ࡱ>  BD56789:;<=>?@A bjbj<< \ ^^i: : }\[[[DtI444444p5p5p5HHHHHHHEJLH[@p5p5@@H[[44HDDD@,[4[4~H6D@HDD^GFH4VBHjHH0I.HMpCLM0FHM[FH$p59D;=p5p5p5HHCFp5p5p5I@@@@Mp5p5p5p5p5p5p5p5p5: C: March 2000 School of Urban and Public Affairs University of Texas at Arlington Center for the Study of Education Reform University of North Texas Center for Public Policy University of Houston Texas Center For Educational Research Austin Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Third Year Evaluation Part One Year Three Charter School Evaluation Part One Section I: Introduction to Part One of the 1998-99 Evaluation 1 Section II: Characteristics of Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools 5 Charters Awarded, Returned, Revoked, and Pending 5 General Characteristics 5 Student Characteristics 12 Charter School Faculties 21 Section III: Charter School Director Survey 24 Reasons for Founding Schools and Opening Challenges 26 Reasons for Founding schools 26 Opening Challenges 27 Challenges of Operating Charter Schools 28 Governance, Finances, and Support 30 Governance 30 Finances 32 Community Support 33 Organizational Support 34 School Personnel, Curriculum, and Relationships School Districts 35 Teachers 35 Directors 35 Curriculum 36 Discipline 38 Relationship with Public School District 40 Parents and Students 40 Parents 40 Students 43 Student Recruitment 44 Summary 45 Section IV: Student Satisfaction 47 Factors Influencing the Choice of the Charter School 51 Evaluation of the Charter School 53 Comparison of Satisfaction over Time for At-Risk Schools 57 Comparison of Satisfaction over Time for Non-at-Risk Schools 60 Summary of Findings 63 Section V: Effects of Charter Schools on Traditional Public School Districts 65 Survey of District Officials 65 Quantitative Findings 66 Awareness of Charter School Activities and Effects 67 Financial Effects on Districts 68 Programmatic Effects on Districts 69 Effects on Public School Participants 69 Qualitative Findings 70 Overall Impressions of Charter Schools 70 Charter School Operations 72 Financial Concerns for Public School Districts 72 Attrition of Students in Public School Districts 72 Negative Publicity 73 Summary 73 Appendices 75 Appendix A: Statutory Provisions Governing Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Appendix B: Survey Instruments Table of Tables Section II II.1 Geographic Distribution of Schools and Student Enrollments 6 II.2 Charter Schools Classified as At-Risk or Non-at-Risk 11 II.3 Overall Open-Enrollment Charter School Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity 13 II.4a Individual At-Risk Charter Schools, Student Characteristics 13 II.4b Individual Non-at-Risk Charter Schools, Student Characteristics 15 II.5 Estimated Racial Concentration of Texas Charter Schools (1998-99) Compared to National Sample Charter Schools (1996-97) and All Public Schools in Sixteen Charter States (1994-95) 17 II.6 Schools with 20 Percentage Points of School District Racial Percentages 19 II.7 Mean Differences between Texas School Enrollments and the Enrollments of the Traditional School Districts in which They Are Located 20 II.8 Charter School Special Populations, 1997-98 21 II.9 Characteristics of Charter School Faculty, 1998-99 21 Section III III.1a Charter Schools Opened Before 8/98 24 III.1b Charter Schools Opened After 8/98 25 III.2 Comparing Reasons for Founding Charter Schools Between At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Schools 27 III.3 Challenges Opening Charter Schools: At-Risk versus Non-at-Risk Schools 28 III.4 Comparison of Challenges from Year-One to Later Years for At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Schools 29 III.5 Challenges in Operation: At-Risk versus Non-at-Risk Charter Schools 30 III.6 Board Composition: At-Risk versus Non-at-Risk Charter Schools 31 III.7 Board Responsibilities 31 III.8 Sources of School Revenue as a Percentage Comparing At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools 32 III.9 Sources of School Revenue as a Percentage Comparing Charter Schools Opened Before Fall 1998 and Those Opened After Fall 1998 32 III.10 Business or Community Support Comparing At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools 33 III.11 Business or Community Support Comparing Charter Schools Opened Before Fall 1998 and Those Opened After Fall 1998 34 III.12 Organizational Support Comparing At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools 34 III.13 Organizational Support Comparing Charter Schools Opened Before Fall 1998 and Those Opened After Fall 1998 35 III.14 Types of Educational Practices Used in At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools 36 III.15 Types of Evaluation Practices Used in At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools Comparing Evaluations of 1997, 1998 and 1999 37 III.16 Student Discipline Characteristics Comparing Charter Schools Opened Before Fall 1998 and Those Opened After Fall 1998 39 III.17 Number of Disciplinary Incidents in Charter Schools, 96-97, 97-98, and 98-99 39 III.18 Relationship of Charter School with Local School District Comparing At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools 40 III.19 Parental Participation Comparing At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools 41 III.20 Parental Involvement Comparing At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools 42 III.21 Parental Involvement Comparing Charter Schools Opened Before Fall 1998 and Those Opened After Fall 1998 42 III.22 Characteristics of Student Population Comparing Charter Schools Opened Before Fall 1998 and Those Opened After Fall 1998 43 III.23 Reasons for Student Leaving Charter School Comparing At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools 44 III.24 Student Recruitment Techniques Comparing At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools 44 Section IV IV.1 Student Survey Response Rates 48 IV.2 Distribution of Responses across Schools and Weights Used to Balance Responses 49 IV.3 Characteristics of Non-at-Risk and At-Risk School Samples 50 IV.4 Post-High School Plans of At-Risk and Non-at-Risk School Samples 51 IV.5 Reasons Students Chose a Charter School 53 IV.6 Students Comparison of Charter School with School They Would Otherwise Have Attended 55 IV.7 Grades Respondents Gave to Charter and Previously Attended Schools 56 IV.8 Students Satisfaction with the School and Plans for the Coming School Year 57 IV.9 Characteristics of At-Risk School Sample, 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99 58 IV.10 Measures of At-Risk School Respondents Satisfaction with the Charter School 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99 59 IV.11 Post-High School Plans of At-Risk School Respondents, 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99 60 IV.12 Characteristics of Non-at-Risk School Sample, 1996-97 and 1998-99 61 IV.13 Measures of Non-at-Risk School Students Satisfaction with the Charter Schools, 1996-97 and 1998-99 62 IV.14 Post-High School Plans of Non-at-Risk School Respondents, 1996-97 and 1998-99 63 Section V V.1 Size of Districts Responding to Survey of Charter School Effects 66 V.2 ESC Region of Districts Responding to Survey of Charter School Effects 66 V.3 Students Reported by Respondents as Leaving to Attend Charter Schools 67 V.4 Students Reported by Respondents as Returning to Districts Schools after Attending Charter Schools 68 Section I: Introduction to Part One of the 1998-99 Evaluation In 1995, the Texas Legislature provided for the creation of twenty open-enrollment charter schools (TEC 12.101-118). Open-enrollment charter schools are public schools that are substantially released from state education regulations and exist separate and apart from local independent school districts. They may be sponsored by an institution of higher education (public or private), a non-profit organization (501(c)(3)) as set out in the Internal Revenue Code, or a governmental entity. In 1997, the Texas Legislature provided for an additional 100 open-enrollment charter schools as well as an unlimited number of charter schools that would serve students at risk of failure or dropping out of school. In order to qualify as a school serving at-risk students, school enrollment must include at least 75 percent at-risk students. During the 1996-97 school year, 17 open-enrollment charter schools were operating in Texas. In 1997-98 the charter schools numbered 19. In 1998-99, 89 charter schools operated for the entire school year, 45 of which were schools designated to serve at-risk students. TEC 12.118 calls for the Texas State Board of Education to designate an impartial organization with experience in evaluating school choice programs to conduct an annual evaluation of open-enrollment charter schools. Three entities were designated jointly to evaluate open-enrollment charter schools by the State Board of Education. The first entity consists of researchers from the Center of Urban and Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Arlington; the second entity is the Texas Center for Educational Research, and researchers from the Center for the Study of Education Reform at the University of North Texas, and the third entity consists of researchers from the Center for Public Policy at the University of Houston. Together the researchers comprise the charter school evaluation team. The evaluation team is to consider Student scores on assessment instruments Student attendance Student grades Student discipline Socioeconomic data on students families Parents satisfaction with their childrens schools Students satisfaction with their schools Moreover, the evaluation of open-enrollment charter schools is to take into account Effects of open-enrollment charter schools on school districts and on teachers, students, and parents in those districts Costs incurred by charter schools for transportation, instruction, and administration Researchers gathered data from all schools reported to be in operation for the entire 1998-99 school year. Some analyses reported in the evaluation consider charter schools as a group, but in many cases an aggregate result fails to capture the wide variation among schools. In particular, charter schools that serve a predominantly at-risk population of students are often quite different from those that serve few at-risk students. For this reason, the evaluation team grouped schools to distinguish between those that serve primarily traditional students and those that exist to serve students who are at-risk of leaving the public school system. This distinction is used in many of the sections of this report. At-risk and non-at-risk schools often have different missions, a difference that influences both curriculum and pedagogy. To lump these two types of schools together may obscure important distinctions and will likely result in schools being held to standards or being assessed in ways that are not appropriate. Therefore, the 89 charter schools addressed in this report are usually divided into distinct groups for purposes of analysis. As a point of departure, the evaluation team used the Texas statute (TEC 12.101(a)(2)) which requires that charter schools maintain an enrollment of 75 percent at-risk students to be exempt from the cap placed on the number of charters that may be granted in the state. The evaluation team assigned schools to at-risk or non-at-risk groups based upon the percentage of their students who were classified as at-risk according to data reported to the Texas Education Agency. Schools serving a majority of at-risk students with mission statements targeting at-risk students were classified as at-risk schools. Those not meeting these criteria were classified as non-at-risk schools. It is important to note that some schools that the evaluators classified as at-risk do not have at-risk charters. Table II.2 displays schools according to at-risk or non-at-risk status as determined by the evaluators. Forty-three schools are classified as at-risk schools, and 40 schools were classified as non-at-risk schools. Six schools did not provide the percentage of at-risk students served. The evaluation team is addressing evaluation topics through Review of charter applications A survey of charter school parents A survey of charter school students Assessment of TAAS scores of charter school students and a comparison group of traditional public school students A survey of charter school directors A survey of officials in affected public school districts For various reasons, it has not been possible to carry out this entire mandate in the year-three evaluation. It is logistically difficult to collect grades for charter school students. This situation is further complicated by the fact that grades do not have comparable meanings among charter schools. As in the first- and second-year evaluation, no comparison or analysis of grades is included in the third-year report. Data about student discipline comes primarily from the survey of charter school directors and is not as comprehensive as similar data that would be collected by a traditional public school district. Because data for the 1998-99 school year become available at different times following the close of the school year, the evaluation team chose to prepare the third-year evaluation in three parts. The first part comprises five chapters: a review of the characteristics of open-enrollment charter schools; a report on the perspectives of charter school directors relating to operation, enrollment, curriculum, attrition, discipline and safety; a report on charter school student satisfaction; and a report on effects of open-enrollment charter schools on public school districts. The complete and final report will include material from Part One along with a report on student assessment using the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), a report on family demographics, an evaluation of parent satisfaction, a report on student enrollment and attendance, and a report on the expenditures of charter schools. The final report will be released in Summer 2000. Charter school profiles will be distributed as a separate publication at the same time as Part One. Material included in the profiles was prepared by the charter schools. This first part of the year-three evaluation is organized as follows: Section II presents an overview of the characteristics of the open-enrollment and at-risk charter schools that operated in Texas during the 1998-99 school year. Dr. Gregory Weiher of the Center for Public Policy at the University of Houston prepared this section. Section III presents findings from surveys of the directors of open-enrollment charter schools. Dr. Delbert Taebel and Theresa Daniel of the School of Urban and Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Arlington prepared this section. Section IV presents a summary of a survey of charter school students. Dr. Edith J. Barrett of the School of Urban and Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Arlington prepared this section. Section V presents a summary of a survey of officials in school districts in areas where charter schools operate. Dr. Kay Thomas of the Texas Center for Educational Research prepared this section. Appendix A includes the statutory provisions governing open-enrollment charter schools (TEC 12.101-118). Appendix B includes copies of the various survey instruments used to collect information about parent and student satisfaction from charter school and comparison groups. The reader should be aware that the charter school evaluation set out in the Texas statute does not constitute a compliance review of charter schools. Evaluators do not examine whether charter schools fulfill their missions or whether they comply with the terms of their charters. The role of the evaluation team is to prepare a report about Texas charter schools as a group. For this reason, the report provides limited information about individual charter schools. While there are difficulties associated with summarizing data from schools as diverse as Texas charter schools, the evaluation team has attempted to provide a meaningful overview of the required evaluation topics. Monitoring and compliance responsibilities rest with state agencies as do audits to determine fiscal stability and compliance with federal and state laws. Section II: Characteristics of Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools This section describes the general characteristics of Texas open-enrollment charter schools with specific reference to the following questions: What are the general characteristics of students and faculties in charter schools? How do charter school faculties compare with traditional public school faculties in terms of certification and formal educational attainment? How do charter school students and faculties compare to students and faculties in traditional public schools in terms of demographic characteristics? What costs have charter schools incurred for instruction, administration, and transportation? Charters Awarded, Returned, Revoked, and Pending To date, 170 charters have been awarded by the State Board of Education. One-hundred-sixty-one charters are active. Of those, 140 charter schools are currently operating with students in attendance. Six charters have been returned, including four by the operators of F.A.I.T.H., H.O.P.E., L.O.V.E., and P.O.W.E.R. Charter Schools. The Academy of Austin and El Paso Community College also returned their charters. In addition, two charters have been revoked by the State Board of Education: Cypress Lodge and E.L. Harrison. As of February 2000. Rameses School is undertaking a hearing process related to possible revocation of its charter. In November 1999, the State Board of Education (SBOE) approved a schedule for review and approval of new charter schools for Generation 4 (March 2000), Generation 5 (July and September 2000), and Generation 6 (November 2000). The application materials were revised based on experience gained in review and approval of the first three generations of charter schools. In January 2000, sixty applicants submitted documents to request charters. Of that group, 37 distinct applications were complete and ready for review. In February 2000, the commissioner of education and members of the SBOE appointed a panel of external reviewers to review applications. Applications receiving a minimum score of 150 (out of 200 possible points) will receive interviews with the Planning Committee of the SBOE in March 2000. New charter schools will be required to open in Fall 2000. General Characteristics The charter-school data presented in this chapter come from self-reports made by charter school directors to the Texas Education Agency. Eighty-nine charter schools operated for the entire 1998-99 school year. In Table II.1, these schools are grouped by location. The table also presents information about student enrollment at each school, and student/teacher ratios. Table II.1 Geographic Distribution of Schools, Grades Served, Enrollments, Student/Teacher Ratios, 1998-99 SchoolLocationGradesEnrollmentStudent/ Teacher RatioAustin AreaAmerican Institute for LearningAustin9-1221921Eden Park AcademyAustink-523414NYOS Austink-711913Star Charter SchoolAustin1-103012Texas Academy of ExcellenceAustinpre k-212421Texas Empowerment AcademyAustin5-1212932University Charter SchoolAustin9-126331Corpus Christi AreaAcademy of Transitional StudiesCorpus Christi6-1220545Richard Milburn Alternative High SchoolCorpus Christi9-1211332Seashore Learning Center CharterNorth Padre Islandpre k-617314Dallas AreaChildren First Academy of DallasDallask-58020Dallas Can! Academy CharterDallas9-121,59050Eagle Advantage Charter SchoolDallas8310Faith Family Academy of Oak CliffDallaspre k-1222812Heritage AcademyDallask-1215050Life Charter Schools of Oak CliffDallask-1228718Nova School (West Oak Cliff)Dallaspre k-69617P.O.W.E.R.DallasPegasus Charter High SchoolDallas7-912319Rylie Faith Family AcademyDallaspre k-1229116Universal AcademyDallaspre k-1213415Ranch AcademyCanton6-12388L.O.V.E.Denton7717 Table II.1, Continued Geographic Distribution of Schools, Grades Served, Enrollments, Student/Teacher Ratios, 1998-99 SchoolLocationGradesEnrollmentStudent/ Teacher RatioTreetops School InternationalDFW Airportpre k-1214713Theresa B. Lee AcademyFt. Worth9-126015North Hills SchoolIrving5-836213Renaissance Charter SchoolIrving7-1295040Academy of Skills and KnowledgeTyler3-9759Bright Ideas CharterWichita Fallspre k-126411Waxahachie Faith Family AcademyWaxahachiepre k-106811Houston AreaAcademy of Accelerated Learning Houstonk-5/9-1217425Academy of HoustonHoustonk-629920Alief Montessori Community SchoolHoustonk-69120Benjis Special Education Academy Charter SchoolHoustonpre k-126115Children First Academy of HoustonHoustonk-510125Ed White School of Educational EnhancementHoustonpre k-1210517George I. Sanchez Charter High SchoolHouston9-1248319Girls and Boys Prep AcademyHouston6-1244217H.O.P.E.HoustonHarris County Juvenile Justice Charter School Houston5-122,07041Heights AcademyHouston7-1213126Houston Can! Academy Charter SchoolHouston9-1237734Impact CharterHouston3-47926Jesse Jackson AcademyHouston9-126212Kipp Inc. CharterHoustonk/5-1027415La Amistad Love and Learning AcademyHoustonpre k-k2915 Table II.1, Continued Geographic Distribution of Schools, Grades Served, Enrollments, Student/Teacher Ratios, 1998-99 SchoolLocationGradesEnrollmentStudent/ Teacher RatioMedical Center Charter SchoolHoustonk-517322Northwest Mathematics, Science, and Language AcademyHoustonpre k-56713.4Raul Yzaguirre School for SuccessHouston6-939520SER-Nios Charter SchoolHoustonpre k-423518Texas Serenity AcademyHouston7-12/ged2412Two Dimensions Preparatory AcademyHoustonpre k-816514University of Houston School of TechnologyHoustonk-28321Varnett Charter SchoolHoustonpre k-533821West Houston Charter SchoolHouston1-1218617Gulf Coast Trades CenterNew Waverly9-1220710Mainland Preparatory AcademyTexas Citypre k/4-618314San Antonio AreaBlessed Sacrament AcademySan Antonio9-1217621Building Alternatives CharterSan Antonio9-1214016Guardian Angel Performance AcademySan Antonio6-8449Higgs, Carter, King Gifted and Talented Charter AcademySan Antoniopre k-627715John H. Wood Charter SchoolSan Antoniok-12584La Escuela de las AmericasSan Antoniopre k-126030New Frontiers Charter School San Antonio54023Positive Solutions Charter SchoolSan Antonio7-1213133Radiance Academy of LearningSan Antoniopre k-129126Rameses SchoolSan Antoniopre k-12NANASchool of Excellence in EducationSan Antonio6-1237222Southwest Preparatory AcademySan Antonio9-1210521 Table II.1, Continued Geographic Distribution of Schools, Grades Served, Enrollments, Student/Teacher Ratios, 1998-99 SchoolLocationGradesEnrollmentStudent/ Teacher RatioThe ValleySentry Technology Prep SchoolBrownsville9-1227669Coastal Bend Youth CityDriscollages 10-174010Encino SchoolEncinopre k-86015Valley High Charter SchoolHarlingen9-1226934GatewayLaredo9-1210151Freedom SchoolMcAllen1-122311One-Stop Multiservice McAllen9-1231252Mid-Valley AcademyMercedes9-125353Technology Education Charter High SchoolWeslaco9-1224850Waco AreaE. L. Harrison Charter SchoolWaco18111Rapoport AcademyWacopre k-13211Waco Charter SchoolWacok-518236OtherBurnham Wood Charter SchoolEl Pasok-128815Paso del NorteEl Paso9-129749Richard Milburn Alternative High SchoolKilleen9-127839Transformative Charter AcademyKilleen9-1210736Cedar Ridge Charter SchoolLometa7-122828South Plains AcademyLubbock9-1213033Nancy Ney Charter SchoolNew Braunfels4-125217Gabriel Tafolla Charter SchoolUvalde5-1211917Average------19822 In Texas, 17,616 charter school students were taught by 771 full-time and 89 part-time teachers in 1998-99. Counting each part-time teacher as 0.5 full-time equivalent yields a student/teacher ratio of about 21.6. Texas public schools reported 15.5 students per teacher for 1996-97. The average charter school has an enrollment of about 198 students. This is greater than the average size reported in 1996-97 (147), but less than the average size reported in 1997-98 (217). The United States Department of Education report on charter schools notes that more than 60 percent of all charter schools are small schools that enroll fewer than 200 students with almost 35 percent enrolling fewer than 100 students; in contrast, only 16 percent of all public schools in states with charter schools enroll fewer than 200 students, and about nine percent enroll fewer than 100 students. The Texas charter school figures, however, are somewhat misleading. For instance, charter school enrollments range from a low of 23 students to a high of 2,070. But only six have more than 400 students. Fully three-quarters of charter schools have fewer than 250 students. If the schools that enroll 450 or more students are discounted, the average enrollment of Texas charter schools is only 148. Similarly, the student-teacher ratio figures in Table II.1 are skewed by six cases that have values of 45 or more. If these cases are discounted, the average student-teacher ratio for charter schools is less than 19. Thirty schools have a student-teacher ratio of fifteen or less. Beginning with third generation charters, applicants must specify whether they are seeking a general open-enrollment charter or a 75% Rule open-enrollment charter. According to law, those applicants seeking 75% Rule charters must serve a student population of at least 75 percent at-risk students. While general open-enrollment charter schools may serve more than 75 percent at-risk students, they are not required to maintain a specific percentage of these students. For analysis purposes, the Evaluation Team has adopted a broader definition of at-risk schools than the distinction made in law. In order to group schools in a fair and consistent manner, especially those that opened before the 75% Rule provision was instituted, the Evaluation Team took into account the mission, special programs, and populations served to classify schools as at-risk or non-at-risk. Thus, charter schools with a stated mission to serve students at-risk and enrolling a majority of at-risk students, as well as schools defined as 75% Rule charter schools, were classified as at-risk schools. General open-enrollment charter schools that do not have a mission related to at-risk students and that enroll primarily non-at-risk students were classified as non-at-risk schools. The Evaluation Team classified 43 schools as at-risk and 40 schools as non-at-risk schools. Six schools did not provide the percentage of at-risk students served. Where analyses were conducted separately for at-risk and non-at-risk schools, these six were excluded. Table II.2 identifies schools as at-risk or non-at-risk. Table II.2 Charter Schools Classified as At-risk or Non-at-risk At-RiskNon-at-RiskAcademy of Accelerated LearningAcademy of HoustonAcademy of Skills and KnowledgeAlief Montessori Community SchoolAcademy of Transitional StudiesAmerican Institute for LearningBenjis Special Education Academy Charter SchoolBright Ideas Charter Blessed Sacrament AcademyBurnham Wood Charter SchoolBuilding Alternatives Charter Children First Academy of DallasCedar Ridge Charter SchoolChildren First Academy of HoustonCoastal Bend Youth CityEagle Advantage Charter SchoolDallas Can! Academy CharterEd White School of Educational EnhancementE. L. Harrison Charter SchoolEden Park AcademyFaith Family Academy of Oak CliffEncino SchoolFreedom SchoolGeorge I. Sanchez Charter High SchoolGabriel Tafolla Charter SchoolGirls and Boys Prep AcademyGatewayHeights AcademyGuardian Angel Performance AcademyHiggs, Carter, King Gifted and Talented Charter AcademyGulf Coast Trades CenterLife Charter Schools of Oak CliffHarris County Juvenile Justice Charter SchoolMainland Preparatory AcademyHeritage AcademyMedical Center Charter SchoolHouston Can! Academy Charter SchoolNancy Ney Charter SchoolImpact Charter New Frontiers Charter School Jesse Jackson AcademyNorth Hills SchoolJohn H. Wood Charter SchoolNorthwest Mathematics, Science, and Language AcademyKipp Inc. Charter Nova School (West Oak Cliff)L.O.V.E.NYOS La Amistad Love and Learning AcademyPegasus Charter High SchoolLa Escuela de las AmericasRapoport AcademyMid-Valley AcademyRaul Yzaguirre School for SuccessOne-Stop Multiservice Renaissance Charter SchoolRadiance Academy of LearningRylie Faith Family AcademyRanch AcademySchool of Excellence in EducationRichard Milburn Alternative CorpusSeashore Learning Center Table II.2, Continued Charter Schools Classified as At-Risk or Non-at-Risk At-RiskNon-at-RiskRichard Milburn Alternative High School, KilleenStar Charter SchoolSentry Technology Prep SchoolTexas Academy of ExcellenceSER-Nios Charter SchoolTransformative Charter AcademySouth Plains AcademyTwo Dimensions Preparatory AcademySouthwest Preparatory AcademyUniversity of Houston School of Technology Technology Education Charter High SchoolUniversal AcademyTexas Empowerment AcademyVarnett Charter SchoolTexas Serenity AcademyWaxahachie Faith Family AcademyTheresa B. Lee AcademyWest Houston Charter SchoolUniversity Charter SchoolValley High Charter SchoolWaco Charter School Student Characteristics Texas charter school legislation (TEC 12.111(6)) contains language that prohibits enrollment discrimination by charter schools. Critics claimed that the creation of charter schools would result in a system in which Anglo students would be in academically oriented institutions and minority students would be in schools serving at-risk populations or in schools with vocational programs. Though there is some evidence that this is occurring, the reality is somewhat more complex. Table II.3 compares charter schools in the aggregate with traditional Texas public schools. In the aggregate, charter schools have considerably higher percentages of minority students and lower percentages of Anglo students than do the traditional schools in the Texas public school system. However, the differences between the charter schools and traditional public schools result from the large number of charter schools that serve primarily at-risk students. Disaggregating charter schools into at-risk schools and non-at-risk schools demonstrates that at-risk schools have much higher concentrations of minority students and lower concentrations of Anglo students than traditional Texas public schools, and that non-at-risk schools have lower percentages of Hispanic students and higher percentages of African American and Anglo students than traditional Texas public schools. Table II.3 Overall Open-Enrollment Charter School Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, 1998-99 (percentages) EthnicityTexas Public SchoolsTexas Charter SchoolsAt-Risk Charter SchoolsNon-at-Risk Charter SchoolsHispanic3842.550.234.4African American1434.235.233.1Anglo4521.513.829.6Other31.8 Table II.3 also indicates that Hispanic students are over-represented in at-risk charter schools, while Anglo students are over-represented in non-at-risk charter schools. About 57.3 percent of all Hispanic students in charter schools attend at-risk schools. Approximately 66.3 percent of all Anglo students in charter schools attend non-at-risk schools. African American charter school students are roughly evenly divided between at-risk and non-at-risk schools. Tables II.4.a and II.4.b present data on student characteristics for individual at-risk and non-at-risk charter schools in Texas. These data demonstrate that most Texas charter schools have racially and ethnically distinctive enrollments. The patterns for individual schools are consistent with the aggregate data in Table II.3 in that African American and Hispanic students are heavily represented in many charter schools. Table II.4.a Individual At-Risk Charter Schools, Student Characteristics 1998-99 (percentages) SchoolAfrican AmericanHispanicAngloOtherAt-RiskSpecial Ed. Acad. of Accel. Learning6113241960Acad. of Skills and Knowledge719207939Acad of Trans. Studies192521009Benjis Special Ed. Academy9730010082Blessed Sacrament292511004Building Alternatives3258911005 Table II.4.a, Continued Individual At-Risk Charter Schools, Student Characteristics 1998-99 (percentages) SchoolAfrican AmericanHispanicAngloOtherAt-RiskSpecial Ed. Cedar Ridge14186809686Coastal Bend36303510088Dallas Can!4846501004E. L. Harrison973101008Faith Family, Oak Cliff87770822Freedom School07822010087Gabriel Tafolla082171930Gateway197201004Guardian Angel32481199516Gulf Coast Trades Center384515110017Harris County Juvenile Just.443123110021Heritage Academy39134801007Houston Can!6433211001Impact 87850810Jesse Jackson 928001000John H. Wood10503379867Kipp791111002L.O.V.E.8296407817La Amistad937001000La Escuela de las Americas01000010025Mid-Valley0100001000One-Stop094601001Radiance Academy16602307619Ranch Academy0595010021Richard Milburn, Corpus968230879Richard Milburn, Killeen4119328879Sentry Tech Prep0100001000SER-Nios49500994South Plains569251954 Table II.4.a, Continued Individual At-Risk Charter Schools, Student Characteristics 1998-99 (percentages) SchoolAfrican AmericanHispanicAngloOtherAt-RiskSpecial Ed. Southwest Preparatory13553101008Technology Education098201001Texas Empowerment3147212798Texas Serenity2158417100100Theresa B. Lee Academy93250973University 115633010016Valley High59203864Waco 59347010013 Table II.4.b Individual Non-at-Risk Charter Schools, Student Characteristics 1998-99 (percentages) SchoolAfrican AmericanHispanicAngloOtherAt-RiskSpecial Ed. Academy of Houston88561284Alief Montessori31241827389American Inst. for Learning14523416114Bright Ideas 35920110Burnham Wood 55241206Children First, Dallas100000104Children First, Houston9920075Eagle Advantage 8371003116Ed White School312805154Eden Park Academy9206921816Encino School09280572 Table II.4.b, Continued Individual Non-at-Risk Charter Schools, Student Characteristics 1998-99 (percentages) SchoolAfrican AmericanHispanicAngloOtherAt-RiskSpecial Ed. George I. Sanchez29520660Girls & Boys Prep95221202Heights Academy1155340735Higgs-Carter-King2065141714Life, Oak Cliff5514301271Mainland Prep88480631Medical Center 6491513391Nancy Ney 12523526515New Frontiers385120129North Hills128651412Northwest Math82107001Nova School6424102571NYOS 81079349Pegasus 2150281332Rapoport 88930443Raul Yzaguirre 09910296Renaissance 1717597447Rylie Faith Family 12216607220Seashore Learning Center0157871210Star Charter33930010TX Academy of Excellence9532000TX School of Excellence1373121245Transformative Charter3721384376Two Dimensions 99100282University of Houston Tech3327347131 Table II.4.b, Continued Individual Non-at-Risk Charter Schools, Student Characteristics 1998-99 (percentages) SchoolAfrican AmericanHispanicAngloOtherAt-RiskSpecial Ed. Universal Academy98110150Varnett 972105612Waxahachie Faith Family128710630West Houston 2157583319 The U.S. Department of Education second-year report on charter schools uses the proportion of Anglo students as a measure of racial concentration across charter schools. The report divides charter schools and traditional public schools into three categories those where the proportion of Anglo students is between zero and one-third, those where the proportion of Anglo students is between one-third and two-thirds, and those where the proportion of Anglo students exceeds two-thirds. The report notes that charter schools closely approximate the public schools in their states in terms of the percentages of schools that fall into each category. For instance, 27.7 percent of the charter schools in the national sample have from zero to one-third Anglo students, compared to 24.9 percent of the public schools in the same states. The data in Table II.5 indicate that Texas open-enrollment charter schools are not similar to the national sample of charter schools or to Texas public schools in this respect. Table II.5 Estimated Racial Concentration of Texas Charter Schools (1998-99) Compared to National Sample Charter Schools (1996-97) and All Public Schools in Sixteen Charter States (1994-95) (percentages) Proportion of Anglo StudentsNational Sample Charter SchoolsTexas Public SchoolsTexas Charter SchoolsTexas At-Risk Charter SchoolsTexas Non-at-Risk Charter Schools0-1/327.737.170.983.758.11/3-2/320.928.715.19.320.92/3-151.434.213.97.020.9 Texas charter schools are much more likely than traditional public schools in Texas to have one-third or fewer Anglo students. This is true for both at-risk charter schools (84 percent to 37 percent) and non-at-risk charter schools (58 percent to 37 percent). It is not surprising that at-risk charter schools should have lower concentrations of Anglo students, since minority students are more likely to be at risk of dropping out of the education system. It is not clear, however, why non-at-risk charter schools should also have relatively low concentrations of Anglo students. The data presented in tables II.3 and II.5 indicate that charter schools in Texas, both at-risk and non-at-risk schools, have higher proportions of minority students than Texas traditional public schools. A possible explanation for this pattern is that charter schools are heavily concentrated in major metropolitan areas in the state. Minority populations tend to be urban populations. There are as many Hispanic Texans, for instance, in the Houston Metropolitan Statistical Area as there are in the Rio Grande Valley. In other words, charter schools may have disproportionately high concentrations of minority students because they are located in areas where disproportionate numbers of minority students live. The U.S. Department of Educations study of charter schools compares the racial characteristics of charter schools to the characteristics of the school districts in which they are located. In order to place the figures in Tables 3 and 5 in a local context, a similar strategy is followed in this report with two modifications. The first modification is that this report considers percentages for all three major ethnic groups in the state Anglo, African American, and Hispanic rather than focusing only on percentages comprised by Anglo students. The fact that Texas is a multi-ethnic state recommends such a strategy. Second, the Department of Education report uses a 20 percent standard for determining if schools are racially distinctive. For these purposes, we define a charter school to be distinctly different from its district if its percentage of Anglo students is 20 percent greater than or 20 percent less than the average percentage of Anglo students in the district. In this report, we begin by applying the 20 percent standard for assessing the African American and Hispanic compositions as well as the Anglo composition of schools and school districts. Application of the 20 percent standard, however, can cause certain anomalies. Therefore, we also apply a more flexible method of comparison. The third-year Department of Education charter school report notes that nationally, 72 percent of charter schools are not racially distinctive from their districts in the sense that they fall within 20 percentage points above or below the percentages of Anglo students in the districts in which they are located. By that same standard, about 70 percent of charter schools in Texas in 1998-99 were not distinctive when compared to the traditional public school districts in which they were located (see Table II.6). The overall pattern in Texas is similar to the pattern found by the Department of Education for charter schools nationally. By this standard, it appears that the at-risk charter schools are more reflective of the communities in which they are located than are the non-at-risk schools, since 76 percent of at-risk schools are not racially distinctive compared to about 62 percent of non-at-risk charter schools. Table II.6 Schools within 20 Percentage Points of School District Racial Percentages (percentages of schools) School TypeAngloAfrican AmericanHispanicCharter schools, national sample72Traditional public schools in Texas86.189.884.5Charter schools in Texas69.563.447.6At-risk charter schools76.266.752.4Non-at-risk charter schools62.560.042.5 If the 20 percent standard is applied to each of the three major ethnic groups in the state, however, the percentage of distinctive schools increases markedly. If the criterion for distinctiveness is a 20 percentage-point difference between the charter school and the traditional school district for any of the three major ethnic groups in the state, then only about 35 percent of charter schools are not racially distinctive when compared to their traditional school districts. Furthermore, in order to put these results in context, they should be compared to the same figures for the traditional public schools in the state (Table II.6). Doing so gives an indication of how generous the 20 point standard is. By this standard, looking at only Anglo percentages, 86 percent of public schools are not distinctively different from the traditional school districts in which they are located. If the standard is extended to the two other major ethnic groups, about 90 percent of traditional public schools are not distinctively different from the relevant traditional district with respect to African American enrollments, and about 84 percent are not distinctively different with respect to Hispanic enrollments. This comparison indicates that traditional public schools are considerably less likely to be racially distinctive in comparison to their communities than are charter schools. Again, however, the 20 percent standard tends to be very imprecise in understanding the racial compositions of Texas charter schools. It is more informative to simply compute the average differences between school enrollments and relevant school district enrollments for charter schools and public schools (see Table II.7). Doing so demonstrates that the average differences between charter school enrollments and enrollments in relevant districts are greater than the same average differences computed for traditional public schools. For instance, the average traditional public school in Texas has an Anglo enrollment that is about nine percentage points above or below the Anglo enrollment for the school district in which it is located. For the average charter school, on the other hand, the difference in Anglo enrollment is about seventeen percentage points about two times as great. Table II.7 Mean Differences between Texas School Enrollments and the Enrollments of the Traditional School Districts in which They Are Located (percentage point differences) School TypeAngloAfrican AmericanHispanicAll public schools8.96.59.3All charter schools17.320.921.4At-risk charter schools15.218.019.6Non-at-risk charter schools19.424.423.3 These results should be qualified in two additional ways. First, the Department of Education report compares charter schools to the traditional public school districts in which they are located. If we are to follow the same convention, it is important to remember that charter schools may draw students from multiple districts. The impact of most charter schools, however, will be predominantly felt in the district in which they are located. Second, it may be inappropriate to cite charter schools as being segregated when the racial and/or ethnic composition of the student body is directly related to the mission of the schools. This is particularly relevant in respect to at-risk charter schools. The issue may also be complicated when charter schools are created specifically to increase the cultural awareness of a particular racial or ethnic group of students. At-risk students comprise a high proportion of the charter school students in Texas: 66.2 percent (see Table II.8). This is not surprising, however, since the majority of charter schools in Texas serve primarily at-risk students. The most recent Department of Education Report indicates that Texas is distinctive in the number of schools dedicated to this student population. About 15 percent of the fieldwork schools selected for the national report specifically target at-risk students or dropouts. The concentration in Texas of charter school resources on at-risk students calls into question the extent to which charter schools provide an education alternative for average households and students with fewer educational liabilities. It also raises skepticism about the extent to which charter schools will place competitive pressure on the public education system. Schools that incorporate some degree of parental and student choice, such as magnet schools, are often charged with skimming off the most able students. In Texas, however, charter schools in the aggregate serve a disproportionate number of students with the greatest educational difficulties. Table II.8 Charter School Special Populations, 1998-99 (percentages) Special StatusTexas Public SchoolsTexas Charter SchoolsAt-Risk Charter SchoolsNon-at-Risk Charter SchoolsAt-risk studentsna66.297.533.2Special education students12.08.510.96.0LEP students12.03.44.32.6 Charter School Faculties Table II.9 provides a comparison of Texas open-enrollment charter school faculties with the faculties of traditional public schools in the state. The denominator for charter school faculty percentages (815.5) was computed by adding the number of full-time faculty to half the number of part-time faculty. Table II.9 Characteristics of Charter School Faculty, 1998-99 (percentages) Teacher CharacteristicTexas Public SchoolsTexas Charter SchoolsAt-Risk Charter SchoolsNon-at-Risk Charter SchoolsNon-certified3.953.962.347.5African American8.035.240.131.4Hispanic16.021.824.120.1Anglo75.046.539.551.5Other1.01.81.12.3 Table II.9, continued Characteristics of Charter School Faculty, 1998-99 (percentages) Teacher CharacteristicTexas Public SchoolsTexas Charter SchoolsAt-Risk Charter SchoolsNon-at-Risk Charter SchoolsNon-degreed0.911.011.710.5Baccalaureate degree72.169.266.870.7Advanced degree26.025.326.324.3Student/teacher ratio15.321.424.917.8Average experience in years11.85.835.715.94Average full-time salary33,53726,04425,86826,221Total faculty count815.5349468.5 It is interesting to compare Table II.9 to Table II.3, which presents racial/ethnic compositions of the aggregate charter school student body. Though Hispanics are the largest component of the charter school student population (42.5 percent), they comprise the smallest proportion of charter school faculties (21.8 percent) of the three predominant racial/ethnic groups. Anglos, on the other hand, who comprise the smallest proportion of the student population (13.8 percent) of the three predominant racial/ethnic groups, are by far the largest segment of charter school faculties (46.5 percent). African American faculty percentages are very similar to the percentages for African American students (35.2 percent to 34.2 percent). Table II.9 also illustrates several disparities between at-risk charter schools and non-at-risk charter schools. Although there are more at-risk schools than non-at-risk schools (forty-three to forty) and more students in at-risk schools than in non-at-risk schools (9034 to 8582), there are many more faculty in the non-at-risk schools (468.5 to 349). The inevitable result is that student-teacher ratios are much lower in the non-at-risk charter schools (17.8 as compared to 24.9). At-risk charters also have a much higher proportion of non-certified teachers and a slightly higher proportion of non-degreed teachers than do non-at-risk schools. In non-at-risk charter schools, Anglos comprise the majority of all teachers, with African Americans and Hispanics being somewhat under-represented. However, the differences in salary and experience between teachers in at-risk schools and teachers in non-at-risk schools are small. The failure of Texas law to require charter schools to hire certified teachers provokes strong reactions from some charter school critics. Some other states, such as Minnesota, require that teachers in charter schools meet the same certification requirements as teachers in the traditional public schools. In Texas, only 3.9 percent of all traditional public school teachers are uncertified; however, 53.9 percent of charter school teachers are not certified, and the percentage rises to 62.3 percent for at-risk charter schools. Eleven percent of charter school faculty members are not degreed, while less than 1 percent of faculty in the traditional public schools are not degreed. A somewhat higher percentage of traditional public school teachers than charter school teachers have baccalaureate degrees, and a slightly higher percentage have advanced degrees. Finally, the proportions of charter school teachers who are minority group members are strikingly higher than the proportions of such teachers in the traditional public schools in Texas. Section III: Charter School Director Survey This section of the evaluation is based on a survey of charter school directors. A charter school director is generally defined as the chief operating officer of the school. Directors usually perform the combined duties of superintendents and principals by implementing policies developed by their governing boards and by exercising direct control over the schools. The evaluation team developed a questionnaire and mailed a copy to the director of each of the 89 charter schools that began operation before August 1999. The current survey has two sections specifically directed to first year schools, one section intended for second and third year schools, and the final ten sections to be completed by all schools. A copy of the survey appears in Appendix B of this report. In total, 66 directors returned the survey for a response rate of 73 percent. Of these, 12 of the schools represented began operation in 1996, 3 in 1997, 36 in 1998, and 15 in 1999. Fifteen directors had completed a questionnaire in prior evaluations. For the purposes of analysis, the schools are grouped into two categories: at-risk and non-at-risk schools. At-risk schools have a majority of students classified as at-risk and have missions that include serving at-risk students (see Table II.2 for the total list). Of the 66 schools that returned the directors survey, 32 are at-risk schools, and 34 are non-at-risk schools. The schools are also grouped by start-up date: 15 respondents were in operation before August 1998, and 51 began operating between August 1998 and August 1999. This allows for comparisons of schools in similar stages of development. A complete list of the start-up dates of all 89 charter schools is found in Tables III.1a and III.1b below. Table III.1a Charter Schools Opened Before 8/98 Schools Opened Before 8/98Academy of Transitional StudiesPegasus Charter High SchoolAmerican Institute for LearningRaul Yzaguirre School for SuccessBlessed Sacrament AcademyRenaissance Charter SchoolBuilding Alternatives Charter Seashore Learning CenterDallas Can! Academy CharterSER-Nios Charter SchoolGeorge I. Sanchez Charter High SchoolTexas Academy of ExcellenceGirls and Boys Prep AcademyUniversity of Houston School of TechnologyMedical Center Charter SchoolWaco Charter SchoolNorth Hills SchoolWest Houston Charter SchoolOne-Stop Multiservice Table III.1b Charter Schools Opened After 8/98 Schools Opened After 8/98Academy of Accelerated LearningL.O.V.E.Academy of HoustonMainland Preparatory AcademyAcademy of Skills and KnowledgeMid-Valley AcademyAlief Montessori Community SchoolNancy Ney Charter SchoolBenjis Special Education Academy Charter School New Frontiers Charter School Bright Ideas Charter Northwest Mathematics, Science, and Language AcademyBurnham Wood Charter SchoolNova School (West Oak Cliff)Cedar Ridge Charter SchoolNYOSChildren First Academy of DallasPaso del Norte Children First Academy of HoustonPineywoods Community AcademyCoastal Bend Youth CityPositive Solutions Charter School Eagle Advantage Charter SchoolRadiance Academy of LearningEd White School of Educational EnhancementRameses SchoolEden Park AcademyRanch AcademyE.L. Harrison Charter SchoolRapoport AcademyEncino School Richard Milburn Alternative Corpus ChristiFaith Family Academy of Oak CliffRichard Milburn Alternative KilleenFreedom SchoolRylie Faith Family AcademyGabriel Tafolla Charter SchoolSchool of Excellence in EducationGateway Sentry Technology Prep SchoolGuardian Angel Performance AcademySouth Plains AcademyGulf Coast Trades CenterSouthwest Preparatory AcademyHarris Co. Juvenile Justice Charter SchoolStar Charter SchoolHeights AcademyTechnology Education Charter High SchoolHeritage AcademyTexas Empowerment AcademyHiggs, Carter, King Gifted and Talented Charter AcademyTexas Serenity AcademyHouston Can! Academy CharterTheresa B. Lee AcademyImpact Charter Transformative Charter AcademyJesse Jackson AcademyTwo Dimensions Preparatory AcademyJohn H. Wood Charter School Universal AcademyKatherine Anne Porter SchoolUniversity Charter SchoolKIPP Inc. CharterValley High Charter SchoolLa Amistad Love and Learning AcademyVarnett Charter SchoolLa Escuela de las AmericasWaxahachie Faith Family AcademyLife Charter Schools of Oak CliffThe questionnaire sent to directors had five sections; the sections of this chapter are based on the five parts of the questionnaire. The first focuses on reasons for founding the charter schools and challenges in opening and operating the schools. Only charter schools that opened during the 1998-99 school year completed this section. The second segment addresses the challenges of operating a charter school and was answered by those schools opened before Fall 1998. The third part examines the governance of the schools, their finances, and their support from businesses and the community. The fourth section describes the school personnel, curriculum, and the directors views on the relationship of the charter schools with public school districts. Parents and students are the focus of the fifth segment. The third, fourth, and fifth sections are based on responses from all charter school directors. Reasons for Founding Schools In previous years surveys, both at-risk and non-at-risk charter schools were interested in developing their own educational visions and gaining autonomy in educational programming. However, at-risk charter schools valued two goals more highly than did the non-at-risk charter schools: serving a special population and developing non-traditional relationships with businesses in the community. In the current survey, developing the schools own educational vision was paramount, but serving a special population was a close second, followed by involving parents in their childrens education. There were slight differences between at-risk and non-at-risk school in the importance of the reasons given for founding of the school. Table III.2 shows the reasons for founding charter schools. Table III.2 Comparing Reasons for Founding Charter Schools Between At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Schools (Mean Scores) * Reasons for Founding Charter SchoolAt-Risk Charter SchoolsNon-at-Risk Charter SchoolsAll Charter SchoolsRealize an educational vision2.923.002.96Serve a special student population2.852.382.62Involve parents2.622.542.58Gain autonomy in education planning2.382.542.46Gain autonomy to develop relation with community2.382.082.24Attract more students2.351.922.14Seek public funding2.001.831.92Gain autonomy from local school district1.961.751.86Gain autonomy fiscal management2.001.711.86Seek grants2.001.541.78Gain autonomy in personnel issues1.691.631.66Gain autonomy from state laws1.501.581.54* 1 = limited or no importance 2 = secondary importance 3 = primary importance In regard to founding the charter school, 29 percent of the directors responded that an individual provided the impetus for the founding of the school, but over 63 percent indicated that the schools were founded through the efforts of a group. Opening Challenges The evaluation team was interested in identifying obstacles sponsors face in establishing charter schools. Funding problems lead the list of obstacles, followed closely by lack of planning time, inadequate facilities, and hiring teaching staff. Regulations, whether at the level of 鶹ֱ, State Board of Education, or the federal government, appear to be somewhat problematic with directors responses clustered at not at all difficult and difficult. Resistance from the local community or teachers associations posed few problems according to these directors. Table III.3 shows directors responses to questions about opening challenges. Table III.3 Challenges Opening Charter Schools: At-Risk versus Non-at-Risk Schools (Mean Scores)* Challenges Opening Charter SchoolAt-Risk Charter SchoolsNon-at-Risk Charter SchoolsAll Charter SchoolsLack of startup funds2.542.672.60Inadequate operating funds2.192.422.30Lack of planning1.922.001.96Inadequate facilities1.542.001.76Hiring teaching staff1.851.651.74鶹ֱ regulations1.691.751.72State Board of Education approval process1.501.671.58State/federal health/safety regulations1.541.581.56Federal education regulations1.421.671.54Local board opposition1.231.211.22Community opposition1.151.041.10Teacher association resistance1.121.041.08Internal conflicts1.271.211.08* 1 = not at all difficult 2 = difficult 3 = very difficult Differences between at-risk and non-at-risk schools appear to be slight. Some variations exist in that hiring teaching staff was more difficult in at-risk schools, but non-at-risk schools had greater difficulty with federal regulations. Challenges of Operating Charter Schools The second and subsequent years of charter school operation may be somewhat different than the first for some schools, so a series of questions were asked to compare directors experiences from year one to following years. Fifteen directors, those with schools in the second or third year, answered this set of questions. Those directors responded to a list of tasks using a three-point rating scale where easier to handle was given a value of 1, about the same difficulty was given a value of 2, and more difficult was given a value of 3. The results are depicted in Table III.4. Table III.4 Comparison of Challenges from Year-One to Later Years for At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Schools (Mean Scores) * Compare Challenges from Year One to Later YearsAt-Risk Charter SchoolsNon-at-Risk Charter SchoolsAll Charter SchoolsSecuring adequate funding1.861.891.88Realizing the original vision1.502.111.87Involving parents1.831.561.67Attracting and retaining teachers/staff1.171.561.40Attracting students1.331.331.33* 1 = easier to handle 2 = about the same 3 = more difficult In comparing the first year of operation with subsequent years, securing adequate funding is still the greatest challenge but has decreased in difficulty somewhat from the first year. The second greatest challenge is realizing the original vision, although it is ranked at about the same as the first year. Involving parents and attracting and retaining teachers, staff, and students are easier-to-handle than in the first year. A few noteworthy differences emerged between at-risk and non-at-risk schools. The more experienced set of at-risk schools found it easier to handle realizing the original vision and attracting and retaining teachers and staff than did non-at-risk schools, but the same schools were having more difficulty involving parents. The directors continued the comparison of year one and subsequent years by rating the factors involved in the operation of the schools after the first year. The 1998 evaluation results replicated the 1997 results in which inadequate operating funds was the greatest difficulty, followed by lack of planning time, inadequate facilities, and repayment of state aid overpayment. Table III.4 shows directors responses to questions about operating challenges. Table III.5 Challenges in Operation: At-Risk versus Non-at-Risk Charter Schools (Mean Scores)* Challenges in OperationAt-Risk Charter SchoolsNon-at-Risk Charter SchoolsAll Charter SchoolsInadequate operating funds2.502.752.64Repayment of state aid2.402.632.54鶹ֱ regulations1.503.112.47Inadequate facilities2.172.442.33Federal education regulations1.502.892.33Lack of planning time2.002.332.20Health/safety regulations1.502.111.87Hiring teaching staff1.671.671.67Internal conflicts1.002.001.60Teacher association resistance1.171.861.54Local board opposition1.171.441.33Community opposition1.001.381.21Other 3.00 (1 response)3.00* 1 = easier 2 = about the same 3 = difficult 4 = very difficult In this set of questions, the directors of at-risk schools rated every one of the various operational items as being easier to handle than did the directors of non-at-risk schools, except for hiring teacher staff which both groups rated the same. Non-at-risk school directors appear to regard 鶹ֱ regulations as being particularly troublesome. Governance Each charter school is required to establish a governing board, but the number of members, composition, purpose, and method of selection are within the discretion of the charter school. Table III.6 summarizes characteristics of charter schools governing bodies. Table III.6 Board Composition: At-Risk versus Non-at-Risk Charter Schools (Means) Board Composition by NumberAt-Risk Charter SchoolsNon-at-Risk Charter SchoolsAll Charter SchoolsTotal board members9.287.568.39Men 5.413.684.52Parent members.721.621.18Teachers .38.50.44African Americans 2.001.911.95Hispanics 1.971.351.65Asian Americans .16.12.14Board term of office (years)2.122.752.49 The average number of board members in Texas public school districts is seven, but charter schools tend to have slightly larger boards, with eight as the overall mean but ranging from three to 34. At-risk charter school boards tend to be a little larger than non-at-risk charter school boards. Table III.6 seems to indicate a high degree of racial and ethnic diversity among governing board members, but closer examination shows a different picture. Of the 66 schools, 48 have one-race or predominantly one-race school boards. Generally, the racial or ethnic makeup of the boards reflects the racial or ethnic makeup of the student population served. For example, all seven members of the board at La Escuela de Las Americas (a school with 100 percent Hispanic student enrollment) are Hispanic, and Nova in West Oak Cliff (with a 65 percent African American student body) has seven out of nine African Americans on its board. Of the remaining 18 schools, nine boards are tri-ethnic with roughly equal shares of African American, Hispanic, and Anglo members, and nine are half Anglo and half African American, Hispanic, or Asian depending on the student population. Regardless of the type of school, the vast majority of charter school boards have adopted by-laws, given approval for operating policies, and approved the budget as seen in Table III.7. Beyond that, there is some variation in how frequently the board meets and in the process of selecting members. Table III.7 Board Responsibilities Board Responsibilities Affirmative ResponsesWrites Bylaws61 (93.8%)Approves written polices58 (89.2%)Approves budget64 (98.5%) Finances Startup funds reported by 55 of the schools ranged from zero to $375,000. The mean was over $56,000. Twenty of the responses were $30,000, the figure mentioned most frequently. Charter school director responses about revenue sources appear in Table III.8. Table III.8 Sources of School Revenue as a Percentage Comparing At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools (Means) Source of Revenue At-Risk Schools Non-at-Risk Schools All Charter Schools State government75.080.477.9Federal government16.111.213.5Chartering organization5.32.03.6Private grants3.11.72.3Parent donations.8.8.8Other.1.6.4 Monies from the sponsoring organization and private grants are slighter higher for the at-risk schools than the non-at-risk schools. The length of time a charter school has been in operation does not seem to make much difference, as seen in Table III.9. Table III.9 Sources of School Revenue as a Percentage Comparing Charter Schools Opened Before Fall 1998 and Those Opened After Fall 1998 (Means) Source of RevenueSchools Opened before 8/98 (N=14)Schools Opened after 8/98 (N=48)All Charter SchoolsState government76.1 78.4 77.9 Federal government12.1 13.9 13.5 Chartering organization5.4 3.1 3.6 Private grants4.5 1.7 2.3 Parent donations1.0 .7 .8 Other1.3 .1 .4 The number of schools receiving Title I funds has changed markedly with the increase in the number of charter schools. Prior evaluations indicated that only two of the 19 schools did not receive Title I funds. Of the 66 schools responding in the 1999 survey, 50 (76 percent) said they received the funds. Of the 16 schools that do not receive funds, eight responded that they were not eligible, four identified the complexity of federal regulations as a deterrent to receiving the funds, and one cited administrative issues. Funds for special need students and related funds were received in many of the surveyed schools. While only 40 of the current charter schools indicated that they received federal funds for special education, 60 directors stated that their schools served special need students. Twenty-six schools (over 39 percent) serve limited English proficient (LEP) students, but only twelve schools receive federal funds to address the needs specific to LEP students. Community Support Support from businesses and the community was substantial for charter schools. The most common form of support was the donation of equipment (76 percent). Also noteworthy were field trips as a form of support for almost 60 percent of the respondents and volunteering which occurred in 50 percent of the schools. Table III.10 shows the variety of business support for at-risk and non-at-risk charter schools. Table III.10 Business or Community Support Comparing At-risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools Type of SupportAt-Risk Schools Responding AffirmativelyNon-at-Risk Schools Responding AffirmativelyAll Charter Schools Responding AffirmativelyEquipment donations25 (78.1%)25 (73.5%)50 (75.8%)Field trips21 (65.6%)18 (52.9%)39 (59.1%)Volunteering 17 (53.1%)16 (47.1%)33 (50.0%)Monetary donations15 (46.9%)15 (44.1%)30 (45.5%)Tutoring14 (43.8%)13 (38.2%)27 (40.9%)Mentoring15 (46.9%)11 (32.4%)26 (39.4%)Job shadowing9 (28.1%)5 (14.7%)14 (21.2%) While at-risk and non-at-risk schools appear to have similar relationships with local businesses and the community, the length of time the school has been operating does seem to result in some differences in the relationship with neighboring entities. The older schools have higher donation levels in six of the seven activities listed. Table III.11 shows differences in support received by new and by established schools. Table III.11 Business or Community Support Comparing Charter Schools Opened before Fall 1998 and Those Opened after Fall 1998 Type of SupportSchools Opened before 8/98 Responding AffirmativelySchools Opened after 8/98 Responding AffirmativelyAll Charter Schools Responding AffirmativelyEquipment donations14 (93.3%)36 (70.6%)50 (75.8%)Field trips9 (60.0%)30 (58.8%)39 (59.1%)Volunteering 10 (66.7%)23 (45.1%)33 (50%)Monetary donations11 (73.3%)19 (37.3%)30 (45.5%)Tutoring8 (53.3%)19 (37.3%)27 (40.9%)Mentoring8 (53.3%)18 (35.3%)26 (39.4%)Job shadowing2 (13.3%)12 (23.52%)14 (21.2%) Organizational Support Directors were given a list of organizations and asked to evaluate their helpfulness in school operation. Mentioned most often were the Texas Education Agency, a regional education service center, and the Charter School Resource Center. At-risk and non-at-risk schools appeared to receive similar amounts of assistance from outside sources. Examples of other organizations offering support mentioned by the directors were other charter schools, local libraries, consultants, and the Chamber of Commerce. Table III.12 shows directors responses to this question for at-risk and non-at-risk schools. Table III.12 Organizational Support Comparing At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools Type of SupportAt-Risk Schools Responding AffirmativelyNon-at-Risk Schools Responding AffirmativelyAll Charter Schools Responding AffirmativelyThe Texas Education Agency32 (94.1%)31 (96.9%)63 (95.5%)A regional education service center31 (96.9%)32 (94.1%)63 (95.5%)The Charter School Resource Center 29 (90.6%)32 (94.1%)61 (92.4%)A college or university17 (53.1%)15 (44.1%)32 (48.5%)A school district15 (46.9%)12 (35.3%)27 (40.9%)Other organization4 (12.5%)8 (23.5%)12 (18.2%) The length of time of existence does not appear to have an impact on the organizational support that schools receive except in regard to colleges, universities, and school districts. Older schools are more likely to receive support from colleges and universities whereas the newer schools receive more support from a school district. Table III.13 shows directors responses differentiated by the date their schools opened. Table III.13 Organizational Support Comparing Charter Schools Opened before Fall 1998 and Those Opened After Fall 1998 Type of SupportSchools Opened before 8/98 Responding AffirmativelySchools Opened after 8/98 Responding AffirmativelyAll Charter Schools Responding AffirmativelyThe Texas Education Agency15 (100%)48 (94.1%)63 (95.5%)A regional education service center14 (93.3%)49 (96.1%)63 (95.5%)The Charter School Resource Center 14 (93.3%)47 (92.2%)61 (92.4%)A college or university13 (86.7%)19 (37.3%)32 (48.5%)A school district3 (20.0%)24 (47.1%)27 (40.9%)Other organization3 (20.0%)9 (17.6%)12 (18.2%) School Personnel, Curriculum, and Relationships with Public School Districts Teachers The number of teachers who taught in the Fall of 1998 but did not return for the 1999-2000 school year ranged from zero to 16 for a turnover rate of 35 percent. Other parts of this evaluation develop this topic more fully. Directors The survey asked the charter school directors several questions concerning their qualifications. Fourteen (21 percent) of the directors reported that mid-management certification was required for the job they have. Only 14 of the directors regularly teach in their charter schools, and 35 considered themselves the CEO of the school. Of the directors who answered a question regarding educational level, most hold degrees beyond the baccalaureate. Thirty-nine hold masters degrees, with 13 of those in education. There are 12 directors with doctorates and two with law degrees. Forty-seven directors said they had taught in public schools for one to 33 years before becoming involved with their charter schools, and 35 had experience in public school administration (ranging from one to 25 years). Private school experience was less prevalent, with 25 directors indicating teaching experience ranging from one to 30 years, and 27 directors having private school administration experience (from one to 25 years). Curriculum Charter school directors were asked about the curricula and teaching practices employed in their schools. A great majority of the directors of both at-risk and non-at-risk schools, use curriculum materials adopted by the state of Texas in their charter schools, as indicated in Table III.14. A higher percentage of non-at-risk schools use other curricula. Because the directors provided responses in more than one category, the total number of responses exceed the number of schools. Table III.14 Types of Educational Practices Used in At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools Types of Educational PracticeAt-Risk Schools Using the PracticeNon-at-Risk Schools Using the PracticeAll Charter Schools Using the PracticeUse state-adopted curriculum29 (96.7%)30 (93.8%)59 (95.2%)Use other curriculum23 (76.7%)29 (90.6%)52 (83.9%)Mainstreaming students26 (83.9%)31 (91.2%)57 (87.7%)Individualized learning28 (90.3%)28 (82.4%)56 (86.2%)Use of technology for learning23 (74.2%)26 (76.5%)49 (75.4%)Multi-age grouping22 (71.0%)22 (64.7%)44 (67.7%)Site-based decision making20 (64.5%)21 (61.8%)41 (63.1%)Interdisciplinary teaching19 (61.3%)22 (64.7%)41 (63.1%)Alternative assessments20 (64.5%)20 (58.8%)40 (61.5%)Project-based learning19 (61.3%)20 (58.8%)39 (60.0%)Performance based assessments16 (51.6%)21 (61.8%)37 (56.9%)Nontraditional daily schedule19 (61.3%)15 (44.1%)34 (52.3%)Experiential learning12 (38.7%)14 (41.2%)26 (40.0%)Community service requirements9 (29.0%) 13 (38.2%)22 (33.8%)After school scheduling10 (32.3%)10 (29.4%)20 (30.8%)Use of simulations10 (32.3%)8 (23.5%)18 (27.7%)Graduation/learning standards7 (22.6%)9 (26.5%)16 (24.6%)Nontraditional weekly sch.5 (16.1%)8 (23.5%)13 (20.0%)Nontraditional yearly schedule7 (22.6%)5 (14.7%)12 (18.5%)Number of schools responding to other types of curriculum = 65; 31 at-risk and 34 non-at-risk schools Mainstreaming students is very common, listed by 88 percent of the directors. In addition, a variety of other instructional practices are employed, with individualized learning, use of technology, multi-age grouping, and interdisciplinary teaching methods playing a large role in these schools. There are slight differences between the at-risk and non-at-risk schools, with overall alternative methods used more frequently by the non-at-risk schools, but non-traditional scheduling and the use of simulations utilized more at the at-risk schools. There has been variation in the most prevalent practices used by the at-risk charter schools as recorded by the first-year evaluation, the second-year evaluation, and the current evaluation. Although nearly all of the schools use the state-adopted curriculum, as reported in the two prior evaluations and this study, many other educational practices employed by several schools have changed over time. Individualized learning, mainstreaming of students, and the use of technology have increased since the 1998 evaluation, with only slight increases in site-based decision making and non-traditional daily scheduling. Table III.15 shows these changes. Table III.15 Types of Educational Practices Used in At-Risk Charter Schools Comparing Evaluations of 1997, 1998, and 1999 Types of Educational Practices Number of At-Risk Schools Using the Practice, 1997Number of At-Risk Schools Using the Practice, 1998Number of At-Risk Schools Using the Practice, 1999Use state-adopted curriculum?Almost all11 (100%)29 (96.7%)Use other curriculumAlmost all23 (76.7%)Other curriculum practices usedIndividualized learning8 (66.7%)8 (72.7%)28 (90.3%)Mainstreaming students6 (60.0%)9 (81.8%)26 (83.9%)Use of technology for learning6 (50.0%)7 (63.6%)23 (74.2%)Multi-age grouping6 (50.0%)11 (100%)22 (71.0%)Site-based decision making7 (63.6%)20 (64.5%)Alternative assessments6 (60.0%)9 (81.8%)20 (64.5%)Interdisciplinary teaching9 (81.8%)19 (61.3%)Project-based learning6 (75.0%)9 (81.8%)19 (61.3%)Nontraditional daily schedule5 (62.5%)6 (54.5%)19 (61.3%)Performance based assessments8 (66.7%)9 (81.8%)16 (51.6%)Experiential learning6 (66.7%)7 (63.6%)12 (38.7%)After school scheduling3 (75.0%)5 (45.5%)10 (32.3%)Use of simulations3 (75.0%)3 (27.3%)10 (32.3%) Table III.15, continued Types of Educational Practices Used in At-Risk Charter Schools Comparing Evaluations of 1997, 1998 and 1999 Types of Educational Practices Number of At-Risk Schools Using the Practice, 1997Number of At-Risk Schools Using the Practice, 1998Number of At-Risk Schools Using the Practice, 1999Community service requirements2 (50.0%)6 (54.5%)9 (29.0%)Graduation/learning standards3 (60.0%)3 (27.3%)7 (22.6%)Nontraditional yearly schedule4 (57.1%)7 (63.6%)7 (22.6%)Nontraditional weekly schedule3 (60.0%)4 (36.4%)5 (16.1%)11 of 17 are at-risk schools in 1997; 11 of 19 are at-risk schools in 1998; 32 of 66 are at-risk schools in 1999 survey The following are other changes worth noting when comparing the three evaluations. The top three items, individualized learning, mainstreaming students, and the use of technology, have steadily increased in usage over the three-year span of time. The middle seven practices, multi-age grouping to performance-based assessment, fluctuated in popularity over time. The bottom seven practices have shown declines during the three years of evaluation. Discipline Approximately 22 percent of administrators time is spent on disciple problems. The average for teachers was over 17 percent. Almost 60 percent of the directors considered discipline problems as not very serious, with only three percent indicating that these problems were very serious. Only 11 percent of the directors felt that discipline problems disrupted classes a great deal, and fewer than five percent indicated that student discipline interfered a great deal with the educational processes at their schools. Table III.16 indicates that the directors at the schools opened before Fall 1998 spend less time on discipline and view discipline as less problematic in the educational process of the charter school than do directors of newer schools. Table III.16 Student Discipline Characteristics Comparing Charter Schools Opened Before Fall 1998 and Those Opened After Fall 1998 Discipline CharacteristicSchools Opened before 8/98Schools Opened after 8/98All Charter SchoolsAdmin time spent on discipline (mean)20.8%22.6%22.2%Teacher time spent on discipline (mean)13.0%18.7%17.5%Director indicated discipline problem as not very serious66.7%58.8%60.6%Director indicated discipline as very serious problem03.9%3.0%Director indicated discipline problems disrupt classes a great deal013.710.6%Director indicated discipline interferes with educational process05.9%4.5% Table III.17 lists the number of disciplinary incidents reported in the three charter school evaluations done thus far. It should be noted that in the third year evaluation in the category of drugs, one school reported 260 drug incidents, which is 75 percent of the total number reported by all the schools. Also, in the category of assault, the same school reported 200 incidents, or 75 percent of the total. Table III.17 Number of Disciplinary Incidents in Charter Schools, 96-97, 97-98, and 98-99 Type of Incident1st Year Evaluation 96-972nd Year Evaluation 97-983rd Year Evaluation 98-99At-RiskNon-at-RiskAt-RiskNon-at-RiskAt-RiskNon-at-RiskAssault009224125Drugs112241130643Knives313157Alcohol221101104Guns000030 Overall, the number of problematic incidents has increased over the three-year period, but one must keep in mind that the number of schools was 17 in the first evaluation, 19 in the second, and 66 schools in the third year. Non-at-risk schools have consistently reported fewer numbers of these types of incidents. Relationship with Public School District The survey asked directors to provide their perspectives about the impact of charter schools on public education. Seventeen of 65 directors (26 percent) said that there had been a change in the local school district since the charter school had opened its doors. That included 36 percent of the at-risk school directors and 18 percent of the non-at-risk group. Overall, the majority of charter school directors feel that the relationship with the local school district is cooperative. Extremes are higher for the at-risk schools, meaning the local district has a relationship that is either more hostile or more cooperative. There were 19 hand-written observations with a few comments about new programs being started in the public school resulting in increased competition. Two comments mentioned the dumping or referring of discipline students to the charter schools, but most were positive. Table III.18 summarizes directors impressions of their schools relationships with the local school district. Table III.18 Relationship of Charter School with Local School District Comparing At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools Relationship with Local School DistrictAt-Risk SchoolsNon-at-Risk SchoolsAll Charter SchoolsHostile4 (11.8%)3 (9.4%)7 (10.6%)Neutral6 (17.6%)10 (31.3%)16 (24.2%)Somewhat cooperative8 (23.6%)9 (28.1%)17 (25.8%)Cooperative16 (47.1%)10 (31.3%)26 (39.4%)Total343266 Parents and Students Parents Charter school directors identified the types of parent participation practices in their schools. The responses for at-risk and non-at-risk schools are reported in Table III.19. Because charter school directors reported responses in more than one category, the total number of responses exceeds the number of schools. Table III.19 Parental Participation Comparing At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools Parental Participation PracticeAt-Risk Schools Responding AffirmativelyNon-at-Risk Schools Responding AffirmativelyAll Charter Schools Responding AffirmativelyAllowing parents to volunteer at the school25 (78.1%)30 (88.2%)55 (83.3%)Regular parent-teacher meetings19 (59.4%)32 (94.1%)51 (77.3%)Regular home-school communications19 (59.4%)26 (76.5%)45 (68.2%)Regular parent meetings20 (62.5%)24 (70.6%)44 (66.7%)Offering referrals to social/ health service agencies22 (68.8%)22 (64.7%)44 (66.7%)Written contract for parent involvement17 (53.1%)20 (58.8%)37 (56.1)Serving on school-wide committees14 (43.8%)21 (61.8%)35 (53.0%)Requiring parents to sign homework8 (25.0%)21 (61.8%)29 (43.9%)Offering workshops for parents10 (31.3%)14 (41.2%)24 (36.4%)Offering parent at-home learning activities5 (15.6%)12 (35.3%)17 (25.8%)Requiring parents to work at the school5 (15.6%)9 (26.5%)14 (21.2%)Parents acting as teachers/ instructors6 (18.8%)8 (23.5%)14 (21.2%)Other parent participation7 (20.6%)3 (8.8%)10 (15.2%) Parental involvement in the school is comprised of a number of activities both at the school and in the students home, with parents volunteering in the school being the most prevalent. Communication between the school and the family is common, with high percentages of teacher-parent meetings and notices from schools going into the homes. When comparing at-risk and non-at-risk schools, at-risk schools have lower parent participation in all areas except for referrals to social or health agencies. Sometimes the differences between at-risk and non-at-risk schools are very small, but for some items they appear substantial, such as regular parent-teacher meetings showing a 35-point difference and requiring parents to sign homework showing a 36-point difference. Charter school directors were also asked the percentage of parents engaged in various activities for the school. Very few parents devote much time in any of these endeavors, so the number of affirmative responses reported by the schools were tallied as a measure of parental involvement. Table III.20 tabulates these measures. Table III.20 Parental Involvement Comparing At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools Type of Parental InvolvementAt-Risk Schools Responding AffirmativelyNon-at-Risk Schools Responding AffirmativelyAll Charter Schools Responding AffirmativelyFund raising18 (64.3%)26 (83.9%)44 (74.6%)Class presentations13 (46.4%)17 (56.7%)30 (51.7%)Tutoring9 (33.3%)17 (56.7%)26 (45.6%)Community projects10 (35.7%)15 (50.0%)25 (43.1%)Teaching assistants7 (25.0%)17 (56.7%)24 (41.4%)Maintenance of physical plant7 (25.0%)14 (46.7%)21 (36.2%)Mentoring6 (22.2%)11 (36.7%)17 (29.8%)Other parental involvement 5 (18.5%)7 (23.3%)12 (21.1%) Fundraising was the activity with the greatest parental participation. Class presentations were a distant second. When comparing at-risk and non-at-risk schools, the numbers for at-risk school parents were consistently lower than those for non-at-risk school parents. The charter schools started after Fall 1998 generally showed more parent involvement when compared with the older schools, except in fundraising and class presentations, which were almost equal for the two sets of schools. The other category in this question produced responses such as transportation, writing a newsletter, and serving as librarian. Table III.21 shows these responses. Table III.21 Parental Involvement Comparing Charter Schools Started Before Fall 1998 and Those Started After Fall 1998 Type of Parental InvolvementSchools Opened before 8/98 Responding AffirmativelySchools Opened after 8/98 Responding AffirmativelyAll Charter Schools Responding AffirmativelyFund raising10 (73.3%)34 (72.3%)44 (74.6%)Class presentations7 (58.3%)23 (50.0%)30 (51.7%)Tutoring4 (33.3%)22 (49.0%)26 (45.6%)Community projects4 (33.3%)21 (45.7%)25 (43.1%)Teaching assistants4 (33.3%)20 (43.5%)24 (41.4%)Maintenance of physical plant4 (33.3%)17 (37.0%)21 (36.2%)Mentoring3 (25.0%)14 (31.1%)17 (29.8%)Other parental involvement 1 (8.3%)11 (24.4%)12 (21.1%) Students Almost two out of three eligible charter school students returned for the 1999 school year, with a little more than ten percent of those returning being retained in grade. Overall, more than half the schools had waiting lists in both 1998-1999 and Fall 1999 with proportionally more of the older schools maintaining waiting lists. The more recently opened schools report more increases in student body number and grade levels. Table III.22 shows this information. Table III.22 Characteristics of Student Population Comparing Charter Schools Opened Before Fall 1998 to Those Opened After Fall 1998 Schools and Student PopulationSchools Opened Before 8/98Schools Opened After 8/98All Charter SchoolsPercent of students returning (mean)78.9%62.2%65.9%Percent of students retained in grade (mean)18.7%7.8%10.3%Waiting list in 1998-99? (affirmative response)10 (66.7%)22 (44.9%)32 (50.0%)Waiting list Fall 1999? (affirmative response)12 (80.0%)28 (58.3%)40 (63.5%)Expanded student numbers in Fall 1999? (affirmative response)8 (57.1%)33 (64.7%)41 (66.1%)Added grade level in Fall 1999? (affirmative response)5 (33.3%)18 (37.5%)23 (36.5%) The number of students who left this sample of charter schools during the 1998-1999 school year totaled almost 7,000. It should be noted that Harris County Juvenile Justice Center reported 2,684 students leaving their school for other reasons listed as the completion of the program, accounting for a large percentage of the other category as well as the total number of students who left the charter school. Apart from that unique case, moving was the most common reason for not returning to the school. For the non-at-risk schools, academic problems were the second most prevalent reason, and for the at-risk schools, it was that students received their GED. Table III.23 shows students reasons for leaving their schools. Table III.23 Reason for Student Leaving Charter School Comparing At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools Reason for Leaving Charter SchoolNumber of At-Risk School StudentsNumber of Non-at-Risk School StudentsTotal Number of Charter School StudentsTotal Number of Students5,4501,4666,916Moved 9354021,337Student got GED775208983Disciplinary problems321151472Student got job40251453Academic problems54301355School not as expected12376199Transportation problems52108160Medical reasons761894Other reason4,4933234,816 Student Recruitment As in any school, student recruitment is an integral part of maintaining enrollment in charter schools. Charter schools use a variety of techniques, as displayed in Table III.24. Because directors responded in multiple categories, the number of responses exceeds the number of charter schools. Table III.24 Student Recruitment Techniques Comparing At-Risk and Non-at-Risk Charter Schools Student Recruitment TechniqueAt-Risk Schools Responding AffirmativelyNon-at-Risk Schools Responding AffirmativelyAll Charter Schools Responding AffirmativelyWord-of-mouth25 (78.1%)32 (97.0%)57 (87.7%)Flyers19 (59.4%)19 (57.6%)38 (58.5%)Parent meetings16 (50.0%)20 (60.6%)36 (55.4%)Newspaper ads 14 (43.8%)18 (54.5%)32 (49.2%)Radio 8 (25.0%)8 (24.2%)16 (24.6%)Posters11 (34.4%)3 (9.1%)14 (21.5%)Other recruitment 11 (34.4%)6 (18.2%)17 (26.2%) Word-of-mouth proved to be the leading recruitment technique for all charter schools, just as it was in the second-year survey. Flyers, parent meetings, and newspaper ads were also widely used. There were strong similarities in the recruitment practices of at-risk and non-at-risk charter schools except that many more at-risk schools use posters than non-at-risk schools. The other response included such means as billboards, fairs, mailings, television ads, and the yellow pages. Other also included referrals from the school district, school counselors, probation officers, youth services, and the public in general. Summary Over the past three years, the views and opinions of charter school directors have evolved and changed, based to a large extent on their own experiences. Major differences still exist among the schools, and with the large increase in the number of schools, those differences are sometimes striking. Charter schools range from very small facilities serving less than 100 young students to a criminal justice program serving an annual total of over 2,000 junior and senior high school students. (These students are wards of the state and typically stay 90 days or less). Charter schools have a variety of target populations, locales, curricula, resources, and goals and objectives. The first two evaluations showed a similarity of primary purposes: developing of an educational vision and gaining autonomy. This has changed slightly in the current survey in that developing the schools own educational vision was paramount, but serving a special population was a close second, followed by the need to involve parents. Start-up funding is greater in the current survey in comparison to the previous two surveys, but the most common start-up amount is still about $30,000. Funding problems continue to lead the list of obstacles to starting charter schools. Funding sources have stayed fairly constant, but the state proportion has increased to over 13 percent of the total budget. The greatest challenge for second and third year schools is securing adequate funding, although this is less problematic than for the first year of operation. With the increase in the number of charter schools in the state, there appears to be a decrease in the percentage of those receiving Title I funds, from almost 90 percent to a current level of approximately 75 percent. Almost 40 percent of the responding schools served special need students, but less than half of these are receiving federal funds for that purpose. Each charter school is required to establish a governing board but the composition continues to vary in both size and racial and ethnic makeup, reflecting to a great extent the clientele of the schools. Charter schools maintain strong support from their community and business partnerships, with equipment donations leading the list of types of support received. 鶹ֱ, regional education service centers, and the Charter School Resource Center are sources of support for more than 90 percent of the schools. Overall, the majority of charter school directors indicated that the relationship with the local school district is cooperative. This has remained fairly constant over time. Charter school directors are experienced educators with many years of teaching and administrative experiences, and in addition almost 20 percent have doctorate degrees. The teaching staff, although showing a higher turnover rate than public schools, has experienced a drop from a 40 percent turnover rate in last years evaluation to about 35 percent this year. Teachers are also highly educated with almost 90 percent having a college degree, although not reaching the 99 percent of public schools teachers with college degrees. In addition to the state adopted curriculum materials, the vast majority of charter schools also use other curriculum models. This has not changed over the three evaluation years, although the models used have. Individualized learning, mainstreaming students, and the use of technology have increased in use while nontraditional or after school scheduling practices have decreased. Due to the broad range of needs of the students, there is considerable variation in student discipline and student attrition. Overall, directors consider discipline problems to not be very serious with little change over the three years of evaluation. Almost two out of three eligible charter school students returned for the 1999 school year. Although the number of students leaving charter schools still seems high, it includes those students who have passed the GED or other short-term programs. Moving was the most common reason for non-juvenile justice system students not returning to charter schools. Involvement of parents is identified as a major priority but also seems to be a problem area. Involvement of at-risk school parents is much lower than that of non-at-risk school parents, which is probably because some at-risk schools are within the criminal justice system rather than the traditional neighborhood school. Overall, communication between the school and the family is common, with high percentages of parent-teacher meetings and notices going from the schools into the homes. Fundraising was the activity with the greatest parental participation, a pattern that has been consistent through the three years of evaluation. In conclusion, we find both changes and similarities with prior surveys of charter school directors. Section IV: Student Satisfaction An important part of a schools success is the satisfaction students receive from attending the school. Students are more likely to support schools that provide them with a safe and friendly atmosphere and with teaching and coursework fitting their needs and abilities. To learn how well Texas charter schools are meeting the needs of the students, the evaluation team surveyed charter school students in grades 7 through 12. In May 1999, surveys were mailed to all the charter schools housing these grades (N=55). Elementary school students were omitted because of their more limited reading ability and restricted experience with any school. The self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaires were handed out by teachers and completed during class time. A total of 26 schools returned completed surveys, giving a school-level response rate of 47.3 percent. Regardless of the size of the student population, no school was sent more than 200 blank questionnaires; therefore, larger schools tended to have a smaller proportion of their students responding. Surveyed schools were divided into at-risk and non-at-risk schools. At-risk schools have a majority of students classified as at-risk, and the mission statements of these schools include serving at-risk students. Twelve of the 31 schools identified as at-risk returned completed surveys (a response rate of 38.7 percent), while 14 of the 22 non-at-risk schools returned completed surveys (a response rate of 63.6 percent). Neither of the two schools with unreported information on their at-risk population returned completed questionnaires. Table IV.1 shows the percentages of enrolled students completing the questionnaire for each of the 26 responding charter schools. Table IV.2 shows the weights used to give each school proportional representation in the sample. Table IV.1 Student Survey Response Rates SchoolNumber of Students EnrolledNumber of Students RespondingPercent of Enrolled RespondingNon-at-Risk Schools (N=14) American Institute for Learning Bright Ideas Charter Eagle Advantage Charter School Encino School Heights Academy North Hills School NYOS Pegasus Charter High School Positive Solutions Charter School Renaissance Charter School Rylie Faith Family Academy School of Excellence in Education Transformative Charter Academy West Houston Charter School3198 219 64 83 60 131 362 119 123 131 950 291 372 107 186 932 77 23 44 14 89 30 29 94 97 102 83 105 70 75 29.1 35.2 35.9 53.0 23.3 67.9 8.3 24.4 76.4 74.0 10.7 28.5 28.2 65.4 40.3 At-Risk Schools (N=12) Blessed Sacrament Academy Building Alternatives Charter Cedar Ridge Charter School Dallas Can! Academy Charter Faith Family Academy of Oak Cliff Gabriel Tafolla Charter School Gulf Coast Trades Center Houston Can! Academy Charter Ranch Academy Southwest Preparatory Academy Technology Education Charter High School Richard Milburn Alternative High School3334 176 140 28 1590 228 119 207 377 38 105 248 78711 61 57 27 94 56 57 98 67 35 53 52 5421.3 34.6 40.7 96.4 5.9 24.6 47.9 47.3 17.8 92.1 50.5 21.0 69.2Total6532164325.1 Table IV.2 Distribution of Responses across Schools and Weights Used to Balance Responses SchoolOriginal Number of ResponsesWeightWeighted Number of ResponsesNon-at-Risk Schools (N=14) American Institute for Learning Bright Ideas Charter Eagle Advantage Charter School Encino School Heights Academy North Hills School NYOS Pegasus Charter High School Positive Solutions Charter School Renaissance Charter School Rylie Faith Family Academy School of Excellence in Education Transformative Charter Academy West Houston Charter School 77 23 44 14 89 30 29 94 97 102 83 105 70 75  0.72 0.70 0.47 1.08 0.37 3.04 1.03 0.33 0.34 2.34 0.88 0.89 0.38 0.62  55 16 21 15 33 91 30 31 33 239 73 94 27 47 At-Risk Schools (N=12) Blessed Sacrament Academy Building Alternatives Charter Cedar Ridge Charter School Dallas Can! Academy Charter Faith Family Academy of Oak Cliff Gabriel Tafolla Charter School Gulf Coast Trades Center Houston Can! Academy Charter Ranch Academy Southwest Preparatory Academy Technology Education Charter High School Richard Milburn Alternative High School 61 57 27 94 56 57 98 67 35 53 52 54 0.73 0.62 0.26 4.25 1.02 0.53 0.53 1.42 0.27 0.50 1.20 0.36 44 35 7 400 57 30 52 95 10 26 62 20Total164316431643 The majority of the students responding to the survey were between the ages of 13 and 17 (68.5 percent), with 8.3 percent being 12 and under and 23.2 percent being 18 or older. But this is just the overall picture; the differences between students in at-risk and non-at-risk schools are striking. A third (32.3 percent) of responding students in at-risk schools were at least 18 years of age, as compared to just 14 percent of responding students in non-at-risk schools. Similarly, there were a greater number of younger respondents in non-at-risk schools (13.2 percent 12 or younger) than in at-risk schools (3.4 percent 12 or younger). The overall sample was 48.8 percent male, but student respondents in at-risk schools were more likely to be male (51.2 percent) than student respondents in non-at-risk schools (46.4 percent). Neither of these findings is surprising, of course, since many at-risk schools purposely design their programs for former dropouts, who are more likely to be older and male. Nearly a quarter of the respondents in at-risk schools are enrolled in GED programs (24.5 percent) as compared to just 1.4 percent of respondents attending non-at-risk schools. Of the respondents who are in GED programs, 54.8 percent were male, and 49.8 percent were 18 or older. Further, 66 percent of respondents in at-risk schools were in high school (grades 9-12) as compared to 54.3 percent of respondents attending non-at-risk schools. Of concern is the difference in the racial/ethnic backgrounds of the responding students in at-risk and non-at-risk schools. The overwhelming majority of respondents from at-risk schools were members of an ethnic or racial minority group: 50.7 percent Hispanic and 36.3 percent African American. Only 6.3 percent of the at-risk school respondents were Anglo. Among non-at-risk school respondents, however, 45.1 percent were Anglo, 29.1 percent were Hispanic, and 12.0 percent were African American. Thus, in making comparisons between responses from students in at-risk and non-at-risk schools, it is important to remember that the students differ not only in their age and possible at-risk status, but also in their racial/ethnic background. Table IV.3 shows the characteristics of school samples. Table IV.3 Characteristics of Non-At-Risk and At-Risk School Samples, weighted CharacteristicsPercent of Non-at-Risk Charter School RespondentsPercent of At-Risk Charter School RespondentsRace Hispanic African American Anglo Other/NA 29.1 12.0 45.1 13.8 50.7 36.3 6.3 6.7Gender Female Male 53.6 46.4 48.8 51.2Age 12 and under 18 and over 13.2 14.0 3.4 32.3Grade Level Middle School (grades 6-8) High School (grade 9-12) GED 44.3 54.3 1.4 9.5 66.0 24.5 Although the majority of respondents did not attend the charter school the previous year, proportionally more respondents from non-at-risk schools (45.7 percent) than at-risk schools (27.0 percent) were returning students. Had they not attended the charter school, the majority of respondents from non-at-risk schools (63.3 percent) and at-risk schools (56.1 percent) would have attended a regular public school. However, 13.8 percent of respondents in non-at-risk schools said they would have attended a private school as compared to only 2.8 percent of respondents attending at-risk schools. Nearly 17 percent of the at-risk school respondents said they would not have attended school at all had they not gone to the charter school, as compared to 5.9 percent of respondents in non-at-risk schools. Finally, respondents in the two types of schools differ in their post-graduation plans. Half of the respondents in non-at-risk schools planned on attending a 4-year college; a quarter of respondents in at-risk schools planned on a 4-year college. Respondents in at-risk schools were more likely than respondents in non-at-risk schools to have plans to attend other types of high education institutions: 21.9 percent planned to attend a community college (13.7 percent in non-at-risk schools), and 10.6 percent planned to attend a technical school (7.4 percent in non-at-risk). Respondents in at-risk schools were also more likely than respondents in non-at-risk schools to plan on working as soon as they graduate (20.9 percent in at-risk schools, 10.5 percent in non-at-risk schools). Table IV.4 shows students post-graduation plans. Table IV.4 Post-High School Plans of Non-At-Risk and At-Risk School Samples, weighted (given as percent of responses) PlansNon-at-Risk School RespondentsAt-Risk School RespondentsGet a job10.520.9Go to technical school7.410.6Go to a community college13.721.9Go to a 4-year college49.425.8Join the military6.98.4Not sure12.112.4 Factors Influencing the Choice of the Charter School When making the decision to attend the charter school, 45.6 percent of respondents attending at-risk schools made the choice on their own. Only 21.5 percent of respondents from non-at-risk schools decided on their own; 37.1 percent of these respondents made the decision with the help of their families (26.5 percent of respondents from at-risk schools had family help). For only 9 percent of respondents from at-risk schools was the decision to attend a charter school made by the family without the input of the student, while 29.9 of respondents from non-at-risk schools were there because of their familys decision. There are a number of reasons a student may choose to attend a charter school. The survey offered students eight possible reasons and asked them to rate the importance of each in their decision to attend the charter school. For the majority of respondents attending non-at-risk and at-risk schools, the most important reason for choosing the charter schools was the belief that the school offered classes that best fit the students needs: 74.2 percent of non-at-risk school respondents and 78.6 percent of at-risk school respondents reported that this was a very important or important factor in their decision to attend the charter school. Also important to respondents in both types of schools was the sense that charter school students get more attention from teachers and that the teachers are better overall. More important to respondents attending non-at-risk schools than those attending at-risk schools was parental persuasion: 62.4 percent of non-at-risk school respondents and 51 percent of at-risk school respondents said this was either very important or important in their decision. Far more relevant for respondents at at-risk schools than those at non-at-risk schools was whether the respondent had been in trouble at his/her previous school. For 53.4 percent of at-risk school respondents, this was an important factor, but it was important to only 24.8 percent of non-at-risk school respondents. Also more important to at-risk school respondents than non-at-risk school respondents was the location of the school: 46.4 percent of at-risk school respondents felt it was important as compared to 33.2 percent of non-at-risk school respondents. About 40 percent of both at-risk school respondents and non-at-risk school respondents said that troublemakers at their old school influenced their decision to switch schools. The presence of friends at the charter school was not an important decision-making factor for either group of respondents. Table IV.5 shows the reasons students chose to attend a charter school. Table IV.5 Reasons Students Chose a Charter School (given as percent of respondents) ReasonsVery ImportantImportantNot Very ImportantNot ImportantClasses fit needs better Non-at-Risk Schools At-Risk Schools 39.0 41.4 35.2 37.2 13.6 13.2 12.2 8.2More attention from teachers Non-at-Risk Schools At-Risk Schools 34.8 33.5 27.0 30.2 17.9 14.5 20.4 21.8Better teachers Non-at-Risk Schools At-Risk Schools 30.9 23.3 30.0 37.9 21.4 18.4 17.8 20.4Parent persuasion Non-at-Risk Schools At-Risk Schools 32.3 22.0 30.1 29.0 18.6 21.1 18.9 27.6In trouble at previous school Non-at-Risk Schools At-Risk Schools 14.0 27.3 10.8 26.1 13.8 17.1 61.4 29.4Bothered by trouble-makers at previous school Non-at-Risk Schools At-Risk Schools 24.0 23.7 16.7 18.6 24.1 21.4 35.2 36.3Better location Non-at-Risk Schools At-Risk Schools 13.2 22.0 20.0 24.4 29.0 25.6 37.8 28.0Friends going to charter school Non-at-Risk Schools At-Risk Schools 10.8 3.4 12.5 7.6 18.6 20.2 58.1 68.8 Evaluation of the Charter School All respondents were asked a number of questions to gauge their satisfaction with their charter schools. At the most basic level, students were asked simply, how satisfied are you with this school? The overwhelming majority of respondents in both non-at-risk schools (57.1 percent) and at-risk schools (58.3 percent) were satisfied, but only 21.6 percent of respondents in non-at-risk schools and 29.3 percent in at-risk schools described themselves as very satisfied. Although not a large percentage, almost twice as many respondents attending non-at-risk schools (21.2 percent) as compared to respondents in at-risk schools (12.4 percent) were dissatisfied. The remaining evaluation questions asked respondents to compare their charter schools with the other schools they would have attended. Table IV.6 details student responses to these questions. The majority of respondents both in non-at-risk schools (59.6 percent) and at-risk schools (58.8 percent) felt that their charter schools were better than their previous schools in offering smaller classes. Most students also felt that teachers in the charter schools were better than teachers in the schools they previously attended. They said that the teachers were more likely to be good (49.8 percent non-at-risk, 51.9 percent at-risk), more likely to give personal attention to the students (53.0 percent non-at-risk, 46.7 percent at-risk), and more likely to care about the students (53.0 percent non-at-risk, 45.5 percent at-risk). In regards to other aspects of charter schools, students opinions were more mixed. Almost half of the respondents attending non-at-risk schools (45.3 percent) felt that their charter schools offered more interesting classes than their previous schools, but 17.0 percent of these students felt the classes at the charter schools were less interesting. Respondents in at-risk schools were not as likely to see their classes as less interesting (11.8 percent), but they were also less likely to see them as more interesting (39.9 percent). Regardless of the type of school, respondents were also equally divided in their feelings about safety: some felt safer in the charter schools while others felt the same level of safety. This division appeared again in feelings of belonging: half felt the charter schools were better at promoting belonging, and half felt no difference between the charter and other schools. Although a relatively high percentage of students regardless of the type of school felt that charter school principals care about students, 10.1 percent of non-at-risk school respondents and 15.4 percent of at-risk school respondents did not have any sense that principals were concerned about students. On three other issues, students gave the charter schools ratings no higher than other schools, and in some cases, the ratings were lower than for other schools. Classrooms in charter schools were seen by respondents from both types of school as being no more orderly than classrooms in other schools. Over a quarter of non-at-risk school respondents (28.8 percent) said that their charter schools were worse than other schools in the choice of classes offered; this was seen as less of a problem among at-risk school respondents (14.1 percent). Finally, for over one third of non-at-risk school respondents (35.3 percent) and for nearly a third of at-risk school respondents (29.3 percent), their charter schools were further from home than the schools they would otherwise have attended. Table IV.6 Students Comparison of Charter School with School They Would Otherwise Have Attended (given as a percent of respondents) CategoriesBetterSameWorseNot SureSmall class size Non-at-Risk Schools At-Risk Schools 59.6 58.8 24.2 28.1 10.5 7.1 5.7 6.0Good teachers Non-at-Risk Schools At-Risk Schools 49.8 51.9 35.3 33.6 9.3 7.4 5.6 7.1Personal attention from teachers Non-at-Risk Schools At-Risk Schools 53.0 46.7 32.7 36.1 6.5 8.5 7.8 8.7Teachers care about students Non-at-Risk Schools At-Risk Schools 53.0 45.5 33.4 39.0 7.5 7.3 6.1 8.2Interesting classes Non-at-Risk Schools At-Risk Schools 45.3 39.9 32.1 41.1 17.0 11.8 5.7 7.3Feeling safe Non-at-Risk Schools At-Risk Schools 46.5 37.8 41.5 48.6 8.9 6.4 3.1 7.3Principal cares about students Non-at-Risk Schools At-Risk Schools 41.9 37.3 30.7 37.2 17.3 10.7 10.1 15.4Feeling of belonging Non-at-Risk Schools At-Risk Schools 40.0 38.5 44.0 46.9 8.7 5.9 7.3 8.7Choice of classes Non-at-Risk Schools At-Risk Schools 35.8 41.4 29.4 36.5 28.8 14.1 6.1 8.0Order in classroom Non-at-Risk Schools At-Risk Schools 35.8 38.5 41.4 44.3 16.7 9.7 6.1 7.5Close to home Non-at-Risk Schools At-Risk Schools 31.2 30.0 28.7 36.1 35.3 29.3 4.6 4.3 Respondents were asked to assign letter grades to their charter schools and the schools they attended previously. Overall, the charter schools received higher marks than other schools. However, the differences were more striking among respondents in at-risk schools than respondents in non-at-risk schools. A quarter of at-risk school respondents (25.6 percent) gave their charter schools an A, and 31.9 percent gave them a B. They were much less enthusiastic about their old schools: 12.6 percent gave an A to their old schools, and 21.7 percent gave them a B. Among respondents in non-at-risk schools, 24.3 percent gave their charter schools an A, and 32.6 percent gave a B. Grades for previous schools were not substantially lower: 21 percent received an A, and 29.9 percent received a B. Nine percent of students (8.7 percent in at-risk schools and 9.4 percent in non-at-risk schools) gave their charter schools a failing grade. Slightly more gave their previous schools a failing grade (13.4 percent in at-risk schools, 12.7 percent in non-at-risk schools). Table IV.7 shows the grades students assigned to their schools. Table IV.7 Grades Respondents Gave to Charter and Previously Attended Schools (given as percent of responses) GradesNon-at-Risk School RespondentsAt-Risk School RespondentsCharterPreviousCharterPreviousA24.321.025.612.6B32.628.431.921.7C19.320.115.023.8D9.911.28.116.0F9.412.78.713.4Not sure4.66.610.612.5 A final measure of students satisfaction with charter schools is whether or not they plan on staying in their schools the following year. A third of the respondents attending at-risk schools were planning on graduating at the end of the academic year; just 15.4 percent of respondents in non-at-risk schools were slated to graduate. Among those respondents not graduating, over half intended to return to their charter schools (51.2 percent of at-risk school respondents, 58.3 percent of non-at-risk school respondents). A number of respondents did not yet know their plans for the following year (32.1 percent of at-risk school respondents, 26.8 percent of non-at-risk school respondents), while the remaining respondents planned on transferring to other schools (16.7 percent of at-risk school respondents, 14.9 percent of non-at-risk school respondents). Table IV.8 shows plans for returning. Table IV.8 Students Satisfaction with the School and Plans for the Coming School Year (given as percent of responses) Non-at-Risk School RespondentsAt-Risk School RespondentsSatisfaction with Charter School Very satisfied21.629.3 Satisfied57.158.3 Not satisfied21.112.4Plans for Next Year I will graduate15.437.3Among those eligible to return I will return to charter school58.351.2 I will switch schools14.916.7 I dont know yet26.832.1 Comparison of Satisfaction over Time for At-Risk Schools This section examines whether students have changed in their level of satisfaction with charter schools over the past three years. The same schools are represented in the 1996-97 and 1997-98 academic years, but a number of schools have been added to the sample in the 1998-99 year. Furthermore, not all schools that participated in the previous two years participated in this most recent sample. Missing from the 1998-99 sample are the Academy of Transitional Studies, George I. Sanchez, One-Stop Multiservice, and Raul Yzaguirre. These schools failed to return student surveys. In the 1996-97 and 1997-98 years, the American Institute for Learning was treated as an at-risk school; because of changes in the student population, for this 1998-99 survey, it is considered a non-at-risk school. The sample of 1998-99 at-risk school students contains a greater percentage of African American students and a lower percentage of Hispanic students than either of the previous two samples. The percentage of Anglo students in the samples has not changed, nor has the percentage of female students. Respondents in the 1998-99 sample were somewhat younger than respondents in previous years, especially as compared to the 1997-98 sample. Table IV.9 shows the characteristics of the at-risk schools sample. Table IV.9 Characteristics of At-Risk School Sample, 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99 (given as percent of responses) CharacteristicsAt-Risk Schools 1996-97 N=448At-Risk Schools 1997-98 N=465At-Risk Schools 1998-99 N=771Race Hispanic African American Anglo Other/NA 76.0 5.7 6.4 11.9 68.3 22.5 5.5 3.5 50.7 36.3 6.3 6.7Gender Female Male 51.3 48.7 47.9 52.1 48.8 51.2Age 12 and under 18 and over 5.0 42.3 6.6 52.1 3.4 32.3 Over the past three academic years, students attending at-risk charter schools have become increasingly less satisfied with their schools. On the 1996-97 survey, 56.8 percent of the surveyed students reported being very satisfied with their schools; the second year, 37.7 percent were very satisfied; and this last year, only 29.3 percent were very satisfied. Levels of dissatisfaction also rose, from 4.3 percent in 1996-97 to 12.4 percent in 1998-99. Student respondents over the years have also lowered the grades they have assigned to their charter schools. In 1996-97, 45 percent gave their schools an A and 42.5 percent a B. In 1998-99, those numbers declined. Only 28.7 percent received an A and 35.7 percent a B. In this most recent years survey, nearly ten percent of the respondents gave their schools a failing grade, as compared to less than two percent in 1996-97. A final measure of satisfaction that can be examined over time is the percentage of students who said they planned to return to their charter schools the following year. In 1996-97, 69 percent of the eligible students reported that they planned on returning the next year. In 1998-99, that number dropped to 51.2 percent. Although the percentage who said they would not return has nearly doubled (from 8.4 percent in 1996-97 to 16.7 percent in 1998-99), equally interesting is that the percentage who have not decided what to do has also increased (from 22.6 percent in 1996-97 to 32.1 percent in 1998-99). Table IV.10 measures of at-risk school respondents satisfaction with their charter schools. Table IV.10 Measures of At-Risk School Respondents Satisfaction with the Charter School, 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99 (given as percent of responses) At-Risk Schools 1996-97At-Risk Schools 1997-98At-Risk Schools 1998-99Satisfaction with Charter School Very satisfied56.837.729.3 Satisfied38.952.358.3 Not satisfied4.39.912.4Grades Assigned by Students* A45.032.528.7 B42.541.935.7 C7.717.616.8 D3.05.99.2 F1.82.29.6Plans for Next Year I will graduate38.435.337.3Among those eligible to return I will return to charter school69.063.151.2 I will switch schools8.47.716.7 I dont know yet22.629.532.1*Includes only those who gave a grade. The not sure responses have been omitted. Although it is not a direct measure of satisfaction, it is nonetheless interesting to note changes in the post-high school aspirations of the respondents. The goals have not changed substantially, with one exception. Fewer at-risk school students in 1998-99 said they planned to attend four-year colleges than in either of the previous years. The change is not large (from 32.7 percent in 1996-97 to 25.8 percent in 1998-99), but might be of concern to educators hoping to promote college as a viable option for at-risk students. Table IV.11 shows respondents plans. Table IV.11 Post-High School Plans of At-Risk School Respondents, 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99 (given as percent of responses) PlansAt-Risk Schools 1996-97At-Risk Schools 1997-98At-Risk Schools 1998-99Get a job19.616.020.9Go to technical school8.87.110.6Go to a community college22.820.321.9Go to a 4-year college32.732.225.8Join the military5.313.68.4Not sure10.79.412.4 Comparison of Satisfaction over Time for Non-at-Risk Schools It is also possible to trace over time the level of support for charter schools among students in non-at-risk schools. Unfortunately, only one non-at-risk school participated in the 1997-98 academic year survey, and therefore, comparisons can be made only between students in 1996-97 (this first year of charter schools) and 1998-99. Two of the schools in the 1998-99 sample of 14 schools were also included in the 1996-97 sample (Renaissance and West Houston), and one school (American Institute for Learning) had responded in 1996-97 but at that time was considered an at-risk school. One school, Girls and Boys Prep, had participated in the 1996-97 sample but not in the 1998-99 sample. In the analysis and tables below, the 1996-97 sample includes Girls and Boys Prep, Renaissance, and West Houston, but not American Institute for Learning. American Institute for Learning is included in the 1998-99 sample. The differences in the respondent characteristics across the two sample years are striking. Only 4.7 percent of respondents in the 1996-97 sample were Hispanic as compared to 29.1 percent in the 1998-99 sample. On the other hand, 38.1 percent of the respondents in 1996-97 were African American, as compared to 12 percent in 1998-99. The Anglo representation did not change over the two sample years. The earlier sample had proportionally more females than the later sample (58.2 percent versus 48.8 percent), and the students were less likely to be either very young (12 and under) or very old (18 and over). Hence, the two samples are not comparable demographically. Table IV.12 shows the characteristics of the samples. Table IV.12 Characteristics of Non-at-Risk School Sample, 1996-97 and 1998-99 (given as percent of responses) CharacteristicsNon-at-Risk Schools 1996-97 N=189Non-at-Risk Schools 1998-99 N=932Race Hispanic African American Anglo Other/NA 4.7 38.1 45.0 12.2 29.1 12.0 45.1 13.8Gender Female Male 58.2 41.8 48.8 51.2Age 12 and under 18 and over 1.0 2.7 13.2 14.0 Despite the differences in the demographic make-up of the two samples, the levels of satisfaction with charter schools expressed by respondents were quite similar. In both 1996-97 and 1998-99, approximately 20 percent of the respondents were very satisfied with their charter schools and just over 50 percent were satisfied. Levels of dissatisfaction were also similar (23.9 percent in 1996-97 and 21.1 percent in 1998-99). A higher proportion of respondents in 1998-99 than in 1996-97 gave their charter schools the highest grade possible: 22.5 percent gave an A in 1998-99, as compared to 16.9 percent in 1996-97. On the other hand, a higher proportion of students in 1996-97 than in 1998-99 gave their charter schools a B, making the proportion of As and Bs in 1996-97 (59.1 percent) slightly higher than the proportion in 1998-99 (52.8 percent). In addition, students in 1998-99 were more likely to give failing grades (13.6 percent) than students in 1996-97 (8.7 percent). Overall, the distributions of grades across the two samples were not significantly different. Table IV.13 shows the measures of satisfaction with charter schools for students at non-at-risk schools. As a final measure of satisfaction, respondents in the 1998-99 sample were somewhat more likely than students in the 1996-97 sample to say they planned to return to their charter schools the following year: 58.3 percent in 1998-99, and 45.9 percent in 1996-97. Furthermore, students in 1996-97 were more likely to say they would leave their schools (29.3 percent) than were respondents in the 1998-99 sample (14.9 percent). A similar proportion of respondents in both samples were uncertain of their plans for the next year. Table IV.13 shows students plans. Table IV.13 Measures of Non-at-Risk School Students Satisfaction with the Charter Schools, 1996-97 and 1998-99 (given as a percent of responses) Non-at-Risk Schools 1996-97Non-at-Risk Schools 1998-99Satisfaction with Charter School Very satisfied23.021.6 Satisfied53.157.1 Not satisfied23.921.1Grades Assigned by Students* A16.922.5 B42.230.3 C18.621.5 D13.612.1 F8.713.6Plans for Next Year I will graduate2.015.4Among those eligible to return I will return to charter school45.958.3 I will switch schools29.314.9 I dont know yet24.926.8*Includes only those who gave a grade. The not sure responses have been omitted. The respondents post-high school intentions, shown in Table IV.14, differ across the two sample years. In 1996-97, 62.4 percent of the respondents said they planned on attending a four-year college. That proportion dropped to 49.4 percent in the 1998-99 sample. Respondents in the 1998-99 sample were more likely than respondents in the 1996-97 sample to say they would go to a technical school (7.4 percent versus 4.9 percent), go to a community college (13.7 percent versus 5.7 percent), or join the military (6.9 percent versus 2.8 percent). The later sample had a higher percentage of students who were undecided about their future plans than the earlier sample (12.1 percent versus 7.6 percent). Table IV.14 Post-High School Plans Non-At-Risk School Respondents, 1996-97 and 1998-99 (given as percent of responses) PlansNon-at-Risk Schools 1996-97Non-at-Risk Schools 1998-99Get a job16.510.5Go to technical school4.97.4Go to a community college5.713.7Go to a 4-year college62.449.4Join the military2.86.9Not sure7.612.1 Summary of Findings Respondents at both at-risk and non-at-risk schools chose to attend charter schools because they believed that the classes offered would better fit their needs, that they would get more personalized attention from the teachers, and that charter schools provided better teachers overall. Of some importance to non-at-risk school respondents but not particularly relevant to at-risk school students was parental persuasion. At-risk school respondents were much more likely than non-at-risk school respondents to have made the decision to attend a charter school alone; families played a much greater role in the decision to attend among non-at-risk school students than at-risk school students. Finally, few non-at-risk school students but many at-risk school students chose to attend a charter school because they had been having trouble in their previous schools. For neither at-risk nor non-at-risk school students was the location of the charter school a particularly salient issue. The charter schools tended to be further from home than were other schools they could have attended, but the extra distance was not important. Students also showed little concern about whether or not their friends were attending the charter school when making the decision to attend a charter school. Both at-risk and non-at-risk school students were pleased with the charter schools smaller class sizes and with charter school teachers, whom they perceived as more caring than their previous teachers were. They found the classes as interesting, if not more interesting, than classes they had taken in previous schools. However, a number of non-at-risk school students expressed frustration over the lack of choice in classes; they had found a greater selection of classes in their previous schools. This was not strongly felt by at-risk school students. Overall, students attending non-at-risk charter schools found that the charter schools were not significantly better than their previous schools, and they did not grade the charter schools more highly. Students attending at-risk schools held more favorable views of the charter schools in comparison to previous schools. They found more positives in the charter schools and they gave the charter schools higher grades then they gave their previous schools. Despite the relatively strong support expressed by at-risk school students, their level of support has declined over the past two years. At-risk school students are less likely to be very satisfied with their charter schools and more likely to be dissatisfied than they had been in years past. The grades they have assigned to charter schools have declined steadily, and fewer say they are planning on returning to the charter schools. Over the years, non-at-risk school students have tended to be less supportive than at-risk school students of their charter schools. However, the level of support among non-at-risk students has changed very little. They expressed the same levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction over time, and the grades they have assigned to their charter schools have changed little over time. Thus, though they remain somewhat less enthusiastic about their charter schools than at-risk school students, their support for the school has hardly changed over the years, while support among at-risk school students has declined. Chapter V. Effects of Charter Schools on Traditional Public School Districts Survey of District Officials Before the State Board of Education grants a charter, applicants are required to contact public school districts from which their students may be drawn to inquire about the charter schools potential effects on the district, and to report their findings in the application. For the 168 Texas charter schools approved thus far, the total number of districts named by charter school applicants as potentially affected is 375. Of those, 53 contain a charter school within the district boundary and were included in the sample for this study of chart school effects. Of the remaining 322 districts not containing charter schools within their boundaries, 86 were named by two or more charter schools as a possible source of students. Those districts were also included in the sample. An additional 132 districts were chosen at random from among those named as potentially affected by one charter school, resulting in a survey sample of 271 districts. During the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years, the research team surveyed superintendents in 43 public school districts near the original 19 charter schools, either by mail or by telephone, with a set of open-ended questions. Because the 1998-99 survey involved 271 rather than 43 districts, the research team decided to use a forced-choice rather than open-ended survey instrument, and constructed a questionnaire that included recurring themes from the first and second years of the charter school effects study. In addition, a literature review was conducted to determine what is known about charter school effects on school districts in other states. The 1998 report from Policy Analysis for California Education, a research consortium at the University of California at Berkeley, entitled How Are School Districts Responding to Charter Laws and Charter Schools? A Study of Eight States and the District of Columbia served as a source of information. Many of its ideas were incorporated into the questionnaire design. A copy of the questionnaire appears in Appendix B. In April 1999, the research team prepared survey packets and sent them to superintendents in the 271 districts chosen for the survey. Each packet contained two cover letters explaining the purpose of the survey and urging participation. One letter was from the Texas Center for Educational Research, the other from the Texas Commissioner of Education, Mike Moses. Each packet also contained a questionnaire and a return envelope. Non-respondents were contacted by telephone in June 1999. The response rate for the survey was 72 percent. School officials in 195 districts completed and returned questionnaires; 146 indicated the district name. Of those, roughly two-thirds of responses came from districts with fewer than 10,000 students; a third were from districts of 1,000 to 5,000 students. The education service center (ESC) with the greatest number of responding districts was ESC 4 in the Houston area, followed by ESC 10 in Dallas and ESC 11 in Fort Worth. A breakdown of respondents by district size and ESC region is shown below in Tables V.1 and V.2. Table V.1 Size of Districts Responding to Survey of Charter School Effects Range of District SizesNumber of DistrictsPercent of Respondents<500 students128500-999 students14101,000-4,999 students48335,000-9,999 students261810,000-19,000 students171220,000-49,999 students231650,000 students or more64Total146 Table V.2 ESC Region of Districts Responding to Survey of Charter School Effects ESC RegionNumber of DistrictsPercent of Respondents1107253300424165116327141084398510161111171212961311814001500164317531811193220118Total146 Quantitative Findings Findings presented in this section are based on 195 respondents answers to questionnaire items. Most are stated as percentages. A later section contains a summary of written and verbal comments given in response to open-ended questionnaire items. Awareness of Charter School Activities and Effects Respondents were asked whether a charter school had opened in or near their district. Slightly more than half indicated that a charter school had opened, nearly 40 percent said no charter school had opened, and the rest were not sure. Eighty percent of respondents indicated that charter schools have had no discernable effects on their districts or on surrounding communities, whereas 15 percent noted mild effects. The remaining five percent said their districts or communities had experienced moderate or strong effects. Two thirds of those reporting effects described them as detrimental; eight percent, beneficial; the rest, neutral. Districts were asked about administration and board activities in response to charter schools. In 29 percent of districts, administrators have met to discuss issues concerning charter schools. In 20 percent, charter schools have been included in meeting agendas for the district board of trustees. Six percent reported that the presence of charter schools has influenced the district to consider future implementation of new programs or practices. Five percent or fewer have adopted an official position statement on charter schools, have created (or are considering the creation of) campus charter schools, have held parent meetings to discuss charter schools, or have experienced a decrease in news coverage for district schools compared to area charter schools. Districts were asked how charter schools have affected student mobility. Five responding school districts have a system in place for tracking students who leave to attend charter schools. Nonetheless, respondents in 20 percent of districts reported that students have left schools in their districts to attend charter schools, and students reported as leaving were fairly evenly distributed among elementary, middle, and high school levels. A similar number said they expected students to leave district schools to attend charter schools during the 1999-2000 school year. Table V.3 shows data on students leaving districts to attend charter schools. Table V.3 Students Reported by Respondents as Leaving to Attend Charter Schools Number of Students Reported as LeavingNumber of Districts Reporting Students Leaving at Elementary LevelNumber of Districts Reporting Students Leaving at Middle School LevelNumber of Districts Reporting Students Leaving at High School Level<10 58710-4935750-100303More than 100224Not sure of number788Total202329 Respondents in 22 districts reported that students have left charter schools and returned to schools in their districts. Another 25 were unsure whether or not students had returned. No district reported more than 30 returning students. Numbers of returning students are shown below in Table V.4. Table V.4 Students Reported by Respondents as Returning to District Schools after Attending Charter School Number of Students Reported as ReturningNumber of Districts Reporting Students Returning at Elementary LevelNumber of Districts Reporting Students Returning at Middle School LevelNumber of Districts Reporting Students Returning at High School Level<10 34810-30337Not sure of number211Total8816 When asked to characterize students who leave to attend charter schools, 34 respondents indicated that at-risk students leave. Another 14 said that average-ability students leave, whereas 11 each said that high-ability students and students seeking a GED leave. Five said that special education students leave district schools to attend charter schools. Eleven respondents reported that students have begun attending area charter schools after dropping out of schools in their districts. Financial Effects on Districts According to respondents, the vast majority of districts90 percenthave not experienced detrimental financial effects attributable to the proximity of a charter school. Some respondents gave reasons for the lack of financial harm: 49 reported that few students (or none) are leaving the district; seven reported that the district is experiencing enrollment gains that balance out losses to charter schools; six noted that charter schools are funded directly by the state; and four commented that students leaving to attend charter schools are expensive to educate. Ten percent of respondents reported that charter schools have affected their districts financially. Fifteen indicated that financial effects on districts should be measured directly as lost ADA funding, funding that would have come to the district based on average daily attendance (ADA) of pupils. Amounts of ADA reported as lost averaged $33,500 and ranged from $8,000 to $1,500,000. Another nine respondents said their districts had lost federal funding that would otherwise have supported services for special-needs students. Amounts of federal funding reported as lost averaged $41,000 and ranged from $15,000 to $125,000. Fifteen respondents reported losses related to enrollment: diminished accuracy in fall enrollment estimates makes it difficult to budget for personnel, materials, and overhead; moreover, extra expenses are incurred when students leave charter schools and re-enroll in district schools after enrollment counts have already been made. Programmatic Effects on Districts Respondents were asked to indicate whether contact occurs between educators from their district and from charter schools. Fifteen percent said such contact occurs, mostly on an infrequent basis. Two indicated that there is a mechanism in place to identify successful charter school practices and share them with district educators. Nearly all respondents95 percentindicated that there have been no changes in educational policies, programs, or services as a result of the presence of charter schools in their areas. Of 82 respondents who answered the question directly, more than half said that any program or service offered by an area charter school is already available in the district. Nearly a quarter said charter schools are too small or too far from district schools to affect their programs and services, and four respondents said that area charter schools serve specialized populations or offer special programs that the district cannot offer. Respondents from four districts said there have been changes in educational policies, programs, or services as a result of the presence of charter schools in their areas. Two of those indicated that their districts have increased their efforts to improve public relations or to market their schools to the public. One has begun to contract out for more of its educational services. The remaining district did not specify the change it has made. Districts did not report having created smaller schools or schools-within-schools, increasing efforts to involve parent or community members in school activities or governance, or expanding educational programs or services (including choice offerings, such as creation of campus or program charter schools) in response to the presence of charter schools. No district reported that a school has adopted practices similar to area charter school practices. Effects on Public School Participants Seven percent of respondents indicated that educators from district schools have left to work in charter schools. Nearly as many reported that they were not sure whether or not educators had left for charter schools. No respondent reported more than four teachers leaving schools in their districts; one respondent said that an administrator had left. Three percent (5) said teaching positions had been eliminated since charter schools opened in their areas. No respondent reported eliminating more than three positions. Two respondents reported that class sizes had increased, whereas another two reported that class sizes had decreased since charter schools opened in the areas. The vast majority of respondents97 percentindicated that the presence of charter schools has had no effect on educator morale in their districts. Only three percent reported that morale had deteriorated. Reasons given for the deterioration included concern about public perception of traditional public schools as inferior to charter schools; disruption of the educational process resulting from increased mobility of students leaving and returning to district schools; concern that special-needs students may not get an appropriate education in charter schools; and loss of high-ability students and supportive, involved parents to charter schools. One respondent noted that parents are less involved in district schools since charter schools opened in the area. Five indicated that students were affected. Two indicated that students seemed pleased that an alternative educational setting is available in the area. The other three did not specify how students had been affected. Qualitative Findings The previous section presented findings based on respondents answers to forced-choice questionnaire items. By contrast, this section contains a summary of their written and verbal comments given in response to open-ended questionnaire items and telephone interviews. Respondents in 45 districts offered the views and opinions presented in this section. Of the 45 respondents, 27 had reported negative effects of charter schools on their districts in the forced-choice section of the survey; all but one of these respondents also made generally negative comments about charter schools on the open-ended questions. Even though 18 of the 27 reported only mild negative effects, their written comments were sometimes very critical. Fifteen of those who had made written responses reported no effects or only mild neutral effects in the forced-choice section of the survey, but in the open-ended comments seven of these commented negatively on charter schools. An additional seven made generally neutral responses or said that it was too soon to tell what the effect of charter schools would be. One had positive comments to make about charter schools. All three of the respondents who reported in the forced-choice section that charter schools had a positive effect on their districts also made positive open-ended comments. The preponderance of negative reactions to charter schools in the open-ended comments, even among those who had reported that charter schools had made little or no impact on their districts, makes a contrast to the generally neutral responses found in the quantitative data. It may be that those who believe they are negatively affected are more apt to write comments than those who are unaffected or positively affected; open-ended questions may provide the dissatisfied with a means of expression. Negative comments by those as yet unaffected by charter schools may be the result of uncertainty about the future of charter schools or of previously held beliefs about charter schools. Overall Impressions of Charter Schools The overwhelming majority of comments offered by the 45 respondents indicate concern, or at least mild reservations, about charter school operations. A superintendent from a suburban central Texas district noted that he is not opposed to the idea of school choice, and that, in his opinion, the relationship between traditional public school districts and charter schools is adversarial only if the charter school is taking money and not serving kids well. A few respondents indicated that it is too soon to determine whether or not charter schools will make good neighbors. An administrator from a large west Texas district reflected the sentiments of several when he wrote; The open-enrollment charter school in our area is just beginning. The full impact is difficult to assess. According to the superintendent in a central Texas town, a new charter school has just opened in the area. Therefore, he writes, our answers [to survey questions] may be significantly different at this time next year. Some respondents are concerned about charter schools general accountability and their ability to fulfill the public trust. Several respondents question whether charter schools are doing what they were intended to do. A central Texas town superintendent who favors the concept of public school choice is rethinking her position after witnessing a situation in which students in a particular at-risk charter school have been observed smoking dope on the front porch, not attending school, and in the streets. She mentioned unacceptable administrative arrangements and high teacher turnover in the charter schools. She is concerned that such schools will contribute to failure of the charter school movement. She said, Choice can provide an alternative for kids. However, the schools have to be held to . . . standards or well have kids coming out with no education. An official in an urban west Texas district believes that charter schools represent an attack on public schools and asks, What if you allowed me to change all the rules for schools [in my district]? Theres no accountability for that. In the area of student performance, the superintendent in a southeast Texas town observed that charter schools are giving away creditssometimes as many as 15 in one week. Several respondents questioned whether charter schools truly offer open enrollment. The district superintendent in a north Texas town wrote, [The] charter school in our area only wants to hand pick students. They will make it hard on a student who does not fit their criteria until [the student] leaves. A superintendent in a south Texas town wrote, The charter school in our area is not interested in any students except those [in a particular geographic area]. The school was started in retaliation to [the district] because they did not build an elementary/middle school in the area. Accessibility is an important consideration in open enrollment. An official in a suburban central Texas district alluded to this issue when she explained why her district has lost few if any students to area charter schools: I doubt that many parents would want to transport their students in and out of [the large city where area charter schools are located] every day. Traffic is terrible! Our district is located on the outskirts. Several respondents view charter schools as having little accountability for student discipline. One respondent considers the idea of charter schools good, but expressed concern that charter schools do not have adequate oversight: It sounds like theyve been given carte blanche all the way. For example, the fact that charter schools are not required to comply with student discipline guidelines as outlined in Chapter 37 of the Texas Education Code has caused problems in her district when students dismissed from area charter schools return to district schools: Students who exhibit poor behavior are not allowed to remain in [the] charter school, but [the] school does not document infractions or place [students] in an AEP. In her view, the charter school seems more like a private than a public school in its ability to dismiss students without documentation or due process requirements. An administrator in an urban south Texas district wrote, When a student enrolls in a charter school, the student should have the same rights to due process as the student would have in any public school. Many parents have stated to district officials that upon withdrawal from the charter school, their child cannot return due to discipline or attendance problems. He adds that when an area charter school provides the district with a list of students who have withdrawn from its program, the reasons for withdrawals are not indicated on the report. On the other hand, students have been observed to use the charter school option to their advantage. An official in a large urban west Texas district noted that some students who have been assigned to AEP centers have chosen to bypass our disciplinary consequences and go to the charter school. Charter School Operations A few respondents offered general observations about the administration of charter schools. One superintendent views some charter school operators as being in a no-win situation because of poor oversight, lack of managerial and technical expertise, and inability to deal with parents. One respondent commented that teacher turnover is high, and several respondents expressed concern with curriculum weakness in charter schools. Several respondents expressed the opinion that charter school operators and their staffs lack the expertise and qualifications they need to run a school. Comments included concerns about fiscal irregularities, University Interscholastic League (UIL) rule infractions, and off-site administration. Several respondents commented on the fiscal difficulties of charter schools in their areas. One noted the negative press accounts about the charter school in his area. Another superintendent in an urban north Texas district wrote, The charter school in our district is now close to closing because of financial mismanagement [The effects have been detrimental because] students moved to the charter school and then back to public schools when the charter school went broke. Financial Concerns for Public School Districts For most districts, ADA and/or growth are sufficiently large and numbers of students withdrawing to attend charter schools are sufficiently small that little or no financial impact has been felt. Still, officials in some districts reported having experienced financial hardship since charter schools opened in their areas. Two superintendents commented on an at-risk charter school duplicating facilities recently constructed by their districts. As a result, one respondent predicted that his district would end the fiscal year with a shortfall of at least $50,000. Attrition of Students in Public School Districts Student enrollment shifts may cause difficulty for districts. A superintendent from a large suburban north Texas district noted the effect of charter schools in his area: We have lost some of our best scholars to these new enterprises. Similarly, an administrator in a south Texas town wrote, Top students are lured to the charter schools. An official in a suburban southeast Texas district wrote, Space Center Houston is opening a charter school. This district will not be able to compete with the resources [it] will be able to provide. We anticipate that several of our brightest math and science students will leave the district for the opportunity to attend. The balance in the student population may be disrupted along socioeconomic or racial lines according to a few respondents. A couple of respondents reported that losing students to charter schools has been beneficial for their districts. A south Texas town superintendent noted that discipline problems decreased by 30-40% after the opening of a residential treatment charter school in the area. He wrote, The open-enrollment charter school was totally supported by [the district.] The majority of the higher at-risk students can best be served in the charter school. Similarly, a superintendent in a north Texas town described students leaving district schools to attend charter schools as discipline problems, attendance problems, and people who are unhappy with [district] schools in general. Negative Publicity Several respondents reported that charter schools have caused public relations problems for their districts. A superintendent in a suburban east Texas district noted that, although his district has not yet lost students to an area charter school, the school has run public announcements critical of public schools that are rather inappropriate. Another superintendent in a small north Texas town described a situation in which a private school received a charter and subsequently began running television and radio ads presenting negative views of the district in which it is located. She expressed a concern that charter schools may use state revenue to fund a campaign criticizing public schools. Summary Officials from 195 Texas public school districts responded to a survey of charter school effects. Although many are from metropolitan areas like Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth, the majority are in districts of fewer than 10,000 students. Eighty percent of respondents indicated that charter schools have had no discernable effects on their districts or on the surrounding communities. Twenty percent reported that students have left district schools to attend charter schools. Respondents report slightly more high school students than elementary or middle school students and more at-risk students than students in other categories, leaving to attend charter schools. Although 90 percent of respondents reported that they have not experienced detrimental financial effects from the presence of charter schools, the remaining 10 percent reported losses in state aid and federal funding. Districts have also incurred losses related to student mobility in and out of district schools and diminished accuracy in budgeting based on fall enrollment estimates. According to 15 percent of respondents, there is contact between educators from schools in their districts and charter schools. Contact is infrequent and does not yet result in the identifying and sharing of successful charter school practices. The presence of charter schools has prompted very few changes in educational policies, programs, or services in respondents districts, mainly because programs or services offered by charter schools are already offered by district schools or because charter schools are too small or too far away to affect district programs and services. Similarly, charter schools have had little if any effect on educator morale or mobility, or on the level of parent involvement in district schools. Still, several respondents indicated that they are concerned that some charter schoolsas they are currently being operated and overseendo not serve students adequately or use public funds efficiently. Appendices Available in Hard Copy Upon Request 800-580-8237  The state limits the number of open-enrollment charter schools to 120 and allows for an unlimited number of charters for schools serving at least 75 percent of the student population classified as at-risk. Some schools with open-enrollment charters do, however, serve a student population of more than 75 percent at-risk.  At the time of the analysis, the at-risk information could not be obtained from H.O.P.E., P.O.W.E.R., Paso del Norte, Positive Solutions Charter School, Rameses School, and Treetops School International; however, information obtained from 鶹ֱ after the analysis reveals that H.O.P.E. and P.O.W.E.R. are at-risk schools H.O.P.E., P.O.W.E.R., and Rameses School no longer serve as charter schools.  Self-reported data are not audited.  Student/teacher ratios are computed by multiplying the number of part-time faculty listed for each school by 0.5 and adding the product to the total number of full-time faculty.  Texas Education Agency, Division of Performance Reporting. Office of Policy Planning and Research, 1998, Snapshot 97: 1996-97 School District Profiles, p. 346, Item 45.  U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1998, A National Study of Charter Schools: Second Year Report, p. 37.  At the time of the analysis, the at-risk information could not be obtained from H.O.P.E., P.O.W.E.R., Paso del Norte, Positive Solutions Charter School, Rameses School, and Treetops School International; however, information obtained from 鶹ֱ after the analysis reveals that H.O.P.E. and P.O.W.E.R. are at-risk schools.  Table II.2 includes the names of only eighty-three schools. Six schools H.O.P.E., P.O.W.E.R., Paso del Norte, Positive Solutions Charter School, Rameses School, and Treetops School International did not report numbers of at-risk students.  A majority of students at these schools are classified as at-risk, and the mission statements of these schools include serving at-risk students.  Office of Policy Planning and Research, Division of Performance Reporting, Texas Education Agency, Snapshot 97: 1997-98 School District Profiles, http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/snapshot/98/state.html  U.S. Department of Education, A National Study of Charter Schools.  U.S. Department of Education, A National Study of Charter Schools, pp. 55-56.  For instance, the Houston Independent School District is about 11 percent Anglo, 52 percent Hispanic, and 34 percent African American. The Girls and Boys Preparatory Academy, a charter school located in HISD, is 95 percent African American. By the methodology employed by the DOE, Girls and Boys Prep would not be considered racially distinctive in relation to its district. This rather misleading conclusion stems from the use of the 20 percent standard in order to have a concentration of Anglo students 20 points below the district percentage, Girls and Boys Prep would have to be 109 percent African American. It also stems from the application of the standard only to Anglo students though the Hispanic enrollment of Girls and Boys Prep is 50 points below the district percentage, this disparity does not count since it is not a disparity in Anglo enrollment.  U.S. Department of Education, National Study of Charter Schools, Section C, Students of Charter Schools, p. 3, http://www.ed.gov/pubs/charter3rdyear/C.html.  The number of charter schools available for comparison to the traditional public school district in which each is located is reduced because the authors were unable to determine which districts these were for all charter schools. The Texas Education Agency could not provide this information for the evaluation. Evaluators called each charter school to ask in which district it was located, but were unable to get beyond voice-mail in a number of instance, and many schools did not respond to repeated voice mail messages. This analysis is based on seventy-two charter schools for which information could be obtained.  Percentage point differences in enrollments between schools and school districts are computed as absolute values. They may indicate either that school percentages are greater than or less than district percentages.  Percentage point differences in enrollments between schools and school districts are computed as absolute values. They may indicate either that school percentages are greater than or less than district percentages.  U.S. Department of Education, A National Study of Charter Schools, p. 70. The first report in this series had indicated that as many as three quarters of charter schools in the United States focused on the needs of at-risk students (RPP International and University of Minnesota, 1997, A Study of Charter Schools: First-Year Report).  Snapshot 98.  Snapshot 98.  Snapshot 98.      PAGE 74   , - C D M N O t }  * ' L0 1 4!5!"#$$$$,,u-!3;6<6Y7Z7\7GH!HJJJ:MPP@QAQ,RRRRλjhWz0JCJU hWz5 hWzCJ\ hWz5CJ hWzCJ hWz5\ hWzCJ(hWz5CJ\hWz5CJ \ hWz5CJ0 hWzCJhWz hWz5CJ hWz5CJ ;   2FSTUVWXgz $$dNa$$a$$a$$a$    , C D M O t } ~  X $a$$a$$a$$a$ $$dNa$   ; V r  2 _  * 9 I Y  !X  X    ? d LMn 6O{' X ` X '(67 G,A@BNO pX @@@J`^`` ! X  !X X `O}q;#qe:wx pX @@@J`^``x L0 4!!"j""B#E#O#P###?$$ !pX @@@J`^`` pX @@@J`^`` pX @@@J`^``$$$$$G)H),,,,,,-K-u-v---E... 3!3\7  & F ! ! & F pX @@@J`^``\7]777778r8888>;?;==????AAAABB  & F !  !^  & F !  & F ! !B{C|CCCDDGGH H!HHHII)JJJJJ:M;M & F !  !88^8  & F !  !^  & F !;MPPPP+R,R7RRRRRRRR $$Ifa$$If$IfRRRRRTT#W9WWW;Y=Ym\\\]0bbbbffggjjlRrSrrr5s6s7s?s@sAsNs0zzzzzz}}}rN12Շ,-STˆÈƈ hWz5CJjhWz0JCJU hWzCJjhWz0JUhWz hWz5jhWz0J5UORRR$Ifkd$$Iflr 4," 8 204 lap2RRSS SSS $$Ifa$$Iflkd$$Ifl4,""   04 laf4p SS&S-S1S5S8SJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd2$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap 8S9S?SFSJSNSQSJD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdA$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap QSRSfSmSrSuSxSJD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdP$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap xSySSSSSSJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd_$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap SSSSSSSJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkdn$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap SSSSTTTJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd}$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap TTTJD$Ifkd$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap TT8$If$Ifkd$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap WWWW $$Ifa$WWW$Ifkd%$$Iflr 4," 8 204 lap2WWX XXX&XA;$Ifkd$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap  $$Ifa$&X0X5X8X;XZFZJZNZQZJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd )$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap QZRZ}ZZZZZJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd*$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap ZZZZZZZJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd++$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap ZZZZZZ[JD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd:,$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap [[ [[[[[JD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdI-$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap [[F[N[S[Y[\[JD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdX.$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap \[][m[u[z[~[[JD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkdg/$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap [[[[[[[JD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkdv0$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap [[[[[[[JD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd1$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap [[[[\\\JD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd2$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap \\\!\(\,\/\JD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd3$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap /\0\U\]\e\h\k\JD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd4$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap k\l\\\\\\JHFF@:$If$Ifkd5$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap \\]] $$Ifa$]]<]$Ifkd6$$Iflr 4," 8 204 lap2<]D]H]L]O]P]]A;$IfkdS8$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap  $$Ifa$]]]]]]]A;$Ifkdb9$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap  $$Ifa$]]]]]]]A;$Ifkdq:$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap  $$Ifa$]]]^^^^A;$Ifkd;$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap  $$Ifa$^$^-^0^3^4^W^A;$Ifkd<$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap  $$Ifa$W^_^g^k^n^o^^A;$Ifkd=$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap  $$Ifa$^^^^^^^A;$Ifkd>$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap  $$Ifa$^^^^^^^A;$Ifkd?$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap  $$Ifa$^__ _ _ _&_A;$Ifkd@$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap  $$Ifa$&_2_7_;_>_?_\_A;$IfkdA$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap  $$Ifa$\_g_q_u_x_y__A;$IfkdB$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap  $$Ifa$_______ $$Ifa$$IflkdD$$Ifl4,""   04 laf4p _______JD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdD$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap __`$`(`+`-`JD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdE$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap -`.`f`r`z`~``JD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdF$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap ```````JD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdG$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap ```````JD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdH$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap `` aaaaaJD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdJ$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap aaAaMaRaVaYaJD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdK$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap YaZawaaaaaJD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdL$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap aaaaaaaJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd-M$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap aaaaaaaJD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdcGcRcUcXcJD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdS$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap XcYcgcncvcyc|cJD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdT$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap |c}ccccccJD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdU$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap cccccccJD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdV$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap cccccccJD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdW$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap ccd ddddJD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdX$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap dd-d6d;d>dAdJD;;;; $$Ifa$$IfkdY$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap AdBdkdsdxd|ddJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd[$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap dddJD$Ifkd\$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap ddddddd $$Ifa$$Iflkd"]$$Ifl4,""   04 laf4p dddddddJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd]$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap ddddddeJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd^$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap eeeJD$Ifkd_$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap ee$e,e1e4e7e $$Ifa$$Iflkd`$$Ifl4,""   04 laf4p 7e8eGeOeTeWeZeJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkda$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap Ze[eeeeeeJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkdb$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap eeeeeeeJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkdc$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap eeeeeeeJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkdd$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap eeffff"fJD;;;; $$Ifa$$Ifkde$$Iflr 4," 8   04 lap "f#f@BDGI $$Ifa$IJY$$Ifkd4$$Ifl֞ ,!2   04 lap Y\^`bfh $$Ifa$hiv$$Ifkda$$Ifl֞ ,!2   04 lap vy| $$Ifa$$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ ,!2   04 lap  $$Ifa$$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ ,!2   04 lap  $$Ifa$‹$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ ,!2   04 lap ‹ŋNjɋˋϋы $$Ifa$ыҋ$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ ,!2   04 lap  $$Ifa$ $$IfkdB$$Ifl֞ ,!2   04 lap   $$Ifa$$$$Ifkdo$$Ifl֞ ,!2   04 lap $&)+-13 $$Ifa$34E$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ ,!2   04 lap EHKNPSV $$Ifa$VWe$$Ifkdɶ$$Ifl֞ ,!2   04 lap egilnru $$Ifa$uv$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ ,!2   04 lap  $$Ifa$$$Ifkd#$$Ifl֞ ,!2   04 lap ŒŌnjȌٌیߌ$IfFf5 $$Ifa$$$Ifkdx$$Ifl֞ ,!2   04 lap  $$Ifa$$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ ,!2   04 lap  $$Ifa$ !9$" kd$$Ifl֞ ,!2   04 lap 9ɍ΍ύ$IfFf $$Ifa$$If $$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap   $$Ifa$.$$Ifkd2$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap .1479<> $$Ifa$>?N$$Ifkd_$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap NQTVY]a $$Ifa$aby$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap y|~ $$Ifa$$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap  $$Ifa$$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap  $$Ifa$ŽȎ$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap ȎˎΎЎҎ֎َ $$Ifa$َڎێ܎$""kd@$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap ܎?@GXagmu}$IfFf: $$Ifa$$If$$Ifkds$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap ŏǏ $$Ifa$Ǐȏ$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap  $$Ifa$$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap   $$Ifa$!$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap !#&)+-/ $$Ifa$/0G$$Ifkd'$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap GKMOQTV $$Ifa$VWo$$Ifkdb$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap ortvxz| $$Ifa$|}$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap  $$Ifa$$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap  $$Ifa$ѐ$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap ѐӐ֐ِېސ $$Ifa$$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap  $$Ifa$$""kdC$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap uv}ˑ͑Бґԑבّ$IfFf= $$Ifa$$If !ّڑ$$Ifkdv$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap  $$Ifa$ $$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap   $$Ifa$.$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap .1479<> $$Ifa$>?O$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap ORUXZ]_ $$Ifa$_`n$$Ifkd*$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap nqsuwz| $$Ifa$|}$$IfkdW$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap  $$Ifa$$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap  $$Ifa$ɒ$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap ɒ˒ΒђӒ֒ؒ $$Ifa$ْؒ$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap  $$Ifa$$$Ifkd $$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap   $$Ifa$$$Ifkd8$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap "%(*-/ $$Ifa$/06$$Ifkde$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap 68;>@BD $$Ifa$DEN$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap NQTWY\^ $$Ifa$^_i$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap ilnpruw $$Ifa$wx$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap  $$Ifa$$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap  $$Ifa$ɓ$$IfkdF$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap ɓ̓ϓғԓדړ $$Ifa$ړۓ$$Ifkds$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap  $$Ifa$$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap  $$Ifa$ !:$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap :=?ACEG $$Ifa$GH`$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap `cfiknp $$Ifa$pq$$Ifkd5$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap  $$Ifa$$$Ifkdb$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap  $$Ifa$Ӕ$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap Ӕ֔ٔܔޔ $$Ifa$$""kd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap WX_py$IfFf $$Ifa$$Ifŕ$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap ŕȕʕ̕Εѕԕ $$Ifa$ԕՕ$$Ifkd$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap  $$Ifa$ $$IfkdI$$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap   $$Ifa$$ !kdv $$Ifl֞T :!F   04 lap ɖʖ!2nڤۤ'(`a,-˩89;Gh)״شٴp߽OھZrjo?fhE2< <=XYݽ hWzCJjhWz0J5CJUjhWz0J5U hWz5 hWz5CJhWz hWzCJjhWz0JCJUJ! 5Ki $$Ifa$$If  '!$Ifkd $$IflֈX h," <4 lap<UO$Ifkd $$IflֈX h,"   4 lap  $$Ifa$ ÛƯ̈̀͛ӛ؛ݛUO$Ifkd $$IflֈX h,"   4 lap  $$Ifa$ 23EFUSSQQQQQkd $$IflֈX h,"   4 lap  $$Ifa$ Fno'(ʩ˩֩:;GM^g $$Ifa$$If ! ghc]TTT $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\j:"F  (4 lap(ª~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kd$$Ifl\j:"F   4 lap ªêܪ~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kd$$Ifl\j:"F   4 lap  ~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kd$$Ifl\j:"F   4 lap 05:?~uuu $$Ifa$$If{kd$$Ifl\j:"F   4 lap ?@AB)*5ٴڴ~~xo $$Ifa$$If{kd$$Ifl\j:"F   4 lap  3-$Ifkd$$Ifl\N :" b  (04 lap( $$Ifa$"&';@EJTN$Ifkd $$Ifl\N :" b   04 lap  $$Ifa$JKchmr]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdQ$$Ifl\N :" b   04 lap rs]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdt$$Ifl\N :" b   04 lap pq]WWWUUSUU !kd$$Ifl\N :" b   04 lap  ޽߽2N $$Ifa$$IfNO`chmrE?6666 $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflr j5"@  24 lap2rsqkbbbb $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Iflr j5"@    4 lap qkbbbb $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflr j5"@    4 lap ھ۾ Z[rqoomkmmmme$Ifkd$$Iflr j5"@    4 lap  r<6$Ifkd$$Iflr j5"@  24 lap2 $$Ifa$ ]W$Ifkd $$Iflr j5"@   4 lap $$Ifa$ #(-27qkbbbb $$Ifa$$Ifkd!$$Iflr j5"@    4 lap 78>CHMRqkbbbb $$Ifa$$Ifkd!$$Iflr j5"@    4 lap RSY]aeiqkbbbb $$Ifa$$Ifkd"$$Iflr j5"@    4 lap ijklmnoqooooooooi` $$Ifa$$Ifkd#$$Iflr j5"@    4 lap  ">?<6$Ifkd$$$Iflr j5"@  24 lap2 $$Ifa$OTY^_ty~]W$Ifkd%$$Iflr j5"@   4 lap $$Ifa$ f`WWWW $$Ifa$$Ifkd&$$Iflr j5"@   4 lapqkbbbb $$Ifa$$Ifkd'$$Iflr j5"@    4 lap  qkbbbb $$Ifa$$Ifkd($$Iflr j5"@    4 lap  #*18?qkbbbb $$Ifa$$Ifkd)$$Iflr j5"@    4 lap ?@TU[_eqkbbbb $$Ifa$$Ifkdl*$$Iflr j5"@    4 lap efghEF3qoomooomogm^kdH+$$Iflr j5"@    4 lap  34;< <=XYy$Iflkd2,$$Ifl4,""   04 laf4p $IfYGH}~ ;<kl+,_`89rsAB~ FG$%]^;<*+Z[9:]^ hWz56hWz hWzCJ^$Iflkd,$$Ifl0,"LL04 la$Iflkd-$$Ifl0,"LL04 la.G$Iflkd!.$$Ifl0,"LL04 laGHd}$Iflkd.$$Ifl0,"LL04 la}~$Iflkda/$$Ifl0,"LL04 la$Iflkd0$$Ifl0,"LL04 la ';$Iflkd0$$Ifl0,"LL04 la;<Ok$IflkdA1$$Ifl0,"LL04 lakl$Iflkd1$$Ifl0,"LL04 la$Iflkd2$$Ifl0,"LL04 la$Iflkd/3$$Ifl4,""   04 laf4p +$Iflkd3$$Ifl0,"LL04 la+,L_$Iflkd~4$$Ifl0,"LL04 la_`$Iflkd5$$Ifl0,"LL04 la$Iflkd5$$Ifl0,"LL04 la8$Iflkd^6$$Ifl0,"LL04 la89Ur$Iflkd6$$Ifl0,"LL04 lars$Iflkd7$$Ifl0,"LL04 la$Iflkd>8$$Ifl0,"LL04 la$Iflkd8$$Ifl0,"LL04 laA$Iflkd~9$$Ifl0,"LL04 laABa~$Iflkd:$$Ifl0,"LL04 la~$Iflkd:$$Ifl0,"LL04 la$Iflkd^;$$Ifl0,"LL04 la $Iflkd;$$Ifl0,"LL04 la F$Iflkd<$$Ifl0,"LL04 laFGi$Iflkd>=$$Ifl0,"LL04 la$Iflkd=$$Ifl0,"LL04 la$Iflkd~>$$Ifl0,"LL04 la$$Iflkd?$$Ifl0,"LL04 la$%H]$Iflkd?$$Ifl0,"LL04 la]^w$Iflkd^@$$Ifl0,"LL04 la$Iflkd@$$Ifl0,"LL04 la$IflkdA$$Ifl0,"LL04 la!;$Iflkd>B$$Ifl0,"LL04 la;<t$IflkdB$$Ifl0,"LL04 la$Iflkd~C$$Ifl0,"LL04 la$IflkdD$$Ifl0,"LL04 la*$IflkdD$$Ifl0,"LL04 la*+HZ$Iflkd^E$$Ifl0,"LL04 laZ[x$IflkdE$$Ifl0,"LL04 la$IflkdF$$Ifl0,"LL04 la$Iflkd>G$$Ifl0,"LL04 la9$IflkdG$$Ifl0,"LL04 la9:\]$Iflkd~H$$Ifl0,"LL04 la]^ ,}}} $$Ifa$$IflkdI$$Ifl0,"LL04 lat op=*+Sno{1;<YUwz       .%&02$;IJ ""i"j"t"U#$Y'd'J) hWz5 hWzCJ hWz5CJhWz\$):4++ $$Ifa$$IfkdI$$Ifl\ ~($@   (04 lap()./RW\aRL$IfkdJ$$Ifl\ ~($@    04 lap  $$Ifa$abrw|[ULLL $$Ifa$$IfkdK$$Ifl\ ~($@    04 lap [ULLL $$Ifa$$IfkdL$$Ifl\ ~($@    04 lap [ULLL $$Ifa$$IfkdM$$Ifl\ ~($@    04 lap  [ULLL $$Ifa$$IfkdN$$Ifl\ ~($@    04 lap 16;@[ULLL $$Ifa$$IfkdbO$$Ifl\ ~($@    04 lap @Ajoty[ULLL $$Ifa$$IfkdCP$$Ifl\ ~($@    04 lap yz[ULLL $$Ifa$$Ifkd$Q$$Ifl\ ~($@    04 lap [ULLL $$Ifa$$IfkdR$$Ifl\ ~($@    04 lap [ULLL $$Ifa$$IfkdR$$Ifl\ ~($@    04 lap  %[ULLL $$Ifa$$IfkdS$$Ifl\ ~($@    04 lap %&}[R $$Ifa$kdT$$Ifl\ ~($@    04 lap }~st op|| $$Ifa$$IfnkdU$$Ifl4$>%  04 laf4p 3-$ $$Ifa$$IfkdJV$$Ifl\ z $@   (04 lap( $$Ifa$!&+TN$IfkdwW$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  $$Ifa$+,=BGL]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdTX$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap LMchmr]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd1Y$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap rs]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdZ$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdZ$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd[$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  %*]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd\$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap *+INSX]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd]$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap XYpuz]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd_^$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd<_$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd`$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd`$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ;]T $$Ifa$kda$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ;<=*+STIa} $$Ifa$$If\kdb$$Ifl4$2%04 laf4<6--- $$Ifa$$Ifkd@c$$Ifl\ z $@   (04 lap(]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdmd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  ]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdJe$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  49>C]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd'f$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap CDX]bg]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdg$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap gh]T $$Ifa$kdg$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ^_mn{1 $$Ifa$$If\kdh$$Ifl4$2%04 laf412MRW\<6--- $$Ifa$$IfkdNi$$Ifl\ z $@   (04 lap(\]ty~]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd{j$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdXk$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd5l$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdm$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdm$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap 8=BG]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdn$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap GH^chm]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdo$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap mn]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdp$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdcq$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd@r$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkds$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  &+]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkds$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap +,y]T $$Ifa$kdt$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap yz{;<OYq $$Ifa$$If\kdu$$Ifl4$2%04 laf4<6--- $$Ifa$$IfkdDv$$Ifl\ z $@   (04 lap(]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdqw$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdNx$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd+y$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap #(-2]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdz$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap 23>CHM]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdz$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap MN_cgk]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd{$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap kl]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd|$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap )*TUay][[[[[[[[[kd|}$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  yzga$Ifkdg~$$Ifl0 z@   04 lap $$Ifa$$If}t $$Ifa$$If|kdX$$Ifl0 z@    04 lap }t $$Ifa$$If|kd%$$Ifl0 z@    04 lap         }wnn $$Ifa$$If|kd$$Ifl0 z@    04 lap       3-$Ifkd́$$Ifl\ z $@   (04 lap( $$Ifa$       TN$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  $$Ifa$  - 1 5 9 ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd׃$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap 9 : I M Q U ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap U V g j m p ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap p q w z }  ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdn$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap           ][[[[USQQ !kdK$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap   ' I j   -kd6$$Ifl\ z $@   (04 lap( $$Ifa$$If         Nkdc$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  $$Ifa$$If       TN$Ifkd@$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  $$Ifa$      ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap   " ' + / ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap / 0 6 ; ? B ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd׌$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap B C D RS./][[[[[Y[[[kd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  %&6` $$Ifa$$If<6--- $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@   (04 lap(]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd̏$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap -8CN]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap NObmx]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdc$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd@$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap   12B][[[[[[U$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap Bw3-$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@   (04 lap( $$Ifa$ $/:TN$Ifkd $$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  $$Ifa$:;IT_h]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap hi|]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdژ$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  "]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdq$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap "#$;<][Y[[[[[[kdN$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  &S-kd9$$Ifl\ z $@   (04 lap( $$Ifa$$IfNkdf$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  $$Ifa$$If(3>ITN$IfkdC$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  $$Ifa$IJbmx]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdڡ$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap    ][Y[YW[Q$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  Q     3-$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@   (04 lap( $$Ifa$     !!(!3!TN$IfkdϤ$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  $$Ifa$3!4!X!c!n!y!]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap y!z!!!!!]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap !!!!!!]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdf$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap !!!"""]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdC$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap """"i"j"t"u"T#U#][YW[U[[[kd $$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  U#_#`#$$%%X'Y'd'e'I)J)W)))))*"*5* $$Ifa$$If$a$J)5*.13344544[5{5M8N8889<<??@CND_D`DbDzD|DDDDDDDFFJKQLfLgLoLMNNNV{WY[[$\%\\w^S```AaBayazaaa b b[b\bbbccceYfZff*h?h@hgiiigjnn!n hWz5hWz5CJH*hWz hWzCJ hWz5CJV5*6*S*^*i*t*<6--- $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Ifl\ z $@   (04 lap(t*u*****]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdF$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ******]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd#$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ***+++]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ++>+I+T+_+]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdݭ$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap _+`+s+~+++]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ++++++]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ++++,,]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdt$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ,,',2,=,H,]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdQ$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap H,I,`,k,v,,]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd.$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ,,,,,,]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ,,,,,-]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ---#-.-9-]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdŴ$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap 9-:-Y-c-d-o-z-]WNNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap z-{-----]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ------]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd\$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap --...&.]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd9$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap &.'.B.L.V.a.]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap a.b.....]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap .../]TT $$Ifa$kdк$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap // /-1.13334454U4444 $$Ifa$$If\kd$$Ifl4$2%04 laf4 44 55"5-5<6--- $$Ifa$$Ifkd=$$Ifl\ z $@   (04 lap(-5.5C5N5O5Z5]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdj$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap Z5[5{5]W$IfkdG$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap {5|55555 $$Ifa$$Iflkd$$$Ifl4$2%   04 laf4p 555555]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdӿ$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap 55 666)6]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap )6*6=6G6Q6\6]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap \6]6x6y666]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdj$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap 666666]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdG$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap 666666]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap 6677$7/7]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap /707N7X7b7m7]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap m7n77777]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap 777777]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap 777888]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdu$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap 88-878A8L8]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdR$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap L8M8f8888&9Y99][Y[SJJJ $$Ifa$$Ifkd/$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap 9999971(( $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl4\ z $@   (04 laf4p(999999:TN$Ifkd_$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap  $$Ifa$::':1:;:E:]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd<$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap E:F:e:o:y::]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ::::]TT $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap :::<<<<???K@L@f@@@@ $$Ifa$$If \kd$$Ifl4$2%04 laf4@@@@@@<6--- $$Ifa$$Ifkdc$$Ifl\:,"  (04 lap(@@AAA#A]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\:,"   04 lap #A$A^AdAjApA]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdQ$$Ifl\:,"   04 lap pAqAAAAA]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Ifl\:,"   04 lap AAAAAB]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\:,"   04 lap BBIBKBPBUB]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\:,"   04 lap UBVBWBCCDMDND_D][[[[Y[S$Ifkd$$Ifl\:,"   04 lap _DyDDDD0kdj$$Ifl4\:,"`  (04 laf4p( $$Ifa$DDDDDDDDDDDDDDEE$IfFf $$Ifa$$IfEE E!$IfkdW$$Ifl4֞: 3,"SSSSSS   04 laf4p  EEEEEEE $$Ifa$EE$E!$IfkdR$$Ifl4֞: 3,"SSSSSS   04 laf4p $E&E(E*E,E.E0E $$Ifa$0E1E9E!$IfkdM$$Ifl4֞: 3,"SSSSSS   04 laf4p 9EEAECEFEHE $$Ifa$HEIENE!$IfkdH$$Ifl4֞: 3,"SSSSSS   04 laf4p NEPERETEVEXEZE $$Ifa$ZE[E\EF!kdC$$Ifl4֞: 3,"SSSSSS   04 laf4p FFFF+H,HJJJ+K,KTKdKxKK $$Ifa$$IfKKKKKK<6--- $$Ifa$$IfkdL$$Ifl\:,"  (04 lap(KKKKKK]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdk$$Ifl\:,"   04 lap KKKKLL]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd:$$Ifl\:,"   04 lap LLL(L3L>L]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Ifl\:,"   04 lap >L?LELHLKLNL]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\:,"   04 lap NLOLPLQLfLgLoLpLMM][[Y[W[UUkd$$Ifl\:,"   04 lap  MMNN'NPN}NN $$Ifa$$IfNNNNNN<6--- $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@   (04 lap(NNO$O/O:O]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap :O;O^OiOtOO]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap OOOOOO]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdk$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap OOOOPP]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdH$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap PP:PEPPPZP]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd%$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap ZP[P}PPPP]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap PPPPPP]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap PPQ QQ#Q]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap #Q$QPQZQeQpQ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap pQqQQQQQ]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkdv$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap QQQQQR]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdS$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap RRR&R/R:R]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd0$$Ifl\ z $@    04 lap :R;R?ijkmx$If$a$$a$^=?mӊ׊Og ORx|Ґ(Ԙ՘K OPcn٤/0PQuvƥɥhitpqKL^Ӳ)*Xó: hWz6CJ hWz5 hWz5CJ hWzCJhWz hWzCJW؈3-$Ifkd%$$Ifl\$>  (04 lap( $$Ifa$6Npщ2WyŠƊʊΊ $$Ifa$$IfΊҊӊ׊ڊ݊ "&+05 $$Ifa$5:?DINOPgRL$Ifkd`$$Ifl\$>   04 lap  $$Ifa$gË)Eev  $(+048<@CGKLO $$Ifa$$IfOSVY\_behknqtux} $$Ifa$ōʍύ]WNNN $$Ifa$$IfkdA$$Ifl\$>   04 lap ύЍэҍލ-.5][R[[[L$If Pkd$$Ifl\$>   04 lap 5RYvw3-$Ifkd $$Ifl\$>  (04 lap( $$Ifa$͎)1Pu֏!$'*-037:>A $$Ifa$$IfADEFKPUZ_dinsx} $$Ifa$ҐRL$IfkdD$$Ifl\$>   04 lap  $$Ifa$Ґ.MrБ(Sx $$Ifa$$Ifƒ˒ВՒڒߒ    $$Ifa$!&]WNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd%$$Ifl\$>   04 lap &'(Ԙ՘K][Y[[[[O $ a$kd $$Ifl\$>   04 lap KL\œ8kd $$IflF $x x x  0    4 lap$ $Ifa$ $If œΜ  $ $Ifa$ $If '19:?DEJpdddUUUUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd!$$IflF $x x x   0    4 lap  JOPTdsty~aUUU $Ifkdo"$$IflF $x x x   0    4 lap $ $Ifa$ ϝ֝םܝaUUUU $Ifkd#$$IflF $x x x   0    4 lap $ $Ifa$ ܝbcaZXZ kd#$$IflF $x x x   0    4 lap $ $Ifa$ cn٤ڤ$ $Ifa$ $If %*/ZN??$ $Ifa$ $Ifkdp$$$IflF $x x x   0    4 lap/0GKPpdUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkdc%$$IflF $x x x   0    4 lap PQkpupdUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd*&$$IflF $x x x   0    4 lap uvpdUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd&$$IflF $x x x   0    4 lap pdUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd'$$IflF $x x x   0    4 lap ƥpdUU$ $Ifa$ $IfkdU($$IflF $x x x   0    4 lap ƥǥȥɥnoghtpigegcccg^$a$  kd)$$IflF $x x x   0    4 lap  tǰְ $$Ifa$$If$Ifkd)$$IflrN y$ +++, 204 lap22EFKPQV[\afglp $$Ifa$$IfpqJD>>55 $$Ifa$$If$Ifkd +$$IflrN y$ +++,   04 lap ñıɱαϱԱٱڱ߱ $$Ifa$   %JD>>55 $$Ifa$$If$Ifkd,$$IflrN y$ +++,   04 lap %*+056;@AFK $$Ifa$ KL^uJD>>55 $$Ifa$$If$Ifkd,$$IflrN y$ +++,   04 lap  $$Ifa$ ӲJD>>55 $$Ifa$$If$Ifkd-$$IflrN y$ +++,   04 lap  $) $$Ifa$ )*XoJDDD;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd.$$IflrN y$ +++,   04 lap  $$Ifa$óڳHB<<3 $$Ifa$$If$Ifkd/$$IflrN y$ +++,   04 lap   $$Ifa$ :QdefJDDD;; $$Ifa$$Ifkd0$$IflrN y$ +++,   04 lap fkopqvz{| $$Ifa$RSJHCHHHH$a$kdu1$$IflrN y$ +++,   04 lap }+<Sfde=>K){|IJX)},B_`,GT(U\}~'(9OhWz hWz6CJ hWzCJ hWz5CJ[Sbc|}!*$ ,l !$Ifa$ ,l !$If ,l !*+kdh2$$Iflr@$| 204 lap2+<Sfglqrw|}$ ,l !$Ifa$ ,l !$If ,l !$IfJ;,, ,l !$If ,l !$Ifkd3$$Iflr@$|   04 lap $ ,l !$Ifa$ )<J;,, ,l !$If ,l !$Ifkd4$$Iflr@$|   04 lap <=BGHMRSW[\`d$ ,l !$Ifa$ deJ;,, ,l !$If ,l !$Ifkd5$$Iflr@$|   04 lap $ ,l !$Ifa$ J;,, ,l !$If ,l !$Ifkdp6$$Iflr@$|   04 lap $)*/459=$ ,l !$Ifa$ =>KbuJ;,, ,l !$If ,l !$IfkdU7$$Iflr@$|   04 lap uv{$ ,l !$Ifa$ J;,, ,l !$If ,l !$Ifkd:8$$Iflr@$|   04 lap  $ ,l !$Ifa$ )@SJ;,, ,l !$If ,l !$Ifkd9$$Iflr@$|   04 lap STY^_dijnrsw{$ ,l !$Ifa$ {|J;,, ,l !$If ,l !$Ifkd:$$Iflr@$|   04 lap $ ,l !$Ifa$   J;,, ,l !$If ,l !$Ifkd:$$Iflr@$|   04 lap  !&+,167<@AEI$ ,l !$Ifa$ IJXoJ;,, ,l !$If ,l !$Ifkd;$$Iflr@$|   04 lap $ ,l !$Ifa$ )J@>>75  ,l !kd<$$Iflr@$|   04 lap 5kd=$$Ifl4F$`{  0    4 laf4p$ $Ifa$ $If $ $Ifa$kd>$$Ifl4r$ {{{{{ 204 laf4p2 $ $Ifa$ $If   J>///$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd?$$Iflr${{{{{   04 lap  !#(-;/ $Ifkd@$$Iflr${{{{{   04 lap $ $Ifa$-278:>;/ $IfkdTA$$Iflr${{{{{   04 lap $ $Ifa$>CGLMO;/ $IfkdB$$Iflr${{{{{   04 lap $ $Ifa$OSX\ab;kdB$$Iflr${{{{{   04 lap $ $Ifa$bkosx}$ $Ifa$ $If}~}~JHHHA?A kdC$$Iflr${{{{{   04 lap ~?kd@D$$IflFj$I I   0    4 lap$ $Ifa$ $Ifxx$ $Ifa$ $IflkdAE$$Ifl4$h%   04 laf4p  pdUU$ $Ifa$ $IfkdE$$IflFj$I I   0    4 lap "',pdUU$ $Ifa$ $IfkdF$$IflFj$I I   0    4 lap ,-Apd $IfkdG$$IflFj$I I   0    4 lap ABUZ_xx$ $Ifa$ $IflkdaH$$Ifl4$h%   04 laf4p _`pj$IfkdI$$IflFj$I I   0    4 lap xx$ $Ifa$ $IflkdI$$Ifl4$h%   04 laf4p pdUU$ $Ifa$ $IfkdJ$$IflFj$I I   0    4 lap pdUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd[K$$IflFj$I I   0    4 lap ,-LMGHTpigggggggge kd"L$$IflFj$I I   0    4 lap   !'$ $Ifa$ $If '(-9MV<0000 $IfkdL$$Ifl\N $ :::  (04 lap(Vbchlpuv{$ $Ifa$ $If]QQQBBB$ $Ifa$ $IfkdN$$Ifl\N $ :::   04 lap NkdN$$Ifl\N $ :::   04 lap $ $Ifa$ $ $Ifa$ $If TUWc]VTTTTVVV kdO$$Ifl\N $ :::   04 lap   !9$ $Ifa$ $If 9:[<0 $IfkdP$$Ifl\\ <$   (04 lap([\nsx}xxx$ $Ifa$ $IflkdQ$$Ifl4$h%   04 laf4p }~]QBBB$ $Ifa$ $IfkdmR$$Ifl\\ <$    04 lap ]QBBB$ $Ifa$ $IfkdC$ $Ifa$ $If CDHXghlpqvpdddUUUUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkde$$IflF Y$"    0    4 lap  v{|}NOQ]aZXXXXZZZ kdf$$IflF Y$"    0    4 lap $ $Ifa$ ?8kdag$$IflF $    0    4 lap$ $Ifa$ $If ?@RW\xx$ $Ifa$ $Iflkdbh$$Ifl4$h%   04 laf4p \]jotpdUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkdi$$IflF $    0    4 lap tupdUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkdi$$IflF $    0    4 lap pd $Ifkdj$$IflF $    0    4 lap xx$ $Ifa$ $Iflkdfk$$Ifl4$h%   04 laf4p pdUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkdl$$IflF $    0    4 lap pdUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkdl$$IflF $    0    4 lap pdUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkdm$$IflF $    0    4 lap pdUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkdjn$$IflF $    0    4 lap pd $Ifkd1o$$IflF $    0    4 lap &*/~~$ $Ifa$$Iflkdo$$Ifl4$h%   04 laf4p /0Opj$Ifkdp$$IflF $    0    4 lap OPsx}xx$ $Ifa$ $Iflkdnq$$Ifl4$h%   04 laf4p }~pdUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkdr$$IflF $    0    4 lap pdUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkdr$$IflF $    0    4 lap QRXpnlllleeeY $If kds$$IflF $    0    4 lap  XtK? $Ifkdt$$IflF $x x x   0    4 lap$ $Ifa$pdUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkdsu$$IflF $x x x   0    4 lap pdUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkd:v$$IflF $x x x   0    4 lap  pdUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkdv$$IflF $x x x   0    4 lap   "&pdUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkdw$$IflF $x x x   0    4 lap &'049pdUU$ $Ifa$ $Ifkdex$$IflF $x x x   0    4 lap 9:;<PQ\]piigggggggg kdy$$IflF $x x x   0    4 lap  WXz {     |}CD\p$1$If$1$If1$$a$3[\CD\p  &(CKNOR()23:;CDST[\cdklst|}~  "" hWz56hWz hWzhhWz5CJh hWz5 hWzCJ hWzCJhhWz6CJhPpQI> $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkdy$$IflF ,"     0    4 lap $$Ifa$ph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkdz$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap ph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd{$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap ph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkdt|$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap  ph]] $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd;}$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap   !$'ph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd~$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap '(@BDph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd~$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap DEKOPpjaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap PQRS]pnnnnkcXR$If $$1$Ifa$$1$If1$kdW$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap  ZRGG $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd,$$IflF ,"     0    4 lapph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd-$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap ph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap ph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap ph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap ph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$IfkdI$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap   ph]] $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap ph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd׆$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap ph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap  #&)ph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkde$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap )*-03ph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd,$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap 3479;ph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap ;<?BDph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap DEHJLph]] $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap LMPRTph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$IfkdH$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap TUXZ\ph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap \]`bdph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd֍$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap dehjlph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap lmprtph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkdd$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap tux{}ph]T $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd+$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap }~ph_T $$1$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$1$Ifkd$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap OPM pmmkmmmkmmmm1$kdՑ$$IflF ,"      0    4 lap  M N """""""""""""4#5#\###)$ $$1$Ifa$$1$If1$"4#5#)$4$5$A$B$O$P$~$$$$$$%%'&(&$'%'/'1'<'>'V'X'd'e'g'R)s)p//66==o>BB}EEEGMN OOSS VVYYY)[`^^N````fffii hWzCJhhWz6CJhhWz56CJh hWz6CJ hWz5CJ hWzCJ hWz56 hWzhhWzhWz5CJh hWzCJh hWz5D)$*$/$1$3$<4)) $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd$$Ifl\:,"  (04 lap(3$5$6$<$>$@$B$TLAA $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkdד$$Ifl\:,"   04 lap  $$Ifa$B$C$J$L$N$P$]UJJA $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd$$Ifl\:,"   04 lap P$Q$_$a$c$e$]UJJJ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkdu$$Ifl\:,"   04 lap e$f$y${$}$$]UJJA $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$IfkdD$$Ifl\:,"   04 lap $$$$$$]UJJA $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd$$Ifl\:,"   04 lap $$$%%%'&(&Q&]ZWZUUZM$1$If1$1$kd$$Ifl\:,"   04 lap Q&&&$'%'1kd$$Ifl\:,"  (04 lap( $$1$Ifa$%'*','.'0'1'7'9'Akdޙ$$Ifl\:,"   04 lap  $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$If9';'='>'Q'S'U'W'IA$1$Ifkd$$Ifl\:,"   04 lap  $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$W'X'^'`'b'e']UJJA $$Ifa$ $$1$Ifa$$1$Ifkd|$$Ifl\:,"   04 lap e'f'g'h'((R)S)T)s)][XXXXVVV1$kdK$$Ifl\:,"   04 lap  s)t)++ .!.o/p///00Q3R36666996<7<=====>>1$>x@y@BBBB|E}EEEIIMMNNPPRR:V;VdXeXYYYY1$YX[Y[_^`^^^````ddffffiiiiijj>l?lmm p1$iiqj?liqjqqqrr{t|tttUuVuuuvvWvvvvwwxxaybyyy3z4zSzwzxzyzzzzz~"~/~0~O~p~~~>?7?لʄՄلɄ<Uhp< hWz6hWzjhWz0JU hWzCJ( hWzCJ hWzCJ hWzCJh hWz5CJL p piqjquqvqqqqqqr{ttUuvvwxay3zxzz/~~>$a$^1$BRbrsuvxy{|~$a$$a$wyz|} hWzCJ(hWzhWz0JmHnHu hWz0JjhWz0JUjhp<Uhp< E0&P/ =!"#$% P0  (/ =!"#$% 50P/ =!"#$% Dp80P/ =!"#$%0 Dp$$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l 205 55855/ / /  / 4p2$$If!vh5"#v":V l4   05"/  4f4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / / 4p $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / / 4p $$If!vh5"#v":V l4/   05"/ /  4f4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p $$If!vh5"#v":V l4   05"/  4f4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ /  / 4p s$$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l 205 55855/ /  / 4p2$$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / / 4p $$If!vh5"#v":V l4&   05"/ /  4f4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ /  / 4p s$$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l 205 55855/ /  / 4p2 $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p $$If!vh5"#v":V l4   05"/  4f4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ /  / 4p s$$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l 205 55855/ /  / 4p2$$If!vh5"#v":V l4   05"/  4f4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p $$If!vh5"#v":V l4   05"/  4f4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p $$If!vh5"#v":V l4   05"/  4f4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p  $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ / 4p $$If!vh5 55855#v #v#v8#v#v:V l   05 55855/ /  / 4p $$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l  05L/ / /  4p$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / /  4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l  05L/ / /  4p$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / /  4s$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l 205@ 5/ /  /  / / / 4p2$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/  / /  / / / 4p  $$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ /  / / / 4p  $$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ /  / / /  / 4p $$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l  F05555525/ /  / 4pF7kdэ$$Ifl֞ ,!2  F04 lapF+$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p 9$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / / 4p 9$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ /  / 4p $$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l  F05555525/ /  / 4pF7kd$$Ifl֞ ,!2  F04 lapF+$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p 9$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / / 4p $$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l41  F05555525/ / / / 4f4pFAkd^$$Ifl41֞ ,!2  F04 laf4pF+$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p +$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ / 4p 9$$If!vh55555255#v#v#v#v#v2#v:V l   05555525/ /  / 4p $$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l  F055F5555/ /  / 4pF7kd $$Ifl֞T :!F  F04 lapF+$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p 9$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ /  / 4p $$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l  F055F5555/ /  / 4pF7kd{$$Ifl֞T :!F  F04 lapF+$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p 9$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p 9$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ /  / 4p $$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l  F055F5555/ /  / 4pF7kd~$$Ifl֞T :!F  F04 lapF+$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p 9$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p 9$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ /  / 4p $$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l  F055F5555/ /  / 4pF7kd$$Ifl֞T :!F  F04 lapF+$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p +$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ / 4p 9$$If!vh55F55555#v#vF#v#v#v#v:V l   055F5555/ /  / 4p P$$If!vh555555#v:V l <5/ /  /  / / / 4p<$$If!vh555555#v:V l   5/  / /  / / / 4p $$If!vh555555#v:V l   5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh555555#v:V l   5/ /  / / /  / 4p >$$If!vh55F55#v#vF#v#v:V l  (55F55/ /  /  / / / 4p($$If!vh55F55#v#vF#v#v:V l   55F55/  / /  / / / 4p $$If!vh55F55#v#vF#v#v:V l   55F55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh55F55#v#vF#v#v:V l   55F55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh55F55#v#vF#v#v:V l   55F55/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh55F55#v#vF#v#v:V l   55F55/ /  / / /  / 4p q$$If!vh5 5b55#v #vb#v#v:V l  (05 5b55/ /  /  / / / 4p(/$$If!vh5 5b55#v #vb#v#v:V l   05 5b55/  / /  / / / 4p !$$If!vh5 5b55#v #vb#v#v:V l   05 5b55/ /  / / / 4p !$$If!vh5 5b55#v #vb#v#v:V l   05 5b55/ /  / / / 4p /$$If!vh5 5b55#v #vb#v#v:V l   05 5b55/ /  / / /  / 4p @$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l 25@ 5/ /  /  / / / 4p2$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l   5@ 5/  / /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l   5@ 5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l   5@ 5/ /  / / /  / 4p \$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l 25@ 5/ /  /  / /  / / / 4p2$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l  5@ 5/ /  /  / / / 4p$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l   5@ 5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l   5@ 5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l   5@ 5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l   5@ 5/ /  / / /  / 4p \$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l 25@ 5/ /  /  / /  / / / 4p2$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l  5@ 5/ /  / / / 4p$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l  5@ 5/ /  / / / 4p$$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l   5@ 5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l   5@ 5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l   5@ 5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l   5@ 5/ /  / / / 4p $$If!vh5@ 5555#v@ #v:V l   5@ 5/ /  / / /  / 4p $$If!vh5"#v":V l4   05"/  4f4p $$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / /  4$$If!vh5"#v":V l4   05"/  4f4p $$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / 4$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l05L/ / /  4/$$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l  (05@ 5/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / / 4p $$If!vh5>%#v>%:V l4  05>%/ 4f4p +$$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l  (05@ 5/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh52%#v2%:V l4052%/ 4f4+$$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l  (05@ 5/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh52%#v2%:V l4052%/ 4f4+$$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l  (05@ 5/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh52%#v2%:V l4052%/ 4f4+$$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l  (05@ 5/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ /  / 4p $$If!vh5@ 5#v@ #v:V l  05@ 5/ / /  4p$$If!vh5@ 5#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 5#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 5#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / /  4p +$$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l  (05@ 5/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ /  / 4p +$$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l  (05@ 5/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ /  / 4p +$$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l  (05@ 5/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ /  / 4p 9$$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l  (05@ 5/ / /  / 4p($$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ /  / 4p +$$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l  (05@ 5/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ /  / 4p +$$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l  (05@ 5/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ /  / 4p 9$$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l  (05@ 5/ / /  / 4p($$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh52%#v2%:V l4052%/ 4f4+$$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l  (05@ 5/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh52%#v2%:V l4   052%/  4f4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ /  / 4p C$$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l4  (05@ 5/ /  / / 4f4p($$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh52%#v2%:V l4052%/ 4f4$$If!vh5555#v:V l  (05/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ /  / 4p ($$If!vh5555#v:V l4  (0+5/ /  / 4f4p($$If!vh55S5S5S5S5S5S#v#vS:V l4  F0+55S/ / 4f4pF=kd$$Ifl4֞: 3," SSSSSS  F04 laf4pF$$If!vh55S5S5S5S5S5S#v#vS:V l4   055S/ / 4f4p $$If!vh55S5S5S5S5S5S#v#vS:V l4   055S/ / 4f4p $$If!vh55S5S5S5S5S5S#v#vS:V l4   055S/ / 4f4p $$If!vh55S5S5S5S5S5S#v#vS:V l4   055S/ / 4f4p $$If!vh55S5S5S5S5S5S#v#vS:V l4   055S/ /  / 4f4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l  (05/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ /  / 4p +$$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l  (05@ 5/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ /  / 4p 0$$If!vh5. 555#v. #v:V l  (05. 5/ /  / 4ap($$If!vh5. 555#v. #v:V l   05. 5/ / 4ap $$If!vh5. 555#v. #v:V l   05. 5/ / 4ap $$If!vh5. 555#v. #v:V l   05. 5/ / 4ap $$If!vh5. 555#v. #v:V l   05. 5/ / 4ap $$If!vh5. 555#v. #v:V l   05. 5/ / 4ap $$If!vh5. 555#v. #v:V l   05. 5/ / 4ap $$If!vh5. 555#v. #v:V l   05. 5/ / 4ap $$If!vh5. 555#v. #v:V l   05. 5/ /  / 4ap +$$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l  (05@ 5/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ /  / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l  (05/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ /  / 4p +$$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l  (05@ 5/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5@ 555#v@ #v:V l   05@ 5/ /  / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l  (05/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ /  / 4p 9$$If!vh5>555#v>#v:V l  (05>5/ / /  / 4p($$If!vh5>555#v>#v:V l   05>5/ / 4p $$If!vh5>555#v>#v:V l   05>5/ / 4p $$If!vh5>555#v>#v:V l   05>5/ /  / 4p 9$$If!vh5>555#v>#v:V l  (05>5/ / /  / 4p($$If!vh5>555#v>#v:V l   05>5/ / 4p $$If!vh5>555#v>#v:V l   05>5/ / 4p $$If!vh5>555#v>#v:V l   05>5/ /  / 4p $$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :V l  05x 4p$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :V l   05x 4p $$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :V l   05x 4p $$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :V l   05x 4p $$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :V l   05x 4p $$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :V l  05x / / 4p$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :V l   05x / / 4p $$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :V l   05x / 4p $$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :V l   05x / 4p $$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :V l   05x / 4p $$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :V l   05x / 4p $$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :V l   05x / / 4p I$$If!vh5 5+5+5+5,#v #v+#v,:V l 205 5+5,/ / 4p2$$If!vh5 5+5+5+5,#v #v+#v,:V l   05 5+5,/ / 4p $$If!vh5 5+5+5+5,#v #v+#v,:V l   05 5+5,/ 4p $$If!vh5 5+5+5+5,#v #v+#v,:V l   05 5+5,/ 4p $$If!vh5 5+5+5+5,#v #v+#v,:V l   05 5+5,/ 4p $$If!vh5 5+5+5+5,#v #v+#v,:V l   05 5+5,/ 4p $$If!vh5 5+5+5+5,#v #v+#v,:V l   05 5+5,/ 4p $$If!vh5 5+5+5+5,#v #v+#v,:V l   05 5+5,/ 4p $$If!vh5 5+5+5+5,#v #v+#v,:V l   05 5+5,/ / 4p I$$If!vh5|5555#v|#v#v:V l 205|55/ / 4p2$$If!vh5|5555#v|#v#v:V l   05|55/ / 4p $$If!vh5|5555#v|#v#v:V l   05|55/ 4p $$If!vh5|5555#v|#v#v:V l   05|55/ 4p $$If!vh5|5555#v|#v#v:V l   05|55/ 4p $$If!vh5|5555#v|#v#v:V l   05|55/ 4p $$If!vh5|5555#v|#v#v:V l   05|55/ 4p $$If!vh5|5555#v|#v#v:V l   05|55/ 4p $$If!vh5|5555#v|#v#v:V l   05|55/ 4p $$If!vh5|5555#v|#v#v:V l   05|55/ 4p $$If!vh5|5555#v|#v#v:V l   05|55/ 4p $$If!vh5|5555#v|#v#v:V l   05|55/ / 4p $$If!vh5{55#v{#v:V l4  0+5{5/ 4f4p*$$If!vh5{5{5{5{5{#v{:V l4 20+5{/ 4f4p2$$If!vh5{5{5{5{5{#v{:V l   05{/ 4p $$If!vh5{5{5{5{5{#v{:V l   05{4p $$If!vh5{5{5{5{5{#v{:V l   05{4p $$If!vh5{5{5{5{5{#v{:V l   05{4p $$If!vh5{5{5{5{5{#v{:V l   05{4p $$If!vh5{5{5{5{5{#v{:V l   05{4p $$If!vh55I 5I #v#vI :V l  055I / / 4p$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l4   05h%/ 4f4p $$If!vh55I 5I #v#vI :V l   055I / / 4p $$If!vh55I 5I #v#vI :V l   055I / 4p $$If!vh55I 5I #v#vI :V l   055I / / 4p $$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l4   05h%/ 4f4p $$If!vh55I 5I #v#vI :V l   055I / 4p $$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l4   05h%/ 4f4p $$If!vh55I 5I #v#vI :V l   055I / / 4p $$If!vh55I 5I #v#vI :V l   055I / 4p $$If!vh55I 5I #v#vI :V l   055I / / 4p $$If!vh5 5:5:5:#v #v::V l  (05 5:/ / 4p($$If!vh5 5:5:5:#v #v::V l   05 5:/ / 4p $$If!vh5 5:5:5:#v #v::V l   05 5:/ 4p $$If!vh5 5:5:5:#v #v::V l   05 5:/ / 4p $$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l  (05 5/ / 4p($$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l4   05h%/ 4f4p $$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l   05 5/ 4p $$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l   05 5/ 4p $$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l   05 5/ 4p $$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l4   05h%/ 4f4p $$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l   05 5/ 4p $$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l   05 5/ 4p $$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l   05 5/ 4p $$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l   05 5/ 4p $$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l   05 5/ 4p $$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l4   05h%/ 4f4p $$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l   05 5/ 4p $$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l4   05h%/ 4f4p $$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l   05 5/ 4p $$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l   05 5/ 4p $$If!vh5 555#v #v:V l   05 5/ / 4p $$If!vh5` 5X5X5X#v` #vX:V l  (05` 5X/ / 4p($$If!vh5` 5X5X5X#v` #vX:V l   05` 5X/ / 4p $$If!vh5` 5X5X5X#v` #vX:V l   05` 5X/ 4p $$If!vh5` 5X5X5X#v` #vX:V l   05` 5X/ 4p $$If!vh5` 5X5X5X#v` #vX:V l   05` 5X/ 4p $$If!vh5` 5X5X5X#v` #vX:V l   05` 5X/ 4p $$If!vh5` 5X5X5X#v` #vX:V l   05` 5X/ / 4p $$If!vh5"5 5 #v"#v :V l  05"5 4p$$If!vh5"5 5 #v"#v :V l   05"5 4p $$If!vh5"5 5 #v"#v :V l   05"5 4p $$If!vh5"5 5 #v"#v :V l   05"5 4p $$If!vh55 5 #v#v :V l  055 / / 4p$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l4   05h%/ 4f4p $$If!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 / 4p $$If!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 / 4p $$If!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 / 4p $$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l4   05h%/ 4f4p $$If!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 / 4p $$If!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 / 4p $$If!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 / 4p $$If!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 / 4p $$If!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 / 4p $$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l4   05h%/ 4f4p $$If!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 / 4p $$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l4   05h%/ 4f4p $$If!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 / 4p $$If!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 / 4p $$If!vh55 5 #v#v :V l   055 / / 4p $$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :V l  05x / / 4p$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :V l   05x / / 4p $$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :V l   05x / 4p $$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :V l   05x / 4p $$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :V l   05x / 4p $$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :V l   05x / 4p $$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :V l   05x / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l  05 / /  / 4p$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / /  / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l  05 / /  / 4p$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / / / 4p $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l   05 / / /  / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l  (05/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ /  / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l  (05/ /  / 4p($$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ / 4p $$If!vh5555#v:V l   05/ /  / 4p ^ 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH 8`8 Normal_HmH sH tH 8@8  Heading 1$@&CJ<@<  Heading 2$@&5CJ8@8  Heading 3$@&CJ>@>  Heading 4$$@&a$CJ>@>  Heading 5$$@&a$5B@B  Heading 6$$@&a$5CJ8@8  Heading 7$@&68@8  Heading 8$@&5< @<  Heading 9 $@&5CJDA`D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k (No List 8@8 Header  !CJ6@6  Footnote Text@&@@ Footnote ReferenceH*2B@"2 Body TextCJ:Q@2: Body Text 35CJ6P@B6 Body Text 2CJD>@RD Title$5$7$8$9DH$a$5CJBJ@bB Subtitle1$5CJhtH u^C@r^ Body Text Indent  X ^`CJ4 @4 Footer  !.)@. Page NumberPK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] ;.Y/@IJ_bRj5k?k{Ɏڜ`,8׬| DX1% & oIOji|\ G\ q\ \   RƈɖYJ)O"iwCOU Ly 'Ox$\7B;MRRS8SQSxSSSTTWTTTTUQUUUUVGV]VVVV W!WWWW&XOX}XXXYNayȎَ܎Ǐ!/GVo|ѐّ .>O_n|ɒؒ/6DN^iwɓړ :G`pӔŕԕ Fgª?JrNrr7RiO ?e3G};k+_8rA~ F$];*Z9])a@y%}+Lr*X; Cg1\Gm +y2Mky   9 U p       / B NB:h"I  3!y!!!"U#5*t***+_+++,H,,,-9-z---&.a../4-5Z5{555)6\6666/7m7778L899:E:::@@#ApAABUB_DDE EE$E0E9EHENEZEFKKKL>LNLMNN:OOOPZPPP#QpQQR:RV|WW X?XtXXXYB\\;]f]]]^9^u^`Baa b[bbc|fg/gLgoggggg h(higjjjj#kJkrkk rΊ5gOύ5AҐ&KœJܝc/Puƥtp%K)fS*+<d=uS{ I ->Ob}~,A_'V9[}'9Nq"p 8Cv?\t/O}X &9p 'DP)3;DLT\dlt}M )$3$B$P$e$$$Q&%'9'W'e's)>Y pDEFGHIJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~     !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxz{|}~  !8@0(  B S  ?Bu%L u% u%L u%\u%D u%u%lԾu%䐷u%Uu%D u%$u%dn u%u%du%8 u%\8 u%䑷u%u%L}u%u%qu%lu%u%u%}u%Hu%u%Lu%tLu%lu%u%tu%u%u%u%u%du%@?A<EERR  SYahhzT d l s s    $ + + [bb|   !#"$&'(%)+*,.-/102435768:9;=<>@?A8>*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9B*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace=@*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=A*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType94*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState  BA@B>BB>B@AB>B4B@@@AB4B@AB@AB@AB@AB@AB@@@AB@AB@AB@AB@AB@AB@AB@AB@ADDT TUUVV\\$n+nnprppppq qq6q?qqq!s&s0t7t-1EL_g}Íhm }ikkHlOl2o9os|u|v|x|y|{|||~||||"FH} ` m U Y ""66DDHHhhoi|3333333333333is|u|v|x|y|{|||~||||s|u|v|x|y|{|||~|||| 8 u $B1 `U) LR  Y$x L yަ>MAz  hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( 88^8`OJQJo(n hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`B*OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( `U)1 Y$xAzu8L yLR$ p<FKWzii_AMO_XmlVersion$'Empty@|@UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * Arial;WingdingsA BCambria Math"qhAD&AD&0\y ;a0\y ;a#4nhnh3HX? Wz2!xx9Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Year Three Part OneTCERlworley0         Oh+'0$ 4@ ` l x<Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Year Three Part OneTCER Normal.dotmlworley2Microsoft Office Word@@6PV@6PV0\y ՜.+,0$ hp  TCERa;nh :Texas Open-Enrollment Charter Schools Year Three Part One Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$&'()*+,./01234CRoot Entry FhVEData (1TableMWordDocument\ SummaryInformation(%DocumentSummaryInformation8-CompObjy  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q