The 21st Century Charter Schools Initiative

The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.
Helping Individuals, Families and Communities
Achieve Their Full Potential
The 21 st Century Charter Schools Initiative
“Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities
Achieve Their Full Potential
1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 | 100 Edgewood Avenue, Suite 1690
Philadelphia, PA 19102 Atlanta, GA 30303
Rev. Mark L. Merrill
Executive Director Northeast Region
(878) 222-0450
Voice | Fax | SMS
www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org
Page 2 of 43

Page 3 of 43

Biblical Authority
Deuteronomy 11:19 (KJV)
19
And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou
sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou
liest down, and when thou risest up.
______
Isaiah 28:9-10 (KJV)
9
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to
understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn
from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon
precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Page 4 of 43

Page 5 of 43

Table of Contents
The 21 st Century Charter Schools Initiative
Biblical Authority
I. Introduction
II.
III.
IV.
Structure and Characteristics
Funding
Public Opinion
V. Nationwide Studies
VI.
Criticism
VII. Waiting for Superman
______
Attachments
A. How to Start A Charter School
B. No Child Left Behind Charter Schools Program
C. Lessons Learned
D. Charter School FAQ’s
Copyright © 2014 The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Page 6 of 43

Page 7 of 43

Introduction
Purpose
Charter Schools operate in a different manner than
traditional public schools. All charter schools seem to have
the same purpose. The main purpose is having an
alternative means within the public school system to
increase innovation in learning creative ways outside
the traditionalism of the public system. Another purpose
is having the teachers, both new in the system and ones
that have experience, be responsible for their own education
program and teaching methods. Teachers and student both get
the opportunity to explore new ways of learning through education this system.
Charter schools are the fastest growing innovation resulting from education policy to challenge
the public schools notion. Chartering sometimes caters to the needs of the community by
providing after school activities and programs to keep the student connected to the instructors
while increasing their performance in academics and to aid in keeping students out of trouble
with authority. For example Drew Charter School in Atlanta, Georgia is attached to their local
YMCA program that serves the physical education for the school.
Differences in state laws bring wide diversity in the organization, operation, and philosophies of
charter schools. Some states give charter schools considerable autonomy, while other states
exercise more control. The charter sponsor may be a school district, college or university, state
education agency, teachers, parents, or other community members.
Operations
Charter Schools in the United States offer primary or secondary education without charge to
pupils who take state-mandated exams. These charter schools are subject to fewer rules,
regulations, and statutes than traditional state schools, but receive less public funding than
public schools, typically a fixed amount per pupil. They are non-profit entities, and can receive
donations from private sources.
The number of American charter schools has grown from 500 in 16 states and the District of
Columbia to an estimated 6,400 in 2013-14. Over 600 new public charter schools (7%) opened,
serving an additional 288,000 students (13%), totaling 2.5 million students. By contrast, some
200 schools closed, for reasons including low enrollment, financial concerns and low academic
performance. Waiting lists grew from an average of 233 in 2009 to 277 in 2012, with places
allocated by lottery. They educate the majority of children in New Orleans Public Schools.
Charter schools may provide a specialized curriculum (for example in arts, mathematics, or
Page 8 of 43

vocational training), however others aim to provide a better and more cost-efficient general
education than nearby non-charter public schools. Charter schools are attended by choice.
They may be founded by teachers, parents, or activists although state-authorized charters
(schools not chartered by local school districts) are often established by non-profit groups,
universities, or government entities. School districts may permit corporations to manage
multiple charter schools. The first charter school law was in Minnesota in 1991.
They sometimes face opposition from local boards, state education agencies, and unions.
Public-school advocates assert that charter schools are designed to compete with public
schools in a destructive and harmful manner rather than work in harmony with them.
of
The charter school idea in the United States was originated in 1974
by Ray Budde, a professor at the University of
Massachusetts Amherst. Albert Shanker, President
of the American Federation of Teachers, embraced
the concept in 1988, when he called for the reform of the
public schools by establishing "charter schools" or "schools
choice." Gloria Ladson-Billings called him "the first
person to publicly propose charter schools". [12] At the
time, a few schools already existed that were not
called charter schools but embodied some of their
principles, such as H-B Woodlawn.
As
originally conceived, the ideal model of a charter school was as a legally
and financially autonomous public school (without tuition,
religious affiliation, or selective student admissions) that would
operate much like a private business—free from many state laws and district regulations, and
accountable more for student outcomes rather than for processes or inputs (such as Carnegie
Units and teacher certification requirements).
Minnesota was the first state to pass a charter school law in 1991. California was second, in
1992. As of 2013, 42 states and the District of Columbia have charter school laws.
As of 2012 an authorizer other than a local school board has granted over 60 percent of
charters across the country. Between 2009 and 2012, the percent of charter schools
implementing performance-based compensation increased from 19 percent to 37 percent,
while the proportion that is unionized decreased from 12 percent to 7 percent. The most
popular educational focus is college preparation (30 percent), while 8 percent focus on Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Another 16 percent emphasize Core Knowledge.
Blended Learning (6 percent) and Virtual/Online learning (2 percent) are in use. When
compared to traditional public schools, charters serve a more disadvantaged student
population, including more low-income and minority students. Sixty-one percent of charter
schools serve a student population where over 60 percent qualify for the federal Free or
Page 9 of 43

Reduced Lunch Program. Charter schools receive an average 36 percent less revenue per
student than traditional public schools, and receive no facilities funds. The number of charters
providing a longer school day grew from 23 percent in 2009 to 48 percent in 2012.
Pros & Cons
There are many benefits to attending a charter school, one main benefit is that innovative
systems allow for a unique way of educating. Because of school choice the parent and the
student are more likely to be involved in the commitment to the school. Another pro to a
charter school is the competition. Charter schools must work to maintain their academic
performance, student’s retention, and finances. Another pro to charter schools act as a catalyst
for improvement of the public system. One common con to charter schools is that they are
funded by the government. Nevertheless, they have the potential of closing if they don’t make
the numbers in the areas mentioned above. And finally the biggest debate with charter schools
is that they do a better job of reaching students than public schools, because of their style of
teaching and educating. The charter schools system allows for teachers to be creative in their
own work. Along with the environment being welcoming and encouraging to both the parents
and students there are a few downsizes to the of charter school for example the financial
jeopardy the school could fall under or even potential of not making numbers. Either way it
goes the pros and cons challenge people to do a true comparison of the school system they
would put their children into.
Advantages & Disadvantages
Ever since the 19th century, public education was the main foundation of education for
children. Just like charter schools, public schools have advantages and disadvantages to their
system. First and foremost public education is free, since taxes pay for the child’s education.
Another advantage of public schools are the various extracurricular activities, trained
personnel/administration, and offering of scholarships and continual education to college.
Public education also offers transportation to and from school that is hard to come by in
charter schools. The few example of advantages expressed indicate that public education has
been providing students with an equal amount of thumbs up whether then thumbs down for
the education.
One disadvantage to public school is that parents’ don’t have a say in the curriculum because of
the general standard set by the government as a result innovative thinking is squashed.
Another disadvantage is the large classroom sizes that can be disturbing to the student in need
of the extra attention and to teachers that desire to reach all their students. One pro and con is
that parents are required to have students from age five to seventeen attend school (2000). It's
a pro because children need education to advance in society, even if it is basic reading
comprehension and math. The con to requirement of attendance in today’s society is many
school systems lack the adequate material to teach students, therefore, most of the teachers'
efforts well fall short because of time and the restriction to the curriculum.
Page 10 of 43

Structure and Characteristics
Two principles are claimed to guide American charter schools: operational autonomy and
accountability.
Operational Autonomy
They operate as autonomous public schools, through waivers from many of the procedural
requirements of district public schools. These waivers do not mean a school is exempt from the
same educational standards set by the State or district. Autonomy can be critically important
for creating a school culture that maximizes student motivation by emphasizing high
expectations, academic rigor, discipline, and relationships with caring adults.
Affirming students, particularly minority students in urban school districts, whose school
performance is affected by social phenomena including stereotype threat, acting white, nondominant
cultural capital, and a "code of the street" may require the charter to create a
carefully balanced school culture to meet peoples' needs in each unique context. Most
teachers, by a 68 percent to 21 percent margin, say schools would be better for students if
principals and teachers had more control and flexibility about work rules and school duties.
Page 11 of 43

Accountability for Student Achievement
Charter schools are accountable for student achievement. The rules and structure of charter
schools depend on state authorizing legislation and differ from state to state. A charter school
is authorized to function once it has received a charter, a statutorily defined performance
contract detailing the school's mission, program, goals, students served, methods of
assessment, and ways to measure success. The length of time for which charters are granted
varies, but most are granted for 3–5 years.
Charter schools are
held accountable to
their sponsor—a local
school board, state
education agency,
university, or other
entity—to produce
positive academic
results and adhere to
the charter contract.
While
this
accountability is one of
the key arguments in
favor of charters,
evidence gathered by
the United States
Department of
Education suggests that charter schools are not, in practice, held to higher standards of
accountability than traditional public schools. That point can be refuted by examining the
number of traditional public schools that have been closed due to students' poor performance
on end-of-course/end-of-grade tests. Typically, these schools are allowed to remain open,
perhaps with new leadership or restructuring, or perhaps with no change at all. Charter school
proponents assert that charter schools are not given the opportunities to restructure often and
are simply closed down when students perform poorly on these assessments. As of March
2009, 12.5% of the over 5000 charter schools founded in the United States had closed for
reasons including academic, financial, and managerial problems, and occasionally consolidation
or district interference.
Many charter schools are created with the original intent of providing a unique and innovative
educational experience to its students that cannot be matched by the traditional public schools.
While some charter schools succeed in this objective, many succumb to the same pressures as
their public school brethren. Charter schools are accountable for test scores, state mandates,
and other traditional requirements that often have the effect of turning the charter school into
a similar model and design as the public schools.
Page 12 of 43

Although the U.S. Department of Education's findings agree with those of the National
Education Association (NEA), their study points out the limitations of such studies and the
inability to hold constant other important factors, and notes that "study design does not allow
us to determine whether or not traditional public schools are more effective than charter
schools."
Chartering Authorities
Chartering authorizers, entities that may legally issue charters, differ from state to state, as do
the bodies that are legally entitled to apply for and operate under such charters. In some states,
like Arkansas, the State Board of Education authorizes charters. In other states, like Maryland,
only the local school district may issue charters. States including Arizona and the District of
Columbia have created independent charter-authorizing bodies to which applicants may apply
for a charter. The laws that permit the most charter development, as seen in Minnesota and
Michigan, allow for a combination of such authorizers. As of 2012, 39% of charters were
authorized by local districts, 28% by state boards of education, 12% by State Commissions, with
the remainder by Universities, Cities and others.
Charter operators may include local school districts, institutions of higher education, non-profit
corporations, and, in some states, for-profit corporations. Wisconsin, California, Michigan, and
Arizona allow for-profit corporations to manage charter schools.
Notable School Operators
Achievement First
Algiers Charter Schools Association (New Orleans)
Arizona Charter Schools Association
Aspire Public Schools
BASIS Schools
Concept Schools
EdisonLearning
The Leona Group
Mosaica Education
National Heritage Academies
SABIS Educational Systems
Page 13 of 43

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002
Charter schools are subject to the No Child Left Behind act (NCLB) act because they are funded
under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Title 1 and considered public
schools. NCLB’s, main objective is to have students “proficient” in the basics. The charter school
law requires accountability, thus schools have to produce an adequate yearly progress report
(AYP) similar to the public school. Therefore, charter schools must make satisfactory
improvement each year toward the goals of NCLB. Charters have to keep in contact with the
State Education Agency (SEA) to make sure they are meeting AYP standards to determine and if
individual schools are in need of improvement. This comes as an advantage to parents who
want to switch their children to schools that are meeting the State Education Agency and the
Local Education Agency (LEA) satisfactory progression.
The same goes with public schools that fall under Title 1 here are certain guidelines to follow
that may hinder a system or boost moral. The biggest competition that comes from NCLB is the
fact that charter schools are making the grade faster than public schools. There are some
charter schools that don’t make AYP therefore, just like public schools they receive an in need
of improvement pass and parents are contacted to give them the choice of relocating their
children to another school in their district for the following school year.
Public and charter schools are not much different. The biggest difference is the innovative style
of education encouraged in charter schools. Each system has their downfalls whether in
students, location, teachers, and administrators. However, there is the common goal of
educating children with the basics needed to survive in society. The No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 is making it even more challenging for both systems to compete for student and parent
attention in their districts. Financial assistance has aided charter school to accomplish their
goals of making a school system without many boundaries. Along with the cooperation of
students, community, and the commitment from parents many charter schools have been able
to jump the hurdles of traditionalist. Today, school systems are having a hard time keeping
students in school than keeping them out. I believe if students were given the opportunity to be
part of the process of education and tell what they would like out of the educational board then
students wouldn’t be reluctant to attend. The educational system has quite a ways to go before
it reaches a status were no one is truly left behind.
Page 14 of 43

Funding
Generally
Public schools are funded by the government, while charter schools are funded through
sponsors and grants. According to the National Center for Education Statistic and the Common
Core of Data that collects public and secondary education expenditures and revenues data,
approximately $487.6 billion dollars was collected in revenues in 2005 fiscal year. The
expenditures totaled $424.6 billion also in 2005 . Seventy percent of the funding was spent on
instructions and instructional-related activities, while only eighteen percent was spent on the
operation of the schools. The public schools system received about $8,000 per pupil for both
secondary and elementary education. On top of the $8,000 for each pupil, the schools received
an additional $5,000 for education and educational-related activities. The dollar amount for
each pupil varies from state to state. For example the expenditures in New York schools may
receive about $9,000, while schools in Utah may be given $3,000 per pupil.
Federal support for charter schools began in 1995 with the authorization of the Public Charter
Schools Program (PCSP), administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Charter
schools are mainly funded by grants/sub-grants and sponsors; however, in 1965 there was a
federal act called the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that obligates charter schools to
meet accountability requirements to obtain financial assistance. Unlike public education,
charter schools are awarded grants on a three-year cycle instead of year to year like public
schools. The grant amount was given out in 1995 was $6 million which then increased to $218.7
million in 2004 because of the growth of charter schools. Just like the public school systems,
charter schools use a majority of their funds on instructional materials.
Page 15 of 43

State to State
Charter school funding is dictated by each state. In many states, charter schools are funded by
transferring per-pupil state aid from the school district where the charter school student
resides. Charters on average receive less money per-pupil than the corresponding public
schools in their areas, though the average figure is controversial because some charter schools
do not enroll a proportionate number of students that require special education or student
support services. Additionally, some charters are not required to provide transportation and
nutrition services. The Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Part B, Sections 502–
511 authorizes funding grants for charter schools.
In August 2005, a national report of charter school finance undertaken by the Thomas B.
Fordam Institute, a pro-charter group, found that across 16 states and the District of
Columbia—which collectively enrolled 84 percent of that year's one million charter school
students—charter schools receive about 22 percent less in per-pupil public funding than the
district schools that surround them, a difference of about $1,800. For a typical charter school of
250 students, that amounts to about $450,000 per year. The study asserts that the funding gap
is wider in most of twenty-seven urban school districts studied, where it amounts to $2,200 per
student, and that in cities like San Diego and Atlanta, charters receive 40% less than traditional
public schools. The funding gap was largest in South Carolina, California, Ohio, Georgia,
Wisconsin and Missouri. The report suggests that the primary driver of the district-charter
funding gap is charter schools' lack of access to local and capital funding.
A 2010 study found that charters received 64 percent of their district counterparts, averaging
$7,131 per pupil compared to the average per pupil expenditure of $11,184 in the traditional
public schools in 2009/10 compared to $10,771 per pupil at conventional district public schools.
Charters raise an average of some $500 per student in additional revenue from donors.
However, funding differences across districts remain considerable in most states that use local
property taxes for revenue. Charters that are funded based on a statewide average may have
an advantage if they are located in a low-income district, or be at a disadvantage if located in a
high-income district.
Debate Over Funding
Nearly all charter schools face implementation obstacles, but newly created schools are most
vulnerable. Some charter advocates claim that new charters tend to be plagued by resource
limitations, particularly inadequate startup funds. Yet a few charter schools also attract large
amounts of interest and money from private sources such as the Gates Foundation, the Walton
Family Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the NewSchools Venture Fund. Sometimes
private businesses and foundations, such as the Ameritech Corporation in Michigan and the
Annenberg Fund in California, provide support.
Page 16 of 43

Although charter advocates recommend the schools control all per-pupil funds, charter
advocates claim that their schools rarely receive as much funding as other public schools. In
reality, this is not necessarily the case in the complex world of school funding. Charter schools
in California were guaranteed a set amount of district funding that in some districts amounted
to $800 per student per year more than traditional public schools received until a new law was
passed that took effect in fall 2006. Charter advocates claim that their schools generally lack
access to funding for facilities and special program funds distributed on a district basis.
Congress and the President allocated $80 million to support charter-school activities in fiscal
year 1998, up from $51 million in 1997. Despite the possibility of additional private and nondistrict
funding, a government study showed that charter school may still lag behind traditional
public school achievement.
Although charter schools may receive less public funding than traditional public schools, a
portion of charter schools' operating costs can come from sources outside public funding (such
as private funding in the form of donations). A study funded by the American Federation of
Teachers found that in DC charter schools, private funding accounted for $780 per pupil on
average and, combined with a higher level of public funding in some charters (mostly due to
non-district funding), resulted in considerably higher funding when compared to comparable
public schools. Without federal funding, private funding, and "other income", D.C. charter
schools received slightly more on average ($8,725 versus $8,676 per pupil), but that funding
was more concentrated in the better funded charter schools (as seen by the median DC charter
school funding of $7,940 per pupil). With federal, private, and "other income", charter school
funding shot up to an average of $11,644 versus the district $10,384 per pupil. The median here
showed an even more unequal distribution of the funds with a median of $10,333. Other
research, using different funding data for DC schools and including funding for school facilities,
finds conflicting results.
Charters sometimes face opposition from local boards, state education agencies, and unions.
Many educators are concerned that charter schools might siphon off badly needed funds for
regular schools, as well as students. In addition, public-school advocates assert that charter
schools are designed to compete with public schools in a destructive and harmful manner
rather than work in harmony with them. To minimize these harmful effects, the American
Federation of Teachers urges that charter schools adopt high standards, hire only certified
teachers, and maintain teachers' collective-bargaining rights.
According to a recent study published in December 2011 by The Center for Education Reform,
the national percentage of charter closures were as follows: 42% of charter schools close as a
direct result of financial issues, whereas only 19% of charter schools closed due to academic
problems. Congress and the President allocated $80 million to support charter-school activities
in fiscal year 1998, up from $51 million in 1997. Despite the possibility of additional private and
non-district funding, a government study showed that charter school may still lag behind
traditional public school achievement.
Page 17 of 43

Page 18 of 43

Public Opinion
Historically, Americans have been hesitant to the idea of Charter schools, often with more
opposition than support. There is also widespread sentiment that states should hold Charters
accountable, with 80% thinking so in 2005. However, openness to Charter schools has been
increasing especially among minority communities who have shifted opinions higher than the
national average. A 2011 Phi Delta Kappa International-Gallup Poll reported that public support
for charter schools stood at a "decade-high" of 70%.
Charter schools provide an alternative for educators, families and communities who are
dissatisfied with educational quality and school district bureaucracies at non-charter schools. In
early 2008, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, a pro-charter organization,
conducted two polls in primarily conservative states Idaho and Nevada where they asked
parents about their preferences concerning education. In Idaho, only 12% of respondents said
that their regular public school was their top choice for the children's school. Most preferred
private schools over other options. In 2008, Polls conducted in the conservative states Georgia
and Wyoming found similar results.
The charter approach uses market principles from the private sector, including accountability
and consumer choice, to offer new public sector options that remain nonsectarian and nonexclusive.
Many people, such as former President Bill Clinton, see charter schools, with their
emphasis on autonomy and accountability, as a workable political compromise and an
alternative to vouchers. Others, such as former President George W. Bush, see charter schools
as a way to improve schools without antagonizing the teachers' union. Bush made charter
Page 19 of 43

schools a major part of his No Child Left Behind Act. Despite these endorsements, a recent
report by the AFT, has shown charter schools not faring as well as public schools on state
administered standardized testing, though the report has been heavily criticized by
conservatives like William G. Howell of the Brookings Institute. Other charter school opponents
have examined the competing claims and suggest that most students in charter schools
perform the same or worse than their traditional public school counterparts on standardized
tests.
Both charter school proponents and critics admit that individual schools of public choice have
the potential to develop into successful or unsuccessful models. In a May 2009 policy report
issued by Education Sector, "Food for Thought: Building a High-Quality School Choice Market",
author Erin Dillon argues that market forces alone will not provide the necessary supply and
demand for excellent public schools, especially in low-income, urban neighborhoods that often
witness low student achievement. According to Dillon, "In order to pressure all public schools to
improve and to raise student achievement overall, school choice reforms need to not just
increase the supply of any schools. They need to increase the supply of good schools, and
parents who know how to find them." Drawing lessons from successful food and banking
enterprises located in poor, inner-city neighborhoods, the report recommends that
policymakers enhance the charter school market by providing more information to consumers,
forging community partnerships, allowing for more flexible school financing, and mapping the
quality of the education market.
Page 20 of 43

Nationwide Studies
Multiple researchers and organizations have examined educational outcomes for students who
attend charter schools.
Center for Research on Education Outcomes
The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University studies charter
schools and has completed two national reports for 2009 and 2013. The report is the first
detailed national assessment of charter schools. The report now analyzes the impact of charter
schools in 26 states and finds a steady improvement in charter school quality since 2009.
The authors state, "On average, students attending charter schools have eight additional days
of
learning in reading and the same days of learning in math per
year compared to their peers in traditional public schools."
Charter schools also have varying impacts on different demographic
groups. Black students in charters get an extra 7 days
of learning in reading. :32 For low-income charter school
students the advantage is 14 days of extra learning in reading and 22
days in math. : English Language Learner students in charter
schools see a 43 day learning advantage over traditional
public school students in reading and an extra 36 days
advantage in math. :
The authors of the report consider this a "sobering" finding about the quality of charter schools
in the U.S. Charter schools showed a significantly greater variation in quality between states
and within states. For example, Arizona charter school students had a 29 day disadvantage in
math compared to public school students but charter school students in D.C. had a 105 day
advantage over their peers in public schools. While the obvious solution to the widely varying
quality of charter schools would be to close those that perform below the level of public
schools, this is hard to accomplish in practice as even a poor school has its supporters.
Criticism and Debate
Stanford economist Caroline Hoxby criticized the study, resulting in a written debate with the
authors. She originally argued the study "contains a serious statistical mistake that causes a
negative bias in its estimate of how charter schools affect achievement," but after CREDO
countered the remarks, saying Hoxby's "memo is riddled with serious errors" Hoxby revised her
original criticism. The debate ended with a written "Finale" by CREDO that rebuts both Hoxby's
original and revised criticism.
Page 21 of 43

National Bureau of Economic Research study
In 2004, the National Bureau of Economic Research found data that suggested Charter Schools
increase competition in a given jurisdiction, thus improving the quality of traditional public
schools (non-charters) in the area. Using end-of-year test scores for grades three through eight
from North Carolina's state testing program, researchers found that charter school competition
raised the composite test scores in district schools, even though the students leaving district
schools for the charters tended to have above average test scores. The introduction of charter
schools in the state caused an approximate one percent increase in the score, which constitutes
about one quarter of the average yearly growth. The gain was roughly two to five times greater
than the gain from decreasing the student-faculty ratio by 1. This research could partially
explain how other studies have found a small significant difference in comparing educational
outcomes between charter and traditional public schools. It may be that in some cases, charter
schools actually improve other public schools by raising educational standards in the area.
American Federation of Teachers Study
A report by the American Federation of Teachers, a teachers' union which nevertheless
"strongly supports charter schools", stated that students attending charter schools tied to
school boards do not fare any better or worse statistically in reading and math scores than
students attending public schools. This report was based on a study conducted as part of the
National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2003. The study included a sample of 6000 4th
grade pupils and was the first national comparison of test scores among children in charter
schools and regular public schools. Rod Paige, the U.S. Secretary of Education from 2001 to
2005, issued a statement saying (among other things) that, "according to the authors of the
data the Times cites, differences between charter and regular public schools in achievement
test scores vanish when examined by race or ethnicity." Additionally, a number of prominent
research experts called into question the usefulness of the findings and the interpretation of
the data in an advertisement funded by a pro-charter group. Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby
also criticized the report and the sample data, saying "An analysis of charter schools that is
statistically meaningful requires larger numbers of students."
Caroline Hoxby Studies
A 2000 page paper by Caroline Hoxby found that charter school students do better than public
school students, although this advantage was found only "among white non-Hispanics, males,
and students who have a parent with at least a high school diploma". Hoxby released a follow
up paper in 2004 with Jonah Rockoff, Assistant Professor of Economics and Finance at the
Columbia Graduate School of Business, claiming to have again found that charter school
students do better than public school students. This second study compared charter school
students "to the schools that their students would most likely otherwise attend: the nearest
regular public school with a similar racial composition." It reported that the students in charter
schools performed better in both math and reading. It also reported that the longer the charter
school had been in operation, the more favorably its students compared.
Page 22 of 43

Criticism
The paper was the subject of controversy in 2005 when Princeton assistant professor Jesse
Rothstein was unable to replicate her results. Hoxby's methodology in this study has also been
criticized, arguing that Hoxby's "assessment of school outcomes is based on the share of
students who are proficient at reading or math but not the average test score of the students.
That's like knowing the poverty rate but not the average income of a community—useful but
incomplete." How representative the study is has also been criticized, as the study is only of
students in Chicago.
Learning Gains Studies
A common approach in peer reviewed academic journals is to compare the learning gains of
individual students in charter schools to their gains when they were in traditional public
schools. Thus, in effect, each student acts as his/her own control to assess the impact of charter
schools. A few selected examples of this work find that charter schools on average outperform
the traditional public schools that supplied students, at least after the charter school had been
in operation for a few years. At the same time, there appears to be a wide variation in the
effectiveness of individual charter schools.
Meta-Analyses
A report issued by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, released in July 2005 and
updated in October 2006, looks at twenty-six studies that make some attempt to look at change
over time in charter school student or school performance. Twelve of these find that overall
gains in charter schools were larger than other public schools; four find charter schools' gains
higher in certain significant categories of schools, such as elementary schools, high schools, or
schools serving at risk students; six find comparable gains in charter and traditional public
schools; and, four find that charter schools' overall gains lagged behind. The study also looks at
whether individual charter schools improve their performance with age (e.g. after overcoming
start-up challenges). Of these, five of seven studies find that as charter schools mature, they
improve. The other two find no significant differences between older and younger charter
schools.
A more recent synthesis of findings conducted by Vanderbilt University indicates that solid
conclusions cannot be drawn from the existing studies, due to their methodological
shortcomings and conflicting results, and proposes standards for future meta-analyses.
National Center for Education Statistics Study
A study released on August 22, 2006 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
found that students in charter schools performed several points worse than students in
traditional public schools in both reading and math on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress test. Some proponents consider this the best study as they believe by incorporating
Page 23 of 43

asic demographic, regional, or school characteristics simultaneously it "... has shown
conclusively, through rigorous, replicated, and representative research, whether charter
schools boost student achievement ...", while they say that in the AFT study "... estimates of
differences between charter schools and traditional public schools are overstated." Critics of
this study argue that its demographic controls are highly unreliable, as percentage of students
receiving free lunches does not correlate well to poverty levels, and some charter schools do
not offer free lunches at all, skewing their apparent demographics towards higher income levels
than actually occur.
United States Department of Education Study
In its Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report released in 2003, the U.S.
Department of Education found that, in the five case study states, charter schools were outperformed
by traditional public schools in meeting state performance standards, but noted: "It
is impossible to know from this study whether that is because of the performance of the
schools, the prior achievement of the students, or some other factor."
Page 24 of 43

Criticism
Difficulties with Accountability
The basic concept of charter schools is that they exercise increased autonomy in return for
greater accountability. They are meant to be held accountable for both academic results and
fiscal practices to several groups, including the sponsor that grants them, the parents who
choose them, and the public that funds them. Charter schools can theoretically be closed for
failing to meet the terms set forth in their charter, but in practice, this can be difficult, divisive,
and controversial. One example was the 2003 revocation of the charter for a school called
Urban Pioneer in the San Francisco Unified School District, which first came under scrutiny
when two students died on a school wilderness outing. An auditor's report found that the
school was in financial disarray and posted the lowest test scores of any school in the district
except those serving entirely non-English-speakers. It was also accused of academic fraud,
graduating students with far fewer than the required credits. There is also the case of California
Charter Academy, where a publicly funded but privately run chain of 60 charter schools became
insolvent in August 2004, despite a budget of $100 million, which left thousands of children
without a school to attend.
In March 2009, the Center for Education Reform released its latest data on charter school
closures. At that time they found that 657 of the more than 5250 charter schools that have ever
Page 25 of 43

opened had closed, for reasons ranging from district consolidation to failure to attract students.
The study found that "41 percent of the nation's charter closures resulted from financial
deficiencies caused by either low student enrollment or inequitable funding," while 14% had
closed due to poor academic performance. The report also found that the absence of
achievement data "correlates directly with the weakness of a state's charter school law. For
example, states like Iowa, Mississippi, Virginia and Wyoming have laws ranked either "D" or "F".
Progress among these schools has not been tracked objectively or clearly." A 2005 paper found
that in Connecticut, which it characterized as having been highly selective in approving charter
applications, a relatively large proportion of poorly performing charter schools have closed.
Under Connecticut's relatively weak charter law, only 21 charter schools have opened in all, and
of those, five have closed. Of those, 3 closed for financial reasons. Charter school students in
Connecticut are funded on average $4,278 less than regular public school students.
In a September 2007 public policy report, education experts Andrew Rotherham and Sara Mead
of Education Sector offered a series of recommendations to improve charter school quality
through increased accountability. Some of their recommendations urged policymakers to: (i)
provide more public oversight of charter school authorizers, including the removal of poorquality
authorizers, (ii) improve the quality of student performance data with more longitudinal
student-linked data and multiple measures of school performance, and (iii) clarify state laws
related to charter school closure, especially the treatment of displaced students. All but 17% of
charter school students show no improvement when compared to a heuristically modeled
virtual twin traditional public school. Educational gains from switching to charter schools from
public schools have on average been shown to be “small or insignificant” (Zimmer, et al.) and
tend to decline over a span of time (Byrnes). Charter schools provided no substantial
improvement in students’ educational outcomes that could not be accounted for in a public
school setting (Gleason, Clark and Clark Tuttle). Attrition rates for teachers in charter schools
have shown annual rates as high as 40%. Students also tend to move from charter schools prior
to graduation more often than do students in public schools (Finch, Lapsley and Baker-
Boudissa). Charter schools are often regarded as an outgrowth of the Powell Manifesto
advocating corporate domination of the American democratic process and are considered to
represent vested interests’ attempts to mold public opinion via public school education and to
claim a share of this $500–600 billion-dollar industry.
Scalability
Whether the charter school model can be scaled up to the size of a public noncharter school
system has been questioned, when teaching demands more from teachers and many
noncharter teachers are apparently unable to teach in the way charters seek, as Arne Duncan,
U.S. Secretary of Education, Diane Ravitch, education historian and former assistant U.S.
education secretary, Mark Roosevelt, former schools chief for Pittsburgh, Penn., U.S., and Dave
Levin, of the KIPP charters, have suggested. However, some, such as Eva Moskowitz of Success
Academy Charter Schools, believe that the work is hard but performable and compensable and
that the model can be scaled up.
Page 26 of 43

Exploitation by For-Profits
Critics have accused for-profit entities (Educational Management Organizations or EMOs) and
private foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Eli and Edythe Broad
Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation of funding Charter school initiatives to
undermine public education and turn education into a "Business Model" which can make a
profit. According to activist Jonathan Kozol, education is seen as one of the biggest market
opportunities in America or "the big enchilada".
Shift from Progressive to
Conservative Movement
Charters were originally a progressive
movement (called the "small schools"
movement) started by University of
Massachusetts professor Ray Budde and
American Federation of Teachers leader, Al
Shanker to explore best practices for
education without bureaucracy. However,
some critics argue that the Charter
movement has shifted into an effort to
privatize education and attack teachers'
unions. For example, education historian
Diane Ravitch has estimated, as a "safe
guess," that 95% of charters in the United
States are non-union and has said that
charters follow an unsustainable practice of requiring teachers to work unusually long hours.
Lower Student Test Scores and Teacher Issues
According to a study done by Vanderbilt University, teachers in charter schools are 1.32 times
more likely to leave teaching than a public school teacher. Another 2004 study done by the
Department of Education found that charter schools "are less likely than traditional public
schools to employ teachers meeting state certification standards." A national evaluation by
Stanford University found that 83% of charter schools perform the same or worse than public
schools (see earlier in this article). If the goal is increased competition, parents can examine the
data and avoid the failing charters, while favoring the successful charters, and chartering
institutions can decline to continue to support charters with mediocre performance.
It is as yet unclear whether charters' lackluster test results will affect the enacting of future
legislation. A Pennsylvania legislator who voted to create charter schools, State Rep. Mark B.
Cohen of Philadelphia, said that "Charter schools offer increased flexibility to parents and
administrators, but at a cost of reduced job security to school personnel. The evidence to date
shows that the higher turnover of staff undermines school performance more than it enhances

it, and that the problems of urban education are far too great for enhanced managerial
authority to solve in the absence of far greater resources of staff, technology, and state of the
art buildings."
Admissions Lotteries
When admission depends on a random lottery, some hopeful applicants may be disappointed.
A film about the admission lottery at the Success Academy Charter Schools (then known as
Harlem Success Academy) has been shown as The Lottery. It was inspired by a 2008 lottery. The
2010 documentary Waiting for "Superman" also examines this issue.
Collective Bargaining
Concern has also been raised about the exemption of charter school teachers from states'
collective bargaining laws, especially because "charter school teachers are even more likely
than traditional public school teachers to be beset by the burn-out caused by working long
hours, in poor facilities." As of July 2009, "an increasing number of teachers at charter schools"
were attempting to restore collective bargaining rights. Steven Brill, in his book, Class Warfare:
Inside the Fight to Fix America's Schools (2011), changed his position on charter schools and
unions. He said that after two years of researching school reform, he understood the
complexities. He reversed his view of union leader Randi Weingarten and suggested she run the
school system for a city.
Racial Segregation
One study states that charter schools increase racial segregation. A UCLA report points out that
most charter schools are located in African-American neighborhoods.
Union Leader–Led Schools
The performance of a charter school chaired by a union leader, Randi Weingarten then of the
United Federation of Teachers, generally representing teachers, was, according to Brill,
criticized, as the school "ended up not performing well."
Page 28 of 43

Waiting for Superman
Waiting for "Superman" is a 2010 documentary film from director Davis Guggenheim and
producer Lesley Chilcott. The film analyzes the failures of the American public education system
by following several students as they strive to be accepted into a charter school.
The film received the Audience Award for best documentary at the 2010 Sundance Film
Festival. The film also received the Best Documentary Feature at the Critics' Choice Movie
Awards.
Geoffrey Canada describes his journey as an educator and his surprise when he realizes upon
entering adulthood that Superman is a fictional character and that no one is powerful enough
to save us all.
Throughout the documentary, different aspects of the American public education system are
examined. Things such as the ease in which a public school teacher achieves tenure, the
inability to fire a teacher who is tenured, and how the system attempts to reprimand poorly
performing teachers are shown to have an impact on the educational environment. Teaching
standards are called into question as there is often conflicting bureaucracy between teaching
expectations at the school, state, or federal level.
The film also examines teacher's unions. Michelle Rhee, the former chancellor of the
Washington, D.C. public schools (the district with some of the worst-performing students at the
time), is shown attempting to take on the union agreements that teachers are bound to, but
suffers a backlash from the unions and the teachers themselves.
Statistical comparisons are made between the different types of primary or secondary
educational institutions available: state school, private school, and charter school. There are
also comparisons made between schools in affluent neighborhoods versus schools in poorer
ones. Since charter schools do not operate with the same restrictions as public institutions, they
are depicted as having a more experimental approach to educating students.
Since many charter schools are not large enough to accept all of their applicants, the selection
of students is done by lottery. The film follows several families as they attempt to gain access to
prominent charter schools for their children.
The film has earned both praise and negative criticism from commentators, reformers, and
educators. As of May 1, 2011, the film has an 89% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
Roger Ebert gave the movie 3.5 stars out of 4 and wrote, "What struck me most of all was
Geoffrey Canada's confidence that a charter school run on his model can make virtually any
first-grader a high school graduate who's accepted to college. A good education, therefore, is
not ruled out by poverty, uneducated parents or crime – and drug-infested neighborhoods. In
Page 29 of 43

fact, those are the very areas where he has success." Scott Bowles of USA Today lauded the film
for its focus on the students: "it's hard to deny the power of Guggenheim's lingering shots on
these children." Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly gave the film an A−, calling it
"powerful, passionate, and potentially revolution-inducing." The Hollywood Reporter focused
on Geoffrey Canada's performance as "both the most inspiring and a consistently entertaining
speaker," while also noting it "isn't exhaustive in its critique." Variety characterized the film's
production quality as "deserving every superlative" and felt that "the film is never less than
buoyant, thanks largely to the dedicated and effective teachers on whom Guggenheim
focuses." Geraldo Rivera praised the film for promoting discussion of educational issues.
Deborah Kenny, CEO and founder of the Harlem Village Academy, made positive reference to
the film in a The Wall Street Journal op-ed piece about education reform.
The film has also garnered praise from a number of conservative critics. Joe Morgenstern,
writing for The Wall Street Journal, gave the movie a positive review saying, "when the future of
public education is being debated with unprecedented intensity," the film "makes an invaluable
addition to the debate." The Wall Street Journal 's William McGurn also praised the film in an
op-ed piece, calling it a "stunning liberal exposé of a system that consigns American children
who most need a decent education to our most destructive public schools." Kyle Smith, for the
New York Post, gave the movie 4.5 stars, calling it an "invaluable learning experience." Forbes '
Melik Kaylan similarly liked the film, writing, "I urge you all to drop everything and go see the
documentary Waiting For "Superman" at the earliest opportunity."
The film also received negative criticism. Andrew O'Hehir of Salon wrote a negative review of
the movie, saying that while there's "a great deal that's appealing," there's also "as much in this
movie that is downright baffling." Melissa Anderson of The Village Voice was critical of the film
for not including enough details of outlying socioeconomic issues, saying, "macroeconomic
responses to Guggenheim's query... go unaddressed in Waiting for "Superman," which points
out the vast disparity in resources for inner-city versus suburban schools only to ignore them."
Anderson also opined that the animation clips were overused. In New York City, a group of local
teachers protested one of the documentary's showings, calling the film "complete nonsense",
saying that "there is no teacher voice in the film."
Critics
Author and academic Rick Ayers lambasted the accuracy of the film, describing it as "a slick
marketing piece full of half-truths and distortions." In Ayers' view, the "corporate powerhouses
and the ideological opponents of all things public" have employed the film to "break the
teacher's unions and to privatize education," while driving teachers' wages even lower and
running "schools like little corporations." Ayers also critiqued the film's promotion of a greater
focus on "top-down instruction driven by test scores," positing that extensive research has
demonstrated that standardized testing "dumbs down the curriculum" and "reproduces
inequities," while marginalizing "English language learners and those who do not grow up
speaking a middle class vernacular." Lastly, Ayers contends that "schools are more segregated
today than before Brown v. Board of Education in 1954," and thus criticized the film for not
Page 30 of 43

mentioning that in his view, "black and brown students are being suspended, expelled,
searched, and criminalized."
There is also a companion book titled Waiting For "Superman": How We Can Save America's
Failing Public Schools.
The Harlem Children’s Zone
The Harlem Children's Zone (HCZ) is a non-profit organization for poverty-stricken children and
families living in Harlem, providing free support in the form of parenting workshops, a preschool
program, three public charter schools, and child-oriented health programs for thousands
of children and families. The HCZ is "aimed at doing nothing less than breaking the cycle of
generational poverty for the thousands of children and families it serves." In part because not
enough time has passed, there is not evidence available that the HCZ achieves its central goal.
The Harlem Children's Zone Project has expanded the HCZ's comprehensive system of programs
to nearly 100 blocks of Central Harlem and aims to keep children on track through college and
into the job market.
The HCZ and its promotion as a model of education to aspire to, especially in the recent
documentary Waiting for "Superman", have been criticized as an example of the privatization
of education in the U.S. University of San Francisco Adjunct Professor in Education, Rick Ayers
writes that Waiting for "Superman" "never mentions the tens of millions of dollars of private
money that has poured into the Harlem Children's Zone, the model and superman we are
relentlessly instructed to aspire to." One year after this film was made, the Grassroots
Education Movement made a film titled The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman,
which accused the original film of exaggerating the success of the HCZ.
Page 31 of 43

The Obama administration announced a Promise Neighborhoods program, which hopes to
replicate the success of the HCZ in poverty-stricken areas of other U.S. cities. In the summer of
2010, the U.S. Department of Education's Promise Neighborhoods program accepted
applications from over 300 communities for $10 million in federal grants for developing HCZ
implementation plans.
The War on Poverty
The War on Poverty is the unofficial name for legislation first introduced by United States
President Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964. This
legislation was proposed by Johnson in response to a national poverty rate of around nineteen
percent. The speech led the United States Congress to pass the Economic Opportunity Act,
which established the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to administer the local application
of federal funds targeted against poverty.
As a part of the Great Society, Johnson believed in expanding the government's role in
education and health care as poverty reduction strategies. These policies can also be seen as a
continuation of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, which ran from 1933 to 1935, and the Four
Freedoms of 1941.
The legacy of the War on Poverty policy initiative remains in the continued existence of such
federal programs as Head Start, Volunteers in Service to America, TRIO, and Job Corps.
The popularity of a war on poverty waned after the 1960s. Deregulation, growing criticism of
the welfare state, and an ideological shift to reducing federal aid to impoverished people in the
1980s and 1990s culminated in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996,
which, as claimed President Bill Clinton, "end[ed] welfare as we know it."
Page 32 of 43

References
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_schools_in_the_United_States
2. http://www.educationjustice.org/newsletters/nlej_iss21_art5_detail_CharterSchoolAchi
evement.htm
3. http://www.uncommonschools.org/faq-what-is-charter-school
4. http://www.greatschools.org/school-choice/6987-public-private-charter-schools.gs
5. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_American_School/Charter_vs._Public_Schools
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_%22Superman%22
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Children%27s_Zone
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty
9. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/drafts/2008/DRU1492.pdf
10. http://www.allianceforpublicwaldorfeducation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/2012_Alliance_HowToStartACharterSchool.pdf
11. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/charterguidance03.pdf
12. http://www.calcharters.org/understanding/faqs/
13. http://www.hamiltonproject.org/files/downloads_and_links/THP_Fryer_Charters_Brief.
pdf
Page 33 of 43

Page 34 of 43

Attachment A
How to Start A Charter School
Page 35 of 43

HOW TO
START A
CHARTER
SCHOOL
Cultivating the Seeds
of Educational Success

To be a founder of a charter school is to
accept the role the bit of sand must play
to the oyster of public education.
You have the right mindset to start a
charter school if you think reinventing
the bathtub could have some interesting
possibilities.
We aren’t saying you will have to break
any rules. We are saying you will
probably have to create some.
You have the mindset of a “charter
starter” if you look at a mountain and
wonder if it might work better just a bit
to the left.

BEFORE LAUNCHING INTO BUILDING SUPPORT
FOR STARTING A CHARTER SCHOOL OR PASSING
ACHARTERSCHOOLLAWINYOURSTATEITIS
important to ask yourself “Why do I want to start a charter school or
pass a charter school law in my community/state?” If this is not an
easy answer, then you may not be up to the task, because starting a
school or changing perceptions about education law can sometimes be
difficult. However, if you have a clear answer and are dedicated to
improving the educational environment for kids in your community,
then this toolkit is meant for you.
In this toolkit you will find:
HOW TO
START A
CHARTER
SCHOOL
Cultivating the Seeds
of Educational Success
Information about bringing a charter school law to your state
Tips on “Starting Up,” that help you develop a concept into a
master plan
Guidance on the importance of building support for your school
early on
Aroadmapfortheapplicationandapprovalprocess
Advice about putting your plan into action: gearing up for the first
day of school
1

There Ought to Be a Law
Before you can have charter schools, you must have a state law. Forty
states and the District of Columbia have enacted charter school laws.
Like most education initiatives, charter school laws are born at the
state level. Typically a group of concerned lawmakers drafts a bill that
allows the creation of any number of charter schools throughout a
state. The content of the charter law plays a large role in the relative
success or failure of the charter schools that open within that state.
CER has identified a number of factors that work together to create
an environment that promotes the growth and expansion of charter
schools. Some of them are identified below.
NUMBER OF SCHOOLS & APPLICATIONS: The best
charter laws do not limit the total number of charter schools that
can operate throughout the state. They also do not restrict the
number of the brand new schools that may be started. More
poorly written laws allow public schools to convert into charters,
but restrict the creation of entirely new schools. This hinders
parents’ ability to choose from among numerous public schools.
These laws also should allow many different types of groups to
apply to open schools.
MULTIPLE CHARTER AUTHORIZERS: States that permit
anumberof entitiestoauthorizecharterschools,orthatprovide
applicants with a binding appeals process, encourage more activity
than those that vest authorizing power in a single entity,
particularly if that entity is the local school board. The goal is to
give parents the most options. Having multiple sponsors helps
reach this goal.
2

WAIVERS & LEGAL AUTONOMY: Agoodcharterlawis
one that automatically exempts charter schools from most of the
school district’s laws and regulations. Of course no charter school
is exempt from the most fundamental laws concerning civil rights.
Waivers also should exempt a charter school from adhering to the
district’s collective bargaining agreement. This gives a principal
more flexibility to hire the best staff for a given school. A state
law should allow a charter school to be its own legal entity. This
lets a charter school buy property, enter into contracts, and
control staffing.
FULL FUNDING & FISCAL AUTONOMY: Acharterschool
needs to have control of its own finances to run efficiently. The
charter school’s operators know the best way to spend funds and
the charter law should reflect this. Charter schools are entitled to
receive the same amount of per pupil funding as conventional
public schools. Many states and districts withhold money from
individual charter schools to cover fees and “administrative costs,”
but the best laws provide full funding for all public schools.
To ensure that your state has a strong charter law, become involved in
the legislative process. Identify one person that is your ambassador, or
lead man in this process. This person needs to be committed to the
adoption of a charter school law, and have a good relationship with
those responsible for passing such a law.
The legislative process also offers the ideal time to begin spreading the
charter concept, informing parents, educators and communities about
the benefits, and working to allay fears and nip misinformation
campaigns in the bud. Often, this is when the state charter association
is born. Such associations are dedicated to promoting quality charter
schools that foster student achievement.
Need more information on your state’s law? CER has compiled a
detailed state-by-state analysis of each charter school law –
http://www.edreform.com/charter_schools/laws/
3

Starting Up
What is the concept of your charter school?
It is important to have an idea of the type of school you think will best
benefit your community. One of the great gifts a charter law gives us is
the opportunity to ask the question, “if we could have the best public
school we can imagine for our children, what would it look like? How
would it operate? What would be the defining characteristic of our
school?” Once you have that basic idea in place, talk with your friends and
others in your community about their own educational concerns. Some
of these people may in fact become part of your planning and governance
team, and their input will prove to be a valuable resource going forward.
Governance
The launching of a charter school starts with an idea for building a
better school, shared by a group of dedicated individuals. They may
already be education providers who seek more freedom to innovate,
entrepreneurs who see a way to create an education delivery system
that runs more efficiently and provides more options, community
organizers who seek to serve children who are falling through the
cracks, or any combination of these (parents, teachers, businesses,
non-profits, social service agencies, etc.) who share a vision for
educational quality.
The process begins with passion and commitment, but must be
tempered and guided by a strong and focused organization. It is
important to develop a sound governance structure and process, to
ensure that the initial vision is correctly executed and to avoid
problems down the road. Governance is one of the most critical issues
charter developers must address.
The charter development team should be composed of people who
share a common vision for a better school, but can offer expertise in a
variety of areas. Team members must understand that consensus is
not the ultimate goal. Rather, they must focus on turning their shared
vision into a schoolhouse full of learning students.
4

Planning Tip: Divide members of your team into subcommittees
that will be responsible for different aspects of
research. For example, one group can look into facilities,
one can focus on building initial community support, while
another is in charge of developing a business plan.
The process can be long and arduous, and every advantage should be
sought. Recognize the skills and expertise already assembled, and try
to involve community members and organizations that can bring the
expertise still needed. Legal issues, compliance with state and federal
safety and civil rights codes, fiscal management, staffing, curriculum
development, support services such as food and transportation, and
other administrative details large and small must all be addressed.
Still not sure how to gather a team together?
CER’s Building Community Support For Education Reform Toolkit
can help! Visit http://www.edreform.com/toolkit/grassroots.pdf
for more details.
Try contacting your state and local resources, as they may
have connections with other individuals already on board.
Visit CER’s National and State Groups and Contacts at
http://www.edreform.com/charter_schools/groups.htm
5

The Master Plan
Now that you have your team and some preliminary research has
been performed, it is time to get down to business and develop your
charter school plan. Don’t go running for the nearest exit yet; there
are many tools and organizations out there that can help guide you
through this process. But first things first. . . . .
The Mission
It is important to develop a strong mission statement for your school.
In this statement you will define your “reason for being” as an
organization. A well-thought-out mission statement will provide the
base upon which to build a solid and successful application. It will
inform your school community of your foundational beliefs, out of
which your curriculum, assessment, and governance design will flow.
Be sure that your governance team agrees with its message.
APublicTrust
Draw on the expertise of your assembled team to address the
particulars and consult outside experts where necessary. As an early
RAND Institute for Education and Training report points out, charter
schools are a public trust granted to “private citizens and groups to
carry out the state’s constitutional obligation to provide public
education. Charter school applicants should honor this public trust
and recognize its special burdens. One of your great challenges is to
always be thinking beyond the current moment and into the future.
As the founder of a charter school, you need to follow the best
practices of any great organization, with student achievement as your
’profit’ or goal. Following the Open Meeting Law, decisions should be
made in the open, records should be open to the public, and members
of the applicant group should recognize and avoid potential conflicts
of interest. Policy decisions should always be made in the best
interests of the students and the future of the school, not the adults
6

participating in the applicant group.” This will prove difficult at
times, as you strive to face the obstacles that start up groups must face.
But always look toward building an organization that will thrive long
after you and your children are no longer involved.
Curriculum Focus and Accountability Plan
There are many wonderful options when it comes to choosing a
curriculum. Start with the ideals you have stated for your school, and
research the curriculum that resonates with those ideals. The
curriculum you chose must be aligned with the mission you have
embraced. For example, if your mission states that you will
differentiate instruction and embrace the multiple intelligences of
each unique student, then a curriculum that asks everyone to be
instructed in the same way, on the same page, on the same day, does
not resonate with that mission statement. Be sure you have educators
in your founding group who will take on the challenge of asking the
question, “If we could design the very best curriculum we could
imagine, what would it be?”
If your charter school will be required to take the State mandated
tests, then it is essential that you align your curriculum with the State
standards. Using the State standards as a foundation for your
curriculum does not necessarily dictate how and what you teach, but
it does give your faculty an outline, or foundation, on which to build a
strong program.
You will need to decide on some programs as you create your school.
Create a strong Reading, Math, Science, Social Studies, Art, Music,
and P.E. program, and anything else that goes along with your vision.
Don’t feel you have to choose a pre-packaged curriculum for each
subject area. This is your chance to be responsive to the needs of the
students you will serve. Look at other schools, public and private, that
you admire. What reading program are they using and why?
7

Tip: Leave some room for your faculty to create some of
the curriculum, once they have assembled, and you will
have allowed a chance for the faculty to put their creative
imaginations to work on behalf of your school. The
effects of this opportunity will give you a faculty that feels
passionate ownership of your school and its success.
Accountability Plan
Your accountability plan is simply a document that communicates to
the students, authorizer, and parents the goals you have chosen to
measure your success as a school. A good accountability plan is
usually created after the first year of operations, when there is baseline
data from which to work. In general the plan is a formalized method
for establishing your school’s performance objectives for measuring
the progress and success of your school in these areas:
Raising student achievement
Establishing a viable organization (this includes financial stability)
Fulfilling the terms of the charter
Be sure the goals are measurable and realistic as this plan is often used
in the charter renewal process. Consider whether it will benefit your
school to have unique goals aligned with your design. This is an
opportunity to write a plan that will communicate your school’s top
priorities and guide the allocation of resources as well.
Tip: Create an Accountability Committee, and make
sure the members represent the entire school community.
The Principal, a teacher, a board member, a parent, and
astudentwillallcontributegreatlytothecommittee,
guiding the use of policy and data in your decisions.
8

Figure Out The Finances
As a charter school you have received the great gift of autonomy over
curriculum, program, and governance. You also have the gift of
autonomy over the finances for your school. Now it is your
responsibility to establish fiscal policies and procedures that are
consistent with State law, and sound organizational practices. The
number one reason charter schools close is because of fiscal
mismanagement. Don’t let your school fall prey to this weakness!
The Board of Trustees is responsible for management of the school.
This includes developing and adopting fiscal policies and procedures.
Budget
To get off to a strong start you will need to create a budget. Based on
the per- pupil allotment, design your budget around the core values of
your mission and vision. Most authorizers will require a boardapproved
budget proposal for the first year of operation. In addition,
create a long-range budget plan for the first three years of operation.
Most importantly for a start up school, create a detailed cash-flow
projection for the first year of operation and continue this practice in
subsequent years. These budgets and projections are reviewed and
approved by the Board of Trustees at the annual meeting and
modified as necessary.
Tip: Include your principal and a teacher on the finance
committee. Ask the principal, “What do you need in order
for our vision and mission to be realized?” Then design
your budget so it ensures that your faculty can achieve
the goals you have set. If that means committing a large
sum of money to professional development, now is the
time to do it.
9

Facilities
Facilities may be one of the areas where charter applicants and
operators can best test their ability to be creative, flexible and
visionary. Ideally, one would look for a facility in a convenient and
central location, with a healthy physical plant suitable for or readily
and cheaply adaptable to the most conducive classroom setting, and
available and affordable. Such is rarely the case. Rather, charter
school operators have had to improvise and compromise in securing a
location for their school. Some “borrow” or share available facilities
with another organization. Others convert unused retail space in strip
malls. Some are fortunate to have access to available district facilities
already designed on a classroom model. One charter rented space in a
local restaurant, clearing out the “classrooms” every Friday so it could
conduct its weekend business. Another provides its students’ physical
education classes at the local Y. Yet another contracts with a local
restaurant to provide its students with their daily lunch. Another rents
out a church basement for the annual fee of $1.
Facilities offer one more area in which to involve the community and
call on local organizations to contribute to the education of the next
generation. Enlist the expertise of realtors, architects, businesses, etc.
in efforts to find and prepare a facility for opening day. Approach
organizations to donate or lease their available facilities. Consider
making use of spaces that are in use but vacant during the school day.
“Borrow” community resources already available nearby, rather than
providing them directly.
Facilities present many charter applicants with a difficult dilemma:
some sponsors make approval contingent on the applicant’s having
already secured an appropriate site, yet applicants can’t enter into a
lease agreement unless they have the approved charter in hand. Again,
flexibility and creativity are required — applicants may try to secure a
provisional agreement with the landlord or a waiver from the sponsor.
Charter school funding has always been a hotbed of discussion. Check
out CER’s report Solving the Charter School Funding Gap: The Seven
Major Causes and What to Do About Them at www.edreform.com.
10

Have you Thought About Fundraising
When you realize that you want to raise revenue beyond the perpupil,
you must create a fundraising plan. There are many ways to
raise money. Private individuals, federal grants, and local and
national foundations all are possible sources of funds. Your objective
is to give others the opportunity to help you succeed.
Your group will need a leader devoted to fundraising. Your
fundraising chair will create a plan, do the research needed, write the
grants, and most importantly, build the relationships necessary to raise
additional funds for your school. The best targets for charter schools
are local family or community foundations that stress education and
direct their giving to particular communities. You can find out about
such organizations from numerous publications at libraries, or local
philanthropy offices.
Agoodfundraisingplanwillalsoincludethebusinesscommunity. Many
companies, large and small, have charitable giving arms that contribute
heavily to schools and school programs. What you must do, however, to
separate your request from the hoards of similar requests they receive is
to differentiate your program from the others. What makes your school
special? Build your credibility and inspire confidence by building
relationships with local businesses and foundations.
11

The Application & Approval Process
All states that permit charter schools require an application and have
an approval process. The charter school law in your state will identify
the authorized charter-granting agencies that will be responsible for
charter school approval, development and oversight. Your team will
need to be familiar with the application and approval process. Often,
charter schools will meet great resistance, especially when your state’s
charter law is first adopted. Be prepared for a battle if necessary.
Consider it your responsibility to know the charter school law
intimately, as the authorizer may or may not be interpreting its
contents with your success in mind.
12

CASE STUDY OF A CHARTER SCHOOL
IN BALTIMORE, MD
“Beginning in October 2003, City Neighbors Charter School
began holding monthly General Information Meetings, visiting
monthly meetings at the area neighborhood associations, and
distributing market surveys (forms for interested families to fill
out, stating their interest in enrollment at City Neighbors
Charter School (CNCS). In March of 2004, market surveys
were placed in local churches in an attempt to announce CNCS
to students in the private school market. In April of 2004, 900
market surveys were distributed in our three local BCPSS
schools: Glenmount, Woodhome and Hazelwood. Of these
surveys, 600 were pre-addressed and stamped for easy return to
CNCS. These efforts have netted CNCS over 120 forms from
interested families in the area.
Current marketing efforts include mailing announcements
inviting parents to attend our Open House and informing
parents of how to obtain an enrollment package. These
announcements will go to 1,312 homes with children aged 0-12
in our zone. We are also mailing applications to the 120
families who filled out a market survey, as well as sending email
notification to families for whom we do not have addresses. An
enrollment area is set up on our website with a downloadable
application form. An Open House will be held on January
29th. Enrollment will occur from January 31st to February 6th
over scattered times in order to be accessible to all parents.”
Careful, thoughtful planning is the key to the success of any
enterprise. Charter schools are no exception. The payoff,
however, will be well worth the effort in creating the vision and
educational mission conceived by the organizers. Maintaining
optimism and a commitment to involving other people in
meaningful ways will be important ingredients for success.
13

Moving Forward:
Once you receive your charter, it is time to gear up for the first day of
school. There are dozens of organizations in cities and states ready to
help you move forward at this point.
Contact us when you are ready:
The Center for Education Reform
800-521-2118
www.edreform.com
14

Notes

Notes

Notes

The Center For Education Reform
TOOLKIT
www.edreform.com
800-521-2118
The Center for Education Reform drives the
creation of better educational opportunities for
all children by leading parents, policymakers
and the media in boldly advocating for school
choice, advancing the charter school movement,
and challenging the education establishment.
The Center for Education Reform changes laws,
minds and cultures to allow good schools to flourish.

Attachment B
No Child Left Behind
Charter Schools Program
Page 36 of 43

The Impact of the New Title I Requirements
on Charter Schools
Non-Regulatory Guidance
July, 2004

The Impact of the New Title I Requirements on Charter Schools
Summary of Major Changes …………………………………………………………..5
A. Charter Schools and Accountability Requirements in NCLB……………………6
A-1.
A-2.
A-3.
A-4.
A-5.
A-6.
A-7.
A-8.
A-9.
A-10.
A-11.
Are charter schools subject to the “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) and
other accountability requirements of No Child Left Behind?
Which entity in a State is responsible for determining whether charter
schools make AYP and and ensuring that they comply with other
accountability provisions in Title I, Part A?
Is a charter school that is its own LEA covered by the NCLB requirements
applicable to schools in need of improvement or by the requirements
applicable to LEAs in need of improvement?
Which entity is responsible for carrying out the LEA’s duties, under
Section 1116 of Title I, when a charter school that is also an LEA is
identified for improvement?
What are an LEA’s responsibilities with respect to schools within its
jurisdiction that are identified for improvement? (In other words, what are
the responsibilities that authorized public chartering authorities, or other
entities designated under State law, must assume when a charter school is
identified for improvement?)
What resources are available to support the Title I accountability
responsibilities of charter authorizers (or other entities designated under
State law as responsible for charter school accountability)?
Must charter school authorizers insert State plans for meeting AYP into
individual charter contracts?
Are charter authorizers now responsible for allocating Title I and other
Federal formula funds to their charter schools?
Should State Title I accountability plans specifically address charter
schools and reflect input from charter authorizers and operators?
What if a charter school fails to make AYP but meets its contractual
requirements with its authorizer?
Does NCLB prohibit more rigorous accountability requirements than the
requirements of a State’s Title I accountability plan in an existing charter
contract or a future charter contract?
2

B. Charter Schools and the Title I Public School Choice Provisions……………….11
B-1.
B-2.
B-3.
B-4.
B-5.
B-6.
B-7.
May an eligible charter school that is part of an LEA be listed as a choice
option for parents who wish to transfer their child to a higher-performing
school?
If a charter school is its own LEA but falls within the boundaries of a
larger LEA, should eligible students from the larger LEA be able to
transfer to it?
Do charter schools that admit students using a lottery have to give priority
to eligible students transferring under the public school choice provisions
of NCLB?
Must parents be notified if a charter school is identified as in need of
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring?
Are charter schools that are parts of LEAs under State law required to
provide choice options and offer transportation for students to other
higher-performing schools in the LEA if the charter school is identified by
the State as in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring?
Are charter schools that are their own LEAs under State law required to
provide choice options and offer transportation for students to other
higher-performing schools in another LEA if the charter school is
identified by the State as in need of improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring?
Are there Department resources one can use to find more information on
NCLB’s public school choice provisions?
C. Charter Schools and Supplemental Educational Services …………13
C-1.
C-2.
C-3.
C-4.
May charter schools apply for State approval to provide supplemental
educational services to students enrolled in low-performing Title I
schools?
Are students from low-income families who attend charter schools that are
parts of LEAs under State law eligible for supplemental educational
services?
Are students from low-income families who attend charter schools that are
their own LEAs under State law eligible for supplemental educational
services?
How much must an LEA pay for supplemental educational services?
3

C-5.
Are there Department resources one can use to find more information on
the Title I supplemental educational services provisions?
D. Charter Schools and Corrective Action…………………………………………...14
D-1.
D-2.
Does NCLB give either States or authorizers the authority to reorganize a
charter school’s management and enforce other corrective actions?
Under the “corrective action” provisions, NCLB allows LEAs to convert
low-performing Title I schools into charter schools. How might a State
explain the manner in which this provision would be implemented?
E. Qualifications of Teachers and Paraprofessionals……………………………….15
E-1.
E-2.
In general, what are the “highly qualified teacher” requirements under
NCLB?
What qualifications do teachers in charter schools have to meet
under NCLB?
E-4 What qualifications do charter school paraprofessionals have to meet?
E-4.
E-5.
E-6.
E-7.
When must paraprofessionals meet these requirements?
If a charter school does not accept Title I funds, must it comply with
these requirements for paraprofessionals?
Must charter school LEAs reserve a portion of their Title I funds for
professional development if they currently meet the “highly qualified”
requirements for charter school teachers and the new requirements for
paraprofessionals?
Which entity is responsible for ensuring that charter schools comply with
NCLB’s charter school teacher quality requirements?
4

Summary of Major Changes
This updated version of the nonregulatory guidance in the impact of Title I
requirements (under the No Child Left Behind Act) on charter schools responds to
inquiries that the Department has received since issuing the original guidance on this
these issues in August, 2003. The new version addresses issues relating to charter
school accountability and charter school lotteries. Significant changes are as follows.
• Item A-3 discusses whether a charter school that is its own LEA is treated as a
school, or as a local educational agency, in need of improvement under the
Title I Section 1116 requirements.
• Item A-5 describes the accountability-related responsibilities that the
authorized public chartering authority, or another entity designated under State
law, must carry out when a charter school has been identified as in need of
improvement under Title I.
• Item A-6 describes the resources that may be available to support the
authorized public chartering authority (or other entity) in carrying out those
responsibilities.
• Item B-3, as revised, clarifies that a charter school that receives assistance
under the Department’s Charter Schools Program may use an admissions
lottery that gives extra weight to students seeking to change schools under the
Title I public school choice requirements.
The other changes made in this version of the guidance are primarily editorial, and
seek to clarify statements made in the previous version.
5

The Impact of the New Title I Requirements on Charter Schools
A. Charter Schools and Accountability Requirements in NCLB
A-1.
Are charter schools subject to the “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) and
other accountability requirements of No Child Left Behind?
Yes, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as
reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, requires each
State, as a condition of receiving funds under the Title I program, to implement a
“single, statewide State accountability system” applicable to all its public schools,
including charter schools [Section 1111(a)(2)(A)]. A component of that system is a
definition of “adequate yearly progress” that measures the extent to which schools
succeed in educating all students to proficiency in at least reading (or language
arts) and mathematics. In addition, a charter school that receives Title I funds is
covered by the school improvement provisions under section 1116 of Title I.
A-2.
Which entity in a State is responsible for determining whether charter
schools make AYP and ensuring that they comply with other accountability
provisions in Title I, Part A?
Section 1111(b)(2)(K) of the amended ESEA requires accountability for charter
schools to be overseen in accordance with State charter school law. Thus, a
State’s charter school law determines the entity within the State that bears
responsibility for applying the Title I, Part A accountability provisions, including
AYP, to charter schools. This generally means that the charter authorizer is
primarily responsible for holding charter schools accountable under the Title I,
Part A provisions unless State law specifically gives the State educational agency
(SEA) direct responsibility for charter school accountability. We do not expect the
local educational agency (LEA) in which the charter school is located to be this
entity, unless it is also the charter authorizer.
In most States, the SEA has taken on the role of determining whether individual
schools make AYP, based on student assessment results, the student participation
rate on assessments, and the other academic indicators included in the State’s
AYP definition. Charter authorizers (or the other entities designated under State
law as responsible for charter school accountability) will, thus, want to maintain
close contact with the SEA in order to receive current and accurate information on
whether charter schools have made AYP and whether individual schools have
been identified as in need of improvement.
A.3 Is a charter school that is its own LEA covered by the NCLB requirements
applicable to schools in need of improvement or by the requirements
applicable to LEAs in need of improvement?
A charter school that is its own LEA and that is identified as in need of
improvement is subject to the provisions of Title I that apply to schools in need of
6

improvement. This is the same policy that applies to all single-school LEAs
receiving Title I funds.
A-4.
Which entity is responsible for carrying out the LEA’s duties, under Section
1116 of Title I, when a charter school that is also an LEA is identified for
improvement?
As indicated in Item A-2, a State’s charter school law determines the entity within
the State that is responsible for carrying out Title I accountability provisions with
respect to charter schools. Typically, this is the authorized public chartering
authority, unless State law gives the SEA responsibility for charter school
accountability.
A-5.
What are the responsibilities of an LEA (or in the case of charter schools, of
the entity designated under State law as responsible for charter school
accountability) when a school within its jurisdiction is identified for
improvement?
The responsibilities that an LEA (or, in the case of charter schools, the entity
designated under State law) must assume when a school has been identified as in
need of improvement include the following:
• Promptly providing information to the parents of each child enrolled in the
school explaining what the identification means, the reasons for the school
being identified, what the school is doing to improve, what help the school is
getting, and how parents can become involved in addressing the academic
issues that led to the identification [Section 1116(b)(6)].
• Ensuring that the identified school receives technical assistance, both during
the development or revision of its improvement plan and throughout the
plan’s implementation [Section 1116(b)(4)].
• Reviewing, through a peer-review process, the school’s improvement plan,
working with the school to make necessary revisions in the plan, and
approving the plan once it meets the requirements of the statute [Section
1116(b)(3)(E).
In implementing these requirements, States, charter school authorizers, and
charter schools should attempt to align them, as much as possible, with State law
requirements related to charter school accountability.
A-6.
What resources are available to support the Title I accountability
responsibilities of charter authorizers (or the other entities designated under
State law as responsible for charter school accountability)?
Title I provides resources to SEAs and LEAs for carrying out the accountabilityrelated
responsibilities set forth in the statute. For example:
7

• The statute permits the SEA to retain up to one percent of the State’s Title
I allocation (and a slightly larger percentage, in the case of the smallest
States) for administration of Title I programs in the State. The SEA may
make available some of these funds to charter authorizers (or the other
designated entities) to carry out the functions described in item A-5.
• The statute requires the SEA to reserve four percent of the State’s Title I
allocation, beginning in fiscal year 2004 1 , specifically for the purpose of
carrying out the State and local accountability-related responsibilities,
including activities to assist schools identified for improvement. The SEA
must allocate at least 95 percent of this amount to LEAs that have schools
identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, except that
the SEA may serve those schools directly if it has the approval of the
LEA. In allocating these funds, the State must give priority to LEAs that
serve the lowest-achieving schools, demonstrate the greatest need, and
demonstrate the strongest commitment to ensuring that their lowestperforming
schools meet the goals outlined in their improvement plans
[Sections 1003(a), (b), and (c)].
An SEA may use the five percent of this reservation that is not required to
be allocated to LEAs to provide support for the efforts of charter school
authorizers (or other designated entities) to carry out the accountability
requirements of the statute. In addition, with the approval of appropriate
LEAs in the State, such as the LEAs that have charter schools in
improvement status within their jurisdiction, an SEA could use some of
the remaining 95 percent of the set-aside to serve those charter schools,
such as by providing funds to charter school authorizers for that purpose.
Further, an SEA might provide funds from the 95 percent reservation
directly to charter school LEAs, and condition that receipt of funds on a
requirement that those LEAs provide a portion of the money to the
authorizers or other entities that are responsible for the accountability of
those schools. Finally, a State might require other (non-charter) LEAs that
receive funds from the 95 percent reservation to ensure that charter
schools under their jurisdiction are served; for instance, they might make it
a requirement that an LEA provide some of its allocation to charter school
authorizers responsible for the accountability of charter schools in the
area.
A-7.
Must charter school authorizers insert State plans for meeting AYP into
individual charter contracts?
NCLB holds charter schools, like other public schools, accountable for making
AYP. If authorizers wish, they may choose to incorporate the AYP definition
into charter contracts, especially for new schools, but NCLB does not explicitly
require this step.
1 The amount was two percent in the two previous years.
8

A-8.
Are charter authorizers now responsible for allocating Title I and other
Federal formula funds to their charter schools?
No. If a charter school is authorized by an entity other than a traditional (schooldistrict)
LEA, the SEA will still be responsible for allocating Title I funds directly
to the charter school, pursuant to Federal and State laws. In allocating these
funds, SEAs will still comply with Section 5206 of ESEA and ensure that funds
are allocated in a timely and efficient manner for new and expanding charter
schools. If a charter school is, under State law, part of an LEA, the LEA will
allocate Federal funds to the charter school on the same basis as it provides funds
to its other schools.
A-9.
Should State Title I accountability plans specifically address charter schools
and reflect input from charter authorizers and operators?
Yes. Charter schools are public schools subject to the accountability requirements
of NCLB. In accordance with congressional intent, Title I State accountability
plans must be consistent with State charter school law and may not "replace or
duplicate the role of authorized chartering agencies," or other designated entities,
in overseeing accountability requirements for charter schools [Conference report on
the No Child Left Behind Act; note #77 on Title I, Part A]. State Title I accountability plans
should respect the unique nature of charter schools and should reflect input from
charter operators and authorizers. In addition, State accountability plans should
reflect the fact that the SEA is ultimately responsible for implementation of, and
compliance with, the Title I requirements by all public schools in the State that
receive Title I funds, including both traditional public schools and charter schools.
A-10. What if a charter school fails to make AYP but meets its contractual
requirements with its authorizer?
If a charter school fails to make AYP, then the charter school authorizer or other
designated entity must take the actions required by the statute. See item A-5.
A-11. Does NCLB prohibit more rigorous accountability requirements than the
requirements of a State’s Title I accountability plan in an existing charter
contract or a future charter contract?
No. Nothing in NCLB prohibits the continuation of existing charter contractor
prohibits the development of future contracts that meet or exceed Title I
accountability requirements. If a charter school’s contract with its authorizer
imposes more immediate consequences than a State’s Title I accountability plan,
the authorizer should take appropriate steps to ensure that the school abides by
the charter contract as specified in the State’s charter school law, notwithstanding
the fact that the charter school may have made AYP.
9

B. Charter Schools and the Title I Public School Choice Provisions
B-1.
May an eligible charter school that is part of an LEA be listed as a choice
option for parents who wish to transfer their child to a higher-performing
school?
Yes. LEAs may list charter schools under their jurisdiction that have not been
identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring as choice options.
B-2.
If a charter school is its own LEA but falls within the boundaries of a larger
LEA, may eligible students from the larger LEA be able to transfer to it?
Yes. An LEA should work with charter school LEAs within its geographic
boundaries to reach agreements allowing students to transfer to these schools.
However, allowing eligible students to transfer to a charter school LEA within its
boundaries does not lift the requirement that the LEA give affected students the
option to transfer to schools that it operates.
B-3.
May charter schools that admit students using a lottery give priority to
eligible students seeking to transfer under the public school choice provisions
of NCLB?
A charter school that receives funding under the Department’s Charter School
Program (CSP) must use a random selection (lottery) process if more students
apply for admission than can be admitted. A school that receives CSP funds
generally may use a weighted lottery (that is, a lottery that gives preference to one
set of students over another) only when necessary to comply with applicable civil
rights laws. (See item C-3 of the Department’s CSP guidance, available at
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/cspguidance03.doc.) However, a charter
school may weight its lottery in favor of students seeking to change schools under
the public school choice provision of Title I, for the limited purpose of providing
greater choice to students covered by those provisions. For example, a charter
school could provide each student seeking a transfer under Title I with two or
more chances to win the lottery, while all other students would receive only one
chance to win.
B-4.
Must parents be notified if a charter school is identified as in need of
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring?
Yes. If a charter school is identified for improvement, parents of students enrolled
at the school must be notified of its status before the beginning of the school year
following identification, just as parents of students enrolled in other public
schools are notified. If a charter school is part of an LEA, then the LEA should
notify parents of their options. If the charter school is an LEA itself, then the
authorizer or the charter school itself should notify parents of the school’s status
and their options, including returning children to their “home” public school.
10

B-5.
Are charter schools that are parts of LEAs under State law required to
provide choice options and offer transportation for students to other higherperforming
schools in the LEA if the charter school is identified by the State
as in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring?
Yes, consistent with the statute, LEAs that authorize charter schools must provide
choice options and offer transportation to other public schools of choice within
the LEA, even if a State’s charter law does not require that transportation funds be
made available for charter schools.
B-6.
Are charter schools that are their own LEAs under State law required to
provide choice options and offer transportation for students to other higherperforming
schools in another LEA if the charter school is identified by the
State as in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring?
As noted in Item B-4, if the charter school is an LEA itself, then the authorizer or
the charter school itself should notify parents of the school’s status and their
options, including returning children to their “home” public school.
In addition, according to Section 200.44(h)(1) of the Title I regulations (67 Fed.
Reg. 71710, 71725, to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 200), if all public schools to
which a student may transfer within an LEA (including charter school LEAs) are
identified for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, the LEA
must, to the extent practicable, establish a cooperative agreement with one or
more other LEAs in the area. Therefore, a charter school LEA must, if it is
practicable, establish such agreements with other LEAs.
Also, according to Section 200.44(h)(2) of the final Title I regulations, LEAs
(including charter school LEAs) that have no eligible schools to which qualifying
students may transfer are allowed to offer supplemental educational services to
parents of eligible students in the first year of school improvement.
B-7.
Are there Department resources one can use to find more information on
NCLB’s public school choice provisions?
Yes. For more information please consult the Department’s Title I regulations at:
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2002-4/120202a.html. You
may also wish to consult the non-regulatory guidance on public school choice at:
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolchoiceguid.doc
11

C. Charter Schools and Supplemental Educational Services
C-1.
May charter schools apply for State approval to provide supplemental
educational services to students enrolled in low-performing Title I schools?
Yes, charter schools that are not identified for improvement are eligible to
become supplemental educational service providers pursuant to the Title I
requirements.
C-2. Are students from low-income families who attend charter schools that are
parts of LEAs under State law eligible for supplemental educational
services?
Yes. As with other public schools, if a charter school is identified as in need of
improvement for two or more years, then students from low-income families who
are enrolled in the school are eligible to receive supplemental educational
services. The LEA must pay for such services on the same basis as it would pay
for supplemental services for eligible students in any other school.
C-3.
Are students from low-income families who attend charter schools that are
their own LEAs under State law eligible for supplemental educational
services?
Yes. As with other public schools, if a charter school is identified as in need of
improvement for two or more years, then students from low-income families who
are enrolled in the school are eligible to receive supplemental educational
services. A charter school that is its own LEA must pay for such services on the
same basis as any other LEA. Also, charter school LEAs that are identified for
improvement but are unable to enter into cooperative agreements with other LEAs
to accept transferring students may make supplemental services available in the
first year of school improvement to eligible students.
C-4.
How much must an LEA pay for supplemental educational services?
The law establishes a combined funding requirement for choice-related
transportation and supplemental educational services. Unless a lesser amount is
needed to meet demand for choice-related transportation and to satisfy all requests
for supplemental educational services, an LEA must spend an amount equal to
20 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation, before any reservations, on:
(1) Choice-related transportation;
(2) Supplemental educational services; or
(3) A combination of (1) and (2).
These funds may come from Title I, other federal programs such as Title V, Part
A of ESEA, funds moved into these programs under the “transferability”
authorization, or State or local sources. This flexible funding approach means
12

that the amount of funding that an LEA must devote to supplemental educational
services depends in part on how much it spends on choice-related transportation.
If the cost of satisfying all requests for supplemental educational services exceeds
an amount equal to 5 percent of an LEA’s Title I, Part A allocation, the LEA may
not spend less than that amount on those services. An LEA may also spend an
amount exceeding 20 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation if additional funds
are needed to meet all demands for choice-related transportation and supplemental
educational services.
C-5.
Are there Department resources one can use to find more information on
the Title I supplemental educational services provisions?
Yes. For more information please consult the Department’s Title I regulations at:
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2002-4/120202a.html. You
may also wish to consult the non-regulatory guidance on supplemental
educational services at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/suppsvcsguid.doc.
D. Charter Schools and Corrective Action
D-1.
Does NCLB give either States or authorizers the authority to reorganize a
charter school’s management and enforce other corrective actions?
Yes. As with other public schools, charter schools that are unable to make AYP
by the end of the second full school year after identification are placed under
corrective action according to Section 1116(b)(7)(C) of ESEA. NCLB gives the
appropriate entity under state law (see A-2) the responsibility to reorganize a
charter school’s management or take other corrective actions, consistent with
State charter law and the State’s accountability plan for its charter schools. State
charter law would determine if this requires the charter school to modify its
charter contract.
D-2.
Under the “corrective action” provisions, NCLB allows LEAs to convert lowperforming
Title I schools into charter schools. How might a State explain
the manner in which this provision would be implemented?
If a State’s charter school law allows public schools to convert to charter status, a
State’s Title I accountability plan may explain how the process of converting
schools identified for corrective action to charter schools would work. The
accountability plan might also identify the entities that will be expected to
authorize such charters and explain whether these entities have discretion in
extending the contracts for these charter schools.
13

E. Qualifications of Teachers and Paraprofessionals
E-1.
In general, what are the “highly qualified teacher” requirements under
NCLB?
Sections 1119(a) and 9101(23) of ESEA, as reauthorized by NCLB, establish
requirements for the qualifications of teachers who teach a “core academic
subject 2 .” In general, in order to be considered “highly qualified,” a teacher must:
• Have obtained full State certification as a teacher or passed the State teacher
licensing examination and hold a license to teach in the State, and may not
have had certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency,
temporary, or provisional basis:
• Hold a bachelor’s degree; and
• Have demonstrated subject matter competency in each of the academic
subjects in which the teacher teaches, in a manner determined by the State.
Under the law, all teachers hired after the first day of the 2002-2003 school year
to teach core academic subjects in a program supported with Title I, Part A funds
must be highly qualified. In addition, as a condition of receiving Title I, Part A
funds, each State must ensure that all elementary and secondary school teachers of
core academic subjects in the public schools of the State are highly qualified by
the end of the 2005-2006 school year.
For more information on these requirements, see Section C of the Department’s
nonregulatory guidance on the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program
(Title II, Part A), available at
http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/guidance.doc, and information on
additional flexibility available to schools and local educational agencies in
meeting these provisions, which is available at
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/hqtflexibility.html
E-2.
What qualifications do teachers in charter schools have to meet under
NCLB?
The law provides that a teacher who teaches core academic subjects in a charter
school meets the certification requirement if he or she meets the requirements set
forth in a State’s charter school law regarding certification or licensure [Section
9101(23)(A)(i)]. Thus, a teacher in a charter school does not have to be licensed or
certified by the State if the State’s charter law does not require such licensure or
certification. All other elements of the “highly qualified teacher” requirement
2 The core academic subjects are English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign
languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.
14

apply to charter school teachers in the same way, and on the same timeline, that
they apply to teachers in traditional public schools.
E-3.
What qualifications do charter school paraprofessionals have to meet?
Paraprofessional aides hired to work in programs supported with Title I, Part A
funds must have a high school diploma or its recognized equivalent. Except for
paraprofessionals who act as translators or conduct parent involvement activities,
they must also have completed at least two years of study at an institution of
higher education, possess at least an associate’s degree, or demonstrate subjectmatter
competence through a formal State or local assessment [Section 1119(c)-(e)].
Note that this requirement applies only to paid paraprofessionals and not to
parents or other volunteers. In addition, the Department’s regulations clarify that
the term “paraprofessional” applies only to individuals who provide instructional
support and not to school staff who have only non-instructional duties (e.g.,
providing technical support for computers, providing personal care services to
students, carrying out clerical functions) [34 C.F.R. Section 200.58(a)(2)].
These provisions of the law apply to charter schools in the same manner that they
apply to traditional public schools.
E-4.
When must paraprofessionals meet these requirements?
The paraprofessional qualifications requirements apply immediately to all
paraprofessionals hired to work in Title I programs after the enactment of NCLB
(January 8, 2002). Paraprofessionals hired prior to the enactment of NCLB must
meet the requirements by January 8, 2006.
For additional information on the paraprofessional requirements, see the
Department’s non-regulatory guidance at
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/paraguidance.doc.
E-5.
If a charter school does not accept Title I funds, must it comply with
these requirements for paraprofessionals?
No, these requirements are applicable only to paraprofessionals working in Title I
programs.
E-6.
Must charter school LEAs reserve a portion of their Title I funds for
professional development if they currently meet the “highly qualified”
requirements for charter school teachers and the new requirements for
paraprofessionals?
No. Section 1119(l) of ESEA requires all LEAs, including charter school LEAs,
to spend between 5 and 10 percent of their Title I allocations on professional
development to help all teachers meet the new requirements by the end of the
2005-06 school year. If all teachers and paraprofessionals in a charter school
15

LEA have met these requirements, the funds do not need to be reserved for
professional development.
E-7.
Which entity is responsible for ensuring that charter schools comply with
NCLB’s charter school teacher quality requirements?
As discussed in Item A-2 of this guidance, Section 1111(b)(2)(K) of ESEA
requires that responsibility for charter school accountability be determined by
individual State charter laws. This generally means that the charter authorizer
bears primary responsibility for holding charter schools accountable for Title I,
Part A provisions (including the teacher quality requirements) unless State law
specifically gives the SEA direct responsibility for charter school accountability.
We do not expect the LEA in which the charter school is located to be this entity,
unless it is also the charter authorizer.
16

Attachment C
Lessons Learned
Page 37 of 43

DISCUSSION PAPER 2012-06 | September 2012
Learning from the Successes and Failures
of Charter Schools
Roland G. Fryer, Jr.

MISSION STATEMENT
The Hamilton Project seeks to advance America’s promise of opportunity,
prosperity, and growth.
We believe that today’s increasingly competitive global economy
demands public policy ideas commensurate with the challenges
of the 21st Century. The Project’s economic strategy reflects a
judgment that long-term prosperity is best achieved by fostering
economic growth and broad participation in that growth, by
enhancing individual economic security, and by embracing a role
for effective government in making needed public investments.
Our strategy calls for combining public investment, a secure social
safety net, and fiscal discipline. In that framework, the Project
puts forward innovative proposals from leading economic thinkers
— based on credible evidence and experience, not ideology or
doctrine — to introduce new and effective policy options into the
national debate.
The Project is named after Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s
first Treasury Secretary, who laid the foundation for the modern
American economy. Hamilton stood for sound fiscal policy,
believed that broad-based opportunity for advancement would
drive American economic growth, and recognized that “prudent
aids and encouragements on the part of government” are
necessary to enhance and guide market forces. The guiding
principles of the Project remain consistent with these views.

Learning from the Successes and Failures
of Charter Schools
Roland G. Fryer, Jr.
Harvard University, EdLabs
September 2012
NOTE: This discussion paper is a proposal from the author. As emphasized in The Hamilton Project’s
original strategy paper, the Project was designed in part to provide a forum for leading thinkers across the
nation to put forward innovative and potentially important economic policy ideas that share the Project’s
broad goals of promoting economic growth, broad-based participation in growth, and economic security.
The authors are invited to express their own ideas in discussion papers, whether or not the Project’s staff or
advisory council agrees with the specific proposals. This discussion paper is offered in that spirit.
The Hamilton Project • Brookings 1

Abstract
Our education system is in desperate need of innovation. Despite radical advances in nearly every other sector, public school
students continue to attend school in the same buildings and according to the same schedule as students did more than a
hundred years ago, and performance is either stagnant or worsening. One of the most important innovations in the past halfcentury
is the emergence of charter schools, which, when first introduced in 1991, came with two distinct promises: to serve
as an escape hatch for students in failing schools, and to create and incubate new educational practices. We examine charter
schools across the quality spectrum in order to learn which practices separate high-achieving from low-achieving schools. An
expansive data collection and analysis project in New York City charter schools yielded an index of five educational practices that
explains nearly half of the difference between high- and low-performing schools. We then draw on preliminary evidence from
demonstration projects in Houston and Denver and find the effects on student achievement to be strikingly similar to those of
many high-performing charter schools and networks. The magnitude of the problems in our education system is enormous, but
this preliminary evidence points to a path forward to save the 3 million students in our nation’s worst-performing schools, for a
price of about $6 billion, or less than $2,000 per student.
2 Learning from the Successes and Failures of Charter Schools

Table of Contents
Abstract 2
Chapter 1: The Need for Innovation 5
Chapter 2: Charter Schools as Incubators of Innovation 7
Chapter 3: Harnessing Differences in Charter School Effectiveness 10
Chapter 4: The Proposal 13
Chapter 5: Scaling Up and Experimenting 16
Chapter 6: Conclusions 17
Author 18
Endnotes 19
References 19
The Hamilton Project • Brookings 3

4 Learning from the Successes and Failures of Charter Schools

Chapter 1: The Need for Innovation
For years, charter schools have brought new ideas to the
work of educating our sons and daughters… [They] serve as
incubators of innovation in neighborhoods across our country.
President Barack Obama (2012)
What I like most about our best charters is that they think
differently.
Secretary Arne Duncan (2009)
In a 2009 speech, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
issued a challenge to turn around America’s chronically
low-performing schools. There are approximately 5,000
such schools, or about 5 percent of all public elementary and
secondary education in the country. According to Duncan,
“About half are in big cities, maybe a third are in rural areas,
and the rest are in suburbs and medium-sized towns. This is a
national problem—urban, rural, and suburban.”
The data on our entire education system reinforce and expand
on his rhetoric. American public schools are in dire straits,
with the nation performing poorly relative to other countries
and failing to serve many of its most underprivileged and
vulnerable students. Data from the National Assessment of
Educational Progress—a set of assessments administered
every two years to a nationally representative group of fourth,
eighth, and twelfth graders—reveal that 33 percent of eighth
graders are proficient in reading and 34 percent are proficient
in math; data for fourth and twelfth graders are similar.
According to a Center for Education Policy report, 48 percent
of American public schools did not make adequate yearly
progress for the 2010–11 school year (Usher 2011). In 2010, The
Education Trust reported that about one in five high school
graduates does not score high enough on the United States
Army’s Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB)
to meet the minimum standard necessary to enlist in the
Army (Theokas 2010). Americans spend an average of $10,768
per pupil per year on primary and secondary education, more
than any other Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) country except Switzerland, yet
among those same countries, American fifteen-year-olds rank
twenty-fifth in math achievement, seventeenth in science, and
twelfth in reading (Aud et al. 2011; Fleischman 2010). Our
stagnant education system has proven especially detrimental
to poor and minority students. Among the eighteen large
urban districts that participated in the Trial Urban District
Assessment of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress, there is not one in which even 25 percent of black
students are proficient in either reading or math (Fryer 2012).
And yet it was not always so. The United States was once a
world leader in education. In 1962, the UNESCO Institute for
Education found that American thirteen-year-olds showed the
highest achievement in science (Foshay et al. 1962). In 1970, the
United States had 30 percent of the world’s college graduates,
and as recently as 1995, the United States was tied for first in
college and university graduation rates (McKinsey 2009).
These facts have led to a growing demand for change in the way
we approach education, but no consensus on the way forward.
Some argue that teachers and school administrators are
dealing with issues that originate outside the classroom, citing
research that shows racial and socioeconomic achievement
gaps are present before children enter school (Fryer and Levitt
2004, 2006) and that one-third to one-half of the gap can
be explained by family-environment indicators (Fryer and
Levitt 2004; Phillips et al. 1998). In this scenario, combating
poverty and having more-constructive out-of-school time will
increase the efficacy of traditional school practices. Indeed,
Coleman and colleagues (1966), in their famous report on
equality of educational opportunity, argue that schools alone
cannot treat the problem of chronic underachievement in
schools. Others argue for a more school-centered approach,
referring to anecdotes of excellence in particular schools or
examples of other countries where low-income children in
superior schools outperform average-income Americans
(Chenoweth 2007). In this scenario, the policy priority is to
understand the set of practices driving these success stories so
we can use them to turn around failing schools. Finally, some
believe that any top-down approach is futile, arguing that
increasing market forces through choice, vouchers, parental
triggers, and reduced barriers to entry and exit will allow the
cream to rise to the top and force underperforming schools
out of the education market.
The Hamilton Project • Brookings 5

Clearly, there is a desperate need for innovation in education.
Every day, the youth of America arrive at buildings that
sport long hallways lined with identical square rooms. These
students move from room to room every hour accompanied
by peers of similar ability levels. They sit and listen as teachers
lecture from the front of the room. This has been the American
public school experience for more than a hundred years.
While other industries were inventing and refining penicillin,
the polio vaccine, commercial air travel, cell phones, laptop
computers, and iPads, public schools repainted their hallways,
repaired their egg-carton buildings, and hired more teachers
to deliver the same lecture-driven instruction.
Introduced a scant twenty-one years ago, charter schools
were meant to counteract this complacency; they have since
become one of the most important innovations in American
public education in the past half century. Even in these
divisive political times, leaders from both sides of the aisle
have expressed support for expanding charter access and
raising charter school caps. 1 Although they are required to
have open admissions policies, charter schools are exempt
from most other statutory requirements of traditional public
schools, including mandates around spending, human capital
management, parental involvement in the educational process,
curriculum and instructional practices, and even governance
and management structures. 2 In exchange for these freedoms,
the public can hold charters accountable for student outcomes
in ways that we cannot hold traditional public schools.
While charter schools have tremendous promise to level the
educational playing field in the United States, two major
barriers have heretofore prevented these schools from
reaching their full potential. First, as a whole, charter schools
have yielded inconsistent results. Some have made impressive
strides in closing the achievement gap between low-income
and higher-income students, but others have not had any
significant effects. Second, at the current rate of growth, it
will take about a hundred years for charter schools to expand
to serve all children, and so if they are to be a true engine
for reform, we must expand charter schools’ successes to the
traditional public schools that serve most American students.
On this first front, to better understand what features of charter
schools are most effective in raising scholastic achievement,
we examined evidence from New York City charter schools,
where we identified five educational practices that are proving
most successful: (1) focusing on human capital, (2) using
student data to drive instruction, (3) providing high-dosage
tutoring, (4) extending time on task, and (5) establishing a
culture of high expectations.
While the second problem has received much less attention,
our experiments in Houston and Denver—where we implement
these charter-school practices in traditional public schools—
point to a way forward. Although these experiments are
ongoing, preliminary results suggest that those reforms that
were shown to boost achievement in charter schools can be
successfully implemented in traditional public schools as well.
In all sections of this paper, we draw on scholarly work from
Dobbie and Fryer (2011b) and Fryer (2012), which provides
the main analysis and much further detail. Further research is
needed to fully flesh out how these charter-school interventions
translate to public schools, but these results illuminate a
promising path forward for K–12 education reform.
6 Learning from the Successes and Failures of Charter Schools

Chapter 2: Charter Schools as Incubators of
Innovation
Publicly funded but privately run, charter schools come
in many shapes and sizes. In fact, they are nothing if
not diverse, with some in the inner city and others in
rural areas, some that are members of larger networks and
others that are stand-alone institutions. There is no single type
of charter school: their operating procedures differ from one
another as well as from traditional public schools.
When originally conceived, charter schools offered two
distinct promises: First, they were to serve as an escape hatch
for students in failing schools. Second, they were to use their
legal and financial freedoms to create and incubate new
educational practices. The evidence on how these promises have
been kept is mixed: some charters have availed themselves of
this freedom and shown marked success, but others have had
disastrous results. It is this disparity of outcomes that provides
an exceedingly rare laboratory in which to understand how
schools determine student outcomes based on the policies
they adopt and the choices they make.
Charter schools currently enroll almost 4 percent of all
students, a number as substantial as it is in large part because
of their willingness to try new approaches. Some of them
have shown remarkable success in boosting test scores,
offering their students the promise of closing the racial
achievement gap in just a few years. For example, schools
such as the Success Academy Charter Schools in New York
City, YES Prep in Houston, and charter schools in the Harlem
Children’s Zone have become beacons of hope, demonstrating
the enormous potential to improve student achievement.
Others, however, have failed to increase achievement and have
actually performed worse than their traditional counterparts.
Figure 1.
Math and Reading Gains in New York City Charter Schools (Student Level), 2010–11
0.7
Distribution of charter school students
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-4 -3 -2 -1
0 1 2 3 4
Change in test scores in standard deviations
Math
Reading
Source: Data from the author.
The Hamilton Project • Brookings 7

In fact, a recent study by Mathematica Policy Research (2011)
shows that, on average, charters have no statistical impact
on test scores relative to traditional public schools. Because
charter schools have such a mixed record, they are clearly
not a panacea. But the astounding success that some have
experienced suggests that we should learn as much as possible
from them in the hopes of better serving students enrolled in
traditional public schools.
Figure 1 shows charter school student gains in math and
reading in 2010–11 (see Box 1 for discussion of standard
deviations). On the right tail of the distribution are students
from several charter schools and charter management
High-performing charter schools like these
have used their relative freedom to show what
is possible when it comes to educating our most
disadvantaged and vulnerable students.
organizations that have demonstrated marked success
(Abdulkadiroglu et al. 2011; Angrist et al. 2010; Dobbie and
Fryer 2011a; Gleason et al. 2010; Hoxby and Murarka 2009). At
the Promise Academy middle school in the Harlem Children’s
Zone, students gain an average of 0.229 standard deviations
in math and 0.047 standard deviations in reading per year
(Dobbie and Fryer 2011a). The average KIPP (Knowledge Is
Power Program) middle school produces student gains of
0.26 standard deviations in math per year and 0.09 standard
deviations in reading per year. Recent evaluations of SEED
(Curto and Fryer 2012) and Democracy Prep Public Schools
(Dobbie 2012) show similar gains in math and even higher
gains in reading: 0.229 standard deviations in math and 0.211
standard deviations in reading per year; and 0.238 standard
deviations in math and 0.232 standard deviations in reading
per year, respectively.
These and other charter schools have used their freedom to
develop an array of innovative practices. For instance, the
Bronx Charter School for the Arts believes that participation
in the arts is a catalyst for academic and social success, and
therefore integrates art into almost every aspect of the school
experience and prompts students to use art as a language to
express their thoughts and ideas. On the other end of the
spectrum, YES Prep students in Houston log hundreds of
volunteer hours through “service learning opportunities” that
are integrated into the curriculum. There are also a number
of so-called “No Excuses” schools—such as KIPP Infinity,
the Harlem Children’s Zone Promise Academies, and the
Democracy Prep Public Schools—that emphasize frequent
student assessments, dramatically increased instructional
time, parental pledges of involvement, aggressive human
capital practices, a “broken-window”
theory of discipline (where schools address
even smaller behavioral infractions with
the intent of preventing larger ones), and
a relentless focus on math and reading
achievement (Carter 2000, Thernstrom
and Thernstrom 2004, Whitman 2008).
There are several other examples of
charters on the cutting edge of education
reform, developing and implementing bold
practices and procedures. Uncommon
Schools, established in five cities in three
states, believes that arming teachers with
specific techniques around classroom
management and academic engagement,
along with imbuing schools with a
culture of practicing those techniques,
is the best model of teacher professional
development. Blackstone Valley Prep
Mayoral Academy in Rhode Island collects
daily student performance data to reduce the time between
student deficiency diagnosis and treatment. Excel Academy
in Boston uses independent, project-based learning to build
nonacademic skills such as persistence. Match Schools in
Boston, after developing an innovative and widely imitated
tutoring model, are now building an alternative education
school to select and develop teachers. Success Academy
Charter Schools in New York City develop teachers by drilling
content knowledge, particularly in reading. Rocketship
Education schools in Northern California have produced large
student proficiency gains, thanks to a blended learning model
that stresses differentiation and dynamic movement through
work stations.
High-performing charter schools like these have used their
relative freedom to show what is possible when it comes to
educating our most disadvantaged and vulnerable students.
But given that the aggregate impact of charter schools is
statistically zero compared to traditional public schools
8 Learning from the Successes and Failures of Charter Schools

Box 1.
What Is a Standard Deviation?
Improvements in student test scores are often described using the yardstick of “standard deviations.” This allows
for comparisons across different types of tests, which may have different formats and scales, because improvements
expressed as standard deviations represent the same increase in student achievement percentiles no matter the test.
To get a sense of how standard deviations work, it is useful to consider the normal distribution (bell curve). If you
are on the curve at the very middle, the 50th percentile, moving 0.5 standard deviations to the right puts you at the
69th percentile, a big jump, while moving 1 standard deviation puts you at the 84th percentile, an enormous jump. A
useful rule of thumb is that there are roughly 34 percentiles to a standard deviation (or, equivalently, 0.03 standard
deviations to a percentile).
Education researchers often calculate the impact of an education policy in terms of standard deviations of test scores.
Suppose a certain intervention is estimated to improve test scores by 0.25 standard deviations. Scores for a student
originally at the 50th percentile will improve by about 10 percentiles. Thus, standard deviations are a useful tool for
understanding the effects of different policies.
Finally, two benchmarks are particularly useful when discussing standard deviations in education policy: First, on
entering kindergarten the black–white achievement gap is 0.64 standard deviations in math and 0.40 standard deviations
in reading. Second, we can think of an improvement of 0.08 standard deviations as one extra month of schooling.
(Mathematica 2011, 2012), many mediocre- to low-performing
charter schools have shown exactly what not to do for those
similar students. For every Promise Academy or Democracy
Prep that is changing lives for the better by putting students
on the path to college and beyond, there is a charter school
changing lives for the worse.
Despite the large number of failing charter schools, there is
reason for optimism, because the wide range of quality among
charter school provides us with an unexpected advantage:
by gathering measures of school practices (inputs) and using
estimates of each school’s impact on student achievement, this
variability provides an ideal opportunity to understand which
inputs best explain school effectiveness. In other words, while
charter schools in general have shown an uncertain ability
to improve student achievement, they have provided a ripe
opportunity to study their innovations in order to figure out
what does and does not work.
The Hamilton Project • Brookings 9

Chapter 3: Harnessing Differences in Charter School
Effectiveness
Lessons from Charter Schools
In order to use differences among charter schools to better
understand which practices drive student achievement, we
collected survey, lottery, and video data for thirty-five charter
schools in New York City with students in grades 3–8 in
the spring of 2010 (Dobbie and Fryer 2011b). We amassed a
database and looked at how various inputs and school policies
separated the more-effective from the less-effective schools.
Our analysis demonstrates that input measures associated
with a traditional resource-based model of education—class
size, per-pupil expenditure, the fraction of teachers with
teaching certification, and the fraction of teachers with an
advanced degree—were not related to school effectiveness in
our sample.
In fact, schools with more certified teachers have annual math
gains that are 0.043 standard deviations lower than other
schools. Schools with more teachers with a master’s degree
have annual English language arts (ELA) gains that are 0.034
standard deviations lower. Schools with smaller class size,
higher per-pupil expenditure, more teachers with teaching
certification, and more teachers with an advanced degree
actually tended to have lower student achievement. 3
Figure 2.
School Inputs and Practices, and School Effectiveness
1.0
0.93
0.8
0.79
0.75
0.80
0.70
Additional months of schooling
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
0.01
0.59
-0.4
-0.41
-0.40
-0.45
-0.31
-0.6
Class size
Per-pupil expenditure
Teachers with certification
Teachers with MA+
Index
Teacher feedback
Data-driven instruction
Tutoring
Instructional time
High expectations
Index
Source: Data from the author.
Note: One month of schooling is equal to roughly 0.08 standard deviations. Correlations are computed using the weighted mean of math and reading.
10 Learning from the Successes and Failures of Charter Schools

Figure 3.
Effects on Student Test Scores
4.0
3.5
Additional months of schooling
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Average NYC
charter
Harlem Children’s
Zone (MS)
Average KIPP
(MS)
Houston, year one
Denver, year one
Math
Reading
Source: Dobbie and Fryer (2011a); Hoxby and Murarka (2009); Mathematica (2010); author’s data.
Note: Solid bars indicate significance at the 5 percent level. One month of schooling is equal to roughly 0.08 standard deviations. MS refers to middle schools.
In stark contrast, five practices—more human capital or
teacher feedback, data-driven instruction, high-dosage
tutoring, increased time on task, and a relentless focus on high
academic expectations—were consistently found in higherachieving
schools. 4 Together, these five practices explain
roughly half the difference in effectiveness between charter
schools.
Controlling for the other four practices, schools that give
formal or informal feedback (more human capital) ten or
more times per semester have annual math gains that are
equal to 0.6 more months of school and annual ELA gains that
are equal to 0.55 more months than other schools. Schools
that tutor students at least four days a week in groups of six or
fewer have annual ELA gains that are equal to 0.5 more months
than other schools. Schools that add 25 percent or more
instructional time to the average New York City traditional
public school’s time have annual math gains that are equal to
0.625 more months than other schools. Schools that prioritize
high academic and behavioral expectations for all students
have annual math gains that are equal to 0.55 more months
and ELA gains that are equal to 0.375 more months than those
schools that do not prioritize those expectations. 5
Figure 2 shows the average correlation between inputs and
reading and math effectiveness, measured in additional
months of schooling.
Armed with these correlates of charter school effectiveness,
we cannot simply wait for the expansion of successful charter
schools. At their current rate of growth, it will take more than a
hundred years for high-performing charter schools to educate
every student in the country. For these benefits to reach the
students who need them most, the United States will need to
take the innovations from charter schools that have proven
effective and apply them to the traditional public schools that
serve most students.
Applying the Lessons of Charter Schools in
Public Schools
Recent promising—but preliminary—evidence from demonstration
projects in Houston and Denver suggests that these
practices can be transferred from charters to public schools
The Hamilton Project • Brookings 11

(see box “Houston Case Study” for details). In the 2010–11
school year, nine of the worst-performing schools in the
Houston Independent School District participated in an experiment
testing these very elements with the cooperation of
the district. Starting in the 2011–12 school year, Denver Public
Schools began a similar initiative in ten schools. While the
data from the most recent school years are still coming in, the
results thus far suggest student test scores improved dramatically.
In fact, the magnitude of this increase was strikingly
similar to that seen among the best charters.
Figure 3 places student results from Houston and Denver
in the context of high-achieving charter schools. Each bar
represents the effect of these schools on students’ math and
reading test scores. The results seen in Houston and Denver
are comparable to those of successful charter schools. For the
Houston schools, these effects are enough to close the math
achievement gap between the schools in the experiment—
some of the worst-performing schools in Houston—and the
average Houston public school in less than two years.
These test score gains are remarkable, but only insofar as they
are predictive of later life outcomes. If charter schools produce
high test scores but also increase the number of students who
become teen mothers or who end up incarcerated, we cannot
consider them successful. New evidence from a survey of
Harlem Children’s Zone lottery applicants demonstrates that
students who won the lottery were half as likely to have been
pregnant and one-quarter as likely to have been incarcerated
by the time they were surveyed at around age eighteen.
Furthermore, lottery winners are 86 percent more likely to
have taken the SAT and 32 percent more likely to have been
accepted to college. These figures suggest that the improvement
in student test scores produced by high-performing charter
schools has a meaningful impact on later life outcomes as well.
By disentangling which factors make charters successful
and demonstrating that these factors are able to take root in
traditional public schools, we have illuminated a path forward.
Expanding this approach to similar schools across the country
while experimenting with combinations of reforms can help
us better understand what works for different schools.
12 Learning from the Successes and Failures of Charter Schools

Chapter 4: The Proposal
The evidence from Houston and Denver is preliminary
but it holds tremendous promise that the best practices
of successful charter schools can play a strong role in
improving low-performing, traditional public schools. While
there is still work to be done to optimize and customize
solutions for individual districts and schools, early evidence
shows that this proposal could have a dramatic impact on the
3 million students in the nation’s worst-performing schools, at
a marginal cost of less than $2,000 per student.
It is important to emphasize that our proposal is not to
replace traditional public schools with charter schools. Quite
the opposite: our goal is to emulate in both charter and
traditional public schools practices that have been shown to
be successful. The potential payoff from these changes would
be to strengthen the education system and improve the lives of
millions of poor and minority students.
The following descriptions of the five broad tenets of our
proposal provide a starting point for answering Secretary
Duncan’s challenge to turn around our nation’s chronically
underperforming schools:
1. Focus on human capital.
Effective teachers and quality principals are the bedrock of
public schools: teachers should be given the tools they need
to succeed, including increased feedback from administrators,
particularly feedback based on class observations. New
teachers, especially, benefit from professional development,
and should be trained on a variety of common problems,
such as classroom management and instructional rigor.
Schools should be encouraged to conduct weekly professional
development sessions for all teachers, regardless of experience,
with the goal of increasing the rigor of classroom instruction
through methods such as lesson planning. Finally, it is
essential to install an administration receptive to change and
the measures required to improve student achievement.
2. Use student data to drive instruction.
Data can drive more-personalized and more-efficient learning,
allowing both teachers and students to track progress and to
make sure that each individual student is on an appropriate
path. Assessments can be used to adjust everything from
tutoring to student goals. To achieve this, schools should
conduct regular assessments of students every four to six
weeks. More in-depth assessments could be given several times
a year, and teachers could meet with students individually to
discuss and set goals after each assessment.
Administrators will need to equip schools with the necessary
technology, such as scanners and software, to quickly and
easily input student test data into a central database. This
database should be available to teachers and administrators,
and provide information on student achievement along a
variety of vectors.
3. Provide high-dosage tutoring.
Also in the vein of personalized learning, schools can further
boost student learning by creating an intensive tutoring
program to target curricula to the level of each student. All
students should take an assessment at the beginning of the
year so that they can be matched with the tutor and peers most
conducive to their learning. The tutoring curriculum should
be broken up into units. For example, fifteen-day units could
devote the first twelve days to instruction, the thirteenth day
to assessment, and the last two days to review and remediation
based on the assessment.
Tutors should have a bachelor’s degree, at the minimum, and
be willing to make a full-time commitment. Applicants should
take assessments in their subjects of expertise and participate
in mock tutorial sessions; administrators would evaluate them
and select the best tutors.
While only some grade levels may receive the intensive
tutoring, all students in the selected grades should receive
tutoring, regardless of ability. Such a policy not only allows
all students to benefit, but also helps remove the potentially
negative stigma attached to tutoring.
4. Extend time on task.
To make time for increased tutoring, among other changes,
the amount of time devoted to instruction should be
increased. Schools should implement increased time on task
by increasing the length of the school day and by increasing
the number of days in the school year. They should tailor the
increase in instructional time to students’ needs. For example,
students struggling more in math should have additional
The Hamilton Project • Brookings 13

Box 2.
Houston Case Study
The experiment in Houston provides one example of how
schools can implement these principles in practice.
In the 2010–11 and 2011–12 school years, the five
practices of effective charter schools described above—
focus on human capital, use student data to drive
instruction, provide high-dosage tutoring, extend time
on task, and establish a culture of high expectations—
were implemented in schools in Houston. In 2010–11, the
Houston study included nine middle and high schools; in
2011–12, the study added eleven elementary schools, for
a total of twenty Houston Independent School District
schools.
District Information and Schools
Houston Independent School District is the seventhlargest
school district in the nation, with more than
203,000 students and 279 schools. Of these students,
88 percent are black or Hispanic, roughly 80 percent
are eligible for free or reduced price lunch, and roughly
30 percent have limited English proficiency.
Like the vast majority of school districts, Houston is
governed by elected school boards with the authority to
establish districtwide budgets and monitor the district’s
finances, adopt personnel policies (including decisions
relating to the termination of employment), enter
into contracts, and establish the district’s long-term
educational plan and districtwide policies and annual
goals to accomplish that long-term educational plan,
among many other powers and responsibilities.
In 2010, four Houston high schools were declared Texas
Title I Priority Schools, the state-specific categorization
for its “persistently lowest-achieving” schools, which
meant that these schools were eligible for federal school
improvement grant funding. In addition, five middle
schools were labeled “academically unacceptable” under
the Texas Accountability Ratings. Unacceptable schools
were schools that had proficiency levels below 70 percent
in reading or ELA, 70 percent in social studies, 70 percent
in writing, 55 percent in mathematics, and 50 percent in
science; that had less than a 75 percent completion rate;
or that had a dropout rate above 2 percent. Relative to
average performance in Houston, students in these
schools pretreatment scored 0.408 standard deviations
lower in math, scored 0.390 standard deviations lower in
reading, and were 22 percent less likely to graduate.
As a part of its Academic Excellence Indicator System,
the Texas Education Agency selects a forty-school
comparison group for every public school in Texas. The
groups are designed to facilitate comparisons between
schools with similar student bodies on a diverse set of
outcomes, including standardized testing participation
and results, schoolwide attendance rates, four-year
completion rates, dropout rates, a measure of progress
made by English language learners, and several indicators
of college readiness.
Fusing the recipe of the five practices with the political
realities of the Houston Independent School District
and its school board and other local considerations,
we developed the following five-pronged intervention
designed to inject best practices from successful charter
schools into failing public schools. The critical steps in
implementation were not merely to introduce the five
practices and expect success, but also to execute the five
practices with the highest quality and with a relentless
focus on student achievement.
1. Focus on human capital. As a part of the “turnaround”
designation of the school improvement grants offered
by the U.S. Department of Education, schools agreed
to replace at least 50 percent of teachers as well as any
principal who had been on the job more than two
years. Following these guidelines, the nine schools in
the Houston pilot replaced 53 percent of teachers and
all the principals. A significant fraction of the teachers
left voluntarily due to the requirement of working an
extra hour (although they were compensated for that
time), some left because of the uncertainty around a
new principal and new expectations, and others were
asked to leave (subject to union regulations) due to
previously documented poor performance.
Principals taught weeklong training sessions prior to
the start of the school year. During the fall, all teachers
attended Saturday training sessions focused on
increasing the rigor of classroom instruction. In the
winter, training continued for new teachers, focusing
on common problems and on creating a “toolbox” for
teachers both to use certain classroom-management
techniques and to increase student engagement.
2. Use student data to drive instruction. Schools
individually set goals for data-driven instruction,
but each school assessed students at least every six
weeks, and teachers and administrators had access to
results. Halfway through the school year, each school
14 Learning from the Successes and Failures of Charter Schools

gave benchmark assessments based on the Texas
state standardized test, and teachers met one on one
with students to set goals for the official end-of-year
assessment.
3. Provide high-dosage tutoring. Students in select
grades received intensive, hour-long, two-on-one
tutoring in math. Tutors were given two weeks of
training prior to the start of school. The position was
full-time with an annual salary of $20,000; bonus
payments up to $8,000 were offered based on student
achievement. Each school hired a site coordinator to
oversee tutoring.
4. Extend time on task. The school district received a
waiver from the Texas state legislature to extend the
school year by five days, and to increase the school day
by an hour per day on average. Total instruction time
increased by 21 percent relative to the previous year.
5. Establish a culture of high expectations. Each
school set its own requirements, and professional
development incorporated these goals. The basic
requirements were as follows: every classroom must
have goals posted, every student must know what her
individual goals are for the year and how she is going
to achieve these goals, and every school must have
visual evidence of a college-going culture.
class periods devoted to math, while those struggling more in
reading should spend more time on reading.
5. Establish a culture of high expectations.
From the time that students enter a school, they should
understand that everyone expects them to succeed and that the
teachers, administrators, and other staff are there to help them
succeed. The first week of school should be a “culture camp,” a
time to focus on what behaviors and actions are conducive to
achieving success. Classrooms should post goals on the walls
as a constant reminder of the high expectations, and schools
should visibly promote a culture of going to college by hanging
posters about college and by discussing college readiness with
students. Students must be cognizant of their individual goals
and the steps needed to achieve them.
The Hamilton Project • Brookings 15

Chapter 5: Scaling Up and Experimenting
Each school district faces unique challenges and may
require slightly different iterations of the five tenets to
best suit its needs. The lessons learned from New York
City charter schools and from the experiments in Houston and
Denver can provide the foundation for reforms and evaluations
in other similar districts and schools. In particular, we suggest
striving to save students from the lowest-performing 5,000
schools over the next eight years, ultimately reaching 3 million
students.
The results from Houston and Denver are promising but
also preliminary. It is essential to continue to evaluate and
experiment with combinations of reforms. Each school can
benefit from reforms and shed light on the questions that
remain. And while costs may vary by school, one thing is
clear: high expectations are free.
Although it is not possible to offer a one-size-fits-all package
of reforms, we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the
good. By expanding what we know works and conducting
more research as we expand those practices, this new approach
could benefit millions of students from the nation’s struggling
schools and neighborhoods.
In Houston and in Denver, the marginal cost of the program was
approximately $1,800 per pupil. The components varied widely
in cost; for example, high expectations was the lowest-cost
reform, involving essentially zero-dollar investments in posters
Table 1.
Per Pupil Marginal Costs of Houston Reforms
Tutoring $700
Human Capital $250
Technology and Data $200
Extended Day $550
Administrative Costs $100
Note: The cost of tutoring was $2,200 per student tutored. Costs in table are divided
across all students, including those who did not receive tutoring, to correspond to
impacts, which are also averaged across grades.
and a concerted effort by staff in lieu of additional monetary
costs. On the other hand, tutoring required hiring many new
full-time staff, and was only provided in sixth- and ninth-grade
math due to funding constraints. Table 1 gives an approximate
breakdown of the per-pupil marginal costs in Houston.
Further research is necessary to determine where money
should be directed to provide the largest returns and to explore
to what extent the five reforms can be separated and how they
reinforce each other. To reach 3 million children would cost
roughly $6 billion per year.
16 Learning from the Successes and Failures of Charter Schools

Chapter 6: Conclusions
Notwithstanding the difficulties and uncertainties
surrounding charter schools, two things are certain:
First, some charter schools drastically improve
student achievement. Second, the practices that distinguish
these high-performing charters from their low-performing
counterparts can be identified and subsequently implemented
in traditional public schools. While some of the factors require
more restructuring than others, all of them hold the potential
to help turn around America’s flagging education system.
The Hamilton Project • Brookings 17

Author
Roland G. Fryer, Jr.
Robert M. Beren Professor of Economics, Harvard University;
Faculty Director, EdLabs
Roland G. Fryer, Jr. is the Robert M. Beren Professor of
Economics at Harvard University, a research associate at the
National Bureau of Economic Research, founder and faculty
director of the Education Innovation Laboratory at Harvard,
and a former junior fellow in the Harvard Society of Fellows.
At thirty, he became the youngest African-American to receive
tenure from Harvard. He has been awarded a Sloan Research
Fellowship, a Faculty Early Career Development Award from
the National Science Foundation, and the inaugural Alphonse
Fletcher Award.
Fryer served as chief equality officer at the New York City
Department of Education from 2007 to 2008. He developed
and implemented several innovative ideas on student
motivation and teacher pay-for-performance concepts. He
won a Titanium Lion at the Cannes Lions International
Advertising Festival for the Million Motivation Campaign.
Fryer has published papers on the racial achievement gap,
causes and consequences of distinctively black names,
affirmative action, the impact of the crack cocaine epidemic,
historically black colleges and universities, and acting white.
Fryer is a 2009 recipient of a Presidential Early Career Award for
Scientists and Engineers. He appears on the “2009 Time 100,”
Time Magazine’s annual list of the world’s most influential
people. In 2011, he was awarded a MacArthur “Genius Grant”
from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. In
2012, he was awarded the Calvó-Armengol Prize, which is one
of the most prestigious prizes recognizing young economists
and social scientists.
18 Learning from the Successes and Failures of Charter Schools

Endnotes
1. For a recent example of a “rare display of bipartisanship,” see Dillon (2011).
2. In cases of oversubscription, most states require charter schools to determine
enrollment through a lottery.
3. An index of these factors explains about 15 percent of the variance in charter
school effectiveness in the negative direction.
4. A 1.0 standard deviation increase in the index is associated with a 0.053
standard deviation increase in annual math gains (equivalent to approximately
0.663 additional months of school) and a 0.039 standard deviation
increase in annual ELA gains (0.488 additional months of school). Moreover,
four out of the five school practices in this index make a statistically
significant contribution controlling for an index of the other four, suggesting
that each practice independently conveys some relevant information.
5. From Dobbie and Fryer (2011b, p. 9). We code a school as having high academic
and behavioral expectations if an administrator ranks “a relentless
focus on academic goals and having students meet them” and “very high
expectations for student behavior and discipline” as her top two priorities
(in either order).
References
Abdulkadiroglu, Atila, Joshua D. Angrist, Susan M. Dynarski,
Thomas J. Kane, and Parag Pathak. 2011. “Accountability
and Flexibility in Public Schools: Evidence from Boston’s
Charters and Pilots.” Quarterly Journal of Economics
126(2): 699-748.
Angrist, Joshua D., Parag A. Pathak, and Christopher R. Walters.
2011 (August). “Explaining Charter School Effectiveness.”
NBER Working Paper 17332, National Bureau of Economic
Research, Cambridge, MA.
Aud, Susan, et al. 2011. “The Condition of Education (NCES 2011-
033).” U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Carter, Samuel Casey. 2000. No Excuses: Lessons from the 21 High-
Performing, High-Poverty Schools. Washington, DC: The
Heritage Foundation.
Chenoweth, Karin. 2007. “It’s Being Done”: Academic Success
in Unexpected Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Educational Publishing Group.Coleman et al. (1966)
Curto, Vilsa E., and Roland G. Fryer, Jr. 2011 (January). “Estimating
the Returns to Urban Boarding Schools: Evidence from
SEED.” NBER Working Paper 16746, National Bureau of
Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
Dillon, Sam. 2011, September 13. “With Bipartisan Support, Law on
Expansion of Charter Schools Passes the House.” New York
Times. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/
education/14educ.html.
Dobbie, Will. 2012. “An Analysis of Democracy Prep Public
Schools.” Unpublished Working Paper.
Dobbie, Will, and Roland G. Fryer. 2011a. “Are High-Quality
Schools Enough to Increase Achievement among the Poor?
Evidence from the Harlem’s Children Zone.” American
Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3 (3): 158-187.
The Hamilton Project • Brookings 19

Dobbie, Will, and Roland G. Fryer. 2011b (December). “Getting
Beneath the Veil of Effective Schools: Evidence from New
York City.” NBER Working Paper 17632, National Bureau
of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
Duncan, Arne. 2009. “Turning Around the Bottom Five Percent:
Secretary Arne Duncan’s Remarks at the National Alliance
for Public Charter Schools Conference.” Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/06/06222009.html.
Fleischman, Howard L., Paul J. Hopstock, Marisa P. Pelczar, and
Brooke E. Shelley. 2010. “Highlights From PISA 2009:
Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Reading,
Mathematics, and Science Literacy in the International
Context (NCES 2011-004).” U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Foshay, Arthur W., Robert L. Thorndike, Fernand Hotyat, Douglas
A. Pidgeon, and David A. Walker. 1962. “Educational
Achievements of Thirteen Year Olds in Twelve Countries.”
UNESTCO. Available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0013/001314/131437eo.pdf.
Fryer, Roland. 2012. “Injecting Successful Charter School Strategies
into Traditional Public Schools: Early Results from an
Experiment in Houston.” NBER Working Paper 17494,
National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
Fryer, Roland, and Steven Levitt. 2004. “Understanding the Black-
White Test Score Gap in the First Two Years of School.” The
Review of Economics and Statistics 86 (2): 447–64.
Fryer, Roland, and Steven Levitt. 2006. “The Black-White Test Score
Gap Through Third Grade.” American Law and Economics
Review 8 (2): 249–281.
Gleason, Philip, Melissa Clark, Christina Clark Tuttle, Emily Dwoyer,
and Marsha Silverberg. (2010). “The Evaluation of Charter
School Impacts (NCES 2010-4029).” U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Hoxby, Caroline M. and Sonali Murarka. 2009 (April). “Charter
Schools in New York City: Who Enrolls and How They Affect
Their Students’ Achievement.” NBER Working Paper 14852,
National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
Mathematica Policy Research. 2010. “Student Characteristics and
Achievement in 22 KIPP Middle Schools.” Accessed at
http://www.mathematica- mpr.com/publications/PDFs/
education/KIPP_fnlrpt.pdf.
Mathematica Policy Research. 2011 (December). “Do Charter
Schools Improve Student Achievement? Evidence from a
National Randomized Study.” Working Paper. Accessed
at _http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/
education/charterschools_WP.pdf.
Mathematica Policy Research. 2012. “Charter-School Management
Organizations: Diverse Strategies and Diverse Student
Impacts.” The National Study of Charter Management
Organization (CMO) Effectiveness. Accessed at _http://
www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/education/
cmo_final_updated.pdf.
McKinsey & Company. 2009. “Detailed findings on the economic
impact of the achievement gap in America’s schools.”
Accessed at http://www.mckinseyonsociety.com/
downloads/ reports/ Education/detailed_achievement_
gap_findings.pdf.
Obama, Barack. 2012. “Presidential Proclamation–National Charter
Schools Week.” Accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
the-press-office/2012/05/07/presidential-proclamationnational-charter-schools-week-2012.
Phillips, Meredith, James Crouse, and John Ralph. 1998. “Does
the Black-White Test Score Gap Widen After Children
Enter School?” in The Black-White Test Score Gap, eds.
Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips. Washington, DC:
The Brookings Institution Press, 229-272.
Theokas, Christina. 2010, December. “Shut Out of the Military:
Today’s High School Education Doesn’t Mean You’re Ready
for Today’s Army.” Available at http://www.edtrust.org/
sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/ASVAB_4.pdf.
Thernstrom, Abigail, and Stefan Thernstrom. 2004. No Excuses:
Closing the Racial Gap in Learning. New York, NY: Simon
and Schuster.
Usher, Alexandra. 2011. “AYP Results for 2010-11.” Center on
Education Policy. Accessed at http://www.cep-dc.org/
displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=386.
Whitman, David. 2008. Sweating the Small Stuff: Inner-City
Schools and the New Paternalism. Dayton, OH: Thomas B.
Fordham Institute.
20 Learning from the Successes and Failures of Charter Schools

Advisory Council
George A. Akerlof
Koshland Professor of Economics
University of California at Berkeley
Roger C. Altman
Founder & Chairman
Evercore Partners
Alan S. Blinder
Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial Professor
of Economics & Public Affairs
Princeton University
Timothy C. Collins
Senior Managing Director
& Chief Executive Officer
Ripplewood Holding, LLC
Jonathan Coslet
Senior Partner & Chief Investment Officer
TPG Capital, L.P.
Robert Cumby
Professor of Economics
Georgetown University
John Deutch
Institute Professor
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Karen Dynan
Vice President & Co-Director
of Economic Studies
Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution
Christopher Edley, Jr.
Dean and Professor, Boalt School of Law
University of California, Berkeley
Blair W. Effron
Founding Partner
Centerview Partners LLC
Judy Feder
Professor & Former Dean
Georgetown Public Policy Institute
Georgetown University
Roland Fryer
Robert M. Beren Professor of Economics
Harvard University and CEO, EdLabs
Mark T. Gallogly
Cofounder & Managing Principal
Centerbridge Partners
Ted Gayer
Senior Fellow & Co-Director
of Economic Studies
The Brookings Institution
Richard Gephardt
President & Chief Executive Officer
Gephardt Group Government Affairs
Robert Greenstein
Executive Director
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Chuck Hagel
Distinguished Professor
Georgetown University
Former U.S. Senator
Glenn H. Hutchins
Co-Founder
Silver Lake
Jim Johnson
Vice Chairman
Perseus LLC
Lawrence F. Katz
Elisabeth Allison Professor of Economics
Harvard University
Mark McKinnon
Global Vice Chair
Hill + Knowlton Strategies
Eric Mindich
Chief Executive Officer
Eton Park Capital Management
Suzanne Nora Johnson
Former Vice Chairman
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Peter Orszag
Vice Chairman of Global Banking
Citigroup, Inc.
Richard Perry
Chief Executive Officer
Perry Capital
Penny Pritzker
Founder, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
PSP Capital
Meeghan Prunty
Senior Advisor
The Hamilton Project
Robert D. Reischauer
President Emeritus
The Urban Institute
Alice M. Rivlin
Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution
Professor of Public Policy
Georgetown University
David M. Rubenstein
Co-Founder & Managing Director
The Carlyle Group
Robert E. Rubin
Co-Chair, Council on Foreign Relations
Former U.S. Treasury Secretary
Leslie B. Samuels
Senior Partner
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Sheryl Sandberg
Chief Operating Officer
Facebook
Ralph L. Schlosstein
President & Chief Executive Officer
Evercore Partners
Eric Schmidt
Executive Chairman
Google Inc.
Eric Schwartz
76 West Holdings
Thomas F. Steyer
Senior Managing Member
Farallon Capital Management
Lawrence Summers
Charles W. Eliot University Professor
Harvard University
Laura D’Andrea Tyson
S.K. and Angela Chan Professor of Global
Management, Haas School of Business
University of California, Berkeley
Michael Greenstone
Director

Highlights
Roland G. Fryer, Jr. of Harvard University and EdLabs provides guidance
on how the practices of successful charter schools can be used in public
schools.
The Proposal
Focus on human capital. Teachers should be given the tools they need to
succeed, including increased feedback from administrators and professional
development at all stages in their career
Use student data to drive instruction. Data can drive more personalized
and more efficient learning, allowing both teachers and students to track
progress and to make sure that each student is on a path that is appropriate
for her.
Provide high-dosage tutoring. Students should be offered intensive, smallgroup
tutoring that is customized to each student’s baseline achievement
and pace of learning.
Extend time on task. To make time for increased tutoring, among other
changes, the amount of time devoted to instruction should be increased.
Schools should increase both the length of the school day and the number
of days in the school year.
Foster a culture of high expectations. From the time that students enter a
school, they should understand that they are expected to succeed and that
the teachers, administrators, and other staff are there to help them succeed.
This environment can be created with time dedicated to setting goals, with
posters encouraging college attendance, and many other steps.
Benefits
Certain charter schools have had great success in boosting student
achievement, especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods. However,
because charter schools have a mixed record of success and serve only
a limited population of students, they are clearly not a panacea. But the
astounding results that some charter schools have demonstrated promise
that implementing these changes in public schools could have a dramatic
and transformative effect for students across the country.
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 797-6279
Printed on recycled paper.
www.HAMILTONPROJECT.ORG
www.HAMILTONPROJECT.ORG

Attachment D
Charter School FAQ’s
Page 38 of 43

What is a charter school?
Charter School FAQ’s
A charter school is an independently run public school granted greater flexibility in its
operations, in return for greater accountability for performance. The "charter" establishing each
school is a performance contract detailing the school's mission, program, students served,
performance goals, and methods of assessment.
What is the difference between charter schools and other
public schools?
Charter schools are public schools of choice, meaning that families choose them for their
children. They operate with freedom from some of the regulations that are imposed upon district
schools. Charter schools are accountable for academic results and for upholding the promises
made in their charters. They must demonstrate performance in the areas of academic
achievement, financial management, and organizational stability. If a charter school does not
meet performance goals, it may be closed.
Are charter schools all the same?
No. Charter schools can vary a great deal in their design and in their results. Uncommon Schools
creates schools based on the principles and practices that have proven successful in producing
significant academic gains at high-performing urban charter public schools across the country.
Who authorizes charter schools?
This varies from state to state, depending on the state's charter law. In New York, there are three
authorizers: the New York State Board of Regents, the State University of New York Board of
Trustees, and local boards of education. In New Jersey, there is one authorizer, the state
Commissioner of Education. In Massachusetts, the authorizer is the Board of Elementary and
Secondary Education.
Who can start a charter school?
Parents, community leaders, social entrepreneurs, businesses, teachers, school districts, and
municipalities can submit a charter school proposal to their state's charter authorizing entity.
Who attends charter schools? Whom do they serve?
Nationwide, students in charter schools have similar demographic characteristics to students in
the local public schools. In some states, charter schools serve significantly higher percentages of

minority or low-income students than the traditional public schools. Charter schools accept
students by random, public lottery.
How are charter schools funded?
As public schools, charter schools are tuition-free. They are funded according to enrollment
levels and receive public funds on a per pupil basis. In some states, such as Alaska, Colorado,
Minnesota, and New Jersey, they receive less than 100% of the funds allocated to their
traditional counterparts for school operations. In other states, such as California, additional funds
or loans are made available to them. In most states, charters do not receive capital funds to
support facility expenses. Charter schools are entitled to federal categorical funding for which
their students are eligible, such as Title I and Special Education monies. Federal legislation
provides grants to help charters to manage start-up costs.
What is a charter management organization?
Charter management organizations (CMOs), generally speaking, are organizations that contract
with an individual school or schools to deliver management services. These services typically
include curriculum development, assessment design, professional development, systems
implementation, back-office services, teacher recruitment, and facility services. Uncommon
Schools is a nonprofit CMO that contracts with individual charter school boards of trustees.
Uncommon's "bottom line" is that each school achieves at the highest level. All decisions are
made in the context of what is best for the individual school to ensure student achievement and
outstanding academic results.
What makes the schools in Uncommon different from other
schools?
Uncommon schools share the following key attributes: a college preparatory mission; high
standards for academics and character; a highly structured learning environment; a longer school
day and a longer school year; a focus on accountability and data-driven instruction; and a faculty
of committed and talented leaders and teachers. Schools within the Uncommon network are
modeled on some of the highest-performing urban public charter schools in the country.
How can I enroll my child at an Uncommon School?
Each school admits students through a random lottery. Based on legislation passed in 2007, all
New York City charter schools, beginning in the 2008-9 school year, must give preference to
students resident in the Community School District (CSD) in which the charter school is located.
However, students who reside outside the CSD are eligible to apply and may be admitted if
space permits. Please visit the individual school pages to learn more about the enrollment
processes for Boston, New York City, Newark, Rochester, and Troy.

Do teachers need to be certified to work at an Uncommon
school?
Certification requirements vary on a state-by-state basis. In New Jersey, all teachers must be
certified, and Uncommon Schools helps teachers navigate the alternate route process to secure
their teaching credentials. In New York, while the state does not require that 100% of teachers be
certified at each charter school, the rules under the "No Child Left Behind" Law mean that
teachers need to get their licenses with reasonable speed; Uncommon New York City is able to
ensure that its teachers are enrolled in a Master's program that provides provisional certification
and, more importantly, high quality training. In Massachusetts, charter school teachers must
attain Highly Qualified teacher status as dictated by the "No Child Left Behind" Law by
possessing a bachelor’s degree and demonstrating subject matter competence in the subjects they
teach; Uncommon Boston encourages teachers to get certified and assists them in this process.

Attachment E
Budget
Page 39 of 43

Operating Budget: Projected Revenues and Expenditures
The Advocacy Foundation Charter Schools Initiative
Charter School: Notes
Pre-Operational
Period Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013
MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS
A Per Pupil Tuition 10,327 10,327 10,327 A Based on projected rate for New Bedford
2011
B Student Enrollment 0 114 190 228 B Assumes 95% capacity due to attrition
C Facility Size (square footage) 0 11,000 20,000 23,000 C Based on market and site described in Facilities Section
D Cost per square foot 0 4 4 4 D Based on market and site described in Facilities Section
E Staff FTE: (1.0 FTE = 40 hours) E
E1. Administrative (Professional) 0.25 1 1 1 E1. E.D.
E2. Administrative (Support/Clerical) 0.25 1 1 1 E2. Office Manager
E3. Instructional: Teachers 12.5 23 27 E3. Classroom Teachers, SPED Teachers, ELL Teachers (.5 Year 1), Arts/Media Specialists, Associate
E4. Instructional: Other (Professional) 0.5 1.8 2 2.5 Teachers
E4. Principal, DSFS (.8 Year 1), Speech Pathologist (.5 Year
E5. Instructional: Paraprofessionals
3)
E5. N/A
E6. Instructional: Salaries - Support/Clerical
E6. N/A
E7. Other Student Services 0.5 0.5 1.5 E7. Nurse (.5), Counselor (.5 Year 3)
E8. Operation and Maintenance of Plant 1 1 1 E8. Custodian
F Staff FTE: Subtotal: 1 17.8 28.5 34 F
OPERATING REVENUES OPERATING REVENUES
1 Tuition 1,177,278 1,962,130 2,354,556 1
2 Grants - State 100,000 100,000 2 Startup Grant: Targeted area, Extended Day, single $200K grant spent by
12/31/11
3 Grants - Federal 93,000 160,000 192,000 3 Title Grants, Conservative based on MA charters with similar
pop's
4 Grants - Private 25,000 35,000 40,000 4 Grants awarded by private foundations or corporations.
5 Nutrition Funding - State & Federal 52,000 86,640 103,968 5 Meals reimbursed @ $2.7725/Free, $2.3725/Reduced, .3125/Paid. Assumed Population: 60%FR, 15%R,
25%P
6 Program Fees 13,537 22,562 27,075 6 Meal fees from paid and reduced
7 Contributions, in-kind 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 7 Office Space Startup Period, Donated furniture and equipment.
8 Contributions, in-cash 10,000 10,000 20,000 35,000 8 Parent Fundraising, Annual Gala (year 2), Individual
Donors
9 Investment Income 5,000 7,000 9,000 9 Income from savings and money market accounts
10 Transportation Reimbursements 10 Buses provided by sending district
11 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 115,000 1,480,815 2,298,332 2,766,599 11
OPERATING EXPENDITURES OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Administration Administration (Non-instructional costs)
12 Salaries - Administrative (Professional) 17,000 68,000 70,040 72,141 12 E.D.
13 Salaries - Administrative (Support/Clerical) 11,250 45,000 46,350 47,741 13 Office Manager
14 Accounting-Audit 10,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 14 Accounting Mgmt. Solutions (AMS) fiscal policies and procedures development, indep. Audit
15 Legal 10,000 10,000 10,000 15 Pro bono during pre-op period
16 Payroll 5,000 5,000 5,000 16 HR Knowledge payroll service provider, HR systems support
17 Other Professional Services 17
18 Information Management and Technology 3,000 25,000 15,000 15,000 18 Data management systems, administrative IT supplies and repair
19 Office Supplies and Materials 1,000 10,200 15,600 22,800 19 Estimated @ $600/staff member
20 Professional Development, Administrative/Board 1,000 4,000 5,000 4,000 20 Board/E.D. Professional/Governance Development
21 Dues, Licenses, and Subscriptions 2,000 2,000 2,000 21 MA Charter School Association, other subscriptions
22 Fundraising 1,000 4,000 4,000 8,000 22 Fundraising Events, Grant-Writing
23 Recruitment/Advertising 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 23 Recruiting/advertising for students, staff, and board members
24 Travel expenses for staff/Board 5,000 10,000 12,000 24 Travel expenses for staff/Board to Expeditionary Learning Institutes and other PD
25 Bank Charges - Current (Short Term) 2,000 3,000 4,500 25 Short-term line of credit to be paid off in 3 mos.
26 Purchased Management Services 26 contract.
27 Other: 27
28 Subtotal: 49,250 210,200 215,990 233,182 28
General Special Genera l Special General Special
Instructional Services Education Education Education Education Education Education Instructional Services
29 Salaries - Teachers 528,000 47,000 1,003,220 96,820 1,182,904 149,587 29 Classroom Teachers, SPED Teachers, ELL Teachers (.5 Year 1), Arts/Media Specialists, Associate Teachers
30 Salaries - Other (Professional) 30,000 65,000 44,000 66,950 56,650 68,958 84,872 30 Principal, DSFS (.8 Year 1), Speech Pathologist (.5 Year 3)
31 Salaries - Paraprofessionals 31
32 Salaries - Support/Clerical 32
33 Contracted Services, Instructional 15,000 30,000 42,000 33 Contracted SPED/Counseling Services 1K/Student (20% SPED pop)
34 Instructional Technology in Classrooms 4,000 1,000 12,000 1,000 16,000 1,000 34 $100/student grades 2-8, Adaptive Software, Assistive Technology
35 Instructional Supplies & Materials 22,800 15,200 7,600 35 Instructional Supplies, $250/student in new grades
36 Testing & Assessment 2,850 15,000 5,000 10,000 7,000 5,000 36 $25/student standardized tests, $5K/new grade sped testing
37 Professional Development, Instructional 8,000 4,000 10,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 37 Non Exped. Learning professional development
38 Dues, Licenses, and Subscriptions 1,000 1,000 1,000 38 Subscriptions to Educational Publications, Licenses to professional development
resources
39 Staff Stipends in addition to base salary 39 Clubs taught by volunteers
40 Purchased Management Services 40 N/A
41 Other: Expeditionary Learning School Support
20,000 65,000 65,000 65,000
41 EL Contract including PD, School Designer on site 3X/month

42 Other: Program Evaluation
5,000 5,000 5,000 42 Staff/Student/Community Surveys
43 Subtotal: 50,000 701,650 126,000 1,183,370 199,470 1,363,462 287,459 43
Other Student Services Other Student Services
44 Salaries - Other Student Services 22,500 23,175 74,263 44 Nurse (.5), Counselor (.5 Year 3)
45 Health Services 5,000 5,000 5,000 45 Nurse supplies
46 Student Transportation (to and from school) 22,800 66,500 79,800 46 Transportation for Fieldwork, $200/Student Year 1, $350/student Years 2-3
47 Food Services 70,780 118,000 152,000 47 Approx. $3/student/day
48 Athletic Services 48
49 Purchased Management Services 49
50 Other:
51 Other:
52 Other:
Alma Days
After School Clubs
2,400 4,000
4,560 50 Supplies for Alma Days Orientation, $20/student
2,850 1,140 4,750 1,900
6,650 2,280 51 After School Club Supplies $25/Student. Clubs run by volunteers.
52 Subsidized uniforms for students based on
need
Uniform Cost Reduction
53 Subtotal: 0 127,470 223,325 324,553 53
Operation and Maintenance of Plant Operation and Maintenance of Plant
54 Salaries - Operation and Maintenance of Plant 18,000 18,540 19,096 54 Custodian
55 Utilities 27,500 50,000 57,500 55 $2.50/sq. ft, based on market and facility described
56 Maintenance of Buildings & Grounds 5,000 10,000 12,000 56 Building maintenance (based on decribed facility), cleaning supplies
57 Maintenance of Equipment 1,000 2,000 3,000 57 Maintenance of instructional equipment (copiers, printers, projectors)
58 Rental/Lease of Buildings & Grounds 66,000 120,000 138,000 58 $6/Sq Ft, includes $108K renovations amortized over 3 years
59 Rental/Lease of Equipment 6,000 6,000 9,000 59 Lease of copiers @3,000 each
60 Capital Debt Service 60 Annual payments for long-term capital debt.
61 Renovation/Construction 20,000 61 Renovations to facility to accommodate growing population
62 Acquisition of Capital Equipment 2,000 30,000 10,000 6,000 62 Cost of capital equipment (including computers, furniture, kitchen etc.), based on quote from R.V. Leonard Co.
63 Subtotal:
2,000 173,500 216,540 244,596 63
Fixed Charges Fixed Charges
64 Payroll taxes 1,000 20,261 31,808 42,196 64 MTRS: 1.45% + 1% unemployment; Non-MTRS 1.45% for medicare + 1% unemployment+6.2% FICA
65 Fringe Benefits 68,400 111,150 141,075 65 75% of health @ $450 (Single)/$1,000 (Family); 50% of Dental @ $50S/$75F; $250 life and disability; 60% part
66 Insurance (non-employee) 10,000 10,000 10,000 66 Insurance for board, property, fire and liability
67 Purchased Management Services 67 N/A
68 Other:
69 Other:
70 Subtotal: 1,000 98,661 152,958 193,271 70
Community Services (Including Dissemination)
71 Dissemination Activities 6,000 10,000 12,000 71 Expedition Nights, digitizing and archiving student work, conference/workshop presentations
72 Civic Activities 8,000 12,000 14,000 72 Parent Advisory Board meetings, Alma Days seaside picnic, non-academic community service days
73 Subtotal: 0 14,000 22,000 26,000 73
74 Contingency Fund 2,875 22,212 57,458 69,165 74 Contigency at %1.5 of revenue Year 1, 2.5% Years 2-3
75 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES 105,125 1,473,693 2,271,111 2,741,688 75
68
69
76 SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 9,875 7,122 27,221 24,911 76

Page 40 of 43

Notes
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Page 41 of 43

Notes
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Page 42 of 43

Page 43 of 43