Issuu on Google+

C e n t e r f o r E d u c a t i o n

Tei 202-822-9000 Fax 202-822-5077

1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 204 • Washington, DC 20036

CHARTER SCHOOLS IN BALTIMORE The case for charter schools includes: • Choices for parents, teachers • Flexibility and opportunity for quick progress that can elude a large system without weakening the system. • Agile implementation of innovation; demonstration of methods for the district • Increased accountability at school level • / Accountability increased from top-down if System application and evaluation process is good • / Accountability increased from outside-in; parent choice is key to success of a charter and parent involvement in governance can be a component of a charter plan. Targeting of needs and use of options not always possible in traditional public schools, e.g. •/ More instruction time </ Curriculum innovations such as thematic approaches Baltimore has the experience of the New Schools Initiative which has created 11 schools operating under a charter-like contract. • The New Schools serve 2,800 students « New Schools are found among the highest performers in the city (e.g. City Springs, Midtown Academy) The New Schools received on average $4,220 per pupil from the school system. • 7 of the New Schools are eligible for Title I funds • Kipp has employed a longer school day and Saturday school among other things to achieve its success with middle school students, (e.g. of flexibility of program that charter can provide) • The Midtown Academy is fully integrated economically and racially and received 280 applications for 20 openings for the 04/05 school year. (e.g. of integration and bringing families back into the school system; keeping families in the city) • The New Schools raised $1.4 million in private funds last year, to ensure the quality of their programs. • The Empowerment Temple has requested increased staffing to accommodate a waiting list of over 60 families. Charter can be a tool for schools that are eligible for restructuring, based on the federal No Child Left Behind Standards.

I

)

Under No Child Left Behind, schools are required to make "adequate yearly progress" based on state assessments that meet the federal requirements. Schools may be at Year 1 of not achieving AYP, Year 2, in Corrective Action, or Restructuring. A school on the restructuring list has failed to show improvement over 4 consecutive years.

I i

www.edrefonii.com


In Baltimore City: 32% (59 schools) of the city's schools are on the restructuring list th(4 year of not making progress). 43% (79 schools) of the city's schools are in one of the 4 categories listed about (Years 1 - 4 of mot making adequate progress) • 31% of elementary or elementary/middle schools are on the restructuring list (38 schools) • 48% of middle schools are on the restructuring list • 24% of high schools are on the restructuring list

Baltimore City Schools by "Needs Improvement" Status

Elementary School type: (99 Schools) Needs Improvement status: # % Year 1 2 2% Year 2 0 0% Corrective Action (Year 3) 8 8% Restructuring (Year 4) 31 31% Total "needs improvement" 41 41%

elem/ middle ( I I schools) #

%

Middle (29 Schools) #

%

High (33 Schools) #

%

Total (185 Schools) #

%

0 1 3 7

0% 4% 13% 29%

0 3 3 13

0% 10% 10% 45%

0 0 0 8

0% 0% 0% 24%

2 4 14 59

1% 2% 8% 32%

11

46%

19

66%

8

24%

79

43%

Note: All public schools must meet AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress). AYP is determined by state with baseline in 00-01; determines increments by which all groups meet "proficient" standard by 2012. Different actions are called for at each year of not meeting the standard. In the fourth year, "restructuring", the federal guidance and state law suggest that conversion to charter status with a new operator is an option.


Baltimore City Schools by Improvement Status with City Council Districts, 2004 § &

221 i 247

X

233

I

222 234

\

f

; Z

,D

4

223

-

/

45 203

41

212 313

407

.^324

418 413

219

s

3

%

%

S

214

224

134

249, 177

210 Gi

s rn

251

21

60

31 '

40 5 ' 142

301

411.-' o7

61 k yv NORTH A ,

S:

BMI j - j

^ N?£0 J T

..„.^

FREDERICK AVE

412

250

231

AO fS 425

170 372 ,420 424 105

248

7

E NORTH AVE

.

a

13

86

405

xio. 4 57

48

102" 414133

: £

.2617 150

204

206

44

25

5 41

OAO 20

232

!

250.

'144

89

245

E

%

454 " 2 ? 3 2 2

80 81

:z o 39£ .

3

. £24 ' <3 \ 1 Z

...

480

| 325 ]

87

EDMONDSON AV| 0 Q

o x

6*

201

| §410 m

g5

417 56

25f

-43215

IJ

? 23

""10

47 «y

162, ^ 2

5?

255

237: 230

240 229

31-4-

1

<0 • 84

76

,- m

220

; JB

!9

225-

12

'54

50:'T' 6'U 181-

159 163

improvement Status m Not categorized as ""mmds Improvement" • Year 1 m Year 2 m Corrective Action © Restructuring Bold

207 124

S ?n

New Schools initiative or innovation High Schools

Prepared by the Baltimore City Data Collaborative

6/24/2004


Baltimore City Schools by Improvement Status with City Council Districts, 2004 4> /

4 177

251

%

21

|~32Sl

W NORTH-A

145 i m 202

232 EDMONDSONAV|

V

£

m

E WORTH AVE

36

INST

413 --

FREDERJCKAVE

0**

Improvement Status • AW categorized as '"needs Improvement" • Year • Year 2 • Corrective Action © Restructuring Mew Schools initiative ©r innovation High Bchoois

6/24/2004

Prepared by the Baltimore City Data Collaborative i


Baltimore City Schools by Improvement Status with City Council Districts, 2004 § si

221;

iQI

:

V

283

rxi "

.245§ s

%

247

241

222 234

%

223

: Z

-

/

45 41

212

203' 313

.407

214

5

224

§

4

im S en

*

82 s i 324

T

418 419

219

134

249, 177

< .P

ft

251

£

m ; 42

417, 5S

1

21

>

411

^ 1' 301 57

29' rii_ 454 . 2 [322 3 75 S9

144

88

66r

303

248

13

86

-i

«!

250.

170

122

$

415 \ 1 i

4

^

••• 102 3 41413

'

405

204 4

" y /JQ.

'? 23

*<

i. nr

57 80 31

170 372 ,420 424 105

JSjr 1 425

13' 5 12

145 I 262 i 202

31

z o 61 W NORTHS

206

, 44

49

S 3

Z it .r=24.

450

60

EDMONDSONAV| 0

" s*

2 —

i 325!

87

232

1410

5 1

:>

a 6

201

210

412#

FREDERICK AVE

02 3

9

132 34

§ &

240

J . 314- :

229

1

: C O

<P

:84 226

. 255

237 230

w

^

76

I

220

!3 12

1 t422TfO, 4 6

T^PiST

159 163

improvement Status • A?©£ categorized as ""needs improvement"" • Year 1 • Year 2 • Cofrec^Ve Action © Restructuring Bold

203

207 124

I ST|

5

New Schools Initiative or innovation High Schools SET

Prepared by the Baltimore City Data Collaborative

6/24/2004


Baltimore City Schools by Improvement Status with City Council Districts, 2004 •245S

%

£ /

%

177

251

%

°Z 9 3

1 30

S ^ >

315

WNORTH A 6

2

ENOKW.^ 6 3

•5

6

1

„ 29' 454 z

%L 13u^, 125

303

145 L262 202

232 EDMOHDSONAV|

1 45 2 12

:Z

:

•;>

138 78.. -«AMKL1N ST 2 6 1

i s^ o^ -

1 4

^

415 ;

H

' 42

FREDERICK AVB

D—181

Improvement Status Not categorized as "meeds empmv®menf Year 1 Year 2 Corrective Action Restructuring New Schools initiative or Innovation High Schools

Prepared by the Baltimore City Data Collaborative

6/24/2004


charter-schools-in-baltimore-2004