans to implement a more extensive examination of the
experiences of special education students in charter schools for the 2008-09 evaluation.
Table 7. Special Education LRE Status Change
Charter Schools Non-charter Schools
No change Up Down No Classification / No change Up Down No Classification /

Exit Exit
2005-06 67.8 6.7 14.8 10.6 69.0 10.7 13.9 6.5
2006-07 62.8 3.6 18.7 14.8 65.1 8.5 13.4 12.9
2007-08 64.8 7.4 18.1 9.6 70.8 9.5 13.5 6.2
11

CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS TRANSFERRING TO CHARTER SCHOOLS

If charter schools are attracting a more advantaged student population than non-charter schools, a
key question is whether charter schools are drawing these students into City Schools for the first
time or whether they are attracting them away from other City Schools. Some evidence on this
question is furnished in Table 8, which shows the demographic characteristics of students
transferring into charter schools, broken down by whether they transferred from another City
school (within district transfers) or were new to City Schools (new transfers). Results vary by
grade level, but students transferring to charters from other City Schools generally tend to be
more representative of the non-charter student population than new students entering a City
School for the first time.
At the K-5 level, within-district transfers to charter schools are virtually indistinguishable from
non-charter students, but new transfers are less likely to be a racial or ethnic minority, to be
FARMS eligible, or to require special education services.
At the middle school level, both types of transfers to charter schools are less likely to be over-age
for their grade or to require special education services than non-charter students. However, the
gaps between charter and non-charter students on these features are roughly twice as large for
new transfers as they are for within-district transfers. For example, 17.5% of grade 6-8 non-
charter students required special education services. This compares to 11.7% for grade 6-8
students who transferred from another City School to a charter and 7.5% for new transfers to
charter schools. Thus, the charter/non-charter “gap” for special education is 5.7 percentage
points for within-district transfers and 10 percentage points for new transfers. Also at the middle
school level, within-district transfers to charter schools are more likely to be FARMs-eligible and
minority than non-charter students. By contrast, new transfers are less likely to be FARMs-
eligible and are equally likely to be a minority.
The same pattern appears among high school transfers to charter schools. Compared to non-
charter students, within-district transfers are more likely to require special education services and
to be FARMS-eligible, while new transfers are less likely require special education services or to
be FARMS-eligible. Both types of transfers to charter schools are less likely to be over-age for
their grade and to be minority than non-charter students, but the differences are greater for new
transfer students.
12

Table 8. Comparison of the Characteristics of Charter and Non‐Charter School Transfer
Students
Student Characteristics
Limited
Special Over-
FARMS English Male Black White Hispanic Other
Education age
Proficient
Within-district transfers to charters schools
K-5 13.2 16.8 83.4 2.5 49.1 88.9 5.2 5.1 0.8
6-8 11.7 28.8 83.7 0.6 47.7 94.3 3.0 0.6 2.1
9-12 20.5 33.3 66.7 0.0 46.2 76.9 23.1 0.0 0.0
New transfers to charter schools
1-5 6.6 13.5 57.9 4.8 48.7 75.0 16.9 6.6 1.5
6-8 7.5 21.1 61.9 1.3 45.8 88.1 7.5 4.0 0.4
9-12 13.0 26.1 49.3 0.0 46.4 72.5 27.5 0.0 0.0
Difference between within-district transfers to charters and non-charters
K-5 -1.3 0.9 0.6 0.5 -0.2 1.1 -3.5 2.5 -0.2
6-8 -5.8 -5.7 4.4 -0.2 -0.6 4.2 -4.6 -1.0 1.4
9-12 5.8 -3.0 8.9 -0.8 -6.0 -14.2 16.5 -1.3 -0.9
Difference between new transfers to charters and non-charters
K-5 -7.9 -2.3 -24.9 2.8 -0.7 -12.8 8.3 4.0 0.5
6-8 -10.0 -13.4 -17.4 0.5 -2.5 -2.0 -0.1 2.3 -0.3
9-12 -1.7 -10.2 -8.5 -0.8 -5.8 -18.7 20.9 -1.3 -0.9
Notes:
A positive (negative) charter/non-charter difference indicates that the attribute is more (less) prevalent among students
attending charter schools.
Within-district transfers to charters exclude transfers among charters.
New transfers include transfers from non-publics and other districts; it excludes kindergarten students.
CHARTER SCHOOL ENROLLMENT PATTERNS

We pursue several questions about the enrollment patterns of charter school students in this
section: Where do charter schools draw their student bodies from? To what extent do they
attract students into City Schools from non-public schools or other school districts? Are within-
district transfers to charter schools concentrated among a few sending schools or broadly
dispersed? Do they have disproportionate effects on the enrollment of some City Schools? Are
charter school students less likely to leave City Schools than non-charter students? Are charter
school students more likely to return to their school the next year than non-charter students?
13

Are Charter Schools Attracting Students Into City Schools?
The proportion of students new to City Schools (excluding kindergarteners) provides an

indication of whether charter schools are attracting new students into the district (Table 9). 3
Overall, charter schools as a group do not appear to be attracting a higher proportion of new
entrants into City Schools than non-charter schools. In both types of schools, new entrants to
City Schools comprise about 30% of transfers to grades 1-5 and 20-25% of transfers to grades 6-
12 (Table 8). Beneath these aggregate numbers, however, there is considerable variation among
schools. Seven charter schools consistently draw more than 40% of their transferring students
from outside City Schools (Wolfe Street Academy, Hampstead Hill Academy, Midtown
Academy, City Neighbors Charter School, Northwood Appold Community Academy, The Green
School, and Baltimore International Academy). Others draw 80% or more of their transferring
students from other City Schools, including City Springs, The Crossroads Schools, KIPP Ujima
Village Academy, ConneXions Community Leadership Academy, and Bluford Drew Jemison
Academy.

3 Kindergarteners are excluded because many are not enrolled in a previous educational setting and
consequently the proportion newly enrolled in City Schools does not accurately reflect a parental choice
to switch from nonpublic or another district into City Schools.
14

Table 9. Rate of Enrollment of Charter and Non‐Charter School Students not Previously
Enrolled in City Schools
School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
All Charter Schools
Grades 1-5 27.2 30.0 30.5
Grades 6-8 13.5 28.8 23.5
Grades 9-12 31.6 22.7
Non-charter Schools
Grades 1-5 32.5 32.3 31.3
Grades 6-8 18.9 21.5 24.2
Grades 9-12 17.3 18.9 20.0
School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

326 City Neighbors Charter School 43.0 28.6 68.8
330 Northwood Appold Community Academy 34.6 39.4 54.5
321 Midtown Academy 48.6 58.3 50.0
332 The Green School 48.4 50.0
023 Wolfe Street Academy 47.1
047 Hampstead Hill Academy 33.8 63.4 45.1
335 Baltimore International Academy 45.0
328 Southwest Baltimore Charter 37.5 25.7 41.9
327 Patterson Park Public Charter 28.7 38.4 38.1
329 Inner Harbor East Academy 13.1 25.0 34.8
097 Collington Square 20.8 17.9 34.7
333 Independence School Local I 32.1
262 Empowerment Academy 40.9 43.8 30.8
331 Maryland Academy of Technology & 33.3 22.8
Health Sciences (MATHS)
432 Coppin Academy 22.3
063 Rosemont 22.2 22.2
323 The Crossroads School 4.1 11.9 21.3
025 Dr. Rayner Browne 20.0
325 ConneXions Community Leadership 22.4 15.5
Academy
324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 9.3 21.2 12.5
008 City Springs 18.2 21.3 11.1
334 Bluford Drew Jemison STEM Academy 9.2
Notes:
Statistics for grade 9-12 charter school students in 2006-07 should be treated with caution because
of the small number of these students.
15

Are Enrollments of Some Non‐charter Schools Disproportionately Affected by
Charter Schools?

To address the question of whether charter schools are disproportionately affecting enrollments
at some schools, Table 10 lists all schools that have lost an annual average of at least 2% of their
enrollment to charter schools. Interestingly, two of the schools that have lost some of the largest
shares of students to charter schools during the 2005-06, 2006-07 school years – Wolfe Street
Academy and Dr. Rayner Browne – subsequently became charter schools themselves in 2007-08.
Transfers from non-charter schools to charter schools appear to be largely geographically based.
Patterson Park Public Charter has drawn heavily from schools surrounding Patterson Park. The
Inner Harbor East Academy draws students from a swath extending from the school site in the
Pleasant View Gardens complex at Orleans Street north to Cecil (school #7), just above North
Avenue, including Tench Tilghman Elementary, Johnston Square Elementary, and Dr. Bernhard
Harris, Sr. Elementary. KIPP Ujima Village Academy has attracted students from several
schools in the northwest: Langston Hughes Elementary, Pimlico Elementary, Falstaff
Elementary, Callaway Elementary, and Arlington Elementary. In the northeast, City Neighbors
has drawn students from Garrett Heights Elementary, Gardenville Elementary, and Glenmount
Elementary.
16

Table 10. Schools With More than Two Percent Average Annual Enrollment Transferring to
Charter Schools, 2005‐06 to 2007‐08
Sending School (non-charter) Primary Receiving School (charter) Annual Average
Transfers
Number Percent of
Sending School
Enrollment
023 Wolfe Street Academy 327 Patterson Park Public Charter 23.5 19.1
027 Commodore John Rogers 327 Patterson Park Public Charter 18.7 8.5
215 Highlandtown # 215 327 Patterson Park Public Charter 25.0 6.1
005 Langston Hughes 324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 10.7 5.9
013 Tench Tilghman 329 Inner Harbor East Academy 14.3 5.3
025 Dr. Rayner Browne 329 Inner Harbor East Academy 6.0 4.4
086 Lakewood 329 Inner Harbor East Academy 5.3 4.2
229 Holabird 008 City Springs 7.0 4.0
250 Dr. Bernard Harris, Sr. 329 Inner Harbor East Academy 15.7 3.8
223 Pimlico ES 324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 20.3 3.8
301 William S. Baer School 330 Northwood Appold Comm. Acad. 4.7 3.2
16 Johnston Square 329 Inner Harbor East Academy 10.3 3.2
007 Cecil 329 Inner Harbor East Academy 9.3 3.0
261 Lockerman Bundy 328 Southwest Baltimore Charter 4.7 2.9
083 William Paca 327 Patterson Park Public Charter 19.0 2.8
241 Fallstaff 324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 7.3 2.8
251 Callaway 324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 8.0 2.7
212 Garrett Heights 326 City Neighbors Charter School 8.3 2.5
211 Gardenville 326 City Neighbors Charter School 8.3 2.5
235 Glenmount 326 City Neighbors Charter School 18.3 2.5
234 Arlington 324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 12.3 2.4
22 George Washington 047 Hampstead Hill Academy 5.5 2.4
010 James McHenry 328 Southwest Baltimore Charter 7.0 2.4
145 Alexander Hamilton 063 Rosemont 6.5 2.3
053 Margaret Brent 332 The Green School 5.0 2.3
004 Steuart Hill 328 Southwest Baltimore Charter 9.0 2.3
138 Harriet Tubman 063 Rosemont 3.7 2.1
254 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 10.3 2.0
230 Canton 331 MD Acad. of Technology & Math 6.0 2.0
247 Cross Country 324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 10.3 2.0
240 Graceland Park 047 Hampstead Hill Academy 4.3 2.0
Table 11 looks at non-charter schools that serve as large sources of transfers to charter schools
during the 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08 school years. Ten charter schools draw at least 15%
of their transfer students from a single non-charter school. Except for the Independence School
17

and Bluford Drew Jemison, proximity plays a key role, with nearby schools furnishing the lion’s
share of transfers to some charters. For example, Glenmount, which is only a few blocks away
from City Neighbors, supplied 41% of transfers to that school. Likewise, Hampden, located in
the neighborhood just north of the Green School (before it moved to its new site in 2008-09),
provided 32% of the Green School’s transfers. An interesting topic for further research would be
whether the quality of either sending or receiving schools is also a factor in charter school
choice.
Table 11. Charter Schools Receiving more than 15 Percent of their Transfers from a Single
Sending School, 2005‐06 to 2007‐08
Annual Average Transfers
Receiving school (charter) Sending school (non-charter) Percent of

Number Receiving School
Transfer Students
047 Hampstead Hill Academy 023 Wolfe Street Academy 9.0 20.9
324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 223 Pimlico ES 15.3 19.0
326 City Neighbors Charter School 235 Glenmount 10.3 41.2
327 Patterson Park Public Charter 215 Highlandtown # 215 18.3 17.7
329 Inner Harbor East Academy 250 Dr. Bernard Harris, Sr. 9.3 18.4
330 Northwood-Appold Community
242 Northwood 7.7 22.2
Academy
332 The Green School 055 Hampden 6.0 31.6
333 Independence School Local I 420 Dr. Samuel L. Banks 12.0 50.0
334 Bluford Drew Jemison 051 Waverly 6.0 21.4
105 Moravia Park 6.0 21.4
335 Baltimore International Academy 236 Hamilton EM 13.0 22.8
Evidence on the question of whether transfers out of City Schools are lower among charter
schools is presented in Table 12. City Schools exit rates over the past three years ranged
between 9-12% among non-charters for grades PK-8, and 16-21% in grades 9-12. Exit rates
among charter school students were consistently lower, typically by 1-3 percentage points.
Relative to the City Schools average, exit rates were especially low at City Springs, Collington
Square, City Neighbors, ConneXions Community Leadership Academy, and Coppin Academy.
Charter school exit rates were considerably higher than the City Schools average at Hampstead
Hill Academy, The Crossroads School, and, prior to 2007-08, Southwest Baltimore Charter.
18

Table 12. Percentage of Students Exiting City Schools
School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
All Charter Schools
Grades PK-5 8.7 9.2 7.6
Grades 6-8 8.0 10.0 7.4
Grades 9-12 19.4 7.4
Non-charter Schools
Grades PK-5 11.3 10.4 9.2
Grades 6-8 12.1 12.3 10.1
Grades 9-12 21.2 21.1 15.6
School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Health Sciences
063 Rosemont 7.3 7.0
330 Northwood Appold Community Acad. 7.1 13.9 6.9
334 Bluford Drew Jemison MST Academy 6.9
Academy
008 City Springs 3.7 3.3 2.5
Statistics for grade 9-12 charter school students in 2006-07 should be treated with caution
because of the small number of these students.
In addition to exiting City Schools at a lower rate, charter school students are less likely to
transfer to another school within the district than non-charter students, as shown in Table 13.
Among non-charters, roughly 80-84% of grades PK-8 students and 90% of high school students
returned to their schools in the following year. Compared to the non-charter rates, rates of return
19

for charter school students range from 2-8 percentage points higher for grades PK-8, and they are
roughly comparable at the high school level. Wolfe Street Academy, Hampstead Hill Academy,
Midtown Academy, and City Neighbors exhibit especially high return rates. 4 No charter schools
consistently display return rates far below the City Schools average.
Table 13. Percentage of Students Returning to the Same School in the Following Year
School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
All Charter Schools
Grades PK-5 85.0 86.5 86.8
Grades 6-8 90.0 86.2 86.4
Grades 9-12 69.0 91.3
Non-charter Schools
Grades PK-5 82.2 81.1 79.8
Grades 6-8 82.2 84.2 81.7
Grades 9-12 89.4 90.2 89.9
School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Academy
008 City Springs 84.1 86.5 84.8
Health Sciences
063 Rosemont 78.7 80.4
Excludes students who leave city schools and students in schools with no grade to accommodate them in the following year.

4 Hampstead Hill is an interesting case because it has one of the highest City Schools exit rates among
charter (Table 10) but also one of the highest return rates.
20

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

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

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

Table 14 provides information on the extent to which students who leave charter schools have
different demographic characteristics (leavers) than those student who remain enrolled (stayers).
Analyses reveal that students who leave charter schools are 1-2 percentage points slightly more
likely to require special education services than those who stay. For example, 11.7% of students
who left charters required special education, compared to 10.1% who stay. At the elementary
grade level, leavers are marginally more likely to be over-age for their grade, male, and minority.
At the middle and high school levels, the proportion of over-age students is much higher among
leavers than stayers. Leavers are also more likely to be boys. Leavers and stayers are similar in
terms of FARMS-eligibility and race/ethnicity at the middle and high-school levels.
As with explaining differences in student demographic data, no contextual data exists which
explains differences in the characteristics of students who leave and remain in charter schools.
In 2008-09, DREAA may administer an exit survey to the families of all students who
transferred from charter schools. Such information may yield a better understanding of why
students leave charter schools.
Table 14. Demographics of Charter School Students by Leaver Status (%)
2005‐06 through 2007‐08 School Years
Student Characteristics
Percent of Students
Race/ethnicity
Spec. Over-age FARMs LEP Male Black White Hispanic Other
Ed
K-5
Leavers 10.5 14.5 78.4 2.5 51.8 81.6 10.8 6.0 1.6
Stayers 8.5 12.7 76.0 4.6 49.6 78.0 13.2 7.2 1.4
6-8
Leavers 11.7 36.4 78.4 0.3 54.0 86.5 8.1 3.6 1.8
Stayers 10.1 26.6 79.5 0.3 49.7 87.1 8.9 2.9 1.4
9-12
Leavers 12.4 39.2 57.7 0.0 46.4 93.8 6.2 0.0 0.0
Stayers 11.2 22.9 59.3 0.0 43.8 94.9 4.8 0.2 0.0
21

ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE ON STATE AND
STANDARDIZED ASSESSMENTS

The academic progress achieved by charter schools can be measured on two levels. The first
level looks at the school as a whole to determine the extent to which the school has achieved
adequate yearly progress (AYP) under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. Although
AYP is often the most visible measure of school progress, schools may demonstrate increases in
the number and proportion of students who achieve at the proficient or advanced levels on state
assessments but not evidence enough progress to achieve AYP. Thus, another way to measure
the impact and effectiveness of a school is to examine the extent to which individual students
make measureable progress in key areas.
Adequate Yearly Progress

Currently, an important metric for evaluating the overall health and performance of a school is
whether a school has made sufficient progress in the areas of reading and mathematics among
students overall and by student subgroup. Schools that fail to achieve AYP for two consecutive
school years in the same area are identified for improvement and are required to make differing
levels of instructional and administrative interventions to improve student achievement
(Appendix B). In 2007-08, the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) gained
approval from the U.S. Department of Education to implement a system of differentiated
accountability for schools that fail to make adequate progress. Schools that fail to make progress
in the ‘all students’ category or for three or more student subgroups are placed on the
Comprehensive Needs pathway. Schools that fail to make progress for one or two subgroups or
serve only students receiving special education services are placed on the Focused Needs
pathway. Six charter schools achieved AYP in both 2005-06 and 2006-07. In 2007-08, 15
charter schools made AYP (Table 15).
22

Table 15. Charter Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2005‐06 to 2007‐08
School Name Adequate Yearly Progress/School Improvement Status
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
008 City Springs Elementary Not met / Local Not Met / School Not Met / Comprehensive
Attention Improvement Year 1 Developing
023 Wolfe Street Academy -- -- Met / None
025 Dr. Rayner Browne -- -- Not met / Comprehensive
Elementary/Middle Developing
047 Hampstead Hill Elementary Met / None Not met / Local Not met / Focus
Attention Developing
063 Rosemont -- Met / None Met / None
Elementary/Middle
097 Collington Square Not met / Not met / Not met / Comprehensive
Elementary/Middle Restructuring Restructuring Priority
Implementation Implementation
262 The Empowerment Academy Met / None Met / None Met / None
321 Midtown Academy Met / None Met / None Met / None
323 The Crossroads School Met / None Met / None Met / None
324 KIPP Ujima Village Met / None Met / None Met / None
Academy
325 ConneXions Community -- Not met / School Not met / Comprehensive
Leadership Academy Improvement Year 1 Developing
326 City Neighbors Charter Not met / Local Met / None Not met /Local Attention
School Attention
327 Patterson Park Public Charter Not met / Local Not met / Local Met / None
School Attention Attention
328 Southwest Baltimore Charter NA* NA* Met / None
329 Inner Harbor East Academy Met / None Not met / Local Met / None
for Young Scholars Academy Attention
330 Northwood Appold NA* Not met / Local Met / None
Community Academy Attention
331 Maryland Academy of -- Not met / Local Not met / Comprehensive
Technology & Health Sciences Attention Developing
332 The Green School -- NA* Met / None
333 Baltimore International -- -- Met / None
Academy
333Independence School Local I -- -- Met / None

334 Bluford Drew Jemison -- -- Met / None
STEM Academy
432 Coppin Academy Met / None
Number of Charter Schools 6/2 6/2 15 / 0
Achieving AYP / Number of
Schools Without Tested Grades
*The school did not enroll students in tested grades, grades 3-8.
23

Both charter and non-charter City Schools have achieved progress in the areas of reading and
mathematics on state assessments between the 2005-06 and 2007-08 school years (Table 17).
Overall, elementary and K-8 charter schools tend to perform at levels similar to those of non-
charter schools in reading and below the levels of non-charter schools in mathematics. However,
there are sometimes large differences among charter schools in the extent to which students score
at the proficient or advanced levels on state assessments with students in some charter schools
consistently exceeding non-charter schools and others performing at lower levels. The
performance of charter middle schools consistently exceeded that of non-charter middle schools
during all three school years. Overall, charter schools have consistently been more likely to
make AYP than non-charter schools (Table 16).
Table 16. Number of Schools Making AYP by Charter Status
Charter Schools Non-Charter Schools
# # % Making AYP # Making # Schools % Making

Making Schools AYP AYP
AYP
2005-06 6 10 60.0 75 180 41.7
2006-07 6 14 42.9 70 177 39.5
2007-08 15 22 68.2 89 171 52.0
24

Table 17. AYP Percent of All Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced 2005‐06 to 2007‐08
School Name AYP - All Students Percent Proficient or Advanced
Reading Mathematics
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Charter Schools
Elementary 67.3 69.0 74.6 48.6 58.2 69.7
K-8 61.7 60.6 72.7 40.2 47.0 59.4
Middle 73.4 66.5 74.6 75.4 59.4 69.7
Middle-High 51.7 61.9 27.5 33.0
High 68.4 87.3
Non-Charter Schools
Elementary 65.3 68.1 77.1 62.2 67.3 74.0
K-8 62.3 65.8 71.9 49.7 56.3 59.4
Middle 37.2 38.1 47.2 19.5 21.2 22.8
Middle-High 22.5 35.3 12.5 35.3
High 65.8 65.7
008 City Springs Elementary 52.0 46.8 59.3 34.8 33.8 28.1
023 Wolfe Street Academy 74.2 81.0
025 Dr. Rayner Browne 59.5 54.3
Elementary/Middle
047 Hampstead Hill 72.6 69.8 75.3 46.2 45.2 73.1
Elementary
063 Rosemont 77.0 88.2 75.0 80.3
Elementary/Middle
097 Collington Square 50.7 43.3 61.9 24.3 30.7 41.0
Elementary/Middle
262 The Empowerment 85.7 80.8 83.5 81.0 75.6 87.4
Academy
321 Midtown Academy 80.8 74.2 83.6 73.3 60.8 78.7
323 The Crossroads School 62.0 59.4 77.5 47.2 44.8 73.9
324 KIPP Ujima Village 79.4 73.9 80.5 90.1 79.9 82.5
Academy
325 ConneXions 62.4 51.7 66.7 37.6 27.5 29.9
Academy
326 City Neighbors Charter 72.7 78.2 85.2 45.5 66.7 61.1
School
328 Southwest Baltimore 71.1 81.6
Charter
327 Patterson Park Public 55.4 58.3 67.0 37.2 56.4 59.2
Charter School
329 Inner Harbor East 68.4 59.7 85.2 41.2 30.6 71.6
Academy for Young
Scholars Academy
25

School Name AYP - All Students Percent Proficient or Advanced

Reading Mathematics
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
330 Northwood Appold 82.5 83.6 55.0 78.1
Community Academy
331 Maryland Academy of 55.3 54.5 20.2 37.7
Technology & Health
Sciences
335 Baltimore International 73.2 70.7
Academy
333Independence School 25.0 25.0
Local I
334 Bluford Drew Jemison 67.9 50.9
STEM Academy
432 Coppin Academy 73.2 94.4
MSA Performance of Special Education Students
Not only are all public schools responsible for ensuring that all students achieve proficiency in
the areas of reading and mathematics, but they also must ensure that students in specific student
groups achieve at similarly high levels. As noted in the previous section (Table 5), on average
charter schools are less likely to enroll students who receive special education services than are
non-charter schools. In addition charter school special education students tend to be
concentrated in the LRE A and B categories, requiring fewer services outside of the general
education classroom setting. In 2008, 11 charter schools achieved performance goals for
students receiving special education services in the areas of reading and mathematics, 5 charter
schools did not achieve their performance goals in these areas, and 6 schools did not serve
enough special education students to be held accountable for the student subgroup.
The comparatively small number of students enrolled in charter schools complicates the extent to
which one can draw reliable conclusions about student performance between charter and non-
charter schools. In addition, the distribution of special education students across charter schools
varies with some schools enrolling and testing more students than other schools. MSDE requires
a minimum of five students in a subgroup before a school is held accountable for the group’s
performance on state assessments. As noted above, in 2007-08 more than one-quarter of charter
did not meet this threshold and do not have data on the performance of their special education
student population. Among the schools that did have enough students, the number of tested
students ranged from a low of six students in MATHS to 43 students in Collington Square. Such
imbalances in the number of students served make it difficult to speak about the performance of
special education students in charter schools as a whole because such reports would be more
reflective of the influence of schools that enroll the largest numbers of students rather than of
charter schools as a whole.
26

Table 18. AYP Percent of Students Receiving Special Education Services Scoring Proficient or
Advanced 2005‐06 to 2007‐08
School Name AYP – Special Education Students Percent Proficient or Advanced
/ Student Performance Goal Performance
Reading Mathematics
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
008 City Springs Elementary / 20.0 / 16.7 / 26.7 / Not 26.7 / 11.1 / 10.0 / Not
Middle Not met Not met met Met Not met met
023 Wolfe Street Academy 72.7 / 63.6 /
Met Met
025 Dr. Rayner Browne 17.6 / Not 29.4 / Not
Elementary/Middle met Met
047 Hampstead Hill Elementary 38.1 / 6.3 / 40.7 / Not 9.5 / 6.3 / Not 44.4 / Not
Met Not met met Met met met
063 Rosemont Elementary/Middle 57.1 / 67.5 / Met 35.7 / 50.0 / Met
Met Met
097 Collington Square 0.0 / 10.0 / 30.2 / Not 2.9 / 0.0 / Not 19.5 / Not
Elementary/Middle Not met Not met met Not met met met
262 The Empowerment Academy -- -- -- -- -- --
321 Midtown Academy 66.7 / 57.1 / 55.6 / Met 50.0 / 42.9 / 55.6 / Met
Met Met Met Met
323 The Crossroads School 33.3 / 43.8 / 57.1 / Met 20.0 / 31.3 / 42.9 / Met
Met Met Met Met
324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 46.2 / 35.0 / 51.4 / Met 76.9 / 50.0 / 42.9 / Met
Met Met Met Met
325 ConneXions Community 16.7 / 50.0 / Met 0.0 / Met 8.3 / Not
Leadership Academy Not met met
326 City Neighbors Charter 62.5 / 66.7 / 65.2 / Met 12.5 / 50.0 / 30.4 / Not
School Met Met Met Met met
328 Southwest Baltimore -- --
327 Patterson Park Public Charter 33.3 / 20.8 / 36.1 / Met 8.3 / 25.0 / 22.2 / Met
School Met Not Met Not met Met
329 Inner Harbor East Academy -- 60.0 / 85.7 / Met -- 40.0 / 85.7 / Met
for Young Scholars Academy Met Met
330 Northwood Appold -- -- 57.1 / Met -- -- 71.4 / Met
Community Academy
331 Maryland Academy of 50.0 / 0.0 / Not 37.5 / 16.7 / Met
Technology & Health Sciences Met met Met
(MATHS)
332 The Green School -- --
335 Baltimore International -- --
Academy
333Independence School Local I -- --
334 Bluford Drew Jemison STEM 63.6 / Met 45.5 / Met
Academy
432 Coppin Academy
27

Table 18 demonstrates that charter schools vary in the extent to which they achieve performance
goals for special education students. The proportion of special education students meeting
performance goals may vary significantly from year to year. Such variations are more likely to
occur when the number of students is small as is the case with most charter schools. Some
schools such as Midtown Academy and Rosemont Elementary/Middle have consistently met
special education student performance goals while other schools such as City Springs and
Collington Square have failed to meet most performance targets since 2005-06.
Student‐level MSA Proficiency Gains

Table 19 presents data on the percentages of students moving up or down at least one proficiency
level, as well as percentages of students remaining at the same proficiency level. Students
maintaining performance at the highest proficiency level (advanced) are classified as moving up.
(See Appendix C for details on the derivation of these measures). Overall, charter school
students progress less than non-charter students moving from grade 3 to grade 4, but they
progress more than non-charter students between grades 5 and 6; 6 and 7, and 7 and 8. Charter
school students moving from grade 4 to grade 5 are more likely to maintain their status than are
non-charter school students who were more likely to change performance levels.
Both Midtown Academy and KIPP Ujima Village Academy consistently raised proficiency
levels or maintained highest level proficiency among 40% or more of their students over the full
three years. At KIPP, 57% of these students “moving up” achieved actual proficiency level
gains, while at Midtown Academy only 42% did so, with the others maintaining highest level
proficiency. Rosemont, City Neighbors, and Patterson Park Public Charter achieved strong
gains for the most recent two years. City Springs, ConneXions Community Leadership
Academy, Maryland Academy of Technology and Health Sciences, and Baltimore International
Academy have never improved scores among more than 20% of their students. It may be noted
that there is only one year of data for Baltimore International Academy, and most charters
performed weakly in their initial year of operation. City Springs has turned in three years of
consistently lackluster performance. Collington Square failed to produce significant gains in both
2005-06 and 2006-07, but its performance improved in 2007-08.
28

Table 19. Change in MSA Proficiency Level (Percent of Students)
Student Proficiency Level Change Status
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Down Same Up Down Same Up Down Same Up
All Charter Schools
Grade 3 to 4 21 64 15 8 60 32 7 51 42
Grade 4 to 5 14 67 19 14 63 23 15 49 37
Grade 5 to 6 11 58 32 14 58 28 12 45 43
Grade 6 to 7 14 60 25 28 60 12 11 49 39
Grade 7 to 8 6 54 40 14 61 26 4 62 34
Non-charter Schools
Grade 3 to 4 14 58 28 10 51 39 8 43 49
Grade 4 to 5 17 59 23 18 55 26 17 42 40
Grade 5 to 6 20 67 14 18 62 19 17 53 30
Grade 6 to 7 12 78 10 12 76 11 12 67 21
Grade 7 to 8 8 80 12 9 79 12 7 75 18
Charter Schools
008 City Springs 13 75 12 7 77 15 12 71 17

023 Wolfe Street Academy 0 30 70
025 Dr. Rayner Browne 8 68 24
047 Hampstead Hill Academy 17 65 17 13 65 22 6 48 46
063 Rosemont 22 46 33 7 30 63
097 Collington Square 7 79 13 10 75 15 8 59 32
262 Empowerment Academy 20 65 15 6 50 44 5 50 45
321 Midtown Academy 12 43 45 22 39 40 4 33 63
323 The Crossroads School 12 65 23 17 67 16 8 49 43
324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 13 39 48 22 42 37 15 36 49
325 ConneXions Community
22 70 8 15 67 18
Leadership Academy
326 City Neighbors Charter School 30 65 5 13 51 36 9 51 41
327 Patterson Park Public Charter 33 51 15 8 63 30 11 54 35
329 Inner Harbor East Academy 20 76 4 2 39 60
330 Northwood Appold Comm.
3 60 37
Acad.
331 Maryland Academy of
Technology & Health Sciences 18 73 9 7 75 18
(MATHS)
334 Bluford Drew Jemison 24 50 26
335 Baltimore Int. Acad. 19 63 19
Notes: See Appendix C for details calculation of change in proficiency level.
29

High School Assessments

Students who entered high school for the first time during 2005-06 school year or later must pass
High School Assessments (HSAs) in the areas of Algebra 1, Biology, English 1, and American
Government to graduate. In 2008, MSDE implemented the Bridge Plan for Academic Validation
which allowed students who have difficulty passing the assessments after multiple attempts to
participate in independent study projects to fulfill the HSA requirements. In 2008-09, charter
schools will graduate their first significant number of students. Upcoming evaluations will
explore in-depth the extent to which charter school students are successful in meeting both the
HSA and other graduation requirements.
The 2006-07 school year was the first year City charter schools enrolled high school students.
Depending on their academic progress, some students may take the Algebra 1 assessment for the
first time during 8th grade. Table 20 displays the performance of students during the 2006-07
and 2007-08 school years. All students who took assessments are included. The Algebra I and
English II data should not be confused with the AYP data provided in Table 17. For 2006-07,
the AYP data reflect the pass rates for first-time takers of the Algebra and English assessments.
For 2007-08, AYP data reflect the status of 11th grade students actively enrolled as of the end of
the school year. Students may have passed the assessment in 2007-08 or during prior school
years. The comprehensive measure shows the extent to which schools are making annual
progress among all test takers.
As with other data presented in this report, charter schools vary greatly in the proportion of
students passing HSAs each year. For the Algebra I assessment, middle and K-8 schools
evidence the highest pass rates. This pattern likely reflects the selection of specific students to
take the test prior to the 9th grade. These are probably among the most capable students,
resulting in the high pass rates.
Among the charter schools that enroll students in high school grades, the performance of some
schools exceeds that of the district as a whole, while the performance of others falls below that of
the school district. For example, Coppin Students posted a 90% pass rate in American
Government in 2007-08, significantly above the 52% of the district. However, in English II,
students had a pass rate of approximately 33% slightly below the district rate of nearly 36%.
Student outcomes for charter high school students will become more visible as the schools enroll
larger numbers of high school students.
30

Table 20. Comprehensive HSA Performance 2006‐07 and 2007‐08
Percent Passing / Number of Takers
Algebra 1 Biology English II Government
2006-07 2007-08 2006-07 2007-08 2006-07 2007-08 2006-07 2007-08
Charter Schools 66.7 / 87 51.1 / 0/0 46.4 / 100.0 / 35.5 / 0/0 82.5 /
401 112 2* 149 103
Non-charter 28.3 / 31.5/ 39.9 / 45.1 / 48.0 / 37.4 / 52.2 / 52.4 /
Schools 10,143 10,482 3,432 5,463 5,436 7,554 6,742 7,250
School
047 Hampstead -- 61.1 / 18 -- -- ‐‐ -- -- ‐‐
Hill Academy
323 The -- 100.0 / -- -- ‐‐ -- -- ‐‐
Crossroads 11
School
324 KIPP Ujima 100.0 / 100.0 / -- -- ‐‐ -- -- ‐‐
Village Academy 35 27
325 ConneXions 32.6 / 43 31.5 / 89 -- 50.0 / 22 -- 60.0 / 25 -- 61.5 / 26
Community
Leadership
Academy
331 MATHS 100.0 / 9 60.2 / 83 -- -- -- -- -- --
High School
333Independence -- 22.7 / 22 -- 19.0 / 21 -- 20.0 / 25 -- 83.3 / 6
School Local I
432 Coppin -- 48.3 / -- 53.6 / 69 -- 33.3 / 99 -- 90.1 / 64
Academy 151
*School-level detail is only provided for schools with at least 5 test takers.
Charter school special education students took a total of 62 HSAs in 2007-08. The small number
of assessments makes comparisons with the district as a whole problematic. The largest number
of special education students took the Algebra I assessment (n=37), and 6 passed, yielding a pass
rate of approximately 16% compared with 6% of the nearly 1,700 special education students
who took the assessment in non-charter schools.
Stanford 10 Performance

The City Schools administers the Stanford 10 assessments to all 1st and 2nd grade students.
Administration of the Stanford is required by the Reading First grant for participating schools,
and the assessment is administered in all schools for consistency and to provide an early look at
student performance. As with the MSAs, the assessment also measures student performance in
the areas of reading and mathematics. Tables 21 and 22 demonstrate that the performance of
charter schools compared with that of non-charter schools is mixed. In reading, K-8 charter
school students score at a higher level than K-8 non-charter schools. Charter schools have
consistently underperformed non-charter schools in the area of 2nd grade mathematics. The
31

performance gap between charter and non-charter schools in 1st grade mathematics that existed
in 2005-06 was eliminated by 2007-08 with both elementary and K-8 charter schools exceeding
the district average percentile ranking.
The performance of individual charter schools on the Stanford 10 assessments varies both by
school and by school year. Some schools such as Rosemont Elementary/Middle have evidenced
relatively steady and consistent improvement in student scores. Other schools such as City
Neighbors have experienced both increases and decreases in student performance. Such
volatility is not unusual given the small number of students tested in some schools and the age of
students when they test.
Table 21. Stanford 10 Grade 1 and 2 Reading National Percentile
School Name Reading National Percentile
Grade 1 Grade 2
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Charter Schools
Elementary 39 43 54 43 39 46
K-8 59 48 47 51 46 44
Non-Charter Schools
Elementary 46 46 48 42 44 41
K-8 47 44 49 44 42 42
Charter Schools
332 The Green School 87 85 62 76
063 Rosemont 44 69 34 69
Elementary/Middle
330 Northwood Appold 44 36 57 41 37 64
Community Academy
326 City Neighbors Charter 36 34 45 66 48 63
School
328 Southwest Baltimore 54 39 52 36 47
Charter
047 Hampstead Hill 71 58 50 48 59 47
Elementary/Middle
321 Midtown Academy 81 54 61 76 69 44
097 Collington Square 26 52 39 30 26 44
Elementary/Middle
329 Inner Harbor East 26 43 49 23 34 39
Academy for Young Scholars
023 Wolfe Street Academy 51 38
335 Baltimore International 45 32
Academy
008 City Springs Elementary 56 51 31 48 42 32
025 Dr. Rayner Brown 34 27
Elementary/Middle
327 Patterson Park Public 27 29 29 31 23 27
Charter School
262 The Empowerment 52 44 45 56 39 26
32

School Name Reading National Percentile

Grade 1 Grade 2
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Academy

Table 22. Stanford 10 Grade 1 and 2 Mathematics National Percentile
School Name Mathematics National Percentile
Grade 1 Grade 2
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Charter Schools
Elementary 40 49 63 38 43 43
K-8 53 55 59 36 49 46
Non-Charter Schools
Elementary 54 53 58 48 49 50
K-8 54 49 55 46 44 49
Charter Schools
330 Northwood Appold 50 40 69 26 41 74
Community Academy
063 Rosemont 74 85 63 70
Elementary/Middle
332 The Green School 92 90 71 60
326 City Neighbors 44 42 69 58 46 58
Charter School
025 Dr. Rayner Brown 27 53
Elementary/Middle
262 The Empowerment 47 55 79 70 58 49
Academy
047 Hampstead Hill 50 54 50 30 39 46
Academy
321 Midtown Academy 68 74 80 66 83 44
335 Baltimore 69 44
International Academy
328 Southwest Baltimore 41 40 74 27 36
Charter
329 Inner Harbor East 27 40 36 16 33 35
Academy for Young
Scholars
097 Collington Square 32 41 36 14 15 28
Elementary/Middle
023 Wolfe Street 56 26
Academy
327 Patterson Park Public 33 43 34 25 29 24
Charter School
008 City Springs 62 59 33 42 47 21
Elementary

33

Stanford Grade 1 to 2 Student‐level Progress

As with the progress measure on the MSAs, it is also possible to examine the extent to which
individual students make progress on the Stanford measures from grades 1 to 2. A matched pair
score is a repeated measure using the child as the unit of analysis. For 2007-08 gains, the 2007
1st grade scores were compared against the same child a year later in grade 2. Similarly, 2006-07
gains reflect the comparison between 1st grade scores in 2006 with 2nd grade scores in 2007.
The Title I evaluation model that was accepted for many years posited a 2 (normal curve
equivalent) NCE gain per child and in the aggregate. Comparing 2005-06 to 2006-07 and 2006-
07 to 2007-08 data, the system overall has declined by 6.0 and 4.9 NCEs in mathematics in both
respective years. The reading pattern is similar, having lost 4.5 and 4.9 NCEs in both respective
years. As revealed in Table 23 both charter and non-charter school students evidenced this
overall decline in both reading and mathematics performance for both the 2007 and 2008
measures.
Table 23. Stanford 10 Achievement Test Student Matched Pairs Average NCE Annual Gains

Average Annual NCE Change
2005-06 to 2006-07 2006-07 to 2007-08
Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics
Charter -6.1 -5.4 -3.0 -7.5

Schools
Non-Charter -4.3 -6.0 -5.1 -4.6

Schools
LEARNING ENVIRONMENT OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

School‐level Attendance Rates

Charter schools, on average, had slightly higher rates of attendance than non-charter schools at
all grade levels. Charter students of all grade levels were less likely to miss 20 or more days of
34

school than were non-charter school students. The attendance disparities are largest among
middle and middle/high schools. In 2007-08 the average attendance rate at charter middle
schools was 95.9% compared with 86.2% at non-charter middle schools. Six percent of charter
middle school students missed more than 20 days of schools compared with 38% of non-charter
middle school students.

Table 24. School‐level attendance rates 2005‐06 to 2007‐08 by charter school status
School Name All Students Attendance Rates
Average Attendance Percent of Students Percent of Students

Rate Missing Less than 5 Missing More than 20
Days of School* Days of School *
2005- 2006- 2007- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2005- 2006- 2007-
06 07 08 06 07 08 06 07 08
All Charter Schools
Elementary 94.3 94.4 95.0 31.1 29.8 34.6 12.1 13.2 7.1
K-8 95.8 94.3 95.1 50.4 36.6 37.6 7.8 14.8 9.3
Middle 96.0 94.8 95.9 50.5 33.6 44.9 5.1 9.1 6.0
High 91.7 17.0 29.7
Middle-High 99.4 94.1 23.4 38.6 8.9 11.6
Non-charter Schools
Elementary 94.1 94.0 94.1 38.0 37.2 37.8 12.5 13.2 11.9
K-8 93.8 93.8 93.8 34.4 35.0 35.1 14.2 14.3 13.8
Middle 85.7 84.9 86.2 17.8 14.5 17.5 38.5 43.4 37.8
High 83.7 18.4 41.2
Middle-High 79.9 68.0 25.9 25.1 63.7 70.0
Charter Schools
008 City Springs 96.3 97.1 93.8 64.9 69.4 37.5 5.1 6.2 10.9
Elementary
023 Wolfe Street Academy 95.3 40.0 6.4
025 Dr. Rayner Brown 93.7 40.3 11.5
Elementary/ Middle
047 Hampstead Hill 95.3 95.4 95.0 40.7 38.9 31.8 6.2 9.0 10.8
Academy
063 Rosemont Elementary/ 93.3 94.5 25.8 27.7 14.5 12.8
Middle
097 Collington Square 96.1 90.8 96.4 54.7 16.3 53.9 10.5 30.1 7.7
Elementary/ Middle
262 The Empowerment 95.2 95.6 95.8 32.4 34.1 28.2 5.6 2.4 2.7
Academy
321 Midtown Academy 95.4 95.6 96.2 33.7 32.7 37.7 9.8 13.0 5.6
323 The Crossroads School 95.4 95.7 95.3 39.0 32.4 39.7 6.2 8.3 6.4
324 KIPP Ujima Village 96.3 94.8 96.3 56.4 38.3 47.6 4.6 7.9 5.2
Academy
325 ConneXions 96.0 99.4 95.9 47.0 23.4 47.4 4.3 8.9 6.8
35

School Name All Students Attendance Rates
Average Attendance Percent of Students Percent of Students

Rate Missing Less than 5 Missing More than 20
Days of School* Days of School *
2005- 2006- 2007- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2005- 2006- 2007-
06 07 08 06 07 08 06 07 08
Academy
326 City Neighbors Charter 96.9 96.7 96.6 51.5 47.3 40.1 3.0 3.1 3.3
School
327 Patterson Park Public 93.5 93.4 95.1 21.0 24.6 33 17.6 19.0 5.3
Charter School
328 Southwest Baltimore 90.6 92.6 94.2 27.3 21.9 31.1 27.3 17.8 13.4
Charter
329 Inner Harbor East 93.2 94.0 95.4 26.0 22.1 37.3 16.3 17.5 9.0
Academy for Young
Scholars
330 Northwood Appold 94.6 94.9 95.0 39.4 35.3 41.6 7.0 11.8 7.1
Community Academy
331 Maryland Academy of 93.3 92.4 21.8 30.2 13.9 16.1
Technology & Health
Sciences
332 The Green School 93.5 95.2 27.6 25 13.8 7.1
333 Independence School 94.3 20.7 25.6
Local I
334 Bluford Drew Jemison 95.5 43.9 7.9
STEM Academy
335 Baltimore International 94.5 29.3 4.0
Academy
432 Coppin Academy 90.8 15.7 31.0
Note: * Includes only students enrolled at a school for at least 90 days.
School Climate

Table 25 demonstrates that charter school climate survey respondents rate their schools higher
than non-charter school respondents. This differential exists for all grade levels with the largest
disparities among middle school respondents. Nearly all schools evidenced at least a 75%
positive response rate in 2007-08. In 2007-08 85% of all charter elementary school survey
responses were positive compared with 81% of responses for non-charter elementary schools.
The responses for charter and non-charter middle schools were 80.2 and 69.9, respectively.
As with other measures included in this report, ratings by school vary. For example, in 2007-08
63.6% of responses about Bluford-Drew-Jemison STEM Academy were positive compared with
93% of responses at The Crossroads School.
36

Table 25. Measures of School Climate 2005‐06 through 2007‐08
Mean Percent of Students, Parents, and Staff
Responding Positively to Climate Survey Items
School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
All Charter Schools
Elementary 81.9 91.5 85.0
K-8 73.0 88.4 86.3
Middle 81.4 88.9 80.2
Middle-High 82.6 84.4
High 87.0
Non-charter Schools
K-8 66.6 80.6 77.6
Middle 60.0 73.0 69.9
Middle-High -- --
High 73.1
School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
008 City Springs 73.7 87.5 79.7
063 Rosemont 88.2 86.6
Academy
Health Sciences
37

Notes: Students in grades 3-8 complete the climate survey

Aggregations by school configuration reflect the grand mean (the mean of means)
Student Discipline
Charter schools tend to have lower suspension rates than non-charter schools. The elementary
school charter school suspension rate exceeded the rate for non-charter schools in 2006-07 and
the charter middle/high school rate exceeded the non-charter rate in 2007-08. The K-8 and
middle school charter school rates have consistently been lower than those of non-charter
schools. Although the overall rates tend to be lower among charter schools, the rates across
schools vary, sometimes by large margins. Some schools such as Collington Square, The Green
School, and The Empowerment Academy routinely post suspension rates of less than 5%. On
the other hand, other schools such as Patterson Park and MATHS have rates that exceed 20% of
enrollment. The cause of the variations in suspension rates is not available from current data
sources. Future reports may explore this feature of charter schools in greater depth.
38

Table 26. Suspension Rate by Charter School Status
Incident Suspension Rate / Number of Suspensions
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
All Charter Schools
Elementary 8.6 / 81 14.3 / 181 9.9 / 144
K-8 7.8 / 120 8.5 / 165 8.7 / 239
Middle 2.2 / 10 10.6 / 60 15.8 / 94
Middle-High 19.5 / 31 52.4 / 211
High .3 / 1
Non-charter Schools
Elementary 6.3 / 1,890 7.6 / 2,175 9.9 / 2,421
K-8 19.9 / 2,774 16.8 / 2,362 14.2 / 2,965
Middle 39.6 / 5,567 51.0 / 5,748 47.4 / 3,580
Middle-High 2.5 / 9 4.0 / 14
High 22.8 / 5,075
Charter Schools
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
008 City Springs 5.5 / 21 6.3 / 25 8.8 / 46
023 Wolfe Street Academy 1.9 / 3
025 Dr. Rayner Browne 3.1 / 7
047 Hampstead Hill Academy 18.4 / 86 7.3 / 37 12.5 / 65
063 Rosemont 19.7 / 78 19.7 / 87
097 Collington Square 1.8 / 9 1.7 / 8 2.3 / 11
262 Empowerment Academy 2.0 / 3 1.8 / 3 .5 / 1
321 Midtown Academy 2.2 / 4 9.3 / 17 6.0 / 11
323 The Crossroads School 0.0 / 0 2.0 / 3 10.1 / 15
324 KIPP Ujima Village Academy 3.3 / 10 10.6 / 33 20.8 / 66
325 ConneXions Community Leadership 19.5 / 31 19.5 / 38
Academy
326 City Neighbors Charter School 4.2 / 5 21.7 / 33 6.3 / 11
327 Patterson Park Public Charter 20.5 / 64 25.0 / 98 20.4 / 97
328 Southwest Baltimore Charter 3.1 / 2 4.2 / 5 8.7 / 14
329 Inner Harbor East Academy 3.3 / 6 16.4 / 36 4.6 / 11
330 Northwood Appold Community Acad. .9 / 1 3.6 / 6 5.0 / 10
331 Maryland Academy of Technology & 22.2 / 24 83.2 / 173
Health Sciences
332 The Green School 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0
333 Independence School Local I 0.0 / 0
334 Bluford Drew Jemison MST Academy 10.0 / 13
335 Baltimore International Academy 6.8 / 9
432 Coppin Academy .4 / 1
Notes:
The incident suspension rate is the number of suspensions divided by the official enrollment.
39

TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS – HIGHLY QUALIFIED STATUS

NCLB regulations require that teachers in Title I schools be, ‘highly qualified’ for the
courses/classes they teach. Highly qualified status is determined both by the level of
certification and the actual courses/classes taught in a school. At the elementary school level,
charter schools have consistently posted lower proportions of highly qualified teachers than non-
charter schools while K-8 charters have had slightly higher proportions of highly qualified
teachers. Except for the 2007-08 school year, charter middle schools had similar rates to those of
non-charter middle schools. In 2007-08, charter high schools had highly qualified rates of 11
percentage points less than non-charter high schools. As with most other measures the
proportion of highly qualified teachers varies by both school and by schools year. During future
evaluations, DREAA may more closely examine the extent to which highly qualified status is
related to student performance.
40

Table 27. Highly Qualified Teacher Status
Average Percent Highly Qualified

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Charter Schools
K-8 52.6 57.3 49.4
Middle 32.1 49.3 36.1
High 42.6
Non-Charter Schools
K-8 49.7 52.5 47.0
Middle 33.8 49.0 48.9
High 53.9
008 City Springs Elementary 38.3 49.1 58.2
025 Dr. Rayner Browne
63.3
Elementary/Middle
047 Hampstead Hill Elementary 83.5 73.3 55.4
063 Rosemont Elementary/Middle 68.6 61.0
097 Collington Square
38.5 60.7 44.9
Elementary/Middle
262 The Empowerment Academy 71.4 66.7 44.4
325 ConneXions Community
43.2 50.0
Leadership Academy
327 Patterson Park Public Charter
51.5 63.6 40.5
School
329 Inner Harbor East Academy for
4.2 45.5 15.8
Young Scholars Academy
330 Northwood Appold Community
42.9 50.0 37.5
Academy
331 Maryland Academy of
80.0 72.7
Technology & Health Sciences
333Independence School Local I --
334 Bluford Drew Jemison STEM
21.4
Academy
335 Baltimore International
11.1
Academy
41

SUMMARY

The first three years of charter school operation in Baltimore have been marked by increases in
both the number of schools and the number and proportion of all City Schools students enrolled
in them. The enhanced levels of parent, student, and staff perception of the district’s charter
schools; the comparatively higher rates of attendance; and the higher levels of re-enrollment
provide evidence of, and justification for, the overall levels of satisfaction with the schools.
Charter schools exhibit variation in many of the student outcome measures included in this
report. Data indicate that some schools are experiencing high levels of success in maintaining or
improving the levels of student performance on the MSAs and HSAs while others struggle to
close the gap with non-charter schools on some measures. Such variations in performance—
coupled with the great expansion in the number of these schools—make it difficult to speak of
charter schools as a monolithic entity. Thus, it may now become more meaningful to look at
schools individually as occurs at initial application and at contract renewal. Contract renewal
requires that schools present information about their performance during the contract period and
allows for the School Board to judge whether each school, individually, has met performance
expectations.
This report has provided a comprehensive but somewhat limited view of charter school
performance. As indicated many times during the report, there are areas of charter school
operations and outcomes that may be explored during future school years, e.g., a more in-depth
look at the enrollment and performance of students eligible for special education services.
Beginning in 2008-09, DREAA will receive information about students who apply to attend
charter schools. Such information will allow greater insight into charter school selection and
enrollment processes. Another interesting area for future research will be to examine the
progress of students who complete 8th grade in charter K-8 or middle schools and continue to
other City high schools. Future research may examine the extent to which charter school
students exhibit different levels of performance during high school.
When charter schools became part of the City Schools’ portfolio, choice was a limited option for
many parents. In the several years since the first schools were charters, City Schools has become
a system of choice. Thus, what it meant to be a charter four years ago is quite different from
what it means to be a charter now. This will be the research mandate for the future.
42

Appendix A
Characteristics of BCPSS Charter Schools 2005‐2006 through 2007‐08
Charter School Missions/Focus

2005-06
Number Planned
of Years Charter Title I Grade
School Name School Mission and Instructional Focus
of Type Status Levels
Operation Served
008 City Springs
10 (1 year Focus on improving reading, mathematics, and language skills through
Elementary Conversion Yes PreK-8
as charter) the implementation of the Direct Instruction program.
Focus on improving reading, mathematics, and language skills through
047 Hampstead Hill
4 (1 year the implementation of the Direct Instruction program; uses Core
as charter) Knowledge in social studies and science.
097 Collington Square Focus on improving reading, mathematics, and language skills through
4 (1 year
Elementary Conversion Yes PreK-8 the implementation of the Direct Instruction program.
as charter)
262 Empowerment Focus on literacy through the arts; staff attempts to implement the arts in
4 (1 year
Academy Conversion No PreK-8 all areas of instruction.
as charter)
321 Midtown Focus on educating the whole child in a community setting; weekly
4 (1 year
Academy Conversion No K-8 instruction in Tae Kwon Do, Spanish, Art, and Music; full inclusion of
as charter)
special education students.
323 The Crossroads Focus on implementation of a school-wide system of core values; use of
4 (1 year
School Conversion Yes 6-8 Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound; student portfolios and
as charter)
presentation of learning are key methods of assessment.

43


Number Planned
of Years Charter Title I Grade
School Name School Mission and Instructional Focus
of Type Status Levels
Operation Served
324 Kipp Ujima Focus on preparing students to attend rigorous high schools and
5 (1 year
Village Academy Conversion Yes 5-8 preparing for college; emphasis on discipline and character
as charter)
development.
326 City Neighbors Experiential, project-based learning with an arts integration focus;
Wholly
Charter School 1 No K-8 integration of instruction across content areas.
New
327 Patterson Park
Wholly Character education and development of community-minded students;
Public Charter School 1 No K-8
New use of project-based curriculum and inquiry activities.
328 Southwest Focus on experiential learning; school-wide thematic units; Personal
Wholly
Baltimore Charter 1 No K-8 Instruction Plans for all students to improve differentiation of
New
instruction.
329 Inner Harbor East
Extension of Sojourner-Douglass College’s vision of social change,
Academy for Young Wholly
1 Yes K-8 community development, and student empowerment.
Scholars Academy New
330 Northwood Regular integration of African American history and culture into daily
Wholly
Appold Community 1 No K-8 lessons; focus on the Freedom and Democracy curriculum developed by
New
Academy Vincent Harding.
44


2006-07
Planned
Number of
Charter Grade
School Name Years of Defining Characteristics of School Mission and Instructional Focus
Type Levels
Operation
Served
008 City Springs 11(2 years Focus on improving reading, mathematics, and language skills through the
Conversion PreK-8
Elementary as charter) implementation of the Direct Instruction program.
Focus on improving reading, mathematics, and language skills through the

047 Hampstead Hill
6 (2 years implementation of the Direct Instruction program; uses Core Knowledge in social
Elementary Conversion PreK-8
as charter) studies and science.
Focus on educating the whole child as part of their education corridor. Rosemont,
1 year as
063 Rosemont Academy Conversion K-8 which is operated by Coppin University, offer music, PE, art, and technology while
charter
providing a differentiated approach to core academic subjects.
097 Collington Square 5 (2 years Focus on improving reading, mathematics, and language skills through the
Conversion PreK-8
Elementary a charter) implementation of the Direct Instruction program.
262 Empowerment Focus on literacy through the arts; staff attempts to implement the arts in all areas of
5 (2 years
Academy Conversion PreK-8 instruction.
as charter)
Focus on educating the whole child in a community setting; weekly instruction in
321 Midtown Academy 5 (2 years
Conversion K-8 Tae Kwon Do, Spanish, Art, and Music; full inclusion of special education students.
as charter)
Focus on implementation of a school-wide system of core values; use of
323 The Crossroads
5 (2 years Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound; student portfolios and presentation of
School Conversion 6-8
as charter) learning are key methods of assessment.
324 Kipp Ujima Village

6 (2 years Focus on preparing students to attend rigorous high schools and preparing for
Academy Conversion 5-8
as charter) college; emphasis on discipline and character development.

45


Planned
Number of
Charter Grade
Type Levels
Operation
Served
325 ConneXions
5 (1 year Focus on the whole child with a strong advisory. Within this project-based school,
Community Leadership Conversion 6-12
as charter) students choose from a visual or performing arts track.
Academy
326 City Neighbors
Focus on experiential, project-based learning with an arts integration focus;
Charter School 2 Wholly New K-8
integration of instruction across content areas.
327 Patterson Park Public Character education and development of community-minded students; use of
Charter School Public 2 Wholly New K-8 project-based curriculum and inquiry activities.
328 Southwest Baltimore Focus on experiential learning; school-wide thematic units; Personal Instruction
Charter 2 Wholly New K-8 Plans for all students to improve differentiation of instruction.

Extension of Sojourner-Douglass College’s vision of social change, community
Academy for Young
2 Wholly New K-8 development, and student empowerment.
Scholars Academy
330 Northwood -Appold Regular integration of African American history and culture into daily lessons;
Community Academy 2 Wholly New K-8 focus on the Freedom and Democracy curriculum developed by Vincent Harding.
Focus on an intellectually rigorous, personalized and supportive college-preparatory

331 MATHS High School 1 Wholly New 8-12 education for 8th-12th grade students of Baltimore City, with a focus on the
biotechnology health science and bioengineering fields.
Focus on project- based learning with balanced literacy. School follows an
332 Green School 1 Wholly New K-5 educational approach called, “Utilizing the Environment as an Integrating Context
(EIC)”
46


2007-08
Planned
Number of
Charter Title I Grade
Type Status Levels
Operation
Served
Focus on language immersion. Grades K-1 parents choose French,
335 Baltimore Wholly Mandarin Chinese, or Russian for a full immersion program. Grades 2-6
1 No K-8
International Academy New parents follow a partial immersion model using Rosetta Stone to acquire
language.
334 Bluford Drew
Wholly Focus on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math). This all
Jemison STEM 1 No 6-8
New boy school has an extended day model.
Academy
326 City Neighbors
Wholly Focus on experiential, project-based learning with an arts integration
Charter School 3 No K-8
New focus; integration of instruction across content areas.
008 City Springs
12 (3 years Focus on improving reading, mathematics, and language skills through
as charter the implementation of the Direct Instruction program.
097 Collington Square
6 (3 years as Focus on improving reading, mathematics, and language skills through
charter) the implementation of the Direct Instruction program.
325 ConneXions
6 (2 years as Focus on the whole child with a strong advisory. Within this project-
Community Leadership Conversion No 6-12
charter) based school, students choose from a visual or performing arts track.
Academy
4 (1 year as Focus on college preparation; school is housed at Coppin University.
432 Coppin Academy Conversion No 9-12
charter)
1 (as a
025 Dr. Rayner Browne Focus on improving reading, mathematics, and language skills through
charter Conversion Yes PreK-8
Elementary/Middle the implementation of the Direct Instruction program.
school)
262 Empowerment
6 (3 years as Focus on literacy through the arts; staff attempts to implement the arts in
Academy Conversion Yes PreK-8
charter) all areas of instruction.
Wholly Focus on project- based learning with balanced literacy. School follows
332 Green School 2 No K-5
New an educational approach called, “Utilizing the Environment as an
47

Planned
Number of
Type Status Levels
Operation
Served
Integrating Context (EIC)”
047 Hampstead Hill Focus on improving reading, mathematics, and language skills through
6 (3 years as
Elementary Conversion Yes PreK-8 the implementation of the Direct Instruction program; uses Core
charter)
Knowledge in social studies and science.
Wholly
Focus on authentic learning through the real world; dealing with children
New
333 Independence 2 (1 year as one mind at a time; and providing a forum in which students form a
(created No 9-12
School Local I charter) strong social identity with respect to their history and their surroundings.
from a
Independence students also learn the primacy of service to others.
program)
Academy for Young Wholly Extension of Sojourner-Douglass College’s vision of social change,
3 Yes K-8
Scholars Academy New community development, and student empowerment.
323 KIPP Ujima

7 (3 years as Focus on preparing students to attend rigorous high schools and
Village Academy Conversion Yes 5-8
charter) preparing for college; emphasis on discipline and character development.
Focus on an intellectually rigorous, personalized and supportive college-
331 MATHS High Wholly
2 No 6-12 preparatory education for 8th-12th grade students of Baltimore City, with
School New
a focus on the biotechnology health science and bioengineering fields.
Focus on educating the whole child in a community setting; weekly
321 Midtown Academy 6 (3 years as instruction in Tae Kwon Do, Spanish, Art, and Music; full inclusion of
Conversion No K-8
charter) special education students.
330 Northwood-Appold Regular integration of African American history and culture into daily
Wholly
Community Academy 3 No K-8 lessons; focus on the Freedom and Democracy curriculum developed by
New
Vincent Harding.
327 Patterson Park
Wholly Focus on character education and development of community-minded
Public Charter School 3 Yes K-8
New students; use of project-based curriculum and inquiry activities.
48

Planned
Number of
Type Status Levels
Operation
Served
Focus on educating the whole child as part of their education corridor.
063 Rosemont 2 years as Rosemont, which is operated by Coppin University, offer music, PE, art,
Conversion Yes K-8
Elementary/Middle charter and technology while providing a differentiated approach to core
academic subjects.
328 Southwest Focus on experiential learning; school-wide thematic units; Personal
Wholly
Baltimore Charter 3 Yes K-8 Instruction Plans for all students to improve differentiation of instruction.
New
Focus on implementation of a school-wide system of core values; use of
323 The Crossroads
6 (3 years as Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound; student portfolios and
School Conversion Yes 6-8
charter) presentation of learning are key methods of assessment.
023 Wolfe Street Focus on improving reading, mathematics, and language skills through
1 Conversion Yes PreK-5
Academy the implementation of the Direct Instruction program.
49

Demographic Characteristics of BCPSS Charter Schools

2005-06 School Year
Percent of Students
Asian/
Grades Special African- American
Enrollment LEP FARMS White Hispanic Pacific
Served Education American Indian
School Number and Name Islander
008 City Springs School PreK-8 383 7.9 0.0 93.9 98.4 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.0
047 Hampstead Hill Academy PreK-7 467 6.9 6.9 78.3 24.0 57.2 13.3 4.9 0.6
097 Collington Square School PreK-8 495 11.7 0.0 94.3 99.6 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0
262 Empowerment Academy Pre-K-4 150 0.0 0.0 77.2 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
321 Midtown Academy K-8 184 6.6 0.0 34.1 69.0 24.5 1.6 0.0 4.9
323 The Crossroads School 6-8 148 10.9 0.0 85.0 83.1 4.7 11.5 0.7 0.0
324 Kipp Ujima Village Academy 5-8 305 6.4 0.0 87.9 99.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0
326 City Neighbors Charter School K-5 120 11.7 0.0 34.2 55.0 45.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
327 Patterson Park Public Charter School K-4 312 10.2 13.9 73.6 68.6 7.7 22.4 0.6 0.6
328 Southwest Baltimore Charter K-1 64 0.0 0.0 75.4 85.9 12.5 1.6 0.0 0.0
329 Inner Harbor East Academy for Young K-3 184 8.6 0.0 90.2 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Scholars
330 Northwood-Appold Community K-2 113 9.9 0.0 55.4 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Academy
50


2006-07 School Year
Percent of Students
Grades Enrollment Special LEP FARMS African- White Hispanic American Asian/
Served Education American Indian Pacific
63 Rosemont Elementary/Middle Pre-K-7 396 12.3 0.0 88.2 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
321 Midtown Academy K-8 183 4.3 0.0 63.1 78.1 16.9 1.6 0.0 3.3
325 ConneXions Community 6-9 159 9.9 0.0 64.6 98.7 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0
Leadership Academy Community
Leadership Academy
327 Patterson Park Public Charter K-5 392 11.0 14.0 26.9 65.1 8.9 24.0 1.0 1.0
School
329 Inner Harbor East Academy for K-4 220 6.3 0.0 681 99.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0
Young Scholars
Academy
51

Percent of Students
331 Maryland Academy of 8 108 9.7 0.0 63.1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Technology and Health Sciences
332 The Green School of Baltimore K-2 54 0.0 0.0 63.1 38.9 55.6 0.0 3.7 1.9
52


2007-08 School Year
Percent of Students
Islander
023 Wolfe Street Academy PreK-5 161 14.8 41.4 85.2 16.1 13.0 98.3 0.0 2.5
Elementary
025 Dr. Rayner Browne Elem/Middle Pre-K-7 228 9.5 0.0 91.7 99.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0
63 Rosemont Elem/Middle Pre-K-8 441 14.0 0.0 76.8 99.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2
321 Midtown Academy K-8 182 404 0.0 41.5 78.0 15.9 2.7 0.0 3.3
325 ConneXions Community 6-10 195 18.6 0.0 58.8 98.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Leadership Academy Community
Leadership Academy
327 Patterson Park Public Charter K-6 475 10.3 14.6 66.1 69.9 8.0 21.1 0.6 0.4
School
53

329 Inner Harbor East Academy for K-5 240 5.8 0.0 78.6 99.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0
Young Scholars
Percent of Students
Academy
331 MD Academy of Technology and 8-9 208 9.9 0.0 62.4 98.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0
Health Sciences
332 The Green School of Baltimore K-3 78 11.3 0.0 37.5 41.0 55.1 1.3 1.3 1.3
333 Independence School Local I 9-12 84 24.4 0.0 59.3 61.9 38.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
334 Bluford Drew Jemison Academy 6 130 7.4 0.0 72.7 99.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
335 International Academy K-5 133 0.0 3.8 43.6 88.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 1.5
Elem/Middle
432 Coppin Academy High School 9-11 251 7.6 0.0 53.2 99.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
54

APPENDIX B
Title I School Improvement Sanctions

Corrective
Action
Supplemental
Services
Transfer Option

[Technical Help]

4th Tier (year 5 or more): Corrective Action
3rd Tier (year 4): Supplemental Services, School Improvement Year 2
2nd Tier (year 3): Transfer Option, School Improvement Year 1
1st Tier (year 2): Technical Help

School Improvement for All Schools

• School Improvement (Years 1 and 2)
o Schools must develop two‐year school improvement plans designed to improve
each subgroup’s achievement
o Schools not making AYP for two years after entering School Improvement will
be identified for Corrective Action
• Corrective Action (Year 3)
o May include replacing school staff, adopting new curriculum, decreasing school‐
level management authority, and extending the school day or year
o Schools not making AYP after one year of Corrective Action will be identified for
Restructuring
• Restructuring
o Involves at least one of the following:
Replacing all or most of the staff who are relevant to the failure of making
AYP

55


Contracting with a management company to operate the school
Reopening schools as a public charter school
Other major restructuring actions that involve significant changes to
staffing and governance

APPENDIX C ‐ COMPUTATION OF MSA PROFICIENCY LEVEL GAINS

The gains in MSA proficiency level in Table 17 were derived by first coding of MSA proficiency level
scores as follows:
1=Basic
2=Proficient
3=Advanced.
These encoded proficiency levels were then summed (yielding a composite score ranging from 2-6) and
then recoded thus:
2, 3 → 1
4 →2
5, 6 → 3.
Students who increased this resulting composite proficiency level between two sequential years are coded
as moving up; students who reduced their composite proficiency level are coded as moving down;
students who remained at the same level are coded as unchanged, unless they were a 3 in both years, in
which case they were coded as moving up.
Although this approach may appear to be fairly crude, it was compared with several other approaches, and
they all produced roughly similar results. Therefore, it seems fair to conclude that it is a fairly reliable
measure of student-level growth. Perhaps its most serious weakness is that it treats students maintaining
highest level proficiency as moving up, and consequently biases results in favor of schools serving
students who are performing higher before they even enter the school.
56

APPENDIX D – LRE CODES

LRE Description
A INSIDE GENERAL EDUCATION (80% or more)
B INSIDE GENERAL EDUCATION (40% - 79%)
C INSIDE GENERAL EDUCATION (less than 40%)
D HOMEBOUND
E HOSPITAL
F PUBLIC SEPARATE DAY SCHOOL
G PRIVATE SEPARATE DAY SCHOOL
H PUBLIC RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
I PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
J HOME
P IN THE REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM AT LEAST 80% OF
TIME
Q IN THE REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM AT LEAST 40% TO
79% OF TIME
R IN THE REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM LESS THATN 40% OF
TIME
S SEPARATE CLASS
T SERVICE PROVIDER LOCATION
U CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
V PARENTALLY PLACED IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS
57

58

Baltimore City Public Schools

Board of School Commissioners
Brian D. Morris, Board Chair
Jerrelle Francois, Board Vice-Chair
Anirban Basu
James W. Campbell
Neil E. Duke
David Stone
Robert Heck
Maxine Johnson Wood
George M. VanHook, Sr.
Mitchell Generette, Student Commissioner
Andrés A. Alonso, Ed.D.

Chief Executive Officer
Baltimore City Public Schools offer equal employment and educational opportunities for all, regardless
of race, religion, color, age, sexual orientation, national origin, handicapping condition, veteran’s status
or any other occupationally irrelevant criteria.

Year 2 and 3 Charter Report 090416

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Year 2 and 3 Charter Report 090416

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Charter School Report

April 16, 2009

DIVISION OF RESEARCH, EVALUATION, ASSESSMENT, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................................vi

Data Collection Sources and Methods...................................................................................................... 3

Charter School Approval and Review ...................................................................................................... 6

High School Assessments .................................................................................................................. 30

CHARTER SCHOOL REPORT

Percent of City Schools Students Enrolled in Charter Schools

Questions guiding the evaluation included:

DATA COLLECTION SOURCES AND METHODS

CHARTER SCHOOL APPROVAL AND REVIEW

Charter Schools Non-charter Schools

• Is the selection and enrollment process equitable?

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

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

Percent of Students Receiving Special Education by LRE Status

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

* Source Annual Child Count data files

No change Up Down No Classification / No change Up Down No Classification /

2005-06 67.8 6.7 14.8 10.6 69.0 10.7 13.9 6.5

2006-07 62.8 3.6 18.7 14.8 65.1 8.5 13.4 12.9

2007-08 64.8 7.4 18.1 9.6 70.8 9.5 13.5 6.2

The proportion of students new to City Schools (excluding kindergarteners) provides an

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Receiving school (charter) Sending school (non-charter) Percent of

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

333Independence School Local I -- -- Met / None

# # % Making AYP # Making # Schools % Making

2005-06 6 10 60.0 75 180 41.7

2006-07 6 14 42.9 70 177 39.5

2007-08 15 22 68.2 89 171 52.0

School Name AYP - All Students Percent Proficient or Advanced

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

High School Assessments

School Name Reading National Percentile

Average Annual NCE Change

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

Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics

Charter -6.1 -5.4 -3.0 -7.5

Non-Charter -4.3 -6.0 -5.1 -4.6

Average Attendance Percent of Students Percent of Students

School Name All Students Attendance Rates

Average Attendance Percent of Students Percent of Students

Notes: Students in grades 3-8 complete the climate survey

Average Percent Highly Qualified

Charter School Missions/Focus

Charter School Missions/Focus

Focus on improving reading, mathematics, and language skills through the

324 Kipp Ujima Village

329 Inner Harbor East

Focus on an intellectually rigorous, personalized and supportive college-preparatory

Charter School Missions/Focus

323 KIPP Ujima

Demographic Characteristics of BCPSS Charter Schools

Demographic Characteristics of BCPSS Charter Schools

Demographic Characteristics of BCPSS Charter Schools

Baltimore City Public Schools

Mitchell Generette, Student Commissioner

Andrés A. Alonso, Ed.D.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai