Sunseri charter vs. magnet - final copy june 15

Running head: CHARTER VS. MAGNET i

RETURN ON INVESTMENT: A COMPARISON AND CONTRAST OF CHARTER SCHOOLS AND MAGNET SCHOOLS

A CAPSTONE RESEARCH PROJECT

Submitted to the Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Wingate University School of Graduate Education

By Kathleen M. Sunseri

Wingate University Ballantyne Campus

Charlotte, NC August 2016

CHARTER VS. MAGNET iii

CHARTER VS. MAGNET iii

ABSTRACT

RETURN ON INVESTMENT: A COMPARISON AND CONTRAST OF CHARTER SCHOOLS AND MAGNET SCHOOLS

Kathleen M. Sunseri Wingate University School of Graduate Education Chair: Dr. Christopher Cobitz Keywords: Charter Schools, Magnet Schools, School Choice School choice is a popular and controversial topic across the nation. School choice

options include both public schools such as charter schools and magnet schools, as well

as private school options. In North Carolina, the cap was lifted on the number of charter

schools in 2011 and since that time additional charter schools have opened each year. In

Mecklenburg county there are two main school choice options: magnet schools that

operate within the Charlotte Mecklenburg School district and charter schools that operate

independently. This study compares and contrasts the magnet schools and charter schools

in Mecklenburg County in the areas of academic outcomes, funding and expenditures,

staffing, and opportunities for students. Findings form this study indicated there are

differences in academic outcomes between magnet schools and charter schools; magnet

school students have higher grade level proficiency rates and higher graduation rates. In

addition, findings indicated that charter schools and magnet schools are given equal per-

pupil funding, but there are differences in expenditures. Charter schools are also

associated with hidden costs for families and request for parent and community

donations. Findings indicated charter schools had less licensed teachers than magnet

schools and higher student teacher ratios with a greater number of administrators. Finally,

magnet schools all had specific academic programs, while most charter schools described

a more general academic program.

CHARTER VS. MAGNET iv

VITA

KATHLEEN M. SUNSERI

PERSONAL Birthplace: Mt. Pleasant, Pennsylvania, United States of America, 1985 EDUCATION B.A. Duquesne University, 2007 M.Ed. Winthrop University, 2012 Ed.S Wingate University, 2015 CERTIFICATES AND LICENSES North Carolina Superintendent License, 2016 North Carolina K-12 Principal License, 2012 North Carolina Chemistry Teacher License, 2008 EMPLOYMENT Assistant Principal of Instruction, Mallard Creek High School, 2015- present Assistant Principal of Instruction, North Mecklenburg High School, 2012-2015 Dean of Students, North Mecklenburg High School, 2011-2012 Chemistry Teacher, Garinger High School, 2008-2011

CHARTER VS. MAGNET v

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my capstone committee, Dr. Christopher Cobitz, Dr. Cynthia

Compton, and Dr. Matthew Hayes for their constant support and guidance through this process. I

would also like to thank Cohort VII, especially Tiffany Little, Cynthia Rudolph, and Christopher

Triolo, for the continued assistance, time, support, and genuine friendships. Finally, I would like

to thank my fiancé Wesley Basinger for his encouragement, sacrifices, time, and assistance

throughout this process. These individuals deserve recognition for the immense positive impact

they have had on me and the ultimately on my ability to accomplish this goal.

CHARTER VS. MAGNET vi

Table of Contents

Approval Sheet

ii

Abstract

iii

Vita

iv

Acknowledgements

v

Table of Contents

vi

List of Tables

viii

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction

1

Background of Study

3

Problem Statement

5

Professional Significance

6

Limitations

7

Definition of Terms

8

CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review

11

School Choice

11

Academic Outcomes

13

Funding and Expenditures

16

Staffing

19

Opportunities for Students

20

CHAPTER THREE: Methodology

22

Theory of Action

22

Methodology

27

Research Question One

29

Research Question Two

31

Research Question Three

33

Research Question Four 34

CHARTER VS. MAGNET vii

CHAPTER FOUR: Results

35

Description of Timing and Actual Respondents/ Participants

35


35


50


66

Research Question Four

72

CHAPTER FIVE: Recommendations

78

Summary of Findings

78

Specific Meaning of the Combined Answers to the Research Questions

80

Recommendations for Future Research

82

Recommendations to the District

83

References

85

Appendix A: Subgroup GLP results for 2012-2013

99

Appendix B: Subgroup GLP results for 2013-2014

107

Appendix C: Subgroup GLP results for 2014-2015

115

Appendix D: Research Review Board Approval

123

CHARTER VS. MAGNET viii

List of Tables

Table 4.1: 2012-2013 ALL Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

38


41


45

Table 4.4: Graduation Rate Comparison: Magnet vs. Charter

49

Table 4.5: Percentages of Expenditures by School and Academic Year

58

Table 4.6: Licensed Teacher Comparison by Academic Year

69

Table 4.7: Staffing Comparison: Charter vs. Magnet

71

Table A.1: 2012-2013 ASIA Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

99

Table A.2: 2012-2013 BLCK Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

100

Table A.3: 2012-2013 WHTE Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

101

Table A.4: 2012-2013 HISP Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

102

Table A.5: 2012-2013 FEM Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

103

Table A.6: 2012-2013 MALE Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

104

Table A.7: 2012-2013 EDS Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

105

Table A.8: 2012-2013 SWD Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

106

Table B.1: 2013-2014 ASIA Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

107

Table B.2: 2013-2014 BLCK Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

108

Table B.3: 2013-2014 WHTE Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

109

Table B.4: 2013-2014 HISP Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

110

Table B.5: 2013-2014 FEM Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

111

Table B.6: 2013-2014 MALE Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

112

Table B.7: 2013-2014 EDS Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

113

Table B.8: 2013-2014 SWD Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

114

Table C.1: 2014-2015 ASIA Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

115

CHARTER VS. MAGNET ix

Table C.2: 2014-2015 BLCK Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

116

Table C.3: 2014-2015 WHTE Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

117

Table C.4: 2014-2015 HISP Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

118

Table C.5: 2014-2015 FEM Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

119

Table C.6: 2014-2015 MALE Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

120

Table C.7: 2014-2015 EDS Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

121

Table C.8: 2014-2015 SWD Subgroup Proficiency Rate Comparison by Subject and Grade

122

CHARTER VS. MAGNET 1

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Public school choice, including the charter school option, has become a popular

and controversial topic across the nation. Supporters of school choice claim that bringing

market-based competition to the school system will force all public schools to improve in

order attract and retain students (Chubb & Moe, 1990; Hoxby, 2003). However, results of

school choice programs have not been consistent with these claims. School choice has

been associated with increased racial segregation (Saporito, 2003; Rossell, 2002; Bifulco,

Ladd, & Ross, 2009; Renzulli & Evans, 2005) and inconsistent student outcomes

(Zimmer, et al., 2009).

Giving families greater choice with respect to educational opportunities for their

children was one of the purposes of the general statute that authorizes charter schools in

North Carolina. It is also evident within the statute that one purpose of having charter

schools in the state is to provide options that will better serve students by allowing for

greater innovation. According to North Carolina General Statute § 115C-218.a:

The purpose of this Part is to authorize a system of charter schools to provide

opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils, and community members to establish

and maintain schools that operate independently of existing schools, as a

method to accomplish all of the following: (1) Improve student learning; (2)

Increase learning opportunities for all students, with special emphasis on

expanded learning experiences for students who are identified as at risk of

academic failure or academically gifted; (3) Encourage the use of different and

innovative teaching methods; (4) Create new professional opportunities for


teachers, including the opportunities to be responsible for the learning program

at the school site; (5) Provide parents and students with expanded choices in the

types of educational opportunities that are available within the public school

system; and (6) Hold the schools established under this Part accountable for

meeting measurable student achievement results, and provide the schools with

a method to change from rule-based to performance-based accountability

systems. (North Carolina General Assembly, n.d., § 115C-218.a)

The reality in North Carolina is that charter schools do not often meet the purpose as

stated above. In a study entitled The Impacts of Charter Schools on Student Achievement:

Evidence from North Carolina done by the Terry Sanford Institute for Public Policy at

Duke University, researchers found that “students make considerably smaller

achievement gains in charter schools than they would have in traditional public schools”

(Bifulco & Ladd, 2006, p.50). Despite this evidence, charter school applications continue

to get approved by the state, charter schools continue to open and families continue to

enroll students in them thinking they are making a positive educational decision. In

addition, children who return to the district from charter schools often have some

academic gaps. Based on nationwide studies, almost two-fifths of charter schools (37% of

them) show learning results that are significantly worse than their traditional public

school counterparts (Miron & Applegate, 2009).

In this study, the researcher compares and contrasts two types of school choice

options within Mecklenburg County in North Carolina. The county includes 25 charter

school options (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, n.d.-e) and is a large

urban district that offers 45 magnet school options (Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools,


2015). The magnet schools in the county operate within the Charlotte Mecklenburg

School (CMS) district and follow the laws and policies of traditional K-12 schools in

North Carolina. The charter schools operate independently of the local school district and

follow a different set of laws and policies established for charter schools in North

Carolina. Although there are many differences between charters and magnets, both types

of schools are funded by the state and both participate in the North Carolina Department

of Public Instruction (NCDPI) accountability program. Since these two factors are the

same for both types of schools, it sets the stage for a comparison and contrast between

magnet and charter schools with regard to return on investment. Specifically, in this study

the researcher examined the similarities and differences between the two types of schools

in four areas: student academic outcomes, funding and expenditures, staffing, and

program offerings and opportunities. Qualitative document analysis was conducted to

compare and contrast charter schools to magnet schools in the areas of funding and

expenditures, staffing, and program offerings and opportunities. Staffing and

expenditures were also compared quantitatively using data obtained from NCDPI. A

quantitative comparison of North Carolina End of Grade and End of Course tests along

with graduation rates was used to determine similarities and differences in student

academic outcomes between the two types of schools.

Background of Study

School Choice. The term “school choice” has a long and inconsistent history in

the United States. The term is first associated with a movement in the 1920s to

Americanize immigrants and the subsequent court decisions that gave parents the ability

to choose private schools as a means to satisfy compulsory education requirements


(Minow, 2011). School choice became popular again in the 1960s with “freedom of

choice” plans used by southern states to avoid desegregation by allowing black and white

students the freedom to remain in their segregated schools (Forman, 2005; Minow, 2011).

Soon after, in the early 1970s, school choice in the form of magnet schools became a

popular solution proposed for the desegregation of schools. As a result, magnet schools

were put into place in many urban school districts. Proponents claimed that magnet

schools would attract white students to high minority schools since they offered

specialized programs, curricula, and approaches (Minow, 2011; Davis, 2014). Most

recently, school choice has been associated with two additional options. The first is

voucher programs that allow students to receive public funding to attend private schools.

The second is the public charter school movement that is continuing to proliferate across

the nation (Minow, 2011). This study focuses on the following two forms of school

choice: magnet schools and charter schools.

Magnet Schools. Magnet schools began in the 1960s in response to legal

decisions to desegregate public schools. They were first designed to attract students and

increase voluntary desegregation of schools (Blazer & Miami-Dade County Public

Schools, 2010). They have grown and evolved over time to serve additional purposes.

“These programs are being implemented in an increasing number of school systems

purportedly to improve academic standards, promote diversity in race and income, and

provide a broad range of offerings to satisfy individual talents and interests” (Hausman &

Brown, 2002, p. 257). Magnet schools offer specialized programs that focus on a theme

or an approach. These include theme options such as Science, Technology, Engineering

and Math (STEM), International Baccalaureate (IB), Fine and Performing Arts or


Language Immersion. Other magnet schools may focus on a particular approach, such as

Montessori (Magnet Schools of America, n.d.).

Charter Schools. Charter Schools began as a school choice option in Minnesota

in 1991 when the first charter school law was passed by the Minnesota legislature with

the purpose of increasing innovation and opportunities (National Alliance for Public

Charter Schools, n.d.). The first charter school opened in 1992 and since that time charter

schools have become a popular form of educational reform and school choice across the

nation (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, n.d.). By the 2013-2014 school

year, there were 6,440 charter schools in operation serving 2.5 million students (National

Alliance for Public Charter Schools, n.d.). Although the specific laws and regulations that

govern charter schools are different in each of the 42 states that have them, there are

some things that are common to all charter schools. Like traditional public schools, they

are publicly funded. Unlike traditional public schools, they are given freedom from some

policies and regulations. Charter schools operate based on an agreement with the state,

board, or agency that grants the “charter.” They are held accountable for meeting the

terms of that agreement along with any additional accountability measures the state,

board or agency may require (Zimmer, et al., 2009).

Problem Statement

North Carolina is among the 42 states in the United States that have public school

choice options that include charter schools (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools,

n.d.). In 2011, North Carolina lifted the cap limiting the number of charter schools in the

state and there is currently no cap on the number of charter schools. Prior to the cap being

lifted, the number was limited to 100 charter schools in the state (North Carolina General


Assembly, n.d.). Since that time, the number of charter schools in Mecklenburg County

has increased each year. Based on the number of charter applications that have been

submitted for upcoming years, the trend suggests this increase will continue (North

Carolina Department of Public Instruction, n.d.-e). As the number of charter schools

increases, the number of students attending them increases also, impacting funding and

resource allocation for traditional public schools and districts.

According to North Carolina General Statute § 115C-218 Article 14a, the first

stated purpose of the establishment of charter schools in North Carolina is to “improve

student learning” (North Carolina General Assembly, n.d., § 115C-218.a.1) However,

based on the North Carolina School Report Card grades, charter schools are failing at a

higher rate than traditional public schools. More than 13% (17 of 126) of the charter

schools in North Carolina received a school report card grade of F, while only about 5%

(129 of 2,439) of traditional public schools received that same grade (North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction, 2015-j).

Professional Significance

The researcher intends for the results of the comparison and contrast between

charter schools and magnet schools to be used to identify what is working well and

inform CMS district efforts and funding decisions. The significance of this study lies in

the continued growth in the number of charter schools in Mecklenburg County and North

Carolina. One of NCDPI’s goals is to ensure that “Every student in the North Carolina

public school system graduates from high school prepared for work, further education

and citizenship” (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, n.d.-a, Goals section).

To reach this goal, funding and resources need to be largely directed to support the types


of schools and programs that are successfully moving students toward the desired

outcomes. Improved understanding of the specifics of these innovative schools and how

they impact students, will enable further work in Mecklenburg County with school choice

options to more effectively educate and prepare students.

The goal of this study was to compare and contrast the charter schools and

magnet schools in Mecklenburg County. The two types of schools were compared and

contrasted with regard to academic outcomes, funding and expenditures, staffing, and the

program offerings and opportunities provided for students. The following research

questions were investigated:

● Are there differences in student academic outcomes, as reported by proficiency on

state exams and graduation rates, between charter schools and magnet schools in

Mecklenburg County? If so, what are the differences?

● Are there differences in funding and expenditures between charter schools and

magnet schools in Mecklenburg County? If so, what are the differences?

● Are there differences in staffing between charter schools and magnet schools in


● Are there differences in programs and opportunities provided for students in

charter schools and magnet schools in Mecklenburg County? If so, what are the

differences?

Limitations

This study provides some insight into the similarities and differences between two

school choice options (charter schools and magnet schools) within Mecklenburg County.

Due to the nature of the study, the results are limited to represent one large urban school


district in North Carolina. Further research would be required to generalize the results of

this study to other states and counties. The study was conducted using publicly available

data and information from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Charlotte

Mecklenburg School District and individual charter schools and magnet schools. The use

of publicly available data and information is limiting, as some types of potentially useful

data are not publicly available, such as student growth scores. In addition, much of the

data collected is from school websites and may be incomplete, inaccurate, or out of date

since school personnel were not surveyed or interviewed directly. The results from this

study help to highlight the successes and areas for improvement that currently exist

within the school choice options in Mecklenburg County. In doing so, this research is

useful in the work to continuously improve school choice options and better serve the

students in Mecklenburg County.

Definition of Terms

School Choice - “…school choice, which refers to a variety of programs providing

families the option to choose the school their children attend. School choice options may

include neighborhood public schools, magnet schools, charter public schools, vouchers,

tuition tax credits, homeschooling, and supplemental educational services” (Berends,

2015, p.160).

Charter School - “Charter schools are public schools funded by the government, but

their governance structure differs from that of traditional public schools in that they are

established under a charter run by parents, educators, community groups, or private

organizations to encourage school autonomy and innovation” (Berends, 2015, p. 161).


Magnet School - “Magnet schools are free public elementary and secondary schools of

choice that are operated by school districts or a consortium of districts. Magnet schools

have a focused theme and aligned curricula in Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics (STEM), Fine and Performing Arts, International Baccalaureate,

International Studies, MicroSociety, Career and Technical Education (CTE), World

Languages (immersion and non-immersion) and many others” (Magnet Schools of

America, n.d., What are Magnet Schools, para. 1).

Academic Outcomes - For the purpose of this study, academic outcomes include high

school graduation rates and proficiency on North Carolina End of Grade and End of

Course tests.

North Carolina End of Grade Test (EOG) - The NC EOGs are state tests of reading

and math administered in grades three through eight and in science administered in

grades five and eight. They are designed to “measure student performance on the goals,

objectives, and grade-level competencies specified in the North Carolina Standard

Course of Study” (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, n.d.-c).

North Carolina End of Course Test (EOC) - The NC EOCs are state tests given at the

completion of the following required high school courses: Common Core Math I, English

II and Biology. “The North Carolina End-of-Course Tests are used to sample a student’s

knowledge of subject-related concepts as specified in the North Carolina Standard Course

of Study and to provide a global estimate of the student’s mastery of the material in a

particular content area” ((North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, n.d.-b).

Graduation Rate - The 4-year cohort graduation rate for North Carolina public schools

is calculated by dividing the number of students who graduate before the end of the


school year (June 30) by the number of students that started in the school as 9th graders

four school years prior. Students who transfer into the school in the appropriate grade

level are added into the calculation; students who are deceased and who transfer out to

another school are subtracted from the calculation (North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction, 2015-g).

Funding - Funding refers to the fiscal resources available to the school or district from a

specific source. Different types of funding may be for specific purposes or have specific

restrictions.

Expenditures – Expenditures refer to the funding spent by the school or district on

specific things or for specific purposes.

Staffing - Staffing refers to the laws, policies and practices that govern and impact the

number, type and experience level of the staff members working in a school or district.

Programs - Programs refer to the specific academic offerings within the school,

particularly academic opportunities that are different from the norm.

Opportunities - Opportunities refer to the options students have to be involved in the

school (i.e. teams, clubs, activities, competitions) that are not part of the academic

requirements or classes.


CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

School Choice

Davis (2014) defines school choice as “the policy of allowing parents and

students to choose schools” and goes on to say that it is “at the forefront of contemporary

education reform” (p. 2). As described above, school choice is associated with many

types of schools and systems including voucher programs, private schools, magnet

schools, traditional public schools and charter schools. Although there are multiple types

and systems of school choice throughout the country, the term can be broadly defined as

the practice of giving families some choice in the school their child attends; this is

different from the common and long-standing practice of student assignment based on

where the family lives.

Advocates of school choice often make market-based arguments and claim that

allowing parents and families to choose what school their child attends will create

competition between schools, forcing them to become better in order to retain and attract

students (Chubb & Moe, 1990; Hoxby, 2003). However, Davis (2013) found competition

from school choice to have no significant impact on traditional public schools. In that

study, Davis goes on to argue that market-based competition in education does not have

the positive impact predicted by proponents. Hausman & Brown (2002) argue that market

theory cannot be applied to certain school choice situations because there are too many

constraints controlling the schools that stop the innovation and improvement needed for

market-based competition to improve schools.

Other supporters of school choice argue that it provides additional opportunities

for all students, including historically disadvantaged students such as poor and minority


students, which in turn improves equity by giving all students access to successful

schools (Godwin & Kemerer, 2002). School choice in the form of magnet schools was

supported and used as a method of voluntary desegregation in many districts and this is

used as an argument by some researchers who support school choice (Betts, Rice, Zau,

Tang & Koedel, 2006). However, school choice, in the form of magnet schools and

charter schools, has been associated with increased racial segregation of schools in a

number of studies (Saporito 2003; Rossell 2002; Bifulco, Ladd, & Ross, 2009; Renzulli

& Evans 2005).

Multiple studies have been done in the United States and other countries on the

impact of school choice on equity and access. In a study on the impact of the school

choice system in Colorado on the stratification within the schools, Carlson found that the

statewide school choice system did impact stratification in both positive and negative

ways. “The statewide results reveal that the program produces a decrease in racial/ethnic

stratification, a slight increase in socioeconomic stratification, and no meaningful effect

on academic stratification...” (Carlson, 2014, p. 298). Carlson’s findings pose a concern

for students with greater socioeconomic needs in the current school choice system. Along

this same line, James (2014) argues that the current system of school choice in this

country is one of forced choices. He gives multiple examples of the use of “choice” to

disguise the fact that minority and low-income students are not being well educated by

the public schools in their area. Parents at that point are forced to “choose” voucher

programs, charter schools or homeschooling. James (2014) goes on to say that there is

limited evidence on the effectiveness of these school options. He takes the position that

reform efforts should focus less on choice and more on improving the public school


system as a whole (James, 2014). Other countries have similar findings and concerns

with school choice. Benson, Bridge and Wilson (2015) found that middle-class families

in London and Paris tend to choose schools based on the social class and ethnicity of the

students and families that attend the school. They went on to explain that these families

used the composition of the school, not educational data, to determine if the school

provided a good education (Benson, et al., 2015, p.39). In a study done by Windle and

Stratton (2013) in Australia, researchers found that some of the elite schools marketed

themselves as “equitable” by focusing on things such as service activities and becoming

more environmentally friendly. “In this sense, elite schools are presented as ‘doing good’,

not through equitable access, but, rather, only through outreach by the privileged who are

secure within their boundaries” (Windle & Stratton, 2013, p. 211).

Academic Outcomes

Magnet Schools. Both magnet schools and charter schools have been studied in a

number of ways, most commonly with the goal of comparing them to traditional public

schools. In some studies, magnet schools were found to have a positive impact on student

achievement. A national study conducted by Gamoran (1996) found that magnet school

students scored higher than traditional public school students in reading, social studies

and science when data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study were compared.

Multiple smaller scale studies support his findings. In 2006, a study conducted in San

Diego Unified School District found that magnet school students had significantly higher

scores on the California Standard Test in mathematics than those students who did not

attend magnet schools due to the lottery selection process. The study found that there was

no significant difference in achievement score on the reading portion of the test (Betts,


Rice, et al., 2006). In Houston in 2007, a study was conducted to compare students in

magnet schools and programs to those not enrolled in magnet schools or programs. The

results showed that magnet students in all grade levels outperformed their non-magnet

peers in reading, math, writing and science on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and

Skills and the Stanford Achievement Test (Houston Independent School District, 2007).

Despite the studies that show the positive impact of magnet schools on student

achievement, not all research on magnet schools shows a significant difference between

magnet and non-magnet schools. Archabald and Kaplan (2004) conducted a study to

compare districts with magnet-based school choice to districts without the school choice

component. After adjusting for demographic differences in median income level, number

of students in poverty, and parental education level, they found no significant difference

in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores between the districts.

Their study suggests that magnet-based school choice programs do not have the overall

positive impact on school systems that is theorized by those who make a market-based

argument to support school choice. The authors suggest that school choice, in the form of

magnet schools, simply allows for students to be redistributed in schools throughout the

district. Another study conducted in 2001 by Penta compared elementary magnet schools

and non-magnet schools in Wake County Public Schools. Using the North Carolina

ABCs accountability measures of growth and composite for comparison, they found no

significant difference between magnet and non-magnet schools once they adjusted for

demographic differences.

Charter Schools. Charter school research, like that on magnet schools, shows

mixed results. In a national study that included charter schools from 25 states conducted


in 2013 by the Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO), researchers

found a positive impact on reading score growth for students attending charter schools of

0.01 standard deviations higher than their comparable peers in traditional public schools.

The study found no significant difference in math score growth (Cremata, et al., 2013).

However, in 2014, a What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) single-study review of this

CREDO research questioned some of the methodology, stating the study meets the WWC

standards with reservations.

In 2009, a study comparing Boston’s charter schools to traditional non-charter

middle and high schools found students in Boston’s charter schools performed

significantly better on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment Tests, in both

English language arts and math, than their peers in traditional public schools

(Abdulkadiroglu, et al., 2009). Similarly, in a 2010 study of 22 Knowledge is Power

Program (KIPP) Charter middle schools across the nation, researchers found a significant

positive impact for students’ achievement trajectories, in all demographic groups in both

reading and math, when compared to the achievement trajectories of their peers within

the local school districts (Tuttle, The, Nichols-Barrer, Gill & Gleason). In another study

conducted by Booker, Sass, Gill and Zimmer (2008) on charter schools in Chicago and

Florida, researchers found that charter high schools in those areas have a positive impact

on graduation rate and college attendance. They found that students attending charter

high schools were 7-15% more likely to earn a high school diploma and 8-10% more

likely to enroll in higher education (Booker, et al., 2008, p. 3).

Despite the positive research on charter schools described above, others have

found no significant difference between the academic performance of students in charter


schools as compared to students in traditional public schools. In a study including charter

schools from eight states in 2009, researchers found that overall, the achievement gains

of middle and high school students were not significantly different for students attending

charter schools as compared to students attending traditional public schools. They found

charter school students to have slightly worse achievement gains in two of the eight states

at the middle school level (Zimmer, et al., 2009).

Funding and Expenditures

One of the major areas of difference between traditional public schools and

charter schools is funding and expenditures. Although laws, policies, and requirements

are different in each state, charter schools generally have fewer regulations associated

with spending. Arsen and Ni (2012) compared charter school spending in Michigan to

traditional public school spending. They found that charter schools in Michigan spend a

considerably greater proportion of their funding on administrative costs, while spending

significantly less on instruction. They also noted that charter schools in Michigan, when

compared to traditional public schools in the state, tend to serve a lower percentage of

students with disabilities, hire less experienced teachers and spend less money on

community education and instructional support. Izraeli & Murphy (2012) found that

Michigan charter schools were costing the state considerably more money than traditional

public schools.

Charter schools are an expensive brand of educational reform. First, the state pays

out almost $350 more per charter school student than per public school student.

To the extent that the existence of charter schools has caused a migration out of

traditional public schools into charter schools, this migration has a significant


adverse consequence for the state education budget due to the premium the state

pays for charter school students. Second, while it is debatable how large the

degree of migration from public schools to charter schools has been, this article

reveals a significant migration of students from non-public schools to charter

schools over time. Students in this category impose the full cost of a charter

school student on the state budget. We estimate that by the end of the study

period, Michigan's charter school system imposed an incremental cost of $180

million on the state's education budget via these two effects. (Izraeli & Murphy,

2012, p. 264)

In 2010, Carpenter and Noller compared the efficiency of charter schools and non-charter

public schools in Minnesota. In this study, the researchers used input variables including

the dollars per student spent on administration, instruction, support services,

operations/transportation/maintenance, and capital expenditures. In their calculations,

they considered additional variables for efficiency, including: level of teacher education,

average years of teaching experience, percentage of specific subgroups (economically

disadvantaged, special limited English proficiency, and minority), teacher to student

ratio, total school enrollment, average annual attendance rates, and school type. The

researchers used the mean school reading and math scale scores on the Minnesota state

assessments as the measure of output for their efficiency comparison. They found that

charter schools in Minnesota were less efficient than non-charter public schools in the

state, with efficiency measured using the input of resources and output of student

achievement (Carpenter & Noller, 2010).


Although charter schools are public schools, there are some that are considered

“for-profit” charter schools. According to Robertson, these “for-profit” charter schools

are schools that are operated by a private company, often called an Education

Management Organization (EMO). Robertson goes on to explain that the number and

proportion of charter schools that are operated by EMOs has increased substantially over

the past ten to fifteen years (Robertson, 2015, p.4). In his study, Robertson (2015) found

that for-profit charter schools are less likely to serve low-income student populations,

potentially due to the profit motive and greater opportunities for profit within higher

income areas (Robertson, 2015).

One other area of school funding is donations and fundraising. Kidder (2002)

argues that the increase in public school reliance on funding that comes from donations

and fundraising is causes inequity within the public school system. Kidder discusses the

concern that as public education funding continues to be cut, fundraising and donations

are being used to replace the cut funding. She goes on to say that fundraising used to be

in place to help fund “extras” like field trips or rewards but it is now being used to fund

the essentials, like text books.

The trend to greater and greater reliance on donations brings with it a myriad of

problems, but the greatest of these is the inequity it engenders in the system. The

capacity to raise funds varies greatly from community to community. Some

schools are only able to raise a few hundred dollars per year while others can raise

hundreds of thousands. And some schools can raise nothing.” (Kidder, 2002, p.

43)


In a study on charter schools in New York City, Baker and Ferris (2011) found

inequity in funding between charter schools and traditional public schools due to

donations. They found that charter school per-pupil spending varied greatly based on the

amount of private donations they received. They went on to explain that some charter

schools received donations that increased their spending by up to $10,000 more per-pupil

than their public school counterparts. Despite this increased funding, Baker and Ferris

found that there was little to no relationship between the increased spending and test

score outcomes. They also found that based on the demographics of the students served

by the charter schools in their study, they should have received $2,500 less in public

funding per-pupil than the traditional public schools. The charter schools were serving a

student population with fewer English language learners and poor students than the

traditional public school student population.

Staffing

In a study that examined the staffing and organizational differences between

charter schools and traditional public schools, Wei, Patel and Young (2014) found

significant differences between the two types of schools in a number of areas. The

researchers in this study surveyed 2,559 charter school teachers and 2,151 traditional

public school teachers from a poor, rural area in Texas. They analyzed the survey results,

after matching teachers between the two groups on characteristics such as race and years

of teaching experience, using an ANCOVA analysis. In doing so, they found significant

differences between the perceptions of charter school teachers and traditional public

school teachers.


Charter school teachers reported higher expectations among teachers for student

performance, a more supportive teaching environment, but less frequent

collaboration with colleagues, and fewer chances to participate in high-quality

professional development. In terms of instruction, charter school teachers reported

less instructional support, a greater sense of responsibility for student learning,

and higher levels of student engagement in learning. In addition, charter school

teachers reported less perceived fairness in teacher evaluation than traditional

public school teachers did. (Wei, et al., 2014, p.17)

Stitzlein and West (2014) researched the changes in teacher preparation programs that

have been sparked by the charter movement. They compared the non-traditional teacher

certification programs to the traditional bachelors or masters degree in education. They

argue that these non-traditional programs should be described as teacher training instead

of teacher education. The programs focus on training teachers with a set of skills that can

be applied in specific classroom situations to increase student performance on

assessments. This differs from the theory-based education received in graduate and

undergraduate education programs. They caution that “Charter-aligned programs may

train efficient technicians for their own programs, but they may fall short of educating

and preparing educational experts, true masters of their fields” (Stitzlein & West, 2014, p.

9).

Opportunities for Students

In many cases, schools offer students more than just academics. Specific

curricular programs and extracurricular activities such as clubs, sports, and leadership

roles ultimately play a role in their overall educational experience. Ely, Ainley and


Pearce (2013) argue the importance of student interest in the learning process; they

highlight curriculum choices as one area that educators can use student interest to

increase engagement in learning.

In a study that looked at the link between high school sports and behavior, Samek,

Elkins, Keyes, Iacono and McGue (2015) found that students who were involved in high

school sports had a significantly lower occurrence of childhood conduct disorder and

even a significantly lower occurrence of adult antisocial behavior. They suggested that

high school sports involvement may help to decrease antisocial behavior (Samek, et al.,

2014, p. 1).

Involvement in leadership experiences within high school extracurricular

activities has also been linked to positive impacts on the attainment of education after

high school. Rouse (2012) found that for average students, high school leadership has a

large positive impact on post-secondary educational attainment. She goes on to argue the

importance of having extracurricular options for students so that the leadership

opportunities exist. She urges that decisions to cut funding for extracurricular activities

should “not be taken lightly” (Rouse, 2012, p.16).


CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY

Theory of Action

Figure 3.1 shows the theory of action for the progression from school choice to

educational outcomes for students. The figure includes and connects the four areas that

are the focus of this study: academic outcomes, funding and expenditures, staffing, and

programs and opportunities provided for students.

Figure 3.1 Magnet and charter schools: Return on investment comparison

Theory of Action Narrative. School choice is a current, popular, and

controversial topic with history in the United States going back to the 1920s (Forman,

NC#Public#Schools#include#both#Charter#&#Magnet#op8ons#for#students/families#interested#In#innova8ve#programs#that#are#different#from#the#tradi8onal#public#school#se?ng#

Student/Family#chooses#Magnet#or#Charter#

Funding#is#Spent#

State#Funding#is#provided#based#on#enrollment#

Funding#is#Spent#

State#Funding#is#provided#based#on#enrollment#

Special#Programs#/#Instruc8onal#Program#/#

Opportuni8es#for#students#

School#Opera8ons#&#Logis8cs#

Staffing#

Special#Programs#/#Instruc8onal#Program#/#

Opportuni8es#for#students#

School#Opera8ons#&#Logis8cs#

Staffing#

Charter#School#

Students’#Educa8onal#Experience#

Students#take#NC#

State#Exams#

Charter#School#Students#

Educa8onal#Outcomes#

Magnet#School#

Students’#Educa8onal#Experience#

Students#take#NC#

State#Exams#

Magnet#School#Students#

Educa8onal#Outcomes#

Charter#

Magnet#


2005; Minow, 2011; Davis, 2014). North Carolina supports school choice by enabling

parents and families to choose between a number of public and private school options

within the state (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, n.d.-f). Two of these

options, charter schools and magnet schools, are advertised nationally as being innovative

by offering specific curriculum or specialized approaches (Magnet Schools of America,

n.d.; National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, n.d.).

When a student enrolls in a charter school or a magnet school, public funding is

provided for that student to the school based on the monthly calculation of Average Daily

Membership (ADM) (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2014-a).

Ultimately, the amount of funding a school receives is based on ADM. ADM is the

number of students enrolled in the school and taking classes for at least half of the school

day. ADM values are calculated monthly by dividing the number of days in membership

for all students in the school by the number of days in the month (North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction, 2014-a).

Once the funding is provided to the school, it is spent in accordance with the laws,

policies, and procedures required by the state of North Carolina. Magnet schools operate

within the local school district and state funding is provided in the categories of position

allotments, dollar allotments, and categorical allotments. The School Finance page on the

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) website includes the laws and

policies that govern how each of these allotments can be used and requirements for

schools and districts. Position allotments are given by the state to the district for state

licensed educator positions including teachers, instructional support staff, and

administrators (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015-f; North Carolina


Department of Public Instruction, 2014-a). When the district hires the certified educators

for the position, they pay them based on the state salary schedule. The state covers the

dollar amount, based on the state salary schedule, for the number of positions that the

district is given (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015-f; North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction, 2014-a). The district is not limited to a certain dollar

amount; they are only limited to the specific number of positions they were given for

certified educators. Dollar allotments are given by the state to the school district for

things such as classroom materials, textbooks, teacher assistants and central office

administrators (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015-f; North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction, 2014-a). The school system is limited in these areas to

the dollar amount that is allocated by the state. Categorical allotments are used for things

such as transportation and non-instructional support personnel (North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction, 2015-f; North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction, 2014-a). The school system has some flexibility in how these funds are used,

but is limited to the amount that is allocated (North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction, 2015-f; North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2014-a).

Charter schools in North Carolina operate independently of the local school

district and follow separate laws, policies, and requirements. According to North Carolina

Article 14A § 115C-218.10, “Except as provided in this Article and pursuant to the

provisions of its charter, a charter school is exempt from statutes and rules applicable to a

local board of education or local school administrative unit” (North Carolina General

Assembly, n.d., § 115C-218.10). Charter school funds are allocated to the school as a

dollar allotment with more flexibility on how the funds can be used (North Carolina


Department of Public Instruction, 2015-f; North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction, 2014-a). Charter schools are not required to pay staff according to the state

salary schedule and not all teachers in charter schools are required to be licensed (North

Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015-f; North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction, 2014-a). Charters do not have to participate in the state employees retirement

system or medical plan (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015-f; North

Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2014-a). In addition, they are not required to

purchase on state contract or participate in e-procurement (North Carolina Department of

Public Instruction, 2015-f; North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2014-a).

Charter schools are not held to class size minimums or calendar laws and they are not

required to provide transportation or lunch for their students (North Carolina General

Assembly, n.d.). The Financial Guide for Charter Schools, which can be found on the

Financial and Business Services page of the NCDPI website, details the laws, policies,

and requirements that govern charter school finance. (North Carolina Department of

Public Instruction, 2015-d). The qualitative method of document analysis was used to

compare and contrast funding, expenditures, and staffing between charter schools and

magnet schools in Mecklenburg County.

A student’s educational experience in a school depends on the curriculum,

programs, and opportunities that are offered, how the school is organized and managed,

and the staff members that they interact with on a daily basis. All of these things together

impact the education that the student receives and ultimately how they perform

academically. Specific curriculum and specialized approaches play a role in student

learning. When students are interested in what they are learning, they are more engaged


in the classroom and learn more as a result (Ely, Ainley & Pearce, 2013). Teacher quality

has been linked to student achievement in a number of studies. Stronge, Ward and Grant

(2011) investigated the differences between highly effective and less effective teachers,

as measured by student achievement. They found significant differences in student

achievement between highly effective and less effective teachers. “The differences in

student achievement in mathematics and reading for effective teachers and less effective

teachers were more than 30 percentile points” (p. 348). In 2012, Metzler and Woessmann

found that teacher subject knowledge had a significant effect on student achievement.

Interesting curriculum and highly effective teachers are not the only things that impact

the success of students. Involvement in extracurricular activities has been linked to higher

academic performance (Knifsend & Graham, 2012) and lower dropout rates (Mahoney,

2014). Participation in high school sports has even been linked to a lower occurrence of

childhood conduct disorder and adult antisocial behavior (Samek, et al., 2015).

Involvement in leadership activities in high school has been positively linked to the

attainment of education after high school (Rouse, 2012). Qualitative analysis includes

comparison and contrast between charter schools and magnet schools with respect to

school logistics, staffing, and the curricular, academic, and extracurricular opportunities

they provide for students.

In North Carolina, student academic performance is measured using the North

Carolina End of Grade (EOG) and End of Course (EOC) tests (North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction, n.d.-d). The quantitative analysis used both graduation

rates and proficiency on North Carolina EOG and EOC exams to compare and contrast

the academic outcomes of students in magnet schools versus charter schools.


Methodology

Description of the Sample. This study is a mixed methods comparison and

contrast between charter schools and magnet schools within Mecklenburg County to gain

insight into the return on investment with both types of schools. All charter schools and

full magnet schools in Mecklenburg County that have been open for three or more full

school years are included in the study. Charter and magnet schools that have not been

open for three or more full school years have limited data, so they were not included.

Based on information found on the Office of Charter Schools section of North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction website, there are 25 charter schools that are currently

operating within Mecklenburg County. Of the 25 operating charter schools, more than

half (13 schools) are within the first three years of existence. Four are currently in their

first year of existence and were not included in the study as a result. Six opened in July of

2014, and three charter schools opened in July of 2013, having only one and two school

years of data available. There are 12 charter schools in Mecklenburg County that fit the

criteria of being open for three or more years; these schools are included in the study. Ten

of the 12 serve elementary students, another ten of the 12 serve middle school students

and seven of the 12 serve high school students.

Based on information from the Magnet Programs section of the Charlotte

Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) website, CMS has 45 different magnet school options

currently operating within the district (Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools, 2015). Similar to

the group of charter schools, some of these schools have been open for only one or two

full school years, limiting the data available. In addition, only 19 of the 45 magnet

schools are full magnet schools with all students in the school participating in the magnet


program. The other schools are considered partial magnet programs in which only a

fraction of the students enrolled in the school are participating in the magnet program.

For the purposes of this study, only the full magnet schools were included for the

comparison and contrast with charter schools since the charter schools do not have any

partial charter programs. Of the 19 full magnet schools within CMS, 17 have been open

for three or more years. The 17 full magnet schools that have been open for three or more

years fit the criteria and are included in the study. Thirteen of the 17 serve elementary

students, 11 of the 17 serve middle school students and three of the 17 serve high school

students.

Identification of Subjects. Charter schools and magnet schools were identified

for participation in the study based on the school’s location in Mecklenburg County, the

school’s operation for three years or more and the school’s operation as a full magnet or

full charter school. All charter schools and magnet schools that fit the criteria outlined

above are included in the study. Charter schools and magnet schools that do not fit the

criteria are not included in the study due to insufficient data.

Assurances of anonymity and protection of human subjects. All data used for

both the quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis within this study are publicly

available data collected from North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Charlotte

Mecklenburg Schools website and individual magnet and charter school websites.

Quantitative data for EOC and EOG proficiency and graduation rates are disaggregated

by demographic group with no individual student data or student identifiers.



Are there differences in student academic outcomes as reported by proficiency on

state exams and graduation rates between charter schools and magnet schools in


Explanation. According to North Carolina § 115C-218 Article 14A the purpose

of charter schools in North Carolina involves greater autonomy for increased innovation

and the ability of parents and families to choose a school or program that will best serve

their child (North Carolina General Assembly, n.d.). In the 2015-2016 School Options

Guide, Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools outlines similar purposes for the magnet schools

in the district stating that “CMS is committed to providing every family and every student

at least two high-quality school options” (Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools, 2015, school

options section, para 1). Both charter schools and magnet schools offer public school

students and families special or innovative programs along with the ability to choose to

participate in them. In this study, the researcher analyzes the overall return on investment

with the two major school options in Mecklenburg County: charter schools and magnet

schools. This research question compares and contrasts the academic outcomes between

magnet school students and charter school students. Academic outcomes are compared

using disaggregated North Carolina End of Course (EOC) and End of Grade (EOG)

proficiency along with graduation rate.

Instruments and data used. Publicly available disaggregated proficiency data

and graduation rates were obtained from the North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction website for the 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years. North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) has a statewide school accountability model


that requires state tests called End of Grade (EOG) and End of Course (EOC) tests to

measure student academic performance. According to NCDPI Testing Program Website,

the North Carolina EOG tests are given to students in grades three through eight and they

are designed to measure student performance in mathematics, reading comprehension,

and science based on the North Carolina Standard Course of Study for the specific

subject and grade level. The North Carolina EOC tests are given at the end of

Mathematics I, English II, and Biology to high school students to “sample a student’s

knowledge of subject-related concepts as specified in the North Carolina Standard Course

of Study and to provide a global estimate of the student’s mastery of the material in a

particular content area” (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, n.d.-b). North

Carolina EOG and EOC scores are categorized into five levels. Students who score in

levels III, IV and V are considered to be grade level proficient. Students who score levels

I and II are not considered to be grade level proficient. Another measure used within the

North Carolina Accountability system for all public high schools is the four-year cohort

graduation rate which tracks the percentage of students that graduate high school in four

years or less. As described on the North Carolina School Report Cards section of the

NCDPI website, this measure is included in the public school report card grade for each

school in North Carolina as a component of the school grade. The quantitative analysis

uses both graduation rates and proficiency on North Carolina EOG and EOC exams to

compare and contrast the academic outcomes of students in charter schools vs. magnet

schools.

How the data were analyzed. Data were analyzed using a chi-squared analysis.

The chi-squared test is appropriate for this analysis because multiple groups are being


compared and the variables are categorical (Creswell, 2012). Disaggregated proficiency

data and graduation rates from NCDPI for school years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and

2014-2015 were used for analysis. Disaggregated groups included all of the following

groups:

• All students

• Female

• Male

• Asian

• Black

• Hispanic/Latino of any race

• White

• Economically disadvantaged students

• Students with disabilities


Are there differences in funding and expenditures between charter schools and


Explanation. This study analyzes the overall return on investment for magnet

schools and charter schools in Mecklenburg County. This research question digs into the

investment portion of the study, bringing to light the similarities and differences in how

the schools are funded and how that funding is spent. The State of North Carolina

provides laws, policies, requirements and resources that regulate funding and

expenditures for charter schools that are separate from the laws, policies requirements

and resources that regulate funding and expenditures for schools operating within a


school district, such as magnet schools. This research question compares and contrasts

the finance-related laws, policies, requirements and practices between charter schools and

magnet schools to determine similarities and differences in funding and expenditures

between the two.

Instruments and data used. Documents that relate to the funding and

expenditures for North Carolina charter schools and North Carolina schools/ districts

were used for this analysis. This includes laws, policies, regulations, requirements,

resources, and reports provided for both charter schools and non-charter schools in North

Carolina. This also includes information from school and district websites that detail

what is provided for students at specific charter and magnet schools. The funding table

associated with the North Carolina School Report Cards was obtained from the NCDPI

website for this analysis. This table includes the percent of the total school or district

budget spent in the following categories: salary expenses, benefits expenses, services

expenses, supplies expenses, instructional expenses and other expenses (North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction, 2015-e).

How the data were analyzed. Data were analyzed qualitatively using document

analysis. Creswell discusses the use of documents as a source of information for

qualitative research. He describes documents as “a valuable source of information in

qualitative research” (2012, p. 221). Using the documents described above, qualitative

document analysis was conducted to identify similarities and differences in the funding

and expenditures of charter and magnet schools. In addition, a chi-squared analysis was

used to determine if there was a significant difference in the percent of the budget spent

on specific expenses between charter schools and the CMS district.



Are there differences in staffing between charter schools and magnet schools in


Explanation. This study compares and contrasts charter schools and magnet

schools from a return on investment perspective. Staffing requirements and practices

impact the teachers that are employed to work with students each day. The similarities

and differences in staffing between charter and magnet schools give insight that is

important for understanding the similarities or differences in student academic outcomes.

This information is vital for the level of understanding needed to make future

recommendations. The state of North Carolina has laws, policies and requirements on the

staffing of charter schools that are separate from the laws, policies and requirements on

the staffing of all other public schools in the state, including magnet schools. This

research question compares and contrasts staffing between charter schools and magnet

schools. This includes law, policy, and requirement differences as well as differences in

practice within charter and magnet schools throughout Mecklenburg County.

Instruments and data used. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction

documents that detail the laws, policies and requirements for staffing charter and non-

charter schools were used as data. In addition, information from the North Carolina

School Report Cards and individual school websites was used to analyze similarities and

differences in staffing that are in practice within charter schools and non-charter magnet

schools in Mecklenburg County.


analysis. The percent of licensed teachers for magnet schools and charter schools was


compared using a chi-squared analysis. The chi-squared test is appropriate for this

analysis because two groups are being compared and the variables are categorical

(Creswell, 2012).


Are there differences in programs and opportunities provided for students in

charter schools and magnet schools in Mecklenburg County? If so, what are the

differences?

Explanation. Schools are not solely academic in nature; in many cases they offer

other opportunities for students in the form of activities, clubs, and athletics. This

research question compares and contrasts opportunities provided for students in charter

schools as compared to magnet schools. The results from this research question are useful

in providing insight into similarities and differences found when comparing and

contrasting academic outcomes. This information is important for the level of

understanding needed to make recommendations based on the study.

Instruments and data used. Information and documents found on school

websites and the CMS district website were used to compare and contrast the

opportunities provided at charter schools and magnet schools. Data from school websites

provided the types of opportunities along with some information about them.

Opportunities were categorized into types for comparison.


analysis.


CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS

Description of Timing and Actual Respondents/Participants

During the months of February through May in 2016, data were collected from

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction website, Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools

website and the websites of individual charter schools and magnet schools involved in

this study. All data for this study were publicly available through the websites and

organized and analyzed by the researcher in order to answer the four research questions.


Are there differences in student academic outcomes, as reported by proficiency on

state exams and graduation rates, between charter schools and magnet schools in


Explanation. This research question is aimed at determining if there are

differences in the academic outcomes between students in charter schools and students in

magnet schools in Mecklenburg County. As explained in chapter three, academic

outcomes were measured using proficiency on the North Carolina EOG and EOC tests

along with high school graduation rates. The North Carolina EOG tests are given in math

and reading in grades three through eight and in science in grades five and eight (North

Carolina Department of Public Instruction, n.d.-d). The North Carolina EOC tests are

given at the end of the high school courses Mathematics I, English II and Biology (North

Carolina Department of Public Instruction, n.d.-d). As explained in chapter three,

students who score a level III, IV or V are considered to be grade level proficient (GLP)

while students who score a level I or level II are not considered to be grade level

proficient (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, n.d.-d). This research


question compared the GLP rates and graduation rates of the charter schools in the study

to the GLP rates and graduation rates of the magnet schools in the study to determine if

there is difference in academic outcomes between the two types of schools.

Instruments and data used. On March 10, 2016, the proficiency data for a group

of magnet schools and charter schools in Mecklenburg County in North Carolina were

retrieved from the spreadsheets entitled Disaggregated Performance Data for 2014-2015,

Disaggregated Performance Data for 2013-2014, and Disaggregated Performance Data

for 2012-2013 (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2013; North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction, 2014-b, North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction 2015-c). The spreadsheets are publicly available documents posted each

school year on the Accountability Services page of the NCDPI website; the documents

includes data for each school in North Carolina that is disaggregated by subgroup, grade

level and subject. For this analysis, the spreadsheets were used to determine the number

of students who scored GLP and the number of students who did not score GLP for each

of the magnet schools and charter schools included in the study. The magnet schools in

the study include school numbers 600336, 600344, 600364, 600368, 600384, 600413,

600429, 600464, 600482, 600488, 600492, 600496, 600497, 600513, 600532, 600565,

and 600571 (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2013). The charter schools

in the study include school numbers 60A000, 60B000, 60C000, 60D000, 60F000,

60G000, 60H000, 60I000, 60J000, 60K000, 60L000, 60M000 (North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction, 2013).

Data analyses and results. The statistical analysis test called a chi-squared

allows a researcher to determine if there is a significant difference between two


populations that are being compared using categorical data (Pagano, 2013). In this case,

the samples used were proficiency results from the magnet schools and charter schools

listed above. The two categories used in this analysis were grade level proficient (level

III, IV & V) and not grade level proficient (level I & II) (North Carolina Department of

Public Instruction, n.d.-d).

Results for 2012-2013. As shown in table 4.1, in the 2012-2013 school year, there

was not a significant difference in GLP rate between magnet schools and charter schools

for all students (ALL) overall, when all grade levels and subjects were combined. The

result from the chi-squared analysis was 1.280 which was compared to 3.841, the critical

value for chi-squared with two categories and alpha of 0.05 (Pagano, 2013). Since the

result of the chi-squared analysis was smaller than the critical value, the researcher

determined that there was not a statistically significant difference in the distributions

(Pagano, 2013). However, there were significant differences in GLP rate between

magnets and charters for 14 of the grade level and subject categories. Charter schools had

a higher GLP rate in the following eight categories: Biology EOC, English II EOC, Math

I EOC, All EOCs, 3rd grade Math EOG, 7th grade Math EOG, 3rd grade Reading EOG,

and 5th grade Science EOG. Magnet schools had a higher GLP rate in the following six

categories: 8th grade Math EOG, 4th grade Reading EOG, 6th grade Reading EOG, 8th

grade Reading EOG, all grades Reading EOG, and all EOGs. For the 2012-2013 school

year when the grade level proficiency results for all students were compared, charter

schools had higher GLP rates than magnet schools in all high school EOCs while magnet

schools had higher GLP rates than charter schools in on the majority of Reading EOGs.


In the 2012-2013 school year, there were significant differences in GLP rate

between magnet schools and charter schools for specific subgroups. Tables showing the

results for each subgroup in the 2012-2013 school year are included in appendix A. As

shown in table A.2 the results for the black subgroup showed a significant difference in

GLP rate overall and for all grade level and subject categories except the 5th grade

science EOG. In the 2012-2013 school year, magnet schools had a higher GLP rate for

black students both overall and in every grade level and subject category. Similar results

were observed for the economically disadvantaged student (EDS) subgroup in 2012-2013


school year as shown in appendix A in table A.7. There was a significant difference in

GLP rate between magnet schools and charter schools both overall and in 16 of the 22

grade level and subject categories. In the EDS subgroup, magnet schools had higher GLP

rates than charter schools for all 16 categories that had a significant difference. For the

white subgroup during the 2012-2013 school year, shown in table A.3, there was a

significant difference in GLP rate between magnet schools and charter schools overall

with magnet schools having a higher GLP rate at 80.8% as compared to charter schools at

70.3%. Magnet school students also outperformed charter school students in the white

subgroup during the 2012-2013 school year in all grade level and subject categories

except two. Charter schools had a higher GLP rate in high school Biology EOC and the

high school English II EOC. Charter schools had higher GLP rates for both Asian and

Hispanic students overall for the 2012-2013 school year. The students with disabilities

(SWD) subgroup, shown in table A.8, had a higher GLP rate in magnet schools than in

charter schools during the 2012-2013 school year. This SWD subgroup had higher GLP

rate in magnet schools for all 8th grade EOGs (math, reading and science) along with the

5th grade science EOG and the 7th grade reading EOG.

Results for 2013-2014. As shown in table 4.2, in the 2013-2014 school year, for

all students (ALL), magnet schools had more students who met grade level proficiency

for all tests in all grades and subjects than charter schools. The result from the chi-

squared analysis was 9.238 which was compared to 3.841, the critical value for chi-

squared with two categories and alpha of 0.05(Pagano, 2013). Since the result of the chi-

squared analysis was larger than the critical value, the researcher determined that there is

a statistically significant difference in the distributions (Pagano, 2013). For the 2013-


2014 school year, when all students, all subjects, and all grade levels are compared,

magnet schools have a higher GLP rate at 71.9% than charter schools at 70.7%.

As shown in table 4.2, in the 2013-2014 school year, within the ALL subgroup,

10 of the 22 chi-squared tests for the grade level and subject categories produced a result

that was higher than the chi-critical of 3.841 with one degree of freedom and an alpha

level of 0.05. These 10 subject and grade level categories were determined to have a

significant difference in proficiency between magnet school and charter school students.

Magnet schools had a greater proportion of students scoring in the GLP category than

charter schools did in the following grade level and subject categories: 7th grade math

EOG, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grade reading EOGs, reading EOG overall, EOGs overall, and

the Math I EOC. Charter schools had a greater proportion of students scoring grade level

proficient in two categories: 3rd grade math EOG and Biology EOC. Overall, for the

2013-2014 school year, there were differences in academic outcomes between charter

schools and magnet schools when comparing all students. Magnet schools had better

academic outcomes with more students scoring grade level proficient overall (when all

subjects and grade levels were combined) and with eight of the 22 grade level and subject

categories. Charter schools had more students score grade level proficient in two grade

level and subject categories. As shown in table 4.2, for 12 of the grade level and subject

categories, there was not a significant difference between charter schools and magnet

schools.


In the 2013-2014 school year, when the grade level proficiency results for other

subgroups were compared between charter schools and magnet schools, there were

additional differences in students’ academic outcomes. Tables showing the results for

each subgroup are included in appendix B. Some of the subgroups showed more

differences in academic outcomes than others. Table B.2 shows the comparison of the

GLP rates between charter schools and magnet schools for the black subgroup. As shown

in table B.2, there was a difference in grade level proficiency in the black subgroup for all

grade level and subject categories except two: 3rd grade math EOG and 8th grade science

EOG. Magnet schools had a higher GLP rate for black students overall and in all 20


grade level and subject categories that were significantly different. A similar result was

found in the EDS subgroup, shown in table B.7. The researcher determined there was a

statistically significant difference for the EDS subgroup overall and with 17 grade level

and subject categories. For the EDS subgroup, Magnet schools had a higher grade level

proficiency rate than charter schools overall and for the 17 grade level and subject

categories that were significantly different. Similar results were observed for the white

subgroup in 2013-2014, shown in table B.3, with magnet schools having higher GLP

rates overall and with 16 of the grade level and subject categories. For white students in

2013-2014, charter schools had a higher GLP rate for high school biology EOC. As

shown in table B.1, charter schools also had higher GLP rates overall for Asian students

in the 2013-2014 school year.

As shown in table B.5 there was not a significant difference overall between

charter schools and magnet schools for females in 2013-2014. When specific grade level

and subject categories were compared for the female subgroup the results were mixed.

Charter school females had higher GLP rates in five of the categories while magnet

school females had higher GLP rates in four of the categories. However, there was a

significant difference in GLP rate for males overall in 2013-2014 with magnet schools

having a higher GLP rate as shown in table B.6. Magnet schools also had a higher GLP

rate for male students in 10 of the grade level and subject categories in 2013-2014;

charter schools had a higher GLP rate in 2 categories for males in 2013-2014. In 2013-

2014, results for female students were mixed, but male students had better academic

outcomes in magnet schools than in charter schools.


Table B.8 shows the comparison between charter schools and magnet schools for

students with disabilities (SWD) for the 2013-2014 school year. Although there is not a

significant difference in proficiency rates overall for the SWD subgroup between magnet

schools and charter schools, there are some differences in the grade level and subject

categories. Charter schools had higher GLP rates for SWD subgroup in 2013-2014 for the

following grade level and subject categories: 3rd grade Math EOG, 4th grade Math EOG,

and 4th grade Reading EOG. However, magnet schools had higher GLP rates for SWD

subgroup in 2013-2014 for the following grade level and subject categories: 6th grade

Math EOG, 6th grade Reading EOG, and 7th grade Reading EOG. For the SWD subgroup

in 2013-2014, charter schools had better academic outcomes in the elementary grades (3rd

and 4th grade) while magnet schools had better academic outcomes in the middle school

grades (6th and 7th grade).

Results for 2014-2015. Similar to the 2013-2014 school year, as shown in table

4.3, in the 2014-2015 school year, for the subgroup ALL, magnet schools had a higher

GLP rate overall at 74.1% than charter schools at 71.2%. The result from the chi-squared

analysis was 52.390, which was compared to 3.841, the critical value for chi-squared

with one degree of freedom and an alpha of 0.05 (Pagano, 2013). Since the result of the

chi-squared analysis was larger than the critical value, the researcher determined that

there is a statistically significant difference in the distributions (Pagano, 2013). For the

2014-2015 school year, when all students, all subjects, and all grade levels were

compared, magnet schools had a higher GLP rate than charter schools.

As shown in table 4.3, in the 2014-2015 school year, within the ALL subgroup,

15 of the 22 chi-squared tests produced a result that was higher than the chi-critical of


3.841 with one degree of freedom and an alpha level of 0.05. These 15 subject and grade

level categories were determined to have a significant difference in proficiency between

magnet school and charter school students. Magnet schools had a higher GLP rate than

charter schools in the following 12 categories: English 2 EOC, Math I EOC, All EOCs,

6th Grade Math EOG, 7th Grade Math EOG, 8th Grade Math EOG, Math EOG overall, 6th

Reading EOG, 7th Reading EOG, Reading EOG overall, and 8th Grade Science EOG.

Charter schools had a higher GLP rate in three of the categories: 5th grade math EOG, 5th

grade reading EOG, and 5th grade science. Based on these results, it is clear that charter

schools had a greater GLP rate for 5th grade overall in the 2014-2015 school year.

In the 2014-2015 school year, there were differences in academic outcomes

between charter schools and magnet schools when looking at the all students. Magnet

schools had better academic outcomes with more students scoring grade level proficient

overall (when all subjects and grade levels were combined) and with 12 of the 22 grade

level and subject categories. Charter schools had more students score grade level

proficient in three of the grade level and subject categories. All three were elementary

EOGs and more specifically 5th grade EOGs. As shown in table 4.3, there was not a

significant difference between charter schools and magnet schools for seven of the grade

level and subject categories.


Similar to the 2013-2014 results, there were also differences in academic

outcomes observed within specific subgroups. As shown in tables C.2 and C.7, the results

for the black and EDS subgroups for the 2014-2015 school year are similar to the results

for those two subgroups in the 2013-2014 school year. Magnet schools had a higher GLP

rate for black students overall and for 19 of the 22 grade level and subject categories. For

the EDS subgroup, magnet schools had a higher GLP rate overall and for 14 of the 22

grade level and subject categories. Similarly, as shown in table C.3, magnet schools had a

higher GLP rate for white students overall and for 20 of the 22 grade level and subject


categories in the 2014-2015 school year. Charter schools had a higher GLP rate overall

for Asian students in the 2014-2015 school year.

For the 2014-2015 school year, both the female and male subgroups had higher

GLP rates overall in magnet schools. For the female subgroup, shown in table C.5,

magnet schools had a higher GLP rate for seven of the subject and grade level categories,

while charter schools had a higher GLP rate for two of the subject and grade level

categories. The GLP rates that were higher for charter schools were only in 5th grade,

which is the same as what was noted above for all students. Similarly, for male students

in 2014-2015, shown in table C.6, magnet schools had a higher GLP rate in 10 of the

grade level and subject categories while charter schools had a higher GLP rate for three

of the grade level and subject categories. Again, the GLP rates that were higher for

charter schools were only in 5th grade EOGs.

Table C.8 shows the 2014-2015 results for students with disabilities (SWD).

Although there was not a significant difference in GLP rate overall between magnets and

charters, there was a significant difference in seven of the grade level and subject

categories. Magnet schools had a higher GLP rate for the following categories: English 2

EOC, All EOCs, Math I EOC, 6th grade math EOG, and 8th grade reading EOG. As

observed in the ALL subgroup, charter schools had a higher GLP rate in 5th grade,

specifically in two categories: 5th grade math EOG and 5th grade reading EOG.

Over the three years included in this study, the difference between the

performance of magnet schools and charter schools has become statistically significant

for all students. In 2012-2013, there was not a significant difference in GLP rates

between the two types of schools overall; however there were significant differences for


many of the subgroups including black students, white students, economically

disadvantaged students, and male students. By the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school

years, there were significant differences between the two types of schools overall, with

magnet schools having a higher GLP rate. Magnet schools also continued to have higher

GLP rates for black students, white students, economically disadvantaged students, and

male students. Charter schools had higher GLP rates over the three years with Asian

students.

Results for graduation rates. As shown in table 4.4, there were statistically

significant differences between graduation rates for magnet schools and charter schools.

The spreadsheet called “Longitudinal 4-year Cohort Graduation Rates: 2006 through

2015” was retrieved from the Accountability Services Division page of the NCDPI

website (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015-g). The graduation rates

for magnet schools and charter schools were compared using a chi-squared analysis with

one degree of freedom and an alpha level of 0.05. The results from the chi-squared

analysis were compared to the chi-critical value of 3.841 to determine if there was a

significant difference between the graduation rates of the two types of schools. Chi-

squared results greater than 3.841 were determined by the researcher to have a

statistically significant difference (Pagano, 2013). For all three years (2012-13, 2013-14,

and 2014-15) magnet schools had higher graduation rates than charter schools overall. In

addition, magnet schools had higher graduation rates for students in the majority of the

subgroups. There were larger differences in graduation rates for some of the subgroups.

For example, the graduation rates for black students in charter schools over the course of

the three years were 71.5%, 64.3%, and 74.3% while the graduation rate for black


students in magnet schools over the same three years were 92.4%, 95.5%, and 95.8%.

There was also a large difference in graduation rates between male students in charter

schools and magnet schools. Male students in charter schools had graduation rates of

77.1%, 83.2% and 88.6% while male students in magnet schools had graduation rates of

90.9%, 93.4% and 95.2%. Economically disadvantaged students (EDS) also had higher

graduation rates over all three years in magnet schools than they did in charter schools.

EDS students in charter schools had graduation rates of 84%, 65.1%, and 77.3%; EDS

students in magnet schools had 90.7%, 95.2%, and 95.5%. For the students with

disabilities subgroup (SWD) the results did not follow the same pattern as the other

subgroups. In 2012-2013 there was not a significant difference in graduation rates for the

SWD subgroup between the charter schools and magnet schools. In 2013-2014, charter

schools had a higher graduation rate for SWD; in 2014-2015, magnet schools had a

higher graduation rate for SWD. The SWD subgroup was also one of the smallest

subgroups all three years. In summary, the graduation rate comparison between magnet

schools and charter schools shows that magnet schools have higher graduation rates

overall and in the majority of subgroups. The differences in graduation rate in the SWD

and Hispanic were inconsistent with magnet schools having a higher graduation rate in

those subgroups in only one of the three school years. There was no difference in

graduation rate between magnet schools and charter schools for the multiracial subgroup,

which had a graduation rate of 100% in both types of schools all three school years.


Answer for research question one. There is a difference in academic outcomes

between charter schools and magnet schools. Magnet schools had higher GLP rates

overall in the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years. Magnet schools also had higher


GLP rates overall for the black, EDS, white and male subgroups in all three school years

that were compared (2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015). Charter schools had higher

GLP rates overall for the Asian subgroup during the three years. There were inconsistent

differences in the SWD and Hispanic subgroup observed over the course of the three

years. Magnet schools had higher graduation rates all three school years, with the greatest

differences in graduation rates evident in the black, EDS and male subgroups. Again,

inconsistent differences in graduation rates were observed for the SWD subgroup over

the course of the three years.


Are there differences in funding and expenditures between charter schools and


Explanation. This research question is aimed at determining the differences in

funding and expenditures between charter schools and magnet schools. As explained in

chapter three, this includes the differences in the laws, policies and requirements for

charter schools and traditional public school districts that have magnet schools. It also

includes the differences in practice between the two types of schools based on

information gained from the websites of the schools included in this study.

Instruments and data used. Data for this research question were gathered from

the NCDPI website, CMS website and individual charter and magnet school websites.

The Charter School Application Resource Manual and North Carolina Chapter 115C

Article 14a (the legislation that authorizes charter schools in North Carolina) were both

obtained from the Office of Charter Schools page of the North Carolina Department of

Public Instruction website (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015-b;


North Carolina General Assembly, n.d.). In addition, the funding table associated with

the North Carolina School Report Cards was obtained from the North Carolina School

Report Cards page under the resources for researchers tab (North Carolina Department of

Public Instruction, 2015-e). The Highlights of the NC Public School Budget document

for 2015 was also used for this analysis and obtained from the NCDPI website on the

Financial and Businesses Services page under the Data & Reports section (North

Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015-f). The webinar entitled “Dissecting

Charter School Funding” from the Financial & Business Services page was downloaded

and used by the researcher for this analysis (Schauss & North Carolina Department of

Public Instruction, 2015). Also, qualitative data from individual charter school and

magnet school websites were coded and categorized to answer this research question. A

chi-squared analysis was used to compare charter schools to the CMS district averages

for the percent of the budgets spent in different categories.

Data analyses and results. The document analysis of the resources from NCDPI

and the websites of individual charter and magnet schools yielded four main themes that

answer this research question. The first of these four themes is the intent to fund charter

schools at an equal per-pupil amount when compared with traditional public schools. The

second theme that was identified was that charter schools are given more autonomy with

regard to expenditures. The third theme was the request of charter schools for donations.

The fourth theme was the hidden costs to families associated primarily with charter

schools.

Theme one: Equal per-pupil funding. In analyzing the documents obtained from

NCDPI, the first theme that was evident was the attempt to create equal per-pupil funding


for charter schools and traditional school districts. This theme of creating equal funding

was evident throughout the documents in the terms that were used. Each time the words

equal, per-pupil share, base funding amount, and funding per ADM were found within

the documents, they were coded as this theme. This idea of equal funding was focused on

the total dollar amount per-pupil that is provided by the state to both school districts and

charter schools. “The State Board of Education shall allocate to each charter school: An

amount equal to the average per-pupil allocation for average daily membership from the

local school administrative unit allotments in which the charter school is located for each

child attending the charter school…..” (North Carolina General Assembly, n.d., § 115C-

218.105.a.1). The state of North Carolina does not set a per-pupil dollar amount and the

per-pupil amount is different for each of the districts, ranging from $4,684.31 to

$10,484.44 for the 2015-2016 school year (North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction, 2015-a). There are a number of factors that impact the per-pupil amount a

district receives from the state including the overall wealth and size of the district and the

number of at-risk students (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015-f).

The state of North Carolina provides funding to school districts in three main categories:

position allotments, dollar allotments, and categorical allotments (North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction, 2015-f). These categories are combined into an overall

dollar amount and divided by the district’s average daily membership (ADM) to calculate

the per-pupil amount that district receives from the state (North Carolina Department of

Public Instruction, 2015-f). This is referred to as the base funding, which is an average

dollar amount per student within a given district. (North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction, 2015-f). This base funding amount is used to calculate the dollar amount for


each charter school (Schauss & North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015).

Charter schools are provided with a dollar amount that is equal to the base funding per-

pupil amount multiplied by the number of students calculated using the ADM formula

(Schauss & North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015). Average Daily

Membership (ADM) is the number of students enrolled in the school and taking classes

for at least half of the school day (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction,

2014-a). ADM values are calculated monthly by dividing the number of days in

membership for all students in the school by the number of days in the month (North

Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2014-a).

The dollar amount received by charter schools is different from the funding

provided to districts in that it is not split up into the three categories, position allotments,

categorical allotments and dollar allotments (Schauss & North Carolina Department of

Public Instruction, 2015). There is a clear effort from the state to ensure the funding is

equal, but how it is provided differs greatly. Districts are provided with position

allotments instead of dollars to pay for the positions. In other words, districts are given a

certain number of teacher, principal, assistant principal, and teacher assistant positions

(Schauss & North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015). The district then

hires people for these positions and the state pays their salary according to the state pay

scale (Schauss & North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015). For the

district, it does not matter if the person is highly experienced and at the top of the pay

scale or if they are a first year teacher, the “cost” is the same, one position allotment.

However, for a charter school, the salary for the teachers and staff they hire comes out of

the dollar amount they receive since position allotment dollars are calculated into the


base funding amount per-pupil (Schauss & North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction, 2015). In addition, districts receive categorical allotments for things such as

at-risk student services, disadvantaged student supplemental funding, low wealth

supplemental funding and small county supplemental funding (Schauss & North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction, 2015). For districts, this funding is in these specific

categories since the intent is for it to be used to support specific groups of students or

specific areas (Schauss & North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015). For

charter schools, this funding is included in the base funding per-pupil amount they

receive (Schauss & North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015). This

categorical funding is provided within the charter base funding per-pupil regardless of the

student population they are serving, even if it does not represent the county in which they

are located.

In addition to the base funding per-pupil that is provided to charter schools,

provisions are made within North Carolina Chapter 115C Article 14a to ensure that

funding for students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency are

provided to the schools where they are attending.

The State Board of Education shall allocate to each charter school: (2) An

additional amount for each child attending the charter school who is a child with

disabilities; and (3) An additional amount for children with limited English

proficiency attending the charter school, based on a formula adopted by the State

Board.” (North Carolina General Assembly, n.d., § 115C-218.105.a.2,3)

This provision shows the effort toward creating a funding system that provides funding to

charter schools that is equal to that provided to traditional public schools. Since


traditional public school districts are given additional funding for students with

disabilities and limited English proficiency, this provision in Article 14a creates equality

in funding charter schools to support these students in the same way. State funding for

school districts and charter schools also includes direct funding for specific programs

such as summer reading camps, advanced placement exams and liability insurance

(Schauss & North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015). For these programs,

charter schools and districts are not treated any differently and the costs are handled

directly by the state. Districts and charter schools can also apply for grants through the

state to cover specific expenses or support specific initiatives. Both charter schools and

school districts are eligible for most of the grants (Schauss & North Carolina Department

of Public Instruction, 2015). Article 14a not only requires equal funding from the state,

but also requires that charter schools receive an equal per-pupil share of the local funding

for the district. “The local school administrative unit shall also provide each charter

school to which it transfers a per-pupil share of its local current expense fund…” (North

Carolina Department of Public Instruction, n.d., § 115C-218.105.d). In summary, it is

clear based on the laws and policies put in place by North Carolina, that the intent was to

provide charter schools with equal per-pupil funding from all sources: local, state and

federal.

Theme two: Greater autonomy with spending. As mentioned above, school

districts are provided with funding from the state in three categories: position allotments,

categorical allotments and dollar allotments. In contrast, the state provides charter

schools with a dollar amount that can be used as they see fit to best carry out their

charter.


State funds are allotted based on the number of students in ADM at the Charter

School. State funds may be used for any purpose other than purchasing a building.

Most federal funds are targeted towards a specific population such as Low Income

Children or Handicapped Children. Local funds are given to Charter Schools

based on the local current expense appropriation in the county in which the

student resides. Local funds may be used for any purpose. (North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction, 2015-f, p. 32)

In addition to the funding being provided as a dollar allotment, charter schools are not

required to pay their staff on the state salary schedule or use the state medical plan and

retirement system. They do not have the requirement of state contracts for purchases and

they are not required to participate in e-procurement. (North Carolina Department of

Public Instruction, 2015-f, p. 31)

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction provides publicly available data

on the expenditures of school districts and individual charter schools. The funding table

was obtained from the resources for researchers section of the NC School Report Cards

page of the NCDPI website. This table includes the percent of the total school or district

budget spent in the following categories: salary expenses, benefits expenses, services

expenses, supplies expenses, instructional expenses and other expenses (North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction, 2015-e). For schools that are part of a larger school

district, this data is provided for the school district as whole. The magnet schools in this

study are all within the Charlotte Mecklenburg School district so the district expense

percentages were used for comparison to the individual charter schools. The results for

the chi-squared comparison of expenditures between charter schools and the CMS


average are shown in table 4.5. There were two main trends identified in the expenditure

data from 2012 - 2015. There was a statistically significant difference between charter

schools and the CMS average when the percent spent on salaries and benefit was

compared. Most charter schools spent close to 65% of their budgets on salaries and

benefits while the CMS school district spent over 80% (North Carolina Department of

Public Instruction, 2015-e). The second trend was the statistically significant difference

between charter schools and the CMS average when the percent spent on services was

compared. Most charter schools spent between 20% and 30% of their budgets on services

while CMS spent about 8% of its budget on services (North Carolina Department of

Public Instruction, 2015-e). In summary, charter schools are able to use the state and

local funding they receive for virtually any purpose. In practice, they seem to be spending

a smaller portion of their funding on staff and a larger portion of their funding on

services.



Theme three: Donations. The charter schools that were included in this study all

had one major thing in common with their websites. Every one of the charter school

websites had some form of request for donations. Each time the terms donate, donation

and invest were identified on the school websites, they were coded as this theme. Many

of the charter school websites included an option for parents and community members to

make donations directly to the school. On some of the charter school websites this was as

simple as a donate button and a sentence thanking donors for their support. However, on

many of the websites there were more detailed requests about why donations were

needed and how much people should donate. In some cases, this was framed as a need for

the school to continue operating. Some went as far as to say that charter schools are not

funded like regular public schools so the donations are needed as a way for them to

operate without equal funding.

The Invest in a Scholar Annual Fund Campaign is our primary opportunity for

school families to participate in the continued success of the Academy by helping

to bridge the gap left by state and local funding. Families are invited to donate to

the school to support existing educational programs, develop new curriculum,

improve school facilities, and support essential needs of Socrates Academy.”

(Socrates Academy ,n.d.-b, Invest in a scholar annual fund, para 2)

Some schools even go so far as to give the percent of the operating budget that donations

provide. “Even so, the Scholars Academy needs its annual fund to secure the approximate

20% gap in the annual operating budget. Voluntary contributions are, therefore, vitally

important” (Metrolina Regional Scholars Academy, n.d., Annual giving campaign FAQs,

para 2). Other schools included both statements about the need for donations due to


unequal funding from the state along with rewards or incentives for donating. Some of

the schools gave benefits to all donors, others only gave them to large donors, such as the

carpool cut pass from one school.

2015 Gala Winner - Carpool Cut: If you see this sign, allow them to turn in front

of you during carpool. The owner made a generous donation to Corvian at the

2015 Gala in order to be able to have a little carpool flexibility. They will always

prioritize safety, but we ask that you courteously let them into the line in front of

you. (Corvian Community School, n.d., Carpool instructions)

One additional strategy some schools used was to include a breakdown of how the school

intended to use the funding provided by donors. An example of this from Lake Norman

Charter School is below:

As a charter school, LNC is not funded at the same level as a traditional public

school. We need our community's partnership to achieve school needs identified

by administration, our Board and our parents via last spring’s parent survey:

• Improve campus safety, traffic congestion and carpool by building a

secondary campus road and additional student parking

• Realign and add counseling personnel to strengthen and further

personalize our emotional and college counseling services at both the HS

and MS

• Support student learning by continuing to invest in teacher development

and replacing aging classroom Smartboards with modern, HD, projector-

less boards that fully utilize our 1:World technology. (Lake Norman

Charter, n.d.-b, Donate to LNC- Invest in excellence, para 2)


All of the charter schools included direct requests for donations on their websites, while

none of the magnet school websites included this. Some of the magnet schools did

include options for parents to volunteer, purchase spirit wear or get involved in

fundraisers. Many of the charter schools also included options for parents to volunteer or

get involved with fundraisers. For most of the magnet schools, the larger fundraisers were

sponsored by the parent teacher student association (PTSA). The terms invest and donate

were used on some of the PTSA websites associated with magnet schools. Some of the

magnet school PTSA websites included coordinated fundraising efforts in which parents

simply donated to the PTSA. This was very similar to the annual fundraising campaigns

that many of the charter schools had in place. However, the suggested amounts were

notably different. For magnet schools it was common to see $25 as a donation amount.

(Northwest school of the arts PTO, n.d.; Phillip O Berry Academy of Technology PTSA,

n.d.) In contrast, one of the charter schools had $25 ($300 annually) as the lowest

suggested monthly recurring donation amount and $250 ($3000 annually) as the highest

suggested monthly recurring donation (Lake Norman Charter, n.d.-b). The efforts of the

magnet school PTSAs in asking for donations also seemed to be generally centered on

providing specific extras to the school, such as awards, special trips and programs, or

money that would go directly to teachers for their classrooms.

In summary, the charter schools in this study all had requests for donations posted

on their websites and some used wording that charter schools are not funded equally to

magnet schools to make their case for donations. In some cases, the requests for

donations from charter schools were for large sums of money and it was clear this money

was going to be used in the operating budget of the school. Some of the magnet school


PTSAs had donation requests for reasonable amounts with specific goals for the

donations to fund educational extras.

Theme four: Hidden costs to families. The fourth theme that was identified was

that of hidden costs for families when they make the choice to send their child to a

specific school. Both charter schools and magnet schools are public schools that do not

charge tuition; however, there are some differences in what is provided and/or required

for students that attend. A few of the potential hidden costs that were identified were

transportation, lunch and uniforms. These were identified through the charter and magnet

school websites and the following terms were coded as part of this theme: transportation,

bus, carpool, lunch, free and reduced price lunch, uniforms, dress code, and fees. The

majority of the charter schools in this study, eight of the 12 charter schools, did not have

a lunch program that included free and reduced priced lunch for students who qualified.

Some of these eight schools provided options for parents to purchase catered lunches,

while others did not provide a lunch option at all. “We do not have a formal in-house

lunch program, but you can order lunches a month in advance through our catered lunch

program” (Charlotte Secondary School, n.d., Lunch program, para 1). In contrast, magnet

schools, as part of the CMS district, provide a full lunch program daily through the

National School Lunch Program (NSLP) that includes a free and reduced price lunch

option for families that qualify. Charter schools are eligible to participate in the NSLP

because they are public schools serving children in grades K-12. The NSLP “provides

nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day” (USDA

Food and Nutrition Service, n.d., National School Lunch Program, para 1). The NSLP


also provides a federal reimbursement to schools for the lunches they provide to students

(USDA Food and Nutrition Service, n.d.).

Only three of the 12 charter schools had information regarding bus transportation

for students on their websites. Although a few of the schools did not even address

transportation, there were five charter schools that had extensive information about car

rider lines, routes and carpools and one that had an option for parents to turn in a

permission form for their child to walk to and from school. Charter schools are not

required to provide bus transportation for students but they are required to have a

“…transportation plan so that transportation is not a barrier to any student that resides in

the local school administrative unit in which the school is located” (North Carolina

General Assembly, n.d., § 115C-218.40.). It was common among the schools that had

information about carpool to have a free matching service to assist parents in setting up

carpools. “LNC does not provide transportation, but has arranged a free carpool matching

service to help parents establish their carpools” (Lake Norman Charter School, n.d.-a,

Carpool, para 3). For the schools that did not directly state that they do not provide bus

transportation, extensive information about carpools or car rider lines was interpreted by

the researcher as meaning that no bus transportation was provided for students. In

contrast, magnet schools in CMS do provide bus transportation for students (Charlotte

Mecklenburg Schools, n.d.-a). The district is split up into transportation zones and each

magnet school serves specific zones, with some serving all zones (Charlotte Mecklenburg

Schools, n.d.-c). The district has shifted to shuttle stops for some of the magnet schools to

increase transportation efficiency. Parents are responsible for getting their children to the

shuttle stop, which is a school in their area. Transportation to the magnet school is then


provided from the shuttle stop school. Shuttle stops are used for six of the 17 magnet

schools included in this study (Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools, n.d.-a).

Uniforms or strict dress codes were required at some of the charter schools and

some of the magnet schools. Within the charter school group, five of the 12 schools had

information about requirements for uniforms or specific dress code on their websites.

Within the magnet school group, four of the 17 required uniforms based on information

provided on the district website (Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools, n.d.-b). The cost

associated with purchasing uniforms or clothing for a strict dress code varies from school

to school based on the requirements. For example, one of the charter schools has a strict

uniform policy that requires students to wear specific monogrammed shirts from a

uniform vendor. In the policy it states: “Uniform policies will be strictly enforced. No

child will be allowed to remain in class unless in proper uniform” (Sugar Creek Charter

School, 2013, pg.5). It goes on to describe what the uniform consists of:

Elementary (K-5) Monogrammed Navy shirt with collar. Only monogrammed

shirts will be authorized. Undershirts must be white. (No Exceptions) Any other

color will have to be removed. Long sleeve shirts must be monogrammed uniform

shirts. All shirts must be worn tucked in.” (Sugar Creek Charter School, 2013,

pg.5)

Although the exact cost of the monogrammed uniform shirts was not included on the

website or in the handbook, the vendor advertised regular uniform shirts for $17.75 to

$25.27 without a monogram (Flynn O’Hare Uniforms, n.d.). In contrast, one of the

magnet schools had information about donating uniforms so they could be sold to other

students.


Is your child outgrowing the uniform shirts and pants you bought him or her at the

beginning of the year? Please consider donating them to our school! We sell them

for just $1 a piece during our used uniform sales, and many families in our school

community rely on our sales to be able to cover the cost.” (Collinswood PTA,

n.d., para 1)

Answer to research question two. There are differences in funding and

expenditures between charter schools and magnet schools in Mecklenburg County.

Efforts are made by the state to provide charter schools with the same per-pupil funding

amount that schools within a district are provided. However, this funding is provided as a

total dollar amount instead of position allotments, categorical allotments and dollar

allotments. There is intentional flexibility and autonomy for charter schools in how they

spend the funding they receive. This is in contrast to the regulations in place for schools

within school districts that are required to spend funding on the specific categories or

areas for which it was provided. In addition, charter schools seem to have an expectation

that parents and community members provide additional funding through donations.

Despite the clear effort by the state to ensure equal funding, some charter schools

outwardly state that the funding is not equal and there is a need for donations as a result.

Finally, there are differences between magnet schools and charter schools in the hidden

costs for families who chose to attend charter schools. Charter schools do not all provide

lunch or transportation, so families who attend these schools have to pay for these basic

needs. Uniforms are required by some of the charter schools and some of the magnet

schools. However, the cost of these uniforms varied based on requirements. The


information provided on the school websites suggested that magnet schools found ways

to keep these costs more manageable for families.


Are there differences in staffing between charter schools and magnet schools in



staffing between charter schools and magnet schools. As explained in chapter three, this

includes the differences in the laws, policies and requirements for charter schools as

compared to magnet schools, which are part of the larger school district. It also includes

the differences in practice between the two types of schools based on information gained

from the websites of the schools included in this study.

Instruments and data used. Data for this research question were obtained by

qualitative document analysis of North Carolina Chapter 115C Article 14a and of the

staffing pages on each of the charter and magnet school websites. Information from these

web pages and the Article 14a document were coded as a part of this research question if

they had information about staffing requirements, the actual staff employed at a school,

or staff position titles. The “resources for researchers” tab on the North Carolina School

Report Cards page of the NCDPI website has a document called the personnel table that

includes information about the teachers employed at each school in North Carolina

including the number of teachers, how many of them are licensed, teacher turnover rates

and years of experience (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015-h). This

data set was used to draw comparisons between the charter schools and magnet schools

included in this study. The data were used for a chi-squared analysis to determine if the


overall percent of licensed teachers was different in charter schools than in magnet

schools.

Data analyses and results. Qualitative document analysis yielded three themes to

answer this research question. The first theme is that of teacher licensure. For the theme

of teacher licensure, both the requirements for the number of licensed teachers and the

actual percent of licensed teachers were included. A chi-squared analysis was used to

determine if there was a significant difference between magnet schools and charter

schools in the number of licensed teachers. The second theme was the number of

teachers, administrators and support staff along with ratios of teachers to students and

administrators to teachers. The third theme was teacher turnover.

Theme one: Teacher licensure.

The first theme that was identified with this research question was teacher

licensure. Charter schools have some flexibility with teacher licensure.

The charter school's board of directors shall employ and contract with necessary

teachers to perform the particular service for which they are employed in the

school; at least fifty percent (50%) of these teachers shall hold teacher licenses.

All teachers who are teaching in the core subject areas of mathematics, science,

social studies, and language arts shall be college graduates. (North Carolina

General Assembly, n.d., § 115C-218.90.a.1)

Based on the data from the NCDPI personnel table, some charter schools have the same

or similar percent of their teachers licensed as magnet schools (North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction, 2015-h). Although most of the charter schools are

meeting the requirement of having at least 50% of their teachers licensed (North Carolina


Department of Public Instruction, 2015-h), there were a few things worth noting. Table

4.6 shows that from 2012-2013 to 2014-2015 the percent of charter school teachers that

are licensed has decreased from 83.3% in 2012-2013 to 71.5% in 2014-2015 while

magnet schools have stayed consistently at about 95% licensed teachers. The percent of

teachers licensed in charter schools was compared to the percent of teachers licensed in

magnet schools for the three school years involved in this study using a chi-squared

analysis to determine if the difference was statistically significant. As table 4.6 shows, the

chi-squared result for all three school years was greater than 3.841 with one degree of

freedom and an alpha level of 0.05. Based on these chi-squared results, the researcher

determined that there is a statistically significant difference in the percent of licensed

teachers in charter schools as compared with magnet schools. Magnet schools have a

higher percent of licensed teachers for all three years of this study. There was one school

that did not meet the required 50% licensed teachers in 2013-2014 or 2014-2015 (North

Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015-h). In fact, in 2014-2015 it was at only

25% licensed teachers (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015-h). For

this particular school there were only 16 teachers total and with only 25% of them being

licensed that means that only 4 licensed teachers were employed in the entire school

(North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015-h). In contrast, the researcher

found that some of the charter schools in this study stated that they hire only licensed

teachers and have licensure as a stated requirement in their job postings. “For the 2016-

2017 school year, the High School is looking for a Highly Qualified 9-12 English

Teacher. A qualified applicant will be licensed in North Carolina and would have strong

experience teaching English 12” (Lake Norman Charter School, n.d.-c, employment


opportunities section). However, other charter schools do not mention it as a requirement

or they state that it is not required. One school states this directly within the requirements

for the school’s principal position. “North Carolina Principal Licensure is preferred but

not required” (Academy, n.d.-a).

In summary, there are differences in the teacher licensure requirements for

teachers employed in charter schools when compared to magnet schools that are part of a

larger school district. As shown in table 4.6, this difference in requirements has resulted

in a lower percentage of licensed teachers in charter schools and the trend suggests the

percent of licensed teachers in charter schools is decreasing over time.

Theme two: Teachers, administrator and support staff. Charter and magnet

school websites were used to determine the number of teachers, teacher assistants,

administrators, and support staff that are employed in each school. The magnet school

websites were all set up very similarly with a staff page that contained both names of

staff and their positions within the school. Positions were labeled the same way in all the

magnet schools making them simple to categorize into teachers, teacher assistants,

administrators and support staff. The charter school websites were all set up differently

and position titles varied. Some of the charter school websites contained full information


regarding the staff members and their positions; other websites contained very little

information so the number of staff in each type of position was not able to be determined.

Staff members were coded as teachers if their position title said teacher or only indicated

a grade level or subject area. Staff members were coded as teacher assistants if they were

titled as a teacher assistant. Staff members were coded as administrators if their position

title was principal, assistant principal, executive director, director, dean of students, or

administrator. Staff members were coded as support staff if they did not fit into any of the

categories above. Support staff generally included the counselors, facilitators,

coordinators, security associates, behavior management, and office staff.

The data collected from the school websites were combined to compare the

staffing in charter schools to the staffing in magnet schools. Table 4.7 shows the sum of

the students, teachers, teacher assistants, administrators, and support staff for both

magnet schools and charter schools. Overall student to teacher ratios for magnets and

charters were calculated. The student to teacher ratio for the magnet schools in the study

was found to be approximately one teacher for every 16 students. For charter schools, the

ratio was found to be approximately one teacher for every 18.5 students. Charter schools

did appear to have a larger number of administrators than magnet schools. The ratio of

administrators to teachers in magnet schools was approximately one administrator for

every 18 teachers; for charter schools the ratio was one administrator for every eight

teachers. Further research is needed before conclusions can be drawn about these staffing

ratios. These ratios were calculated on the total population in each category of the study,

rather than school-by-school. Also, the researcher gathered this data from school websites

that may or may not be up to date and fully accurate.


Theme three: Teacher turnover. The personnel data from NCDPI contained

information for magnet schools regarding the number of teachers with advanced degrees,

the number of teachers who are national board certified, and the teacher turnover rate.

This data was not provided for charter schools within the personnel files from NCDPI.

On May 6, 2016 the researcher looked for the number of positions posted for the 2016-

2017 school year for each of the schools in the study. Some of the schools had no

positions posted for next year, while others had more than 10. The majority of magnet

schools had one or two teacher positions posted; the magnet school with the greatest

number of positions posted had six positions and there were three magnets with no open

positions. Charter schools varied more widely. Some did not have any information about

employment on their websites, while others had a link to apply but not specific positions.

Of the charter schools that had specific positions posted, there were three that had one to

three positions posted; there were three that had five or more positions posted. One of the

schools had 10 teacher positions posted along with four administrative or support

positions. Similarly, another charter school had nine teacher positions along with three

support positions posted. Although there was no data available to determine if there is a

difference in teacher turnover rates between magnet schools and charter schools, there is


some evidence to suggest there may be some differences. The charter schools that have a

large number of positions may have higher teacher turnover rates.

Answer to research question three. The researcher found that differences in

staffing exist between charter schools and magnet schools in Mecklenburg County.

Charter schools are not required to hire all licensed teachers; only 50% of the teachers in

a charter school are required to be licensed. This has resulted in a statistically significant

difference between the number of licensed teachers in charter schools when compared to

magnet schools; charter schools have fewer licensed teachers and the number is trending

down. Staffing data collected from charter school and magnet school websites suggests

that there may be differences in the proportion of teachers, administrators and support

staff between charter schools and magnet schools. The data on job postings collected

from charter and magnet school websites suggests there may be differences in turnover

rates between the two types of schools.


Are there differences in programs and opportunities provided for students in charter

schools and magnet schools in Mecklenburg County? If so, what are the differences?


opportunities provided for students between charter schools and magnet schools. As

explained in chapter three, this includes differences in academic programs and

extracurricular activities between the two types of schools.

Instruments and data used. Qualitative document analysis was used to identify,

code and categorize the opportunities provided by the schools in the study based on

information gained from the individual school websites. Document analysis of charter


school documents from NCDPI and magnet school documents from CMS was also used

to answer this research question. The charter school documents used to answer this

research question include North Carolina Chapter 115C Article 14a and the Charter

School Application Resource Manual (North Carolina General Assembly, n.d.; North

Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015-b). The magnet school document used

for this research question was The Magnet Schools of America Report to Charlotte

Mecklenburg Schools Magnet Study Visit (Burcherie, 2015).

Data analyses and results. Three themes were identified to answer this research

question. The first theme was the intent of the opportunities provided by the two types of

schools. The second theme was the academic programs provided by the two types of

schools. The third theme was extracurricular activities.

Theme one: Intent of opportunities. The first theme identified for this research

question was that both types of schools seemed to have the intent of providing

opportunities. Within The Charter School Application Resource Manual, North Carolina

Chapter 115C Article 14a and The Magnet Schools of America Report to Charlotte

Mecklenburg Schools Magnet Study Visit, the word opportunity was used consistently,

especially in the sections that explained the purpose of the schools. Each time the word

opportunity was identified in the documents, it was coded as this theme. The use of the

term opportunity in the magnet school document was focused on two main areas. The

first was the opportunity for the district to continuously improve the magnet schools and

programs that are in place (Burcherie, 2015). The second was in reference to providing

opportunities for students through magnet schools. “It is our goal to promote opportunity,

equity, transparence, and preparation for all students so they may have the skills to thrive


in a global society” (Burcherie, 2015, pg. 26). North Carolina Chapter 115C Article 14a,

the legislation authorizing charter schools in North Carolina, contains a section entitled

“purpose” that uses the term opportunity five times. Based on this section of Article 14a,

a main purpose of charter schools is to provide opportunities for students, teachers,

parents, and the community (North Carolina General Assembly, n.d.). This purpose of

providing opportunities for students, teachers, parents, and the community was reiterated

in the Charter School Application Resource Manual. (North Carolina Department of

Public Instruction, 2015-b). Although the term opportunity was used throughout all three

documents, the use of the term in the magnet school document was not the same as the

use of it within the two charter school documents. The Report to Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Schools Magnet Study Visit focused on an opportunity to improve within the district and

provide opportunities for students (Burcherie, 2015). In the two charter school documents

the focus on opportunities for students was also present, but the opportunity to improve

was presented as an opportunity for parents, teachers and the community to break away

from the district in an effort to innovate and improve (North Carolina General Assembly,

n.d.; North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2015-b).

Theme two: Academic programs. The second theme that was identified was the

specific academic programs offered by the schools. In analyzing the magnet school and

charter school websites for the schools in this study, the researcher found that all schools

had descriptions posted about the academic programs that they offer. Portions of the

websites that included the terms academic program, curriculum, vision, mission and

goals were all coded as a part of this theme. The level of detail in the descriptions varied,

but in all cases the academic programs were described in a positive way, as if to convince


families that the program they are offering is not merely different from that offered at the

traditional public school, but better. Terms such as success, every student, committed,

dedicated, enhanced, and fundamental were commonly included in the descriptions,

especially in the vision and mission statements. “Community School of Davidson

believes that every student can and will succeed in ways that reflect his or her own

aptitudes and interests” (Community School of Davidson, Mission and Purpose, n.d., para

1). It was also noted by the researcher that all of the magnet school descriptions included

a specific academic program. The magnet schools in this study included the following

programs: Montessori, traditional, language immersion, arts, learning immersion and

talent development, leadership and global studies, STEM, and International

Baccalaureate (IB). Only three of the 12 charter schools in the study included a specific

program. The three charter school programs included: paideia program, arts integration,

and Greek language immersion. Although most of the charter schools did not include

specific academic programs, there were some common terms within the descriptions of

the charter school academic programs. These terms included: 21st century, college

preparatory, character education, project-based learning, integrated curriculum and

community.

Based on the descriptions provided by individual schools, there does seem to be a

difference between the academic opportunities provided by magnet schools and charter

schools in Mecklenburg County. Magnet schools each describe a specific academic

program while the majority of charter schools describe a more general academic program

with some level of specified focus.


Theme three: Extracurricular activities. Athletic teams were a theme found in

the websites of both charter and magnet schools within this study. The majority of

secondary charter schools in the study included some form of athletics. This ranged from

just basketball to a full athletic program similar to a traditional comprehensive high

school. All secondary magnet schools included options for students to participate in

athletic programs. Some of the magnet schools included athletics through the school;

others had opportunities for students to participate in athletics with the home school that

they would attend if they had not chosen a magnet school (Charlotte Mecklenburg

Schools Athletic Zone, n.d.).

Clubs and activities were not included on all the websites that were analyzed. It is

possible that some of the schools have clubs and activities but did not include them on

their websites. It is also possible that the schools that did include them actually offer

more or fewer than those that were mentioned. There did not seem to be a trend

indicating that either type of school, magnets or charters, offered clubs and activities less

or more than the other type of school.

Answer to research question four. Based on the information gained from

qualitative document analysis there are differences in opportunities and academic

programs between the magnet schools and charter schools included in this study. The

intent of the opportunities provided by the two types of schools seemed to be different.

Magnet schools seemed to focus on opportunities for students within the school district

and the opportunity to improve options within the school district; charter schools seemed

to focus on the opportunity for students, parents, teachers and the community to improve

by separating from the school district. In addition, all magnet schools had specific


academic programs in place for students. Only three of the charter schools had specific

academic programs in place; the majority of charter schools described a general academic

program. There was limited information about extracurricular activities available on the

school websites. It was clear that the majority of secondary schools, both charter and

magnet, offer some type of athletic program. More research is needed to determine if

there are differences in other extracurricular activities.


CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings

There are differences in student academic outcomes between the charter schools

and magnet schools in Mecklenburg County and the differences have become more

pronounced since the 2012-2013 school year. The magnet schools in this study had better

academic outcomes overall, as measured by grade level proficiency on North Carolina

EOG and EOC tests and graduation rate. In addition, magnet schools in this study

consistently had better academic outcomes for black students, white students, males, and

economically disadvantaged students. Charter schools in this study consistently had

better outcomes for Asian students. The academic outcomes for students with disabilities

and Hispanic students were inconsistent for both magnet schools and charter schools.

There are differences in funding and expenditures between magnet schools and

charter schools. Efforts were made by the state, within the law that authorizes charter

schools, to ensure that charter schools are funded at the same per-pupil rate as other

public schools, such as magnet schools. However, charter schools do have greater

autonomy with spending. Charter schools consistently spent a larger percent of their

budget on services and a smaller percentage of their budget on salaries and benefits as

compared to the CMS district. Charter schools consistently asked for donations from

parents and the community, sometimes with persuasive or potentially misleading

language and with benefits to large donors. In addition, charter schools have more hidden

costs for families than magnet schools. The majority of the charter schools in this study

do not provide bus transportation or a free and reduced price lunch program. Also,


uniforms are required by some charter schools and by some magnet schools, but the cost

varies.

There are differences in staffing between magnet schools and charter schools in

Mecklenburg County. Charter schools are required to have only 50% of their teachers be

licensed. This has resulted in charter schools having a significantly smaller number of

licensed teachers when compared to magnet schools. In addition, staffing data collected

from charter and magnet school websites suggest that charter schools may have a higher

student to teacher ratio and lower teacher to administrator ratio. There is some evidence

in the data collected from websites that suggests some charter schools may have a higher

teacher turnover rate than magnet schools of similar size.

Finally, there are differences in opportunities provided by charter schools and

magnet schools in Mecklenburg County. The intention of the opportunity itself seems to

be different based on magnet school documents as compared to charter school

documents. Magnet schools seem to focus on opportunities for students and opportunities

for improvement within the district. Charter schools seem to focus on the opportunity for

students, teachers and the community to improve by separating from the district.

Academic programs also differed between magnet schools and charter schools. All

magnet schools offered specific academic programs (for example: STEM or language

immersion); however, most of the charter schools offered more general academic

programs. Both magnet schools and charter schools seemed to offer athletic programs at

the secondary level. There was not enough information available on school websites to

determine if there were differences in other extracurricular activities such as clubs.


Specific Meaning of the Combined Answers to the Research Questions

This study provides evidence to suggest that magnet schools have a greater return

on investment than charter schools. The laws that authorize charter schools in the state of

North Carolina ensure that charter schools receive per-pupil funding that is equal to that

of the local school district where they are located. However, there is evidence to suggest

that charter schools seek and receive donations from parents and the community and are

more likely to have hidden costs for families, such as lunch or transportation. The same

laws that provide equal funding also provide charter schools with a greater degree of

autonomy in a variety of areas including their expenditures, staffing, and overall

academic program. Although charter schools are funded at an equal per-pupil rate and

given autonomy for the purpose of improving student learning, the academic outcomes of

magnet schools are better than those of charter schools.

This difference in academic outcomes is potentially due to a couple of factors.

First, there are differences in the staffing of charter schools as compared to magnet

schools. Charter schools have a lower percentage of licensed teachers and this has

decreased from 83.3% in 2013 to 71.5% in 2015. Over this same three-year period, the

gap between charter school and magnet school proficiency rates went from no difference

in grade level proficiency overall to a difference of about three percentage points overall,

with magnet schools performing better. The gap in proficiency between magnet schools

and charter schools has become even greater in specific subgroups: in 2015, black

students in magnet schools had a proficiency rate that was 15.4 percentage points higher

than the proficiency rate for black students in charter schools. The same was true for

white students and economically disadvantaged students with proficiency rates that were


7.5 and 10.7 percentage points higher in magnet schools. As mentioned above, the

difference in the staffing of the charter schools may be impacting the academic outcomes.

Multiple researchers have studied the impact of teachers on student academic

achievement. One study linked the overall professional competence of a teacher, defined

as the pedagogical content knowledge, professional beliefs, work-related motivation, and

self-regulation, to positive impacts on the quality of the instruction they provide (Kunter,

et al., 2013). Similarly, Metzler & Woessmann (2012) found teacher subject knowledge

does have a statistically significant impact on student achievement. Also, it is not only

teacher quality that impacts student achievement; teacher turnover has also been linked to

having a negative impact on student achievement (Ronfeldt, Loeb & Wyckoff, 2013).

The second potential factor is the lack of specific academic programs in charter

schools as compared to magnet schools. Multiple studies have shown the positive impact

of the specific magnet academic programs on student achievement (Gamoran, 1996;

Betts, et al., 2006; Houston Independent School District, 2007). Although charter schools

are part of “school choice,” many of them are lacking a focused or innovative academic

program that would set them apart from traditional public schools. The difference in

academic achievement may be related to this difference in academic programs.

Finally, there is some evidence to suggest that the spending practices of charter

schools may impact the learning environment and overall academic performance of

students. Overall, charter schools spent a smaller proportion of their budget on salaries

and benefits than the traditional school district. It is possible that this difference in

spending is due to the staff being less experienced or more simply due to employing less

staff. Staffing information on school websites did suggest that charter schools have a


higher student teacher ratio and a lower teacher to administrator ratio. Although this

evidence is not conclusive, it does lead to further questions about charter schools and the

impact of the autonomy they have.

Recommendations for Future Research in this Area

With charter schools continuing to open in North Carolina, there is a need for

further research. There were some differences in staffing identified in this study that have

the potential to be explored further through additional studies. The researcher

recommends further research that focuses specifically on the effectiveness of charter

school teachers and the teacher turnover rates in charter schools. In this study, the

researcher found some evidence to suggest that charter schools are not set up to serve all

students. Hidden costs for families and an expectation of donations from parents have the

potential to exclude economically disadvantaged students. Further research on both the

demographics of charter schools and equitable access to charter schools is recommended.

This study highlighted the differences in academic outcomes between the two types of

schools; however this research did not focus on why parents and families chose charter

schools or magnet schools. Further research is recommended to identify the factors that

play a significant role in school choice. Finally, this study did a comparison that was

based on the compilation of data from a group of charter schools and a group of magnet

schools; however, individual school results can vary greatly. Further research is

recommended to identify specific factors, such as academic programs or teacher

experience level, that are found in successful magnet and charter schools.


Recommendations to the District

Recommendation one. The researcher recommends that the district use this study

to better inform the community about magnet schools and charter schools. The results of

this study have the potential to be used to market magnet schools to parents in an effort to

recruit students back to the district and retain the students that are currently in the district.

It is in the best interest of the district to recruit and retain students from a funding

perspective. This study provides statistical evidence that magnet schools have better

academic outcomes than charter schools. Academic outcomes are likely to be a factor that

parents consider when making the choice to attend a specific type of school. Hastings and

Weinstein (2007) found that when parents receive information about school performance,

they are significantly more likely to choose the school that is performing better.

Recommendation two. Consider expanding the magnet school choice options

within the district. Since magnet schools are performing better than charter schools, the

creation of additional magnet options may be what is needed to retain more families in

the district. More magnet schools and programs would create greater access to a variety

of quality programs so that all students have more than one good choice option. Also, the

researcher recommends that the district consider magnet feeder patterns in all areas to

allow students to continue with a magnet program from elementary school to middle

school and from middle school to high school. Finally, considering the history of magnet

schools and the role they played in desegregation (Minow, 2011; Davis, 2014), they have

the potential to be a key factor in the current student assignment discussions within the

district. The researcher recommends that the district consider the use of magnet schools

as a tool to create stronger and more diverse schools throughout the district.


Recommendation three. Based on the student achievement results, magnet

schools are performing better than charter schools with the majority of subgroups.

However, students with disabilities had inconsistent academic outcomes in both magnet

and charter schools. Although there is little research on students with disabilities in

magnet schools, there is some research to suggest academic programs, such as a STEM

focus, can be beneficial for students with disabilities if implemented to meet their needs.

In a study on teaching computational thinking and computer programming to students

with disabilities Israel, et al. (2015) recommended specific strategies, such as using

multiple representations of concepts and multiple ways of engaging students, to give

students with disabilities the opportunity to succeed in an academic area where they are

typically underrepresented. The researcher recommends that greater support be provided

to magnet schools to work with students with disabilities in achieving greater academic

success. This support may include professional development for magnet school teachers

and the addition of support staff to work with students with disabilities that are enrolled

or want to enroll in magnet schools.


REFERENCES Abdulkadiroglu, A., Angrist, J., Cohodes, S., Dynarski, S., Fullerton, J., Kane, T., &

Pathak, P. (2009). Informing the debate: Comparing Boston's charter, pilot and

traditional schools. Retrieved from

http://www.tbf.org/uploadedFiles/tbforg/Utility_Navigation/Multimedia_Library/R

eports/InformingTheDebate_Final.pdf

Archbald, D. A., & Kaplan, D. (2004). Parent choice versus attendance area assignment

to schools: does magnet-based school choice affect NAEP scores? International

Journal of Educational Policy, Research, and Practice: Reconceptualizing

Childhood Studies, 5(1), 3-35.

Arsen, D., & Ni, Y. (2012). Is administration leaner in charter schools? Resource

allocation in charter and traditional public schools. Education Policy Analysis

Archives, 20(31).

Baker, B. D. & Ferris, R. (2011). Adding up the Spending: Fiscal Disparities and

Philanthropy among New York City Charter Schools. Boulder, CO: National

Education Policy Center.

Ballou, D., Goldring, E., & Liu, K. (2006). Magnet schools and student achievement.

New York, NY: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education,

Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from

http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/OP123.pdf.

Benson, M., Bridge, G., & Wilson, D. (2015). School choice in London and Paris - A

comparison of middle-class strategies. Social Policy & Administration, 49(1), 24-

43. doi:10.1111/spol.12079


Berends, M. (2015). Sociology and school choice: What we know after two decades of

charter schools. Annual Review of Sociology, (0), 159-180.

Betts, J.R., Rice, L.A., Zau, A.C., Tang, Y.E., & Koedel, C.R. (2006). Does school

choice work? Effects on student integration and achievement. San Francisco, CA:

Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_806JBR.pdf.

Bifulco, R., Buerger, C., & Cobb, C. (2012). Intergroup relations in integrated schools: a

glimpse inside interdistrict magnet schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives,

20(28).

Bifulco, R., & Ladd, H. F. (2006). The impacts of charter schools on student

achievement: Evidence from North Carolina. Education, 1(1), 50-90.

Bifulco, R., Ladd, H., & Ross, S. (2009). Public school choice and integration evidence

from Durham, North Carolina. Social Science Research, 38, 71-85.

Blazer, C., & Miami-Dade County Public Schools, R. S. (2010). Research comparing

charter schools and traditional public schools. Literature Review. Research

Services, Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED536259.pdf

Booker, K., Sass, T., Gill, B., & Zimmer, R. (2008). Going beyond test scores:

Evaluating charter school impact on educational attainment in Chicago and Florida.

RAND Education. Retrieved from http://

www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/2008/RAND_WR610.pdf

Burcherie, K. (2015). Report to Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools magnet study visit.

Retrieved from


http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/cmsdepartments/ci/MagnetPrograms/Documents/MSA%

20Magnet%20Study%20Visit_CMS%20Report%20-%20May%202015.pdf

Carlson, D. (2014). School choice and educational stratification. Policy Studies Journal,

42(2), 269-304. doi:10.1111/psj.12059

Carpenter, D. I., & Noller, S. L. (2010). Measuring charter school efficiency: An early

appraisal. Journal Of Education Finance, 35(4), 397-415.

Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools Athletic Zone. (n.d.) Athletic eligibility. Overview.

Retrieved from http://www.cmsathleticzone.com/page/show/1299463-overview

Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools. (n.d.-a). Magnet transportation information.

Transportation. Departments. Retreived from

http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/cmsdepartments/transportation/magnetinfo/Pages/default

.aspx

Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools. (n.d.-b). School uniforms. Schools. Retrieved from

http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/cmsschools/Pages/SchoolUniforms.aspx

Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools. (n.d.-c) Transportation eligibility. Magnet programs.

Curriculum and instruction. Departments. Retreived from

http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/cmsdepartments/ci/MagnetPrograms/Pages/Transportatio

nEligibility.aspx

Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools. (2015). 2015-2016 School options guide. Retrieved from

http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/cmsdepartments/ci/MagnetPrograms/Pages/MagnetScho

olsGuidebook.aspx

Charlotte Secondary School. (n.d.). Lunch program. Retrieved from

http://www.charlottesecondary.org/resources/parents/lunch-program


Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools.

Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Collinswood PTA. (n.d.). Donate uniforms. Spirit wear and uniforms. Retrieved from

http://www.collinswoodpta.com/content/spirit-wear-uniforms/donate-uniforms

Community School of Davidson. (n.d.). Mission and purpose. About us. Retrieved from

http://www.csdspartans.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_3653291/Image/Jenn%20K/C

SD%20Mission%20and%20Purpose.pdf

Corvian Community School. (n.d.). Carpool instructions. Retrieved from

http://www.corvian.org/carpool.aspx

Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Davis, T. M. (2013). Charter school competition, organization, and achievement in

traditional public schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(88).

Davis, T. M. (2014). School choice and segregation “tracking” racial equity in magnet

schools. Education and Urban Society, 46(4), 399-433.

Ely, R., Ainley, M., & Pearce, J. (2013). More than enjoyment: Identifying the positive

affect component of interest that supports student engagement and achievement.

Middle Grades Research Journal, 8(1), 13.

Flynn O’Hare Uniforms. (n.d.). Boys’ general store. Shirts. Retreived from

https://www.flynnohara.com/product-

listing.aspx?store=boys&scn=AK008&item=Shirts

Forman, J., Jr. (2005, April). The secret history of school choice: how progressives got

there first. Georgetown Law Journal, 93(4), 1287-1319. Retrieved from


https://login.portnoy.wingate.edu/login?url=http://go.galegroup.com.portnoy.wingat

e.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA137415668&v=2.1&u=nclivewingu&it=r&p=AONE

&asid=07456e5055155dc9a5a126808f878b6c

Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., & Wang, J. (2011). Choice without equity: Charter

school segregation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(1).

Gamoran, A. (1996). Do magnet schools boost achievement? Educational Leadership,

54(2), 42-46.

Glazer, N. (2009). Finding the right remedy: when court-ordered magnet schools don't

work, try charters. Education Next, 9(2), 73+. Retrieved from



&asid=dc6ecf2bc6bb49ac59c95b2a84d101b6

Godwin, K., & Kemerer, F. (2002). School choice tradeoffs: Liberty, equity, and

diversity. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Hastings, J. S., & Weinstein, J. M. (2007). Information, school choice, and academic

achievement: Evidence from two experiments (No. w13623). National Bureau of

Economic Research.

Hausman, C., & Brown, P. M. (2002). Curricular and instructional differentiation in

magnet schools: Market driven or institutionally entrenched? Journal Of

Curriculum And Supervision, 17(3), 256-76.

Houston Independent School District. (2007). Assessment of student performance in

magnet programs 2006-2007. Educational Program Report, Department of Research

and Accountability. Retrieved from


http://www.houstonisd.ora/ResearchAccountabilitv/Home/SP Maanet/2007/lntro

2006-07

Hoxby, C. M. (2003). School choice and school productivity. Could school choice be a

tide that lifts all boats? In The economics of school choice (pp. 287-342). Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press.

Israel, M., Wherfel, Q. M., Pearson, J., Shehab, S., & Tapia, T. (2015). Empowering K-

12 students with disabilities to learn computational thinking and computer

programming. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 48(1), 45-53.

Izraeli, O., & Murphy, K. (2012). An analysis of Michigan charter schools: enrollment,

revenues, and expenditures. Journal of Education Finance, 37(3), 234+. Retrieved

from



&asid=9c8c3259b418c4d9ed6a3144d08c3405

James, O. R. (2014). Opt-out education: School choice as racial subordination. Iowa Law

Review, 99(3), 1083-1135.

Kidder, A. (2002). Fundraising and corporate donations in schools: The beginning of a

two-tier public education system. Education Canada, 42(3), 42-43,47.

Knifsend, C. A., & Graham, S. (2012). Too much of a good thing? How breadth of

extracurricular participation relates to school-related affect and academic outcomes

during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(3), 379-389.


Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013).

Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student

development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 805.

Lake Norman Charter School. (n.d.-a). Carpool. Retreived from

http://www.lncharter.org/pages/Lake_Norman_Charter/Parents/Carpool_Informatio

n

Lake Norman Charter. (n.d.-b) Donate to LNC- Invest in excellence. Retrieved from

http://www.lncharter.org/pages/Lake_Norman_Charter/Parents/Donate_

Lake Norman Charter School.(n.d.-c). Employment opportunities. Retrieved from

http://www.lncharter.org/pages/Lake_Norman_Charter/Contact/Employment_Oppo

rtunities

Magnet Schools of America (n.d.). What are magnet schools?. Retrieved from

http://www.magnet.edu/about/what-are-magnet-schools

Magnet Schools of America, Research and Studies. (2012). Magnet schools: by the

numbers. Retrieved from http://smartchoicetech.com/wp-

content/uploads/2013/06/MSA_Infographic.pdf

Mahoney, J. L. (2014). School extracurricular activity participation and early school

dropout: A mixed-method study of the role of peer social networks. Journal of

Educational and Developmental Psychology, 4(1), 143.

Metrolina Regional Scholars Academy. (n.d.). Annual giving campaign FAQs. Retrieved

from

http://www.scholarsacademy.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=197710&type=d

&pREC_ID=423875


Metzler, J., & Woessmann, L. (2012). The impact of teacher subject knowledge on

student achievement: Evidence from within-teacher within-student variation.

Journal of Development Economics, 99(2), 486-496.

Minow, M. (2011, January). Confronting the seduction of choice: law, education, and

American pluralism. Yale Law Journal, 120(4), 814+. Retrieved from



&asid=37a057d328dd3c2bb36e9ca64df37790

Miron, G., & Applegate, B. (2009). Review of" Multiple Choice: Charter School

Performance in 16 States". Education and the Public Interest Center.

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Dashboard. (n.d.) Data Dashboard.

Retrieved from http://dashboard2.publiccharters.org/National/

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (n.d.-a). Mission and Requirements.

Retrieved from http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/organization/mission/

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (n.d.-b). North Carolina End-of-Course

Tests. Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/testing/eoc/

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (n.d.-c). North Carolina End-of-Grade

Tests at Grades 3-8. Retrieved from

http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/accountability/testing/eog/

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (n.d.-d). School performance. NC

school report cards. Retrieved from

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/src/guide/performance/


North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (n.d.-e). Schools. Retrieved from

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/charterschools/schools/

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (n.d.-f). Schools and Alternative

Learning Sites. Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/parents/schools/

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2013). Disaggregated Performance

Data for 2012-2013. State/ LEA and school test performance. Retrieved from

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/reporting/leaperformancearchive

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2014-a). 2014-2015 Allotment policy

manual. Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/fbs/allotments/general/

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2014-b). Disaggregated Performance



North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2014-c). Highlights of the North

Carolina Public School Budget. Retrieved from

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/fbs/resources/data/highlights/2014highlights.p

df

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2015-a). Base allotment per ADM for

charter schools. Retrieved from

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/fbs/allotments/state/

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2015-b). Charter School Application

Resource Manual. Retrieved from

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/charterschools/applications/resourcemanual

.pdf


North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2015-c). Disaggregated Performance



North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2015-d). Financial Guide for Charter

Schools. Retrieved from

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/fbs/finance/reporting/guides/charterschoolfina

nce.pdf

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2015-e). Funding Table. Retrieved

from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/src/researchers/

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2015-f). Highlights of the NC public

school budget February 2015. Retrieved from

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/fbs/resources/data/highlights/2015highlights.

pdf

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2015-g). Longitudinal 4-year Cohort

graduation rates: 2006 through 2015. Retrieved from

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/reporting/cohortgradrate

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2015-h). Personnel Table. Retrieved

from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/src/researchers/

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2015-i). Profile Table. Retrieved from

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/src/researchers/

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2015-j). School Performance Grade

Table. Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/src/researchers/


North Carolina General Assembly. (n.d.). North Carolina General Assembly - General

Statutes - Chapter 115C: Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved from

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0115C

Northwest school of the arts PTO. (n.d.). Invest in Northwest. Retrieved from

http://www.friendsofnorthwest.com/#!donations/cm64

Pagano, R. B., (2013). Understanding Statistics in the Behavioral Sciences (10th edition).

Wadsworth.

Penta, M. Q. (2001). Comparing student performance at program magnet, year-round

magnet, and non-magnet elementary schools. Raleigh, NC: Wake County Public

Schools. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED457178).

Phillip O Berry Academy of Technology PTSA. (n.d.). Invest in your child. Donate.

Retrieved from http://pobptsa.cmswiki.wikispaces.net/DONATE

Renzulli, L., & Evans, L. (2005). School choice, charter schools, and white flight. Social

Problems, 52, 398-418.

Robertson, S. L., & Dale, R. (2013). The social justice implications of privatisation in

education governance frameworks: a relational account. Oxford Review Of

Education, 39(4), 426-445.

Robertson, W. B. (2015). Mapping the profit motive: The distinct geography and

demography of for-profit charter schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives,

23(69).

Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student

achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4-36.


Rossell, C. (2002). The effectiveness of desegregation plans. In C. Rossell, D. Armor, &

H. Wahlberg (Eds.), School desegregation in the 21st century (pp. 67-117).

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Rossell, C. H. (2005). Magnet schools: no longer famous, but still intact. Education Next,

5(2), 44-49.

Rouse, K. E. (2012). The impact of high school leadership on subsequent educational

attainment. Social Science Quarterly, 93(1), 110-129.

Samek, D. R., Elkins, I. J., Keyes, M. A., Iacono, W. G., & McGue, M. (2015). High

school sports involvement diminishes the association between childhood conduct

disorder and adult antisocial behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health. 57(1), 107-

112.

Saporito, S. (2003). Private choices, public consequences: magnet school choice and

segregation by race and poverty. Social Problems, 50, 181-203.

Schauss, A. & North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2015). Dissecting

charter school funding [webinar]. Retrieved from

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/fbs/charterschools/

Socrates Academy. (n.d.-a). Socrates Academy Principal Position. Retreived from

http://www.socratesacademy.us/images/pdf_files/Careers/Principal_Position_AD_2

016_FINAL.pdf

Socrates Academy.(n.d.-b). Invest in a scholar annual fund. Support Socrates. Retrieved

from http://www.socratesacademy.us/index.php/support-socrates-news-

events/annual-fund-sa


Stitzlein, S. M., & West, C. K. (2014). New forms of teacher education: Connections to

charter schools and their approaches. Democracy & Education, 22(2), 1-10.

Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A

cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student

achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 339-355.

Sugar Creek Charter School. (2013). Parent and student handbook. Retrieved from

http://www.thesugarcreek.org/www/SCCSNC/site/Hosting/2013-

2014%20Parent%20and%20Student%20Handbook.pdf

Torres, A. C. (2014). "Are we architects or construction workers?" Re-examining teacher

autonomy and turnover in charter schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives,

22(124).

Tuttle, C.C., The, B., Nichols-Barrer, I., Gill, B.P., & Gleason, P. (2010). Student

characteristics and achievement in 22 KIPP middle schools. Washington, DC:

Mathematica Policy Research. Retrieved from http:// www.mathematica-

mpr.com/publications/pdfs/education/KIPP_fnlrpt.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (n.d.). National

School Lunch Program. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/national-

school-lunch-program-nslp

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearing

House. (2014, January). WWC Review of the report: National Charter School

Study: 2013. Retrieved from http://whatworks.ed.gov


Wei, X., Patel, D., & Young, V. M. (2014). Opening the "Black Box": Organizational

differences between charter schools and traditional public schools. Education

Policy Analysis Archives, 22(3).

Windle, J., & Stratton, G. (2013). Equity for sale: Ethical consumption in a school-choice

regime. Discourse: Studies In The Cultural Politics Of Education, 34(2), 202-213.

doi:10.1080/01596306.2013.770247

Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Booker, K., Lavertu, S., Sass, T.R., & Witte, J. (2009). Charter

schools in eight states: Effects on achievement, attainment, integration, and

competition. RAND Education. Retrieved from

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG869.pdf.


Appendix A









Appendix B









Appendix C









Appendix D


XX

X

Approved 01 February 2016