Citation
The Effects of Autonomy on Florida Public Schools

Material Information

Title:
The Effects of Autonomy on Florida Public Schools A Disaggregated Comparison of Charter Schools and Traditional Schools
Creator:
Larkin, Brittany M
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (199 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Educational Leadership
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education
Committee Chair:
WOOD,R C
Committee Co-Chair:
ELDRIDGE,LINDA BURNEY
Committee Members:
MILLER,DAVID
OLIVER,EILEEN
Graduation Date:
8/9/2014

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Academic achievement ( jstor )
Charter schools ( jstor )
Education ( jstor )
Educational research ( jstor )
Manatees ( jstor )
Mathematics ( jstor )
Public schools ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Traditional schools ( jstor )
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
charters -- disaggregated -- education -- fcat -- policy
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Educational Leadership thesis, Ph.D.

Notes

Abstract:
The free market educational reform is the theoretical backbone of school choice. The controversy surrounding the free market education reform is polarizing. Advocates for the reform cite research indicating the market is closing achievement gaps and raising student achievement of all schools. Opponents of the reform cite research indicating the market reform is not closing achievement gaps, but is segregating students. As a result of the free market reform, state legislation has granted autonomy from specific mandates to schools via a charter agreement in exchange for high academic success. The current research is non-conclusive as it pertains to comparing the various levels of autonomy granted to schools by legislation. This study disaggregated the data of third, forth, and tenth grade public schools in Florida into Traditional Schools, Hometown Public Charter Schools, and Education Management Operated Charter Schools. Then holding constant student, teacher, and fiscal traits, a more equitable comparison can be made of the schools level of autonomy. Using Multiple Linear Regression analysis, this study aims to determine if, and to what extend, the autonomy of the service delivery model influences student achievement scores when accounting for student, teacher, and fiscal traits. In order for the state legislature to ensure adequate provisions for education are made, empirical research is needed that makes equitable comparisons between service delivery models. Discovering the relationships and the traits that influence the relationships will provide the tools that are needed to inform the decisions of policy makers. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2014.
Local:
Adviser: WOOD,R C.
Local:
Co-adviser: ELDRIDGE,LINDA BURNEY.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Brittany M Larkin.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Copyright Larkin, Brittany M. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
969976965 ( OCLC )
Classification:
LD1780 2014 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

THE EFFECTS OF AUTONOMY ON FLORIDA PUBLIC SCHOOLS: A DISAGGREGATED COMPARISON OF CHARTER SCHOOLS AND TRADITIONAL SCHOOLS By BRITTANY LARKIN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014

PAGE 2

© 2014 Brittany Larkin

PAGE 3

To my family, Scott, Jacob, Reese, Dad, and Mom

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my husband , Scott, and children , Jacob and Reese for their unconditional love, support, and patience. I thank my parents , Lee and Kim, for instilling in me the determination and drive to accomplish every task before me. I thank my sister , Brandi, for he r support and encouragement. I thank my dissertation chair , Dr. R. Craig Wood, for his guidance and expertise in navigating me through this process.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 11 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ . 14 The Controversy ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 15 Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ..... 17 Purpose and Theoretical Base ................................ ................................ ................ 18 Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 21 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 22 Operational Definitions ................................ ................................ ............................ 22 Assumptions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 23 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 24 Scope and Delimitations ................................ ................................ ......................... 24 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 24 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 25 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 26 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 26 Review of Literature ................................ ................................ ................................ 27 The Controversy ................................ ................................ ............................... 30 Evidence of Charter School Efficacy ................................ ................................ 35 Educational Free Market Theoretical Framework ................................ ................... 47 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 55 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 57 Rationale for Research Approach ................................ ................................ ........... 57 Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 59 Data Collection Methods ................................ ................................ ......................... 61 Data Analysis Methods ................................ ................................ ........................... 65 Issues of Trustworthiness: ................................ ................................ ...................... 67 Limitat ions and Delimitations ................................ ................................ .................. 68 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 69

PAGE 6

6 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 71 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 71 Descriptive Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 71 Ethnicity ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 72 Gender ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 73 Socio Economic Status (SES) ................................ ................................ .......... 74 Special Services ................................ ................................ ............................... 75 Teachers ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 76 Revenues and Expenditures ................................ ................................ ............ 76 Multiple Linear Regression ................................ ................................ ..................... 78 Reading ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 78 Math ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 80 Writing ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 82 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 84 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 101 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 101 Significance of Student Traits ................................ ................................ ............... 101 Ethnicity ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 101 Gender ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 104 Socio Economic Status ................................ ................................ .................. 104 Special Services ................................ ................................ ............................. 105 Significance of Teacher Traits ................................ ................................ .............. 108 Advanced Teaching Degrees ................................ ................................ ......... 108 Teacher Experience ................................ ................................ ....................... 110 Significance of Fiscal Traits ................................ ................................ .................. 111 Relationship Between Autonomy and Student Achievement ................................ 113 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 114 SCHOOL DISTRICT LEVEL DATA ................................ ................................ ............. 1 17 B IBLIOGRAPHY ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 186 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 199

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page A 1 School Dist rict Enrollment by Ethnicity ................................ ............................ 117 A 2 School Districts by FCAT2.0 Passage Rates and Ethnicity .............................. 138 A 3 School District Data by G ender ................................ ................................ ........ 150 A 4 School Districts by FCAT2.0 Passage Rates and Gender ................................ 153 A 5 School District Data by Free/Reduced Lunch Status ................................ ........ 159 A 6 School Districts by FCAT2.0 Passage Rates and Lunch Status ....................... 162 A 7 School District Data by Special Services ................................ .......................... 168 A 8 School Districts by FCAT2.0 Passage Rates and Special Services ................. 171 A 9 School District Data by Teacher Degree ................................ .......................... 177 A 10 School District Data by Teacher Experience ................................ .................... 180 A 11 School District Data by Revenue and Expenditure ................................ ........... 183

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Service Delivery Model. ................................ ................................ ...................... 29 2 2 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ....................... 51 4 1 Ethnicity of the Service Delivery Models ................................ ............................. 86 4 2 Percentage of Ethnic Groups Passing the R eading Section .............................. 87 4 3 Percentage of Ethnic Groups Passing the Math Section ................................ ... 88 4 4 Percentage of Ethnic Groups Passing the Writ ing Section ................................ 89 4 5 Gender of the Service Delivery Models ................................ ............................. 90 4 6 Percentage of Gender Groups Passing the FCAT2.0 ................................ ........ 91 4 7 Socio Economic Status of the Service Delivery Models ................................ .... 92 4 8 Percentage of SES Groups Passing the FCAT2.0 ................................ ............ 93 4 9 Special Services of the Service Delivery Models ................................ ............... 94 4 10 Percentage of Special Services Groups Passing the FCAT2.0 ......................... 95 4 11 Teachers of the Service Delivery Models ................................ ........................... 96 4 12 Revenues and Expenditures of the Service Delivery Models ............................ 97 4 13 Reading Scatterplot ................................ ................................ ........................... 98 4 14 Reading Distribution of Residuals ................................ ................................ ...... 98 4 15 Math Scatterplot ................................ ................................ ................................ 99 4 16 Math Distribution of Residuals ................................ ................................ ........... 99 4 17 Writing Scatterplot ................................ ................................ ........................... 100 4 1 8 Writing Distribution of Residuals ................................ ................................ ...... 100 5 1 Summary of Statically Significant Traits ................................ ........................... 116

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the U niversity of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE EFFECTS OF AUTONOMY ON FLORIDA PUBLIC SCHOOLS: A DISAGGREGATED COMPARISON OF CHARTER SCHOOLS AND TRADITIONAL SCHOOLS By Brittany Larkin August 2014 Chair: R. Craig Wood Major: Educational Leadership The free market educational reform is the theoretical backbone of school choice. The controversy surrounding the free market education reform is polarizing. Advocates for the refor m cite research indicating the market is closing achievement gaps and raising student achievement of all schools. Opponents of the reform cite research indicating the market reform is not closing achievement gaps, but is segregating students. As a result of the free market reform, state legislation has granted autonomy from specific mandates to schools via a charter agreement in exchange for high academic success. The current research is non conclusive as it pertains to comparing the various levels of au tonomy granted to schools by legislation. This study disaggregates the data of third, forth, and tenth grade public schools in Florida into Traditional Schools, Hometown Public Charter Schools, and Education Management Operated Charter Schools. Then hold ing constant student, teacher, and fiscal traits, a more equitable comparison can be made of the schools level of autonomy. Using Multiple Linear Regression analysis, this study aims to determine if, and to what extend,

PAGE 10

10 the autonomy of the service deliver y model influences student achievement scores when accounting for student, teacher, and fiscal traits. In order for the state legislature to ensure adequate provisions for education are made, empirical research is needed that makes equitable comparisons b etween service delivery models. Discovering the relationships and the traits that influence the relationships will provide the tools that are needed to inform the decisions of policy makers.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction Public school reform has played a significant role in shaping the education system within the United States. It is in the best interest of our entire nation to continually implement innovative educational ideas, conduct empirical research on the effectiveness and the implications of the ideas, and make decisions based on the evidence within these data. One of the most recent public school reform efforts is known as the educational free market reform. The premise is it allows schools varying levels of autonomy for making decision s that are most beneficial to the specific students being served. The reform is rooted in allowing families the opportunity to choose which As with all reform efforts, implementing chan ge is difficult. It requires a continuous cycle of evaluation and modification. The educational free market reform is no different. One of the greatest problems is the conflicting results published in research pertaining to the effectiveness of charter schools. While a more in depth review of the literature will be explored in chapter two, a brief review has produced research studies that have found students who attended charter schools were outperforming their peers in Traditional Schools. 1 Yet, numero us other studies found the 1 KIPP Foundation , accessed September 30, 2013, http://www.kipp.org/question3 Achievement First , accessed September 30, 2013, http://www.achievementfirst.org/results/across achievem ent first/ .; Emily H. Peltason Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University , accessed July 10, 2013 from http://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/CGAR%20Growth%20Executive%20Summary.pdf .;

PAGE 12

12 students who attended charter schools were performing no better than their tradition school peers. 2 Other research indicated charter schools were segregating the students by enrolling the high achieving students and returning the low achieving students to the Traditional Schools. 3 Currently, the problem is the research is being conducted uses all the students who attend a charter school compared to all those who attend Traditional Schools. To gain a better understanding of the ef fectiveness of these service delivery models, a more equitable comparison must be made. The service delivery models families are choosing from are Traditional Schools and charter schools (which include Hometown of Charter School Students with Traditional Public School Students, Florida Department of Education , accessed July 10, 2013 from https://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/pdf/Chart er_Student_Achievement_2012.pdf 2 Joshua Furgeson, Brian Gill, Joshua Haimson, Alexandria Killwakd, Moria McCullough, Ira Nichols Barrer, Bing ru T eh, Natalya Verbitsky Savitz, Melissa Bowen, School Management Organizations The Center on Reinventing Public Education and Mathematica Policy Research . Retrieved July 10, 2013 from http://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/pub_cmofinal_Jan12_0.pdf .; Deven Carlson, d Student Economics of Education Review 31(2012), 254 267.; Nathan L. Grey, The Cato Journal 32, 3 (2012), 557 579.; Ron Zimmer, Brian Gill, Kevin Booker, Stephane Lavertu, Economics of Education Review 31, 2 (2012), 213 America's National Center for Education Statistics , access ed September 30, 2012 from http://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/charter/2005456.aspx. 3 Erica Frankenberg, Genevieve Siegel Education Policy Analysis Archives 19, 1 (201 1).; Education and Urban Society 45, 4 (2011): 459 482.

PAGE 13

13 Public Schools and Education Management Organ ization Schools). 4 While charter schools have varying levels of autonomy, they all have more autonomy than the Traditional Schools. For more equitable comparisons, first, the schools (i.e. charter schools and Traditional Schools) must be disaggregated. T he disaggregated factors include the gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), English language learners (ELL) status, exceptional student education (ESE) status of the students; the teacher evenue and expenditure for instruction and instructional services. Using descriptive statistics to analyze the factors provided the opportunity for the factors to be compared among the service delivery models. Next, a multiple linear regression model was used to determine if any of the factors influenced the student outcomes then hold the factors constant to make an equitable comparison of the service delivery models. It was the aim of this study to create a database of the disaggregated student, teacher, and fiscal factors, make equitable comparisons among the charter schools and Traditional Schools and to determine which, if any, of the factors influence the comparisons. Public schools in Florida were selected for this study due to the rapid growth of c harter schools and the legislative support for charter schools. Since charter schools were added to the Florida legislation in 1996, there has been an increase in charter schools every year. In 1996, there were five charter schools and in 2012 there were 4 Traditional Schools are defined as public schools housed wit hin a district authorized under the rules of the State Board of Education, excluding virtual schools and vouchers. Charter Schools as defined by Florida Statue § 1002.33 will be divided into two groups: Hometown Public Schools and Education Management Organ izations (EMO). Hometown Public Schools are self managed, while EMO have a hired for profit management company operating the schools.

PAGE 14

14 518 serving 179,940 students. 5 The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS) developed a model state law that would support high quality public charter and ranke d the states based on how similar their laws were to the model. According to the ranking, Florida was ranked eight out of forty three, which made Florida a top contender for high quality charter schools. 6 Because charters schools were continuing to grow and the legislation supporting charter schools was one of the top in the country, Florida Public Schools were selected for this study. The results of this study will inform the public education policy makers which service delivery model produces the best student outcomes and which model best meets the needs of which students. Policymakers will be able to make decisions regarding school accountability regulations. This study will have the power to transform the educational free market reform using data base d accountability and decision making. Problem Statement Research on the topic of school choice has not been conclusive. Due to the highly political nature of school choice, research has resulted in evidence that supports and rejects the effectiveness of charter schools. These contradictory evidences help explain the opposing viewpoints regarding school choice. 5 http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/information/chart er_schools/files/fast_facts_charter_ schools.pdf 6 June 12, 2014 from http://www.publiccharters.org/get the facts/law database/states/FL/

PAGE 15

15 The Controversy Proponents of the educational free market theory claim the Traditional Schools (Traditional Schools) schools are using outdated ed ucation models that do not meet the diverse learning styles of all students. 7 They claim that charter schools are closing the achievement gaps, allowing underserved communities to achieve academic success, the demands for charter schools are outpacing th e supply in most communities, and studies indicated charter schools were outperforming Traditional Schools. 8 The Center parents, educators, and public officials wh 9 and among the fastest growing school choice options in Florida. Charter schools are largely fre e to innovate, and often provide more effective 10 Opponents of the educational free market theory use terms like neo liberalism, social Darwinism, consumerism, and meritocracy to describe school choice. 11 They 7 National Al liance for Public Charter Schools, 2014, http://www.publiccharters.org/About Charter Schools/Why Charter Schools003F.aspx . 8 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2014, http://www.publiccharters.org/About Charter Schools/How Charters Perform.aspx 9 mative, evidence Reinventing Public Education, accessed October 9, 2013 from http://www.crpe.org/our story . 10 Florida Department of Education Office of Independent E ducation and Parental Choice, accessed October 9, 2013 from http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/Charter_Schools/ 11 winism, Consumerism Interchange 43, 4 (2013), 295 316.; Rodolfo Leyva, Journal for Critical Education Policy 7, 1 (2009), 365 s: A Critique of

PAGE 16

16 point out that for a free market theory to work, some schools will have to fail in order for others to prevail. 12 Fiala and Owens liken school choice to Milton Friedman free 13 providing universal, free public education in order to improve the lives of millions of 14 Diane Ravitch stated: It is unlikely that the United States wou ld have emerged as a world leader had it left the development of education to the whim and will of the free market. But the market, with its great strengths, is not the appropriate mechanism to supply services that should be distributed equally to people i n every neighborhood in every city and town in the nation without regard to their ability or political power. The market is not the right mechanism to supply police protection or fire protection, nor is it the right mechanism to supply public education. 15 Opponents also argue a consequence of charter schools is social injustice. neighborhoods, even where charter schools are successful, is but the latest example of what George Romne 16 Journal for Critical Education Policy 7, 2 (2013), 127 Parental Motivation in School Choice: Seeking the Competitive Edge, Journal of School Choice 1, 4 (2007), 89 108. 12 The Clearing House 76, 1 (2002), 8 12. 13 Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) , ED510611 (2010), 30. 14 ibid, 25. 15 Diane Ravitch, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education (Basic Books, 2011), 241. 16 Economic Policy

PAGE 17

17 illustrates how charters are being started primarily in urban neighborhoods with the intention of closing the racial achievement gaps, but they are really only perpetuating racial and socia finds that charter schools are more racially isolated than traditional public schools in virtually every state and large metropolitan area in the nation. In some regions, white students are overrepresented in charter schools while in other charter schools; minority 17 Another study found charter schools are segregated due largely to parents choosing to send their children to neighborhood schools. 18 Whether one is in favor of school choice or opposed to it, the simple fact is the educational free market reform must be held accountable. This free market system is Empirical evidence of this reform efforts successes and failures is imperative to drive the market. A more robust review of the controversies represented in the current literature was presented in chapter 2. Research Questions and Hypotheses Research Q uestion 1: What are the traits of students attending each of the service delivery models? Insititute, (2012), http://www.epi.org/publichation/educational inequality racial segregation significance/ . 17 18 as a Determinant of Charter School

PAGE 18

18 Research Question 2: What are the school traits including mean teacher experience and education level and the total revenue and instructional expenditures per pupil o f each service delivery model? Research Question 3: Is there a statistically significant relationship, and if so to what degree, between the service delivery models on student achievement after controlling , ELL status, or ESE status; the H 0 1 2 k = 0 H 1 Purpose and Theoretical Base It was the aim of this study to create a disaggregated database of factors that may influence student achievement. The factors were then used to make equitable compar isons among the subgroups within the three service delivery models. Finally, the factors were controlled for to make the most equitable comparisons between the service delivery models. The first phase of the research involved creating the factors databas e using all public schools in the state of Florida serving grades 3, 4, and 10. These data were included the 2011 2012 student, teacher and fiscal factors at the school level. It also included the 2011 2012 FCAT2.0 mean school developmental scale score and a mean developmental scale score for each of the student factors. Next, the schools were sorted into the respective service delivery models, i.e. Hometown Public Schools, EM O, and Traditional Schools. The Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) website has an

PAGE 19

19 active list of all charter schools in the state. 19 This list was used to separate the charter schools from the Traditional Schools. The National Education Policy Cente r publishes an annual report listing which charters in each state are operated by an EMO. 20 Using this database the EMO schools were separated from the charter schools list. The database was then statistically analyzed. The primary goals of creating the f actors database was to determine if the factors influenced the effects of the service delivery models and to control for the factors in the model comparisons. There was other information gathered from these data including subcategory comparisons. A brief summary of the factors and research to support the possibility of influence on the student achievement outcomes include: Gender. The proportion of each school that is male or female. Recently, charter school proponents were seeking to open single gender ed schools. 21 The idea is that boys and girls learn differently, so they should be taught differently. Ethnicity. The proportion of American Indian, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Multiracial, Pacific Islander, and White students within each school. In additio n to being used for comparisons, these data can be used to detect school choice segregation. Socio economic status. This will be determined by recording the percentage of each school that qualifies for free or reduced lunch, assuming the school participa tes in the program. Only the low SES populations qualify for this service, so it can be used to determine the SES make up of the schools. Special education needs. Many studies indicate charter schools are not serving an equitable proportion of students with special needs as compared to Traditional 19 Florida Choice Schools , 2014, https://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/Charter_Schools/Directory/default.aspx. 20 Gary M Profit and Nonprofit Education Management Organizations: Fourteenth Edition 2011 National Education Policy Center , 2013, http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/EMO profiles 11 12. 21 Vote Set on Charter School: K 8 Facility with Single Gender Core Palm Beach Post , April 30, 2013.

PAGE 20

20 Schools. 22 Because students with special needs have the potential to not perform as well on standardized tests, require expensive professional knowledge and training, and require accommodations, this trait need s to be accounted for to determine an equitable portion of ESE students are being served in each service delivery model. English language learning needs. Much like ESE, ELL students require a specific curricula, services, and teacher training and often p erform lower on the standardized testing than their English speaking peers. 23 These data will reveal which of the service delivery models are meeting the needs of the ELL students. Teaching experience and degree level of the instructors. Often lesser exp erienced teachers produce students with lower test scores. Charter schools in particular tend to employ the less experienced teachers. Monitoring these data will determine how much influence experience has on student outcomes. In North Carolina, a twel ve year study on charter school teachers experience levels found charters had two times more new teachers than Traditional Schools. 24 Per pupil revenue and instruction and instructional support funding, as defined by The Institute of Internal Auditors Red Book. 25 Along with the varying levels of autonomy the service delivery models possess are varying levels of funding. Each Florida school district receives funding calculated by the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) formula. 26 The formula is calcula ted by multiplying the 22 Protect Access for Students with Disabilities: Re port to Congressional Requesters GAO US Government Accountability Office, accessed October 10, 2013 from http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/ and Students with Disabilities: Special Education Enrollme nt in Post Katrina New Education Week 29, 19 (2010) 18 Profit Charter School s and Students The Phi Delta Kappan 80, 20 (1998) 297 Journal of Special Education Leadership 17, 2 ( 2004) 71 81. 23 Jack Buckley and Carolyn Sattin Charter Schools? Demographic Trends in New York City, 2006 Journal of School Choice 5 , 1 (2011) 40 66. 24 valuating the Effectiveness of Economics of Education Review 31, (2011) 280 292. 25 Institute of Internal Auditors (2013), accessed November 7, 2013 from htt ps://na.theiia.org/standards guidance/Public%20Documents/IPPF%202013%20English.pdf. 26 Florida Department of Education , 2014, http://www.fldoe.org/fefp/pdf/fefpdist.pdf.

PAGE 21

21 weighted full time equivalent students [the number of full time equivalent students (FTE) multiplied by the cost factors] by a base student allocation [determined by legislation] and a district cost differential. 27 Because school dis tricts act as the authorizing agent for charter schools, the FEFP funding for charter school students are included in the district FEFP funds. The districts are then responsible for distributing charter school funds based on the FTE counts of the charter s chools. Districts are permitted to withhold up to 5 percent of the charter funds for administrative support. 28 The charters then manage funds received as they see fit. Comparing the service delivery models based on how much they report to the Florida Au ditor General as spending for instruction and instructional services provided evidence of a relationship between funding and student outcomes. In the second phase, u scores and the number of students in eac h school included in each of the student factors and school factors , a multiple linear regression was calculated. The goal for this phase was to determine if any of the factors influence the relationship between the service delivery models and achievement scores. Population All schools in Florida serving grades 3, 4, and 10, which have reported FCAT2.0 data to the FLDOE, were included in this study. It is necessary to use the whole population of schools rather than a sample, because the schools were div ided into groups creating smaller subgroups. In order to make inferences regarding the subgroups, it was necessary to use the whole population. The schools that were excluded from the database were ones that did not report data, had student enrollment 27 ibid, 1. 28 Florida K 12 E ducation Code XLVIII §1002.33(20)(a)(2).

PAGE 22

22 un der ten making confidentiality a problem, and were a virtual schools or voucher programs. 29 Data Analysis what degree, between the service delivery models on student ach ievement after a multiple linear regression. A multiple linear regression allowed for multiple explanatory variables (i.e. the factors) to explain the outcome variable (i.e. the mean FCAT2.0 score for the school). Controlling for each factor separately yielded which factors may influence the effect of the school. While this i s the model being used, data were run through SPSS to yield the results needed for interpretation. Operational Definitions Traditional Schools public schools housed within a district authorized under the rules of the State Board of Education, open to al l students within their zoned area, and funded with the state FEFP. Hometown Public Schools public schools operating under a charter agreement with the state allowing certain levels of autonomy to the school, as defined in Florida Statue 1002.33 , includin g independence from the authorizing county school board and are 29 There were some schools with unexplained missing data from the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) Data Warehouse. Confidentiality could be jeopardized when data reported groups of students less than 10, beca use it would not be difficult to determine who these students were, thus what their scores were. Therefore the FLDOE Data Warehouse does not include those data. Virtual schools and voucher programs are so new, there are minimal schools or programs with m ore than 10 students, therefore, there FLDOE has not provided data on those groups.

PAGE 23

23 open to all students who fit their mission. 30 Hometown Public Schools are still funded with FEFP and are required to participate in the statewide assessment (FCAT2.0). 31 Education Management Or ganizations (EMO) the same as the Hometown Public Schools, except they have hired a for profit management company to operate the administration of the school. 32 The management company may operate more than one charter school, and adds an additional level of accountability. Service Delivery Models t he type of school, Traditional Schools, Hometown Public Schools, or EMO, delivering the educational service to students. Assumptions There were several assumptions made in this study that were presumed to be true. First, it was assumed Multiple Linear Regression is the best model for determining if any of the factors influence the test scores. Multiple Linear Regression is used to estimate a relationship between multiple independent variables and a single ex planatory variable. 33 Second, it was assumed all students who were required to take the FCAT2.0 economic status students that qualified for free/reduced lunch were enrolled in t he federal program. Finally, it was assumed each school reported their expenditures in accordance with The Institute of Internal Auditors Red Book. 30 12 Education Code XLVIII (1996), §1002.33. 31 Ibid. 32 Management Pro The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement , accessed October 4, 2013 from http://www.centerforcsri.org/pubs/restructuring/KnowledgeIssue s3Contracting.pdf . 33 Census and Survey Research, accessed April 20, 2014, http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/publications/teaching/mlr.pdf

PAGE 24

24 Limitations The study presented some limitations that were uncontrollable. Due to protecting the confide ntiality of the students, the Florida Department of Education does not release the school mean FCAT2.0 scores for any group that contains less than ten subjects. This li mitation was only evident in the descriptive statistics. For the Multiple Regression Analysis, these data were not needed. A limitation to the Multiple Regression Analysis, when comparing the service delivery models as dummy codes, is the disproportionat e number of schools within each service delivery model. Scope and Delimitations Choices were made during the study design to ensure the data and quantitative methods were aligned with the purpose of the study. The delimitations include the exclusion o f all virtual schools and voucher programs, while they were additional service delivery models, there were not enough schools with more than ten subjects of data. Finally, for the Multiple Linear Regression analysis, the minority groups (American Indian, the low number of subjects in each group. Significance of the Study 12 education, as follows:

PAGE 25

25 The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision for the education of all children residing within its borders. Adequate provision shall be ma de by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools that allows 34 In order for the state legislature to ensure adequate provisions for education are made, empirica l research is needed that makes equitable comparisons between service provide the tools that are needed to inform the decisions of policy makers. At which time, the policy makers can modify the system and re implement the innovation continuing the reform process. Summary This chapter has established the need for and purpose of this study and provided a concentrated summary of the methods used to answer the research questions. The remaining chapters provided a more extensive review of literature in chapter two and methodology in chapter three. The results of the descriptive analysis and the Multiple Linear Regression were presented in chapter four. The study conclu ded with, chapter five, a discussion the results 34 Florida Constitution, article IX, (1)(a).

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The topic of school choice is polarizing. Following a brief history describing the inception of charter schools and the educational reform, a significant am ount of literature was reviewed to better understand the controversy surrounding school choice. Both supporters of school choice and critics present research to support the fundamental differences held by each group for the purpose and implementation of e ducation. While each group builds a solid case for the advocacy or discouragement of school choice, it all hinges on the effectiveness of charter schools. The main measurement of efficacy of public schools uses student achievement scores. Using the Univ the effectiveness of charter schools. The databases used were OneSearch, Eric, Eric (OCLC Firstsearch), Google Scholar, and Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Fourty six pe er reviewed research studies were collected and grouped according to research results. Three themes emerged: studies finding charter schools are more effective than Traditional Schools, studies finding no differences between charters schools and Tradition al Schools, and studies finding Traditional Schools outperforming charter schools. There is a clear discrepancy within the research of charter school efficacy. The educational free market reform theoretical framework is used to explain how a market the ory is applied to a public school reform. In the context of the theoretical framework, a case was built for the need to disaggregate the data by student traits, teacher traits, and fiscal per pupil spending. Once the data was disaggregated, these

PAGE 27

27 traits could be held constant for a more reliable comparison to be made between the service delivery models. Review of Literature It is thought that it is in the best interest of our entire nation to continually implement innovative educational ideas, conduct e mpirical research on the effectiveness and implications of the idea, and make decisions based on the evidence in the data. 35 This process, while often extremely slow as it progresses through the democratic process, is imperative to keeping the United State s competitive in the global market. The current public school reform idea that has been implemented is the educational free market. This reform idea is based on the economic supply and demand theory. If we introduce more choices for parents to make with regard to education service delivery models, it will make all schools increase performance or close down. The result, in theory, is that American public schools will get better and better as the market demands. The first phase of the educational free market reform is implementing an increase in the variety of educational institutions available and in competition among ice. 36 In 1988, Ray Budde year plan 35 Rand Corporation accessed September 30, 2013 http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/corporate_pubs/2007/RAND_CP472 2007 10.pdf . 36 Economics and the Public Interest, (1955), http://www.edcho ice.org/The Friedmans/The Friedmans on School Choice/The Role of Government in Education %281995%29.aspx .

PAGE 28

28 37 The paper caught the attention of Al Shanker, pre sident of the American Federation of Teachers. Shanker was quoted in the New York Times as giving his support for teachers setting up autonomous schools and citing Budde as appropriately 38 Minnesota was the first state legislation to enact charter schools in 1991. 39 In 1996, the Florida legislation enacted charter schools into the K 20 Education Code. 40 This law permitted the state to grant a chartered agreement to individual(s) allowing th em to open and operate a school serving kindergarten through 12 th grade (K 20) as part of the public school system. Per this agreement, the charter school must choose among 41 Thus, the state legislation grants a certain level of autonomy to the charter schools in exchange for high standards of adopted standardiz ed assessment, currently the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT2.0). 42 schools as a means to identify student achievement. More recently, a new vein of charter schools emerged known as Education Management Organizations (EMO) aptly named as an analogue to HMO (Health 37 Ray Budde, Education by Charter: Restructuring School Districts. Key to Long Term Continuing Improvement in American Education (Andover, MA: Publi cation Sales, 1988). 38 Education Evolving, June (2005):1 3. 39 Laws of Minnesota, Chapter 265 (1991), § (9)3. 40 12 Education Code XLVIII (1996), §1002.33. 41 Ibid , (2)(a)1. 42 Florida K 12 Education Code XLVIII, §1008.22.

PAGE 29

29 Most Autonomy Hometown Public Schools . Education Management Organizaions (EMO) Least Autonomy Traditional S chools Maintenance Organizations). 43 This new vein transpired as a product of the free market school reform with the idea of bringing an entrepreneurial spirit and a competitiv e culture to public education. 44 An EMO is a for profit organization that manages charter schools through executive authority granted to them in the schools charter agreement. arents that involve different levels of autonomy. See Figure 2 1. There are the Traditional Schools that have to defer to the Federal influence, State Legislation, and Local School District decisions at the least autonomous end of the spectrum. Next on t he autonomy continuum are the charter schools, with EMOs having less autonomy than the Hometown Public Schools. The EMOs have to defer to the decisions made by the management companies and abide by Florida Statute §1002.33, while the Hometown Public Schoo ls only have to yield to the stipulations of statute. Figure 2 1 . Service Delivery Model. The next phase of the educational free market reform is the evaluation of the reform. It is important to note here that not only is this evaluation an impera tive piece of the reform cycle and ethically responsible, but also provides justification for how 43 The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement , acces sed October 4, 2013 from http://www.centerforcsri.org/pubs/restructuring/KnowledgeIssues3Contracting.pdf . 44 Ibid, 12.

PAGE 30

30 effectively tax dollars are being spent. All three of the service delivery models are funded using Federal, State, and Local funding sources. There is also a legal obligation, as mandated in the Florida Statute, to implement the performance 20 education 45 The Controversy The contention between advocates and opponents of school choice lie in the fundamentally different views of what public education should be. Public education has evolved from a one size fits all model to a wealth of service and program options tailored to meet the individual needs of learners. 46 Cont ention lies in who is responsible to provide those services, who can provide them best, and who will fund them. Advocates for the educational free market believe allowing a choice of schools will increase the productivity and efficiency of the schools resu lting in raising the achievement of all schools. They believe a monopoly on education held by the government stifles the innovative experts in the field from providing alternative methods of education that would allow for more individualization and drive competition, all at a lower cost. 47 In the educational free market, the schools are held directly accountable 45 Florid a K 12 Education Code XLVIII , §1008.31, (1)(a). 46 Roots in History , accessed April 13, 2014 from http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/roots_in_history/choice.html. 47 Eustace Davi Free Market Foundation , (2011) accessed from http://www.freemarketfoundation.com/issues/improve schooling let in the entrepreneurs.

PAGE 31

31 to the demand of the customers, which will drive the schools to improve. 48 This claim is supported in a six year statewide study in Colorado, whi ch found charter schools stimulate the achievement levels of the Traditional Schools. 49 The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, known as the original advocates for school choice, reiterate this We believe that the grow ing role that government has played in financing and administering schooling has led not only to enormous waste of taxpayers' money but also to a far poorer educational system than would have developed had voluntary cooperation continued to play a larger r 50 However, opponents cite research as proving school competition is not increasing achievement. 51 In a study of the factors that lead to how Traditional Schools responds to charter school competition, it was found charter schools are limited in the ef fect they have on the achievement levels of Traditional Schools. 52 In fact, critics claim due to the charters dependence on federal funding and the regulations that are tied to that money, a true free market cannot exist. 53 48 Its The Cato Journal 25, 2 (2005) 197 215. 49 International Journal of Educational Reform 20, 1 (2011) 33 56. 50 Milton Friedman and Rose D. Friedman The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, 1980 accessed from http://www.edchoice.org/The Friedmans/The Friedmans on School Choice/What s Wrong with Our Schools .aspx. 51 s of Charter School Competition on School Educational Administration Quarterly 48, 1 (2012) 3 38. 52 Inspire Change in Traditional Public School Dist Childhood Education 89, 2 (2013) 99. 53 Systems Research and Behavioral Science 26, (2009) 487 491.

PAGE 32

32 Another concern of those oppos ed to the educational free market reform is that of fiscal responsibility. The concern is that with the funding that leaves the Traditional Schools going to the charters combined with the lack of additional financial support to Traditional Schools for the oversight of charters the greater burden is placed on the Traditional Schools. 54 A twelve year study examining the fiscal effects of charter competition on Traditional Schools found not only did Traditional Schools not reallocate funds toward activities t argeted at increasing achievement, but as the number of charters increased, so did the fiscal stress of the district. 55 Rather than competition driving schools to fund more activities to improve achievement, the competition has required schools to spend le ss on activities and more on marketing. 56 A more radical group of advocates for a free market educational system proposed solution to the fiscal problems is to sever ties with the government. They equate school choice with the same ideology as that used i n the separation of church and state. These advocates claim in order to protect the individual rights of citizens there must be a separation of school and state. 57 The mechanism of this separation is the free market education. It will give the individual rights to parents in choosing the most appropriate school to meet the needs of students in a competitive market. It will give the teachers full freedom to 54 Urban Lawyer 44, 1 (2012) 37 83. 55 56 Incentives and Unintended Conseque nces of Competition American Journal of Education 111, 4 (2005) 464 486. 57 The Objective Standard 8, 4 (2013) 32 48.

PAGE 33

33 produce better ideas, better methods, and better results, at lower costs. 58 Ron Paul, a former congr essman who has twice been a candidate in the republican primaries for president of the United States, posts of his educational platform on his blog stating, education with a free market in education. Parents should have the freedom to select 59 This statement leads to anther source of contention: are all parents equipped with identifying high quality schools. Sh eldon Richman, author of Separating School and State: How to Liberate presented by critics of th e educational free market reform. 60 One of the issues critics voice is relying on non experts in the field of education (parents) to make decisions regarding the best placement for children. Critics worry parents may make decisions based on factors other than school quality, such as race, wealth, convenience, or education quality. 61 On the contrary, Richman argues why not parents? He makes the analogy of parents seeking medical advice from trained physicians before making 58 Ibid, 26. 59 Ron Paul Revolution (blog) 2013, accessed from http://www.ronpaul.com/2013 05 27/ron paul we need a free market in education/ . 60 61 Schools and Journal of Education Finance 38, 2 (2012) 170 176.

PAGE 34

34 medical decisions to parents seeking educational advice from educators before making schooling decisions. Another area of distention is the claim that school choice will lead to segregating students. Due to the high pressures for academic success, a competition amongst schools for the high achieving students has ensued. 62 A two year analysis of student transfer rates in Michigan found disadvantaged students are remaining in under achieving urban schoo ls, while the advantaged students are fleeing to enroll in charter schools resulting in greater isolation of disadvantaged students. 63 Another study monitoring the racial integration indices of charter schools over time, found while charters in most states charter schools are remaining racially segregated. 64 is entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is the key to providing education to the masses just as it has pr ovided microwaves, cellular telephones, and the latest technology gadget. 65 Critics of the free market reform worry the free market will breed corruption. A study using Philadelphia as an example found ninteen charter schools were investigated for fraud b y the U.S. Attorney General leading to five convictions of fraud. 66 In an examination of charter schools privatizing education, a de facto privatization of education emerged from the data as charter schools act as profit seeking businesses, 62 Nature, Society, and Thought 19, (2006) 194 200. 63 Traditio Educational Policy 26, 2 (2012) 215 242. 64 International Journal of Educational Reform 20, 3 (2011) 192. 65 66

PAGE 35

35 yet fail to meet the required academic and equity outcomes. 67 However, advocates point to the disastrous toll on educational effectiveness caused by the bureaucratic corruption of the government operated education system as evidence of an already corrupt system. 68 The propo nents for an educational free market have solidified their case for an economic supply and demand approach to education and backed the claims with research. Yet, the opponents of the reform claim the solidarity of the case for an educational free market i s built on idealist foundations and is not producing what it claims it is capable. While this conflict is rooted deeply in different educational beliefs, unbiased research is needed to help legislatures filter through the rhetoric and focus on the researc h results when making educational decisions. However, the research up to this point regarding charter school effectiveness has had very mixed results, which is further evidence of a need for disaggregated comparisons to be made. Evidence of Charter Schoo l Efficacy Research on the topic of school choice has not been conclusive. One problem is the complexity in defining school effectiveness. Measuring school effectiveness requires a multifaceted method to a multifaceted system. 69 While the majority of 67 Oxford Review of Education 39, 4 (2013) 498 5 13. 68 CATO Institutie: Policy Analysis 542, (2005) 1 20 accessed from http://www.cato.org/publications/policy analysis/corruption public schools market is answer. 69 Cynthia L. Uline, Daniel M. Miller, and Megan tschannen Educational Administration Quarterly 34, 4 (1998) 462 483.

PAGE 36

36 re search focuses on quantitative methods, a more inclusive measure of school effectiveness should also be multivariate. 70 Due to the highly political nature of school choice, research on charter school efficacy has focused primarily on measuring school effect iveness using student achievement scores. The results of these studies yield evidence that supports and rejects the effectiveness of charter schools. These contradictory evidences may help explain the opposing viewpoints regarding school choice. Charters are more effective. Empirical research studies published in peer reviewed journals have found charter schools to be more effective than Traditional Schools. Evidences from national studies, which group all charter schools together, support charter schoo l efficacy. 71 A national study including 99 percent of all elementary charter school students with a score from a state standardized assessment in 2002 2003 found charter students to be more proficient on statewide assessments in reading and math when compa red to students in the nearest Traditional Schools. 72 In another study including 3.7 million student observations in twenty three states, which used a Virtual Control Records (VCR) method to create a comparison group of students attending Traditional Schoo ls 70 Educational Practiti ERIC/TIME Report , 93 (1987). 71 U.S. Department of Education , 2004, accessed from http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/cache/documents/4848.pdf ; James CREDO , 2013 http://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/CGAR%20Growth%20Volume%20II.pdf 72

PAGE 37

37 with students attending charter schools (both Hometown Public Schools and EMO), the Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO) found black, Hispanic, high poverty, English language learners (ELL) and exceptional student education (ESE) students who attend a charter schools outperformed their counterpart attending Traditional Schools. 73 In more disaggregated studies, which separated the charter schools into Hometown Public Schools and EMO before making efficacy comparisons, EMO students are more effective than Traditional Schools. 74 A national CREDO study compared the performance of students in 1372 EMO schools with a virtual twin that attended a Traditional Schools the student would have attended using the VCR method. The study found minority st udents and students in poverty, who attended an EMO, made greater academic gains than they would have attending a Traditional Schools. 75 scribe to a philosophy that requires high behavioral and academic expectations with strict disciplinary codes, extended school days and time, teaching a college preparatory curriculum, and establishing strong community values and culture. 76 Mathematica Pol icy Research conducted a study examining the effectiveness of middle school students attending the Knowledge is Power Program 73 Volume II. 74 Philip Gleason, Virginia Knechtel, Ira Nichols licy Research, 2013, retrieved from http://www.kipp.org/files/dmfile/2013_Mathematica_KIPP_Executive_Summary1.pdf . 75 76 Dewey to Delpit , retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://edcommentary.blogspot.com/p/no excuses charter movement.html .

PAGE 38

38 ent to a matched group of non KIPP students attending Traditional Schools based on student characteristics and achievement trajectories in elementary schools. The study found, on average, KIPP schools had a statistically significant positive impact on sta te assessments. 77 There is substantial research self published from EMO schools that indicate EMOs are outperforming the Traditional Schools. 78 For instance, KIPP reports using classroom observations, tests, state evaluation, and nationally normed reference tests th grade, 96% of KIPP classes outperform their 79 Also, Achievement First reports ew York Traditional Schools), but their achievement is also increasing at a faster rate. 80 Along with national studies, there are a myriad of empirical peer reviewed state studies finding efficacy in charter schools. The Florida Department of Education re leased a finding that indicates when comparing students FCAT scores, students attending charter schools outperformed students attending Traditional Schools in math, 77 Tu 78 KIPP Foundation , accessed September 30, 2013, http://www.kipp.org /question3 Achievement First , accessed September 30, 2013, http://www.achievementfirst.org/results/across achievement first/ . 79 reports the statistics of a KIPP school compared to the mean statistics of all the schools in the authorizing school district. The reported results are cumulative to include each KIPP s chool and the authorizing district. 80 results is high considering the organizations were promoting them on their websites as a recruiting tool.

PAGE 39

39 reading, and science. 81 In Boston, a study controlling for background characteristics using randomized lotteries found a positive effect of middle and high charter schools, with the effect becoming greater over time. 82 A study in Massachusetts using philosophy produc ed student achievement well beyond students attending urban Traditional Schools, yet the same type of charters reduced achievement in nonurban areas. 83 A series of CREDO studies using the VCR method found students who attend charter schools in Arkansas, Co lorado, Illinois, Indiana, Las Angeles, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, and New Jersey outperformed their virtual peers in Traditional Schools. 84 81 Florida Department of Education. 82 Atila Abdulkadiroglu, Josh Angrist, Sara Cohodes, Susan Dynarski, Jon Fulleron, Thomas Kane, The Boston Foundation , 2009 retrieved http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~pfpie/ pdf/InformingTheDebate_Final.pdf 83 Joshua D. Angrist, Parag A. Pathak, and Christopher R. Walters, "Explaining Charter School Effectiveness," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 5, 4 (2013) 1 27. 84 Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/AR_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPO RT_CREDO_2 009.pdf Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/CO_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CREDO_ 2009.pdf Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/IL_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CREDO_20 09.pdf Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stan ford University (2012) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/IN_State_Report_CREDO_%202011.pdf .; CREDO, Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2014) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/Los_Angeles_report_2014_FINAL_000.pd f .; CREDO,

PAGE 40

40 From peer reviewed national studies to individual states to reports from education management companies, a substantial amount of research exists that indicates charter schools are effectively increasing student achievement scores. However, there is still a gap in the research examining the disaggregated student traits, teacher traits, and financial expenditur es that may influence these results. Furthermore, this body of research represents only half of the story, as there is an equally number of robust studies indicating charter schools are not increasing student achievement any more than Traditional Schools. Charter s are the same as T raditional Schools A significant portion of the empirical peer reviewed research indicates there are no significant differences between charters and Traditional Schools. In fact, several of the studies reveal varied results. 85 For instance, while the national CREDO study that Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2013) retrieved March 29, 2014 from https://credo.stanford.ed u/documents/MAReportFinal.pdf .; Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2013) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/MI_report_2012_FINAL_1_11_2013_no_watermark.pdf .; Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 from h ttp://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MO_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CREDO_ 2009.pdf. 85 Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford Univers ity (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/CA_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CREDO_2 009.pdf Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/NC_CHARTER%20 SCHOOL%20REPORT_CREDO_ 2009.pdf Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved March 29,

PAGE 41

41 investigated 3.7 million students in twenty three states found charter schools are effective for low income minorities, it also found students attending an EMO are significantly stronger in math, yet weak er in reading compared to Hometown Public Schools. However, when grouping all charters together, they performed worse in math, but better in reading that the TPS. 86 Furthermore, in the series of CREDO studies which revealed charters are more effective than Traditional Schools in eight states and one city, it was found charter schools in California and North Carolina are performing significantly better in reading and significantly lower in math than the Traditional Schools. 87 The CREDO series also found no s tatistical difference between charters and Traditional Schools academic performance in the District of Columbia. 88 In the national studies, no significant differences were found between charters and Traditional Schools. 89 In an examination of charter schoo l student achievement same when that student withdraws from a Traditional Schools and enrolls in a charter school. 90 Another national study including thirty six charter sch ools in fifteen states compared students admitted to the charter through a random lottery selection with students who applied but were not admitted through the lottery selection. The results 2014 fromhttp://credo.stanford.edu/reports/DC_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20R EPORT_CRE DO_2009.pdf. 86 87 88 89 Institute of Education Sciences , 2010, retrieved March 25, 2014 from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104029/pdf/20104030.pdf . 90

PAGE 42

42 indicate no significant differences in reading or math achieveme nt in year one or year two. 91 Sorting the charter schools into various subgroups, researchers compared the subgroups with Traditional Schools, still finding no significant differences in student achievement. 92 One study sorted charters into start ups (n=23) and Traditional Schools that have converted into charters (n=9) then compared them to 300 TPS. The results reveal no statistical significant differences between the groups for academic gains, but it did find a decrease of behavioral infractions and an in crease in attendance for students attending start up charters. 93 A 2012 study was conducted comparing the mean assessment scores of the four types of charter school authorizing agencies in Minnesota (local school boards, postsecondary institutions, nonprof it organizations, and the Minnesota Department of Education), in which, yielded no statistically significant relationships. 94 A study conducted by the Center on Reinventing Public Education and Mathematica Policy Research compared 14,000 middle school stud ents and 3,000 high school students in EMO schools with matched comparison groups of students from Traditional Schools in terms of test scores and other key characteristics. The results 91 92 Scott A. Imberm The Review of Economics and Statistics 32, 2 (2011) 416 435.; School Management Organizat 93 94

PAGE 43

43 indicated EMOs have no statistical significance effect on state assess ments, impact on high school graduation, or college enrollment. 95 There are a few implications of studies revealing no significant differences between the charter and Traditional Schools. The implications pertain to the free market theory driving competi tion. It is unclear from the current research whether the lack of difference is due to an actual closing of the achievement gap resulting from superior charter schools or if it is due to charter schools being no better than Traditional Schools. Traditio nal Schools are more effective. An entirely other body of empirical peer reviewed research exists that finds on the national level Traditional Schools are performing better than charters (both Hometown Public Schools and EMO). 96 One study aimed at determi ning if charter schools level of innovation, which is a hallmark of the autonomy granted to charters, is more influential than the innovation of Traditional Schools. After surveying 203 charter schools and 739 Traditional Schools in thirty six states, it was found that charter schools 95 School Managemen t Organizations Diverse Strategies 96 Economics of Education Review 31, 2 (2012), 318 Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University , 2013 retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/documents/ NCSS%202013%20Executive%20Summary.pdf .; American Journal of Education 116, 3 (2010) 303 335.; Jae Young Ch ung, In Soo Shin, and Lee Heesook, Kedi Journal of Educational Policy 6,1 (2009) 61 80.

PAGE 44

44 are not more innovative than Traditional Schools. 97 In a twenty seven state national charter school study, CREDO found the math gains of charter schools do not differ from Traditional Schools. 98 Another national study includi ng forty states and 2,000 school districts aimed to determine if the in school organizational conditions and the hiring of found charter schools have no significant effect o n student achievement. 99 Finally, in a double quasi experimental study of charter school effectiveness in fourteen states, the researcher found both methods indicated 81 percent of the Traditional Schools were outperforming the charter schools. 100 Empirical p eer reviewed research at the state level also indicates Traditional Schools are outperforming charter schools. A longitudinal study, in Utah tracking student achievement scores from 2004 2009, found on average charter schools are performing worse than Tra ditional Schools. 101 The researchers did note that the longer a charter was open the better the student outcomes became. Similar results were found in Arkansas when a researcher examined student level achievement scores in grades 3 through 8 in 2003, and a gain in 2011, for determining the effects of charter schools on student achievement levels over time. 102 Additionally, a longitudinal study in 97 a 98 99 100 101 Economics and Education Review 31, no. 5 (2012): 835 849. 102 Enrollment Charter Jou rnal of Education Finance 38, no. 4 (2013): 320 242.

PAGE 45

45 Florida including all public school students examining the performance of charter schools found for the first five years, charter schools performed worse than Traditional Schools on state assessments, and after the first five years only performed as well as the Traditional Schools. 103 The same result of charter schools having five years of under performance when compare d to Traditional Schools was found in Texas. 104 In Ohio, charter school effectiveness was measured using student level data to make comparisons amongst authorizing agencies and Traditional Schools. The results indicate charter schools, regardless of the au thorizing agency; all have a higher variance in achievement scores than Traditional Schools. 105 A North Carolina study estimating the impact of charter schools on students in charter schools and in Traditional Schools found students in charter schools make substantially smaller achievement gains than they would have in Traditional Schools, however, it is noted that thirty percent of the negative effect of charter schools is due to high student turnover rates. 106 A study in Michigan estimating the effects of c harter schools on state standardized assessments to compare changes in scores for students attending charter schools and Traditional Schools found test scores of students attending charter schools do not improve, and sometimes decline. 107 Finally, the serie s of CREDO studies using VCR to determine charter school effectiveness found charter schools performing 103 Education Finance and Policy , (2006) 91 122. 104 Sc Journal of Public Economics 91, 5/6 (2007) 823 848. 105 Education Finance and Policy 9, 1 (2014) 59 85. 106 dent Achievement: Education Finance and Policy 1, 1 (2006) 50 90. 107 Economics of Education Review 24, 2 (2005) 133 147.

PAGE 46

46 statistically significant below Traditional Schools in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. 108 The implications of these f inding are similar to those for studies finding charters are performing better than Traditional Schools. There continues to be a gap in the research examining the disaggregated student traits, teacher traits, and financial expenditures that may influence these results. Furthermore, one of the main staples of implementing the educational free market, which is echoed in state legislation pertaining to charter schools, is the requirement for charters to produce high academic achievement. The results of the se studies indicate charters are not holding up their end of the contract. 108 Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu /reports/AZ_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CREDO_2 009.pdf Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/FL_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CREDO_2 009.pdf Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved Ma rch 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/GA_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CREDO_ Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http:/ /credo.stanford.edu/reports/MN_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CREDO_ Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/OH_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CREDO_ 2009.pdf Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2011) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/PA%20State%20Report_20110404_FINAL.pdf.; Outcomes at Stanford University (2011) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/TX_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CREDO_2 009.pdf.

PAGE 47

47 Based on the evidence provided in the research presented regarding charter school effectiveness, the results are extremely varied. The research is so unclear that results from stud ies conducted in the same states have opposing findings. It is axiomatic from this conflicting data that charter school efficacy is a controversial issue with high political and social implications requiring continued study. Educational Free Market Theor etical Framework The theory behind charter schools is that they will create a free market within the public school system. Theoretically, the choice will drive demand creating a competitive environment that will increase the quality of each school, or con sequently, that school will be forced to close. In order for the market to drive competition, it must be efficient, (benefits or satisfaction) and the value of the scarce resources expended to achieve it 109 In terms of education, the cost associated with educating children must not outweigh the benefit the children gain from attending the school. When discussing efficiency in terms of cost understand how the resources are allocated, or distributed. Keeping with the market economic questions get answered: 1. What goods and ser vices are produced (and in what quantities)? 2. By which of the various available technological means and recipes are each of these goods and services to be produced from the available land, labor, and capital? 109 A Glossary of Political and Economic Terms, accessed October 9, 2013 from http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/efficiency.

PAGE 48

48 3. For whom are each of these goods and ser vices produced? (Which specific individuals get to use/consume each unit of each good or service 110 The educational free market theory attempts to apply the economic market theory to the educational system. To better understand how the economic market theory transfers to the educational system, the allocation questions posed by Johnson different for Traditional Schools and charter schools due to the varying levels of autonomy. Traditional Schools are required by law to accept and provide a Free Appropriate Public Education to all students, regardless of the needs then create programs to meet the needs. 111 This means each Traditional Schools is responsible for successfully implementing as many programs as the student body requires. Charter schools, however, are granted the autonomy to be mission driven schools, meaning they can create schools that are designed to meet the needs of particular populations, thus providing the services that will most benefit that population. The potential for t his model is great for the chosen population. However, there is not a charter in each school district designed to serve every student need resulting in charters not being a choice for everyone. The allocation of services is very different between the ser vice delivery models. 110 Paul M. Johnso A Glossary of Political and Economic Terms, accessed October 9, 2013 from http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/allocation. 111 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 , as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794.

PAGE 49

49 technological means and recipes are each of these goods and services to be produced he finite pool of As mentioned previously, all three service delivery models are funded with public dollars. In Florida, the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) uses a per pupil funding formu la to calculate the amount of funds the state will provide to educate each student. 112 The goal of the FEFP is to equalize the programs and services available to meet the needs of each student throughout the state without regard to geographic difference and economic factors. 113 The funding formula provides the amount of funds required to meet the educational needs of each student while accounting for the various needs and circumstances of the students and the districts they reside in. Prior to 1996, the scho ol districts received all the FEFP funds and served all the students. Post 1996, the school districts still receive all the FEFP funds, yet they are required to provide each charter school within the district the allocated funds for the students they serv e. 114 Therefore, the already finite pool of resources is being divided creating an even tighter budget. The fixed cost to operate a school does not change with the flux of students, yet the revenue does. This is a strong reason for the need of this study. Discovering which service delivery models produce the greatest student outcomes while controlling for influencing factors, will add to the discussion policy makers need to have regarding the cost and benefits of continuing the divide the funds. 112 Planning and Budgeting , Florida K 12 E ducation Code XLVIII, §1011.62. 113 Florida Department of Education, accessed Oct 9, 2013 from http://www.fldoe.org/fefp/pdf/fefpdist.pdf. 114 Charter Schools , Florida K 12 Education Code XLVIII, §1002.33

PAGE 50

50 produced? (Which specific individuals get to use/consume each unit of each good or students we are educating a previously, Traditional Schools are required to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education to all the students residing in the district. The goals of these students vary depending on a great number o f variables including their family background, location, ability, and so on. The autonomy of charter schools allows them to have an application process and eligibility requirements that align with the mission of the charter. Charters schools are requir ed to accept any student who meets the eligibility. However, services that student requires, which would return that student to the Traditional Schools. 115 Also, the State of Florida does not require charter schools to provide transportation for students. This lack of support severely limits the students who are school. A consequenc e of this lack of support may be creating economic segregation, as poorer and working class families are at the mercy of transportation. The disaggregated database created in this study will help provide a clearer picture of who the students are within ea ch model. It is the aim of this study to use the educational free market framework to evaluate the effectiveness of the autonomy afforded to each service delivery model. The effectiveness will be measured using the state standardized test scores. The 115 Ibid, (7)c7.

PAGE 51

51 mo del, see Figure 2 2 , illustrates the student traits, teacher traits, and financial variables that will be controlled for to provide the most equitable comparisons between the service delivery models. A brief review of literature indicating how these varia bles can influence student achievement is presented in the next section. Factors Influencing Student Achievement A brief summary of the factors and research to support the possibility of influence on the student achievement outcomes include: Gender i s one variable that will be controlled for in this study, due to research indicating differences in student achievement as a result of gender. 116 A longitudinal study tracking the changes in achievement gap between males and females from ages 116 Oxford Review of Economic Policy 21, 3 (2005) 357 American Institutes for Research (1998), accessed from h ttp://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/gender gaps where schools still fail our children executive summary.pdf. Outcome Variable used to measure effectiveness of autonomy Student Achievement Independent Variables SDM represent various levels of autonomy TS EMO HPS Independent Variables Controlled for to yield more equitable comparisons Gender Ethnicity SES Status ELL Status ESE Status Teacher Experince Teacher Degree Instructional Spending Figure 2 2 Theoretical Framework

PAGE 52

52 eleven to sixte en found the gender achievement gap has evolved over time resulting in females now outperform males in most all subject areas. 117 In a meta analysis of 1,000 research documents published over an eight year time frame, it was found some areas of the gender a chievement gap narrowing while new gaps have emerged. 118 Recently, charter school proponents are seeking to open single gendered schools. 119 The idea is that boys and girls learn differently, so they should be taught differently. Because gender can influence the achievement scores, it will be controlled for in this study. Ethnicity is another student trait that can influence student achievement. Using a by ethnicity, it was fou grow at the fastest pace; African American and Hispanic Students start with the lowest scores and grow at the slowest pace. 120 The National Center for Education Statistics has collected achievem ent scores of nine , thirteen , and seventeen year old students nationwide over a period of forty years to track trends in achievement. The trend has shown the achievement gap between minority races and white students closing due mainly from black and His panic students making greater strides than the majority white population. 121 Although research is indicating the achievement gaps between ethnicities are closing, a difference is still present. Therefore, for this study the 117 118 119 Charter School; K 8 Facility with Single Gender Core 120 ACT Research and Policy , (2012), accessed from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/RaceEthnici tyReport.pdf 121 National Center for Education Statistics , retrieved March 31, 2014 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cnj.asp

PAGE 53

53 rolled for. Specifically, these groups: American Indian, Asian, black, Hispanic, multiracial, Pacific Islander, and white students within each school. Socio economic status or social class plays a significant role in student achievement. In a study exam ining the relationship between family income and student achievement on math and reading standardized assessments over a fifty year period, it was found the achievement gap between the high income families and the low income families has widened significan tly in the past thirty years. 122 In addition to the achievement gap, students from low income families may not have access to the same school choices as high income families due to a lack of transportation support. 123 For this study, socio economic status wi ll be controlled for by including the percentage of students in each school that qualifies for free or reduced lunch, assuming the school participates in the program, in the regression analysis. Only the low SES populations qualify for this service, so it can be used to determine the SES make up of the schools. Students with special education needs often produce lower achievement scores than non disabled peers. By definition, a student who qualifies for special education services (ESE) must have a disab ility that adversely affects educational performance. 124 Many studies indicate charter schools are not serving an equitable proportion of students with special needs as compared to Traditional Schools. 125 Because students with special 122 Faces of Poverty 70, 8 (2013) 10 16. 123 124 National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities , accessed March 31, 2014 http://nichcy.org/disabilit y/categories. 125 Protect Access for Students with Disabilities: Report to Congressional Requesters

PAGE 54

54 needs have the potentia l to not perform as well on standardized tests, require expensive professional knowledge and training, and require accommodations, they may be underrepresented in charter schools and will be controlled for in this study for the Multiple Linear Regression. Much like students with special needs, English language learner (ELL) students require a specific curricula, services, and teacher training and often perform lower on the standardized testing than their English speaking peers. 126 Recent trends indicate ELL students are seeking charter schools whose mission is to support and cultivate the heritage of the ELL students. 127 These data will reveal which of the service delivery models are meeting the needs of the ELLs. The teaching experience and degree level of t he instructors can influence the achievement levels of students. Charter schools in particular tend to employ the lesser experienced teachers, and the charter teachers leave the profession at greater rates than Traditional Schools teachers. 128 In North Caro lina, a twelve year study on charter schoolteachers experience levels found charters had two times more new teachers than Traditional Schools. 129 Furthermore, the teachers whom leave the Traditional Schools to either start their own charter or work for a c harter often are disgruntled Traditional GAO US Government Accountability Office, accessed October 10, 2013 from http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/ 591435. 126 Jack Buckley and Carolyn Sattin Charter Schools? Demographic Trends in New York City, 2006 Journal of School Choice 5 , 1 (2011) 40 66. 127 Education Digest 75, 9 (2010). 128 Education Finance and Policy 8, 1 (2013) 14 42. 129 Celeste K. Carruth Economics of Education Review 31, 2 (2011) 280 292.

PAGE 55

55 Schools teachers. 130 As to not allow these variances influence the comparisons, this study will be controlling teacher experience and degree level. The final trait is per pupil revenue and the school expenditures on instruction and instructional support, as defined by The Institute of Internal Auditors Red Book. 131 Along with the varying levels of autonomy the service delivery models possess, are varying levels of funding. Each school district receives all of the FEF P funds. The school district then has the option to distribute between 95 and 100 percent of those funds to the charter schools, withholding up to five percent for administrative supports. The charters then manage funds received as they see fit. Compari ng the service delivery models based on how much each school reports to the Florida Auditor General as spending for instruction and instructional services provides evidence of a relationship between funding and student outcomes. Summary The educational free market reform has progressed through the initial innovative idea phase with the contributions of Milton Friedman, Ray Budde, and Al Shanker. The reform has resulted in charter schools being written into the state legislation of forty two states. 132 Wit h the introduction of charter schools, and now EMOs, schools have varying levels of autonomy from government regulations. This autonomy is granted in exchange for high academic achievement as measured by state standardized 130 As Drivers of Charter School Formation Journal of School Choice 3, 2 (2009) 138. 131 The Institute of Internal Auditors . 132 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2014, http://www.publ iccharters.org/get the facts/law database/

PAGE 56

56 assessments. This reform has in troduced the free market theory into the education system creating a competitive environment intended to promote choice and drive improvement. A considerable amount of controversy surrounds the educational free market reform. Proponents of the reform adv ocate for individual choice, competition driven markets, and entrepreneurship. Opponents are concerned with Traditional Schools bearing a heavy financial burden, charters segregating students, and for profit models leading to corruption. Because charter schools are funded with tax dollars, they are still held accountable for producing results. Yet, if charter schools were regulated at the same level as Traditional Schools, it would defeat the intent and purpose of the reform. A balance between autonomy and regulation has yet to be discovered. Empirical research on the effectiveness of charter schools does not solidify a case for either the reform advocates or the opponents. The research results vary widely on the national level, as well as the state le vel. A gap that emerged in the research is the lack of disaggregated data comparisons. The studies did not control for student and teacher factors that have documented influence on achievement. The studies also did not control for the variance in instru ctional spending that may influence the effectiveness of achievement. In this state study, a more equitable comparison between charter schools (Hometown Public Schools and EMO) and Traditional Schools has been made controlling for those influential factor s. Holding these factors constant allowed for a comparison based on the autonomy granted to the school. The results will help fill the gap in the research on the effectiveness of charter schools.

PAGE 57

57 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of thi s study was to compare student outcomes of the three service delivery models controlling for student, teacher, and instructional spending to determine if the level of autonomy granted to a school was related to student academic success. Previous research has produced varying results when comparing the service delivery models. It was the aim of this non experimental, quantitative exploratory study to make more equitable comparisons by holding constant the independent variables that may have influenced the student outcomes. This chapter outlined the methodology used to make the comparisons. It began with a rationale for the research approach followed by a description of the population. Next, the data collection and analysis methods were discussed concludi ng with issues of trustworthiness and the limitations and delimitations of the study. Rationale for Research Approach In educational research the purpose of the study and the nature of the research questions dictate the research design. Reflecting on th e purpose of this study and the research questions the most appropriate design was selected. The research questions were Research Question 1: What were the traits of students attending each of the service delivery models?

PAGE 58

58 Research Question 2: What were th e school traits including mean teacher experience, teacher education level, the total school revenue, and the per pupil instructional expenditures, of each service delivery model? Research Question 3: Is there a statistically significant relationship, and if so to what degree, between the service delivery models on student achievement after funding? It is imperative to select the research design that is best aligned with the research questions, because research designs provide specific procedural criteria. The research questions and purpose of this study dictated a quantitative design. This study us ed a cross section of data from one point in time to make comparisons among variables, which aligns with the non experimental design. This study did not seek to cite causation rather the aim was to establish a relationship was present between a schools le vel of autonomy and the student outcomes. Correlational research studies require a specific statistical analysis, regression, to determine if a relationship is present. 1 Specifically, a Multiple variable, the dependent variable (Y), is to be studied as a function of, or in relationship to, any 2 Following the progression 1 Educational Researcher 30, 2 (2001). 2 Jacob Cohen, Patricia Cohen, Stephen G. West, and Leona S. Aiken, Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for Behavioral Sciences (New York: Routledge, 2013) 1.

PAGE 59

59 of choices in the research design, the intent and questions of this stud y were best answered using a quantitative, non experimental, correlational research design. Population Data utilized in this study included the population of public schools in the state of Florida serving grades three, four, and ten. In Florida, the FCA T2.0 was the state mandated standardized assessment that measured the mastery of the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards (NGSSS). 3 All three of the service delivery models were required to follow the NGSSS and to participate in the FCAT2.0. 4 In an e ffort to make equitable comparisons, several cross sectional data points were collected. These points include data from all public schools serving third grade students whom reported scores to the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) in the subjects of reading and math. Third grade is the first year students are assessed using the FCAT2.0. These data points also include data from all public schools serving fourth grade students whom reported scores to the FLDOE in reading, math, and writing. Finally, data points were collected in all public schools serving tenth grade students whom reported scores to the FLDOE in reading and writing. Tenth grade is the last year students are assessed with the FCAT2.0. The third grade data included 1,894 schools report ing data to the FLDOE 3 Florida Department of Education , 2014, accessed from http://fcat.fldoe.org/fcat2/. 4 Florida K 12 Education Code XLVIII §1008.22.

PAGE 60

60 1,641 Traditional Schools reporting reading scores for 167,838 students and reporting math scores for 167,784 students. There were 87 EMO schools reporting read ing scores for 5,843 students and reporting math scores for 5,833 students. There were 166 Hometown Public Schools reporting reading scores for 8,096 students and reporting math scores for 8,089 students. The fourth grade data included 1,884 schools rep orting data to the FLDOE scores. There were 1639 Traditional Schools reporting reading scores for s cores. There were 84 EMO schools reporting reading scores for 5,732 students, reporting math scores for 5,965 students, and reporting writing scores for 5,753 students. There were 161 Hometown Public Schools reporting data on es, 8,300 math scores, and 7,856 writing scores. The tenth grade data included 2,115 schools reporting data to the FLDOE Traditional Schools reporting reading scores for 130,523 s tudents and reporting persuasive writing scores for 131,955 students. There were 35 EMO schools reporting reading scores for 2,965 students and reporting persuasive writing scores for 3,201 students. There were 68 Hometown Public Schools reporting readin g scores for 4,928 students and reporting persuasive writing scores for 5,300 students. Excluded from this study were virtual schools and schools residing in districts with no charter schools. Virtual schools were not included for two

PAGE 61

61 reasons. First, they introduce an additional service delivery model, which is beyond the scope of this study. Second, virtual schools, aside from the Florida Virtual School, have not yielded enough data to be successfully included in the statistical model of this study. The schools residing in districts that do not authorize charter schools were excluded, because without charter schools there are no levels of autonomy, thus no means to make comparisons. Data Collection Methods The measurement system used, and the depe ndent (Y) variable, was the school level FCAT2.0 mean scale score. All data for this study were public record. The data collection began with building the dataset of factors that may influence the student achievement scores. Using the School Level Demog raphic Results of the FCAT2.0 Student Performance Results: Demographic Report, the student factors data were compiled. 5 A separate Excel spreadsheet was created for third grade, fourth grade, and tenth grade. Each spreadsheet included data from every sch ool in the state of Florida whom reported FCAT2.0 results within the respective grade. All data were collected in the 2011 2012 school year. Data included the school district identification number and name, the school identification number and name, the grade and year of scores being reported, the subject areas assessed, the total number of students tested, the school mean developmental score, and the percentage of students in the school whom passed 5 Florida Department of Education , accessed November 2, 2013 from https://app1.fldoe.org/fcatdemographics/https://app1.fldoe.org/fcatdemographic s/.

PAGE 62

62 the assessment. Also for each school the number of stud ents, the percentage of the schools population [which was calculated using the function in Excel =(number of students)/(school population)], the mean developmental score, and the percentage of students passing the assessment were collected for subgroups Wh ite/Non Hispanic, Black or African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Non Hispanic, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Multiracial, female, male, English Language Learner (ELL), total ESE other than gifted, free or r educed lunch, and not free or reduced lunch. Next, the teacher factors were added to the Excel spreadsheets. The average years of teaching experience for each school in the state of Florida was provided by the FLDOE as the result of a request for the inf ormation. Data were the highest degree held by each teacher in the school. 6 Using the function in Excel =(number of teachers holding each degree)/(school teacher population), th Specialist, and Doctorate Degree was calculated. These teacher level data were included in the database. instruction al expenditures. Each school in the state of Florida receiving FEFP funding must report expenditures in a uniform manner. 7 The Financial and 6 Florida Department of Education , accessed November 2, 2013 from http://doeweb prd.doe.state.fl.us/eds/nclbspar/year1112/main1112.cfm. 7 Florida K 12 Education Code XLV III §1010.01 .

PAGE 63

63 Program Cost Accounting and Reporting for Florida Schools (known as the Red Book) was created as a manual for cre ating a comprehensive and uniform reporting structure. 8 The Red Book provides a structure for how revenues and expenditures are to be classified and reported. Using the Red Book definition of ite, which houses the financial records of each school district and each charter school in the state, data were collected from each school in the categories of Instructional [which was sometimes itemized to include support services, media services, curricu lum development, staff training, and related technology], Traditional Schools expenditures on charter schools, total revenue, and total student membership. The total instructional expenditure was calculated in the Excel spreadsheet for each school by comb ining the itemized instructional categories into one total for all instructional expenditures. The total revenue for Traditional Schools was calculated by subtracting the charter school expenditure from the district total revenue. The total revenue for t he charter schools was reported in the school financial report submitted to the district and reported to the Florida Auditor General. The per pupil revenue was calculated by dividing the total revenue by the total student membership. The per pupil instru ctional expenditure was calculated by dividing the total instructional expenditure by the total student membership. Finally, the percentage of revenue expended on educational 8 Florida Department of Education , accessed November 1, 2013 from http://www.fldoe.org/fefp/redtoc.asp.

PAGE 64

64 instruction was calculated by dividing the total instructional expenditure by th e total revenue. After this database was completed, the schools were separated into Excel spreadsheets based on the service delivery model. First, the charter schools were separated from the Traditional Schools using a FLDOE database, which included a li st of all charter schools. 9 Next, the EMO schools were separated from the Hometown Public Schools using an annual report published by the National Education Policy Center , which profiles the EMO schools in the United States. 10 The EMO schools were further classified according to the authorizing management company in which the school belonged, also using the National Education Policy Center profile. The final step included deleting all Traditional Schools in districts that did not authorize charter schools . Once the dataset was collected, time was spent cleaning the data and detecting any outlying data prior to running any analysis. For schools who have a subgroup with membership enrollments of less than ten, the FLDOE database did not provide a mean scho ol score for that group. This is due to protecting the confidentiality of the students in that group. For the descriptive analysis, subgroups with less than ten members were excluded from the analysis. For the multiple regression analysis, the minority groups American Indian or Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and multiracial were combined and recoded as Other. Because the membership of each of these 9 Florida Choice Schools. 10 Profit and Nonprofit Education Management Organizations: Fourteenth Edition 2011

PAGE 65

65 subgroups was far lower than the any of the other subgroups, combining the m provided a stronger statistical model for comparison. With the resolution of these issues, the dataset was ready for the statistical analysis. Data Analysis Methods There were two separate analysis executed to answer the research questions. Question s one and two sought to identify student, teacher, and fiscal traits within the dataset. Descriptive analysis was used to answer these questions. Question three sought to determine if a relationship exists between the FCAT2.0 scores and the service deliv ery models. A multiple regression and correlational analysis was used to detect a relationship. The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no relationship between Traditional Schools, EMO, and Hometown Public Schools. The alternative hypothesis is that there is at least some relationship, expressed as: H 0 1 2 k = 0 H 1 Because the research has been so varied on the efficacy of charter schools, no assumptions are made regarding the direction of the relat ionship; hence a two tailed distribution was used. The results were statistically significant at a level of .05. 11 Student academic achievement was used to measure the relationship between the service delivery models. 11 .05 is the standard acceptable level for determining statistical significance in educational statistics.; Gregory J. Privit era, Statistics for Behavioral Sciences ( Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2012), 226.

PAGE 66

66 The proxy of academic achievement i s the FCAT2.0. The reliability and validity of this standardized assessment is established in the Test Development and Construction chapter of the FCAT Handbook. 12 The FCAT2.0 school mean developmental scale score is the dependent variable. The independe nt variables Hispanic, Black or African American, Hispanic/Latino , Multiracial, and Other), gender (female or male), ELL status, ESE status, and SES status (as measured by enrollment in the free or reduced lunch p rogram). Other independent variables include the mean years of teaching are the total school revenue and the total per pupil expenditure on educational instruction and instructional services. When a statistical hypothesis is examining a relationship between one or more factors of interest (independent variables) on an outcome (dependent) variable, mult iple regression analysis is applicable. 13 The dependent and independent variables for this study were uploaded into SPSS for the multiple regression analysis. The first step was to ensure the data met six assumptions of linear regression. First, all vari ables were measures at the interval or ratio level. Second, a scatterplot was used to ensure a linear relationship between the variables was present. The scatterplot was also used to detect any significant outliers and to show homoscedasticity. Next, us ing the Durbin Watson statistic, 12 Florida Department of Education , accessed December 15, 2013 from http://fcat.fldoe.org/handbk/fcathandbook.asp. 13 Barry H. Cohen, Explaining Psychological Statistics (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008), 2.

PAGE 67

67 the independence of observations we measured. Finally, the residuals of the regression line were measured to ensure they were approximately normally distributed. Once the assumptions were made a linear regression analysis was performed for each subject area tested in grades 3, 4, and 10. The regression model for each was: 14 (3 1) Issues of T rustworthiness: The FCAT2.0 established the validity and reliability of the measure using Item Content Review Committees, field testing the assessment , item test correlations, Differential Item Functioning, and pilot testing. 15 This study used the population of students in the state of Florida, which eliminates several of the validity and reliability concerns associated with generalizing from a sample. One measure used to increase the trustworthiness of this study was to include multiple subject areas from multiple grades during the 2011 2012 school year. 14 Note the service delivery models were dummy coded with Traditional Schools being the reference group. 15 FCAT Handbook, Florida Department of Education.

PAGE 68

68 Furthermore, in meeting the assumptions of a multiple regression the chance for Type I and Type II errors were reduced. 16 Limitations and Delimitations The study presented some limitations that were uncontrollable. Due to protecting the confidentiality of the students, the Florida Department of Education does not release the school mean FCAT2.0 score s for any group that contains for the minority groups. This limitation is only evident in the descriptive statistics. For the Multiple Regression Analysis, these data were not needed. A limitation to the Multiple Regression Analysis, when comparing the service delivery models as dummy codes, is the disproportionate number of schools within each service delivery model. Another possible limitation is the assumption that the independent variables included in the model encompass all the factors that may influence the achievement scores. A final possible limitation is the unknown amount of time a student has attended a particular service delivery model prior to taking the asses sment. It is assumed they have received instruction at that service delivery model for at least the entire school year. Choices were made during the study design to ensure data and quantitative methods were aligned with the purpose of the study. A delimi tation was the exclusion of all virtual schools and voucher programs, while they are 16 Jason W. Osborne and Elai Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 8, no. 2 (2002): 2.

PAGE 69

69 additional service delivery models, there were not enough schools with more than 10 subjects of data. Also, for the Multiple Regression Analysis, the minority groups (Asi the low number of subjects in each group. A possible delimitation is the number of independent variables in the regression model, because as the number of variables increase so does the number of significance tests, which could increase a Type I error. However, removing variables that could influence the relationship will increase a Type I error. All independent variables were kept in the model, due to prior research finding a relations hip between the variable and student outcomes. Summary The methodology of this study has been outlined and described in this chapter. The research approach is aligned with the research questions and the purpose of the study. Following the criteria for s electing a research model, a quantitative, non experimental, cross sectional, correlational research design was chosen to explore the population of students served in Florida public school grades 3, 4, and 10. All data used is public record, and was colle cted from the and National Education Policy Center. These data were statistically analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential statistics, specifically the testing of statistical hypotheses. The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no relationship between Traditional Schools, EMO, and Hometown Public Schools. The alternative hypothesis is that there is at least some relationship. To

PAGE 70

70 determine if a relation ship is present, a multiple linear regression analysis was performed using SPSS. Numerous assumptions were met in an attempt to reduce the levels of error in the model. The results of the analysis are described in chapter four.

PAGE 71

71 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Introdu ction In this chapter, the results of the statistical analysis were reported. The descriptive data were explored to detect patterns for comparing the percentages of students being served in each service delivery model. These data were also used to compa re the passage rates of the FCAT2.0 reading, math, and writing sections. The results of these descriptive data were used to explain, in chapter 5, the results found in the Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) analysis. After the service delivery models were compared using these descriptive data, a MLR was conducted for each section of the FCAT2.0. The results of these analyses were used to determine if the service delivery model showed a statistically significant relationship with the FCAT2.0 mean developmen tal scale scores. Descriptive Data The descriptive data in this section were used to address the first two research questions. Using descriptive statistics and graphical representation, a comparison of the service delivery models was made. These compa risons were made based on school level data means grouped into school districts level data which said subgroup was being served. The subgroups include ethnicity, gender, particip ation in the free/reduced lunch program, requirement for special services, teacher experience and highest degree held, and the fiscal revenues and expenditures. See Appendix A for the district level data.

PAGE 72

72 Ethnicity The ethnic groups reported by the Flor ida Department of Education are white, black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, Pacific Islander, and multiracial. The service delivery models were compared to determine whether a particular subgroup is either overrepresented or underrepresented within th e service delivery models. The results indicated the three service delivery models were serving approximately the same percentages of students in each ethnic group, as represented in Figure 4 1. The only exception being the EMO schools were serving more Hispanic students than the Traditional Schools or the Hometown Public Schools and less white or black students. A comparison of the percentage of each ethnic group, which earned a passing score on the FCAT2.0 reading, math, and writing sections, was made within the service delivery models. The reading section was administered to the three grade levels (third, fourth, and tenth) and the results were presented in Figure 4 2. 1 The percentage of white, black and Hispanic students whom passed the reading se ction were very similar in both third and fourth grade, as well as, the Hispanic students in tenth grade, across the service delivery models. However, in tenth grade Traditional Schools and Hometown Public Schools had higher percentages of white and black students pass the reading section. In all three of the grade levels, the Asian group (and the multiracial group in third and fourth grade) in the EMO and Hometown Public Schools outperformed the Traditional Schools. However, due to the mean school data not being available 1 Graphs with a 0, indicated there were no scores reported for that group.

PAGE 73

73 for schools reporting on less than ten students, the data for these two groups was reflective of only one or two districts. The Pacific Islander group was not represented because no school had more than ten students reporting data. A lso notably, while the three service delivery models were all reporting similar results by ethnicity, they were all reporting the black group as having the lowest percentage of passing students. The percentage of each ethnic group that passed the math po rtion of the FCAT2.0 in third and fourth grade were very similar, with the exception of the EMO Schools reporting more of the American Indian students passed than the American Indian students in Traditional Schools, as seen in Figure 4 3. This difference can again be attributed to the one EMO School in Glades County in which eighty five percent of the school population was American Indian. In the writing section of the FCAT2.0, the three service delivery models were passing a similar percentage of white, black and Hispanic students in fourth grade, as seen in Figure 4 4. However, in tenth grade, the Traditional Schools were passing a higher percentage of white and black students, with EMO Schools passed the lowest percentage of white and black students. Gender In a comparison of service delivery models by the percentage of males and females served, all three models served a balanced proportion of gender in third, fourth, and tenth grades, depicted in Figure 4 5. There were no differences in the percenta ges of students passing the FCAT2.0 between the genders, aside

PAGE 74

74 from a slightly less percentage of males passing the writing sections in both fourth and tenth grade. These data are represented in Figure 4 6. Socio Economic Status (SES) The percentage of students in each service delivery model that participated in the Federal free/reduced lunch program was used as an indicator of socio economic status, as only the low SES populations qualify to receive this service. In both third and fourth grades, the Tr aditional Schools were serving ten percent more students who participated in the program than the EMO or Hometown Public Schools, and the EMO schools were serving slightly more students whom participated in the program than the Hometown Public Schools. Ho wever, in tenth grade, the EMO schools were serving nine percent more students participating in the program than Traditional Schools and fifteen percent more than the Hometown Public Schools, as seen in Figure 4 7. When comparing the percentage of student s passing the FCAT2.0 of students in the free/reduced lunch program and those not in the program by the service delivery models, there were no major differences, as seen in Figure 4 8. The service delivery models passed a similar percentage of students in each grade level for both the reading and math sections. The service delivery models passed a similar percentage of students taking the writing section in fourth grade, however in the tenth grade writing section, the Traditional Schools passed a greater portion of students. Also, notably, in each grade and each section of the FCAT2.0 the students not participating in the free/reduced lunch program had a higher passage rate than the students participating in the program.

PAGE 75

75 Special Services Next is the demo graphic data representing the percentage of students whom received English Language Learner (ELL) services and the percentage of students who received Exceptional Student Education (ESE) services, seen in Figure 4 9. The Traditional Schools were serving a higher percentage of students whom required ELL services in both third and fourth grades followed by the EMO schools then the Hometown Public Schools. In the tenth grade, the EMO schools served slightly more ELL students than the Traditional Schools or t he Hometown Public Schools. In all grades, the Traditional Schools served more students requiring special education services followed by the Hometown Public Schools, meaning the EMO schools served the least percentage of students requiring ESE services. In examining the percentage of students passing the FCAT2.0 whom required special services, students that received ELL services were described first followed by students that received ESE services, as represented in Figure 4 10. The percentage of ELL stud ents that passed the reading section is similar in third and fourth grade, however in tenth grade, the Hometown Public schools passed nearly double the ELL students as the Traditional and EMO schools. The percent of ELL students that passed the math secti on varied by grade level and by service delivery model, while the writing section was similar across all three grades with Traditional Schools that passed the most students and Hometown Public Schools that passed the least. The students whom received spec ial education services in Traditional Schools, in all three grades, passed the least percentage of students in the reading section, while the students served in

PAGE 76

76 Hometown Public Schools had the highest percentage of passage in the math section. The Traditi onal Schools had the highest percentage of ESE students in both fourth and tenth grades on the writing section. Teachers Doctorate Degrees and the mean years of teaching experienc e was compared between the service delivery models, seen in Figure 4 11. The Traditional Schools employed more teachers with advanced degrees than the EMO or Hometown Public Schools in all three of the grade levels. The Traditional Schools teachers also h ave four times more teaching experience than the EMO School teachers and more than twice as much teaching experience as the Hometown Public Schools in all three grades. Revenues and Expenditures The final description of data was the mean district per pup il revenue, the per pupil expenditure on instruction and instructional services, and the percentage of revenue spent on the instruction and instructional related services, as represented in Figure 4 12. The Traditional Schools received more revenue and exp ended more money per pupil on instruction and instructional services than the EMO or Hometown Public Schools, with seventy one percent of the revenue expended on instruction in third and tenth grades and sixty nine percent in fourth grade. The EMO schools received more revenue than the Hometown Public Schools in third and fourth grades, but less in tenth grade. The EMO

PAGE 77

77 schools were expending more money per pupil on instruction and instructional services than Hometown Public Schools in third grade only, wi th seventy seven percent of the revenue expended on instruction (in fourth grade forty eight percent was expended and in tenth grade forty three percent expended). The Hometown Public schools received the least amount of revenue in third and fourth grades , yet spent more per pupil on instruction and instructional services than the EMO schools in fourth grade. In sum, the service delivery models were representing a similar portion of each of the ethnic groups, gender, SES, ELL, and ESE students. There was evidence of an over representation of any one group, the EMO Schools were serving a much higher percentage of Hispanic students in each grade than both the Traditional Schools and the Hometown Public Schools. One other over representation was with one EM O School in particular, which had a population of eighty five percent American Indians. There was little evidence of one service delivery model producing greater percentages of passing FCAT2.0 scores, with the exception of Tradition Schools overall produc ed greater percentages of passage in the writing section, and the greatest variance in scores involved the students receiving special services. More teachers in the Traditional Schools held an advanced degree and had significantly more teaching experience . The Traditional Schools received more per pupil revenue and spent more of the revenue on instruction and instructional services. Next, using these data, the student, teacher and fiscal traits were held constant to make more equitable comparisons of the service delivery models.

PAGE 78

78 Multiple Linear Regression A multiple linear regression (MLR) analysis was completed to answer the third research question. This analysis was used to determine if a relationship were present between the service delivery model a nd the school level Mean Developmental Scale scores of the FCAT2.0 reading, math, and writing sections. A separate analysis was run for each FCAT2.0 section due to each having a different range of Developmental Scaled scores. Data were analyzed for any m issing data in the developmental scale score variable. If these data were missing, the case was deleted. Dummy variables were created for EMO and Hometown Public Schools using Traditional Schools as the reference. The results of these analyses were repo rted by FCAT2.0 section (reading, math, and writing). Reading First, efforts were made to ensure the assumptions of the MLR model were met. A scatterplot was used to ensure a linear relationship between the variables was present, which can be seen in F igure 4 13. A Durbin Watson measurement was used to ensure the residuals were independent (Durbin Watson=1.937). Collinearity was measured to ensure the independent variables were not correlated. The residuals of the regression line were plotted to ensu re a normal distribution, which can be seen in Figure 3 14. Once all the assumptions were met, the MLR analysis was performed. The results of the MLR for the reading section of the FCAT2.0 indicated

PAGE 79

79 the ANOVA was significant (F= 174.98, p value=.000). This meant the statistical model created was acceptable for predicting FCAT2.0 reading scores. The Adjusted R Square indicated the statistical model could explain sixty seven percent of the FCAT2.0 reading scores. The answer to research question three is there was a statistically significant relationship between two of the service delivery models and the mean developmental scale reading scores of the FCAT2.0. The Hometown Public Schools would increase the reading scores by 2.65 units more than the Trad itional Schools would (t=3.26, p value=.001) when holding all other variables constant. However, the EMO schools did not have a statistically significant relationship with reading scores. Upon examination of the other coefficients, there were student, tea cher and fiscal factors with statistically significant relationships with the reading scores. The coefficients which were statistically significant included the students that received ELL services (t= 6.39, p value=.000), the students receiving ESE service s (t= 9.18, p value=.000), the years of teacher experience (t=5.69, p value=.001), and the per pupil expenditure on instruction and instructional related services (t= 2.33, p value=.0 20). The students receiving special services had a negative relationship with the reading scores. While holding all other variables constant, for every increase of students requiring ELL services, the school mean reading scores will decrease by .117 unit s. Also, for every increase in students requiring ESE services, the school mean reading scores will decrease by .24 units. Teachers, however, had a positive relationship with the reading scores,

PAGE 80

80 while holding all other variables constant. For every incr ease in a teacher units. The school mean reading scores will increase by .24 units for every year increase in the school mean teaching experience. Interestingly, for every un it increase in per pupil expenditure on instruction and instructional services the reading scores will decrease by .001 units. Math Again, efforts were made to ensure the assumptions of the MLR model were met. A scatterplot was used to ensure a linear re lationship between the variables was present, which can be seen in Figure 4 15. Collinearity was measured to ensure the independent variables were not correlated. The variable teachers whom hold a doctorate degree may have been correlated, as it had a Co llinearity Tolerance over .9, therefore, this variable was removed from the model. The residuals of the regression line were plotted to ensure a normal distribution, which can be seen in Figure 4 16. Once all the assumptions were met, the MLR analysis wa s performed. The results of the MLR for the math section of the FCAT2.0 indicated the ANOVA was significant (F= 88.55, p value=.000), meaning the statistical model created was acceptable for predicting FCAT2.0 math scores. The Adjusted R Square indicated the statistical model could explain thirty five percent of the FCAT2.0 math scores. To further answer the research question three; there was no statistically significant relationship with any of the service delivery models and the math scores.

PAGE 81

81 While the service delivery models were not statistically significant, there were several student and teacher traits that were. Student traits that were significant for predicting the FCAT2.0 math scores include white students (t= 2.81, p value=.005), black students (t= 3.53, p value=.000), the combination of American Indian students, Pacific Islander students and Multiracial students (t= 2.87, p value=.004), and students receiving ELL (t= 4.22, p value=.000) and ESE services (t= 8.09, p value=.000). More specifi cally, while holding all other variables constant, each of the statistically significant student traits had a negative relationship with FCAT2.0 math scores. So, for every increase in white students the math scores decrease by .17 units, for every increas e in black students the math scores decrease by .21 units, for every increase in combination of other ethnicities the math scores decrease by .26 units, for every increase in ELL students the math scores will decrease by .10 units and for every increase in ESE students the math scores decrease by .29 units. Teacher traits, on the other hand, increased the math scores. The statistically significant teacher traits included years of teaching experience (t=3.62, p value=.000), the number of teachers whom earn value=.014), and the number of teachers whom earned a Specialist Degree (t=3.26, p value=.001). While holding all other variables constant, for each year increase in the school mean for teaching experience, the math scores increase by .20 units. For each .084 units, and for each increase in teachers holding a Specialist degree, the math scores increase by .59 units.

PAGE 82

82 Writing Once more, efforts were m ade to ensure the assumptions of the MLR model were met. A scatterplot was used to ensure a linear relationship between the variables was present, which can be seen in Figure 4 17. A Durbin Watson measurement was used to ensure the residuals were indepen dent (Durbin Watson=1.74). Collinearity was measured to ensure the independent variables were not correlated. The residuals of the regression line were plotted to ensure a normal distribution, which can be seen in Figure 4 18. Once all the assumptions w ere met, the MLR analysis was performed. The results of the MLR for the writing section of the FCAT2.0 indicated the ANOVA was significant (F= 45.73, p value=.000) meaning the statistical model created was acceptable for predicting FCAT2.0 writing scores. The Adjusted R Square indicated the statistical model could explain thirty four percent of the FCAT2.0 writing scores. To further answer to research question three, there was a statistically significant relationship between all three service delivery mod els. The Hometown Public Schools would increase the writing scores by .19 units more than the Traditional Schools would (t=4.90, p value=.000) when holding all other variables constant. And, the EMO Schools would increase the writing scores by .21 units more than the Traditional Schools would (t=4.38, p value=.000) when holding all other variables constant. The statistically significant student, teacher, and fiscal traits for the writing scores were similar to those for the reading scores. The student t raits, which had a negative relationship with the writing scores, are the students whom receive ELL services (t= 3.28, p value=.001) and the students whom receive ESE

PAGE 83

83 services t= 7.74, p value=.000). There was a decrease in writing scores by .003 units fo r every increase in ELL student and a decrease by .01 units for every increase in ESE student. The students whom do not participate in the free/reduced lunch program had a positive relationship with the writing scores. For every increase in students whom do not participate in the program, the writing scores increased by .015 units. Similar to the results of both the reading and math MLR models, the teacher traits had a positive relationship with the writing scores. For every year increase in the school mean teaching experience, the writing scores increased by .011 units (t=5.43, p value=.000). For an sed by .003 units. Contrary to the teacher traits that had a positive relationship, the number of teachers whom hold a Doctorate Degree, had a negative relationship. For every increase in the percentage of teachers earning a Doctorate Degree, the writing scores decreased by .027 units (t= 2.21, p value=.027). Also, counter to the fiscal results found in the reading model, the per pupil expenditures on instruction and instructional services had a positive relationship with the writing scores. In fact, fo r every unit increase in instructional expenditures the writing scores increased by 5.27 units. This represents the largest increase related to an explanatory variable. In sum, the MLR analysis indicated the service delivery models had a statistically si gnificant relationship with some sections of the FCAT2.0. For the math section of the FCAT2.0, there were no differences between the service

PAGE 84

84 delivery models. The Hometown Public Schools will increase both the reading and the writing scores more than the Traditional Schools will. The EMO Schools will also increase the writing scores more than the Traditional Schools will. Summary Research question one sought to determine the traits of the students attending the schools of the various service delivery models. The results indicated the EMO schools were serving more Hispanic students and American Indian students than the other service delivery models. However, when comparing the FCAT2.0 passage rates of the ethnic groups, there was relatively little dif ferences between the service deliver models. Yet, across the all service delivery models, the more white students passed the FCAT2.0 than Hispanic students, and more Hispanic students passed than black students. There were no differences in representatio n or achievement by gender for any of the service delivery models. In third and fourth grades, the Traditional Schools served more low income students, and in tenth grade the EMO Schools served more low income students. Yet, across all the service delive ry models, there were minimal differences in the passage rates of the FCAT2.0. The students not from low income families had higher passage rates in all three of the service delivery ntation of students requiring special services. Traditional Schools serve the highest percentage of students requiring special education services. Traditional Schools also serve the highest percentage of students requiring ELL services in third and

PAGE 85

85 fourt h grade, EMO serve the highest percentage in tenth grade. There was also a great level of variance between the service delivery models and the percentage of ELL and ESE students passing the FCAT2.0. These results would be used to explain the results of t he MLR analysis in chapter five. Research question two sought to determine the teacher and fiscal traits of the service delivery models. The results of the descriptive statistics indicate Traditional schools employ teachers with a higher percentage of ad vanced degrees and with the most teaching experience. The Traditional Schools also reported more revenue per pupil and expended a greater portion of revenue on instruction and instructional services. Research question three sought to determine if a relat ionship were present between the service delivery model and the FCAT2.0 scores. The results of the MLR indicate there was a relationship between some of the service delivery models and some sections of the FCAT2.0. There was a statistically significant r elationship between the Traditional Schools and the Hometown Public Schools with the reading scores. There was a statistically significant relationship with all three of the service delivery models and the writing scores. There was no statistically signi ficant relationship between any of the service delivery models and the math scores.

PAGE 86

86 Figure 4 1. Ethnicity of the Service Delivery Models 37 25 32 3 0.3 0.09 3 31 18 46 3 0.6 0.07 0.3 41 23 29 2 0.5 0.07 4 White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Pacific Islander Multiracial Percentage of 3rd Grade Students' Ethnicity Traditional EMO Hometown Public 38 24 31 3 0.3 0 3 32 17 46 2 1 0 2 42 24 27 3 0 0 3 White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Pacific Islander Multiracial Percentage of 4th Grade Students' Ethnicity Traditional EMO Hometown Public 39 24 31 3 0.3 0.08 2 17 17 64 1 0.1 0 0.5 40 29 27 2 0.4 0.1 2 White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Pacific Islander Multiracial Percentage of 10th Grade Students' Ethnicity Traditional EMO Hometown Public

PAGE 87

87 Figure 4 2. Percentage of Ethnic Groups Passing the Reading Section 33 25 29 33 29 35 34 33 33 90 24 73 36 28 31 73 0 74 White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Multiracial Percentage of 3rd Grade Students' Passed FCAT2.0 Reading Traditional EMO Hometown Public 71 44 57 81 30 68 72 53 66 80 62 0 74 44 59 94 0 75 White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Multiracial Percentage of 4th Grade Students' Passed FCAT2.0 Reading Traditional EMO Hometown Public 60 32 44 66 59 45 24 48 79 0 61 27 38 89 0 White Black Hispanic Asian Multiracial Percentage of 10th Grade Students' Passed FCAT2.0 Reading Traditional EMO Hometown Public

PAGE 88

88 Figure 4 3. Percenta ge of Ethnic Groups Passing the Math Section 66 41 53 85 51 63 66 46 60 100 80 100 71 39 57 93 0 77 White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Multiracial Percentage of 3rd Grade Students' Passed FCAT2.0 Math Traditional EMO Hometown Public 68 42 56 89 25 63 62 45 62 80 79 0 70 39 61 97 0 57 White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Multiracial Percentage of 4th Grade Students' Passed FCAT2.0 Math Traditional EMO Hometown Public

PAGE 89

89 Figure 4 4. Percentage of Ethnic Groups Passing the Writing Section 52 39 47 73 25 55 45 37 45 90 59 0 49 38 42 83 0 50 White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Multiracial Percentage of 4th Grade Students' Passed FCAT2.0 Writing Traditional EMO Hometown Public 65 49 58 75 60 68 42 29 58 92 0 0 58 37 50 89 0 0 White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Multiracial Percentage of 10th Grade Students' Passed FCAT2.0 Writing Traditional EMO Hometown Public

PAGE 90

90 Figure 4 5. Gender of the Service Delivery Models 48 52 50 50 50 50 Female Male Percentage of 3rd Grade Students' Gender Traditional EMO Hometown Public 49 51 50 50 50 50 Female Male Percentage of 4th Grade Students' Gender Traditional EMO Hometown Public 50 50 51 49 53 47 Female Male Percentage of 10th Grade Students' Gender Traditional EMO Hometown Public

PAGE 91

91 Figure 4 6. Percentage of Gender Groups Passi ng the FCAT2.0 31 28 55 55 34 33 60 63 32 32 56 58 Female (Reading) Male (Reading) Female (Math) Male (Math) Percentage of 3rd Grade Students' Passed FCAT2.0 Traditional EMO Hometown Public 62 56 56 58 55 40 68 62 58 60 51 36 64 58 55 57 50 34 Female (Reading) Male (Reading) Female (Math) Male (Math) Female (Writing) Male (Writing) Percentage of 4th Grade Students' Passed FCAT2.0 Traditional EMO Hometown Public 45 46 65 50 37 37 49 42 42 46 57 44 Female (Reading) Male (Reading) Female (Writing) Male (Writing) Percentage of 10th Grade Students' Passed FCAT2.0 Traditional EMO Hometown Public

PAGE 92

92 Figure 4 7. Socio Economic Status of the Service Delivery Models 67 33 54 46 51 49 Free/Reduced Lunch Not Free/Reduced Lunch Percentage of 3rd Grade Students' Free/Reduced Lunch Status Traditional EMO Hometown Public 65 35 55 45 50 49 Free/Reduced Lunch Not Free/Reduced Lunch Percentage of 4th Grade Students' Free/Reduced Lunch Status Traditional EMO Hometown Public 53 46 62 36 47 51 Free/Reduced Lunch Not Free/Reduced Lunch Percentage of 10th Grade Students' Free/Reduced Lunch Status Traditional EMO Hometown Public

PAGE 93

93 Figure 4 8. Percentage of SES Groups Passing the FCAT2.0 28 35 49 74 32 38 54 72 30 35 48 72 Free/Reduced Lunch (Reading) Not Free/Reduced Lunch (Reading) Free/Reduced Lunch (Math) Not Free/Reduced Lunch (Math) Percentage of 3rd Grade Students' Passed FCAT2.0 Traditional EMO Hometown Public 52 77 51 74 43 59 59 75 53 68 40 50 52 74 47 70 38 51 Free/Reduced Lunch (Reading) Not Free/Reduced Lunch (Reading) Free/Reduced Lunch (Math) Not Free/Reduced Lunch (Math) Free/Reduced Lunch (Writing) Not Free/Reduced Lunch (Writing) Percentage of 4th Grade Students' Passed FCAT2.0 Traditional EMO Hometown Public 36 57 51 66 33 46 46 48 36 54 44 53 Free/Reduced Lunch (Reading) Not Free/Reduced Lunch (Reading) Free/Reduced Lunch (Writing) Not Free/Reduced Lunch (Writing) Percentage of 10th Grade Students' Passed FCAT2.0 Traditional EMO Hometown Public

PAGE 94

94 Figure 4 9. Special Services of the Service Delivery Models 13 13 9 7 8 9 ELL ESE Percentage of 3rd Grade Students' Receiving Special Services Traditional EMO Hometown Public 11 13 8 7 7 10 ELL ESE Percentage of 4th Grade Students' Receiving Special Services Traditional EMO Hometown Public 6 10 7 7 4 9 ELL ESE Percentage of 10th Grade Students' Receiving Special Services Traditional EMO Hometown Public

PAGE 95

95 Figure 4 10. Percentage of Special Services Groups Passing the FCAT2.0 18 32 21 32 21 38 25 41 17 37 31 45 ELL (Reading) ELL (Math) ESE (Reading) ESE (Math) Percentage of 3rd Grade Students' Passed FCAT2.0 Traditional EMO Hometown Public 26 35 32 29 33 27 29 40 30 39 32 26 29 33 28 39 36 25 ELL (Reading) ELL (Math) ELL (Writing) ESE (Reading) ESE (Math) ESE (Writing) Percentage of 4th Grade Students' Passed FCAT2.0 Traditional EMO Hometown Public 11 26 20 31 11 23 26 16 20 13 25 24 ELL (Reading) ELL (Writing) ESE (Reading) ESE (Writing) Percentage of 10th Grade Students' Passed FCAT2.0 Traditional EMO Hometown Public

PAGE 96

96 Figure 4 11. Teachers of the Service Delivery Models 65 33 2 0 12.25 84 16 0 0 3.7 78 21 0 1 5 Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Specialist Doctorate Mean Experience Percentage of 3rd Grade Teachers Traditional EMO Hometown Public 65 33 2 1 12.31 85 14 0.4 0.2 3.55 77 22 0.4 0.4 5.24 Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Specialist Doctorate Mean Experience Percentage of 4th Grade Teachers Traditional EMO Hometown Public 60 35 2 2 12.62 73 24 2 2 3 75 23 0.7 1 5.23 Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Specialist Doctorate Mean Experience Percentage of 10th Grade Teachers Traditional EMO Hometown Public

PAGE 97

97 Figure 4 12. Revenues and Expenditures of the Service Delivery Models 9271 6513 71 7971 5816 77 7631 4167 55 Per Pupil Revenue Per Pupil Instructional Expenditure % Revenue Spent on Instruction Percentage of 3rd Grade Instructional Expenditures Traditional EMO Hometown Public 9224 6343 69 7974 3864 48 7561 4118 55 Per Pupil Revenue Per Pupil Instructional Expenditure % Revenue Spent on Instruction Percentage of 4th Grade Instructional Expenditures Traditional EMO Hometown Public 9374 6586 71 6950 3019 43 8329 4286 49 Per Pupil Revenue Per Pupil Instructional Expenditure % Revenue Spent on Instruction Percentage of 10th Grade Instructional Expenditures Traditional EMO Hometown Public

PAGE 98

98 Figure 4 13. Reading Scatterplot Fig ure 4 14. Reading Distribution of Residuals

PAGE 99

99 Figure 4 15. Math Scatterplot Figure 4 16. Math Distribution of Residuals

PAGE 100

100 Figure 4 17. Writing Scatterplot Figure 4 18. Writing Distribution of Residuals

PAGE 101

101 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Introd uction In this chapter, the significant findings from the Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) analysis were discussed. These finding combined with the findings of the descriptive statistics aided in the comparison of the service delivery models. Beginning with the student traits, the implications of the significant and the not significant finding were discussed as they related to the population enrollments and the student achievement scores. Next, the significant finding of the teachers traits, advanced de grees held and years of experience, were compared between the service delivery models. Followed by a comparison of the school revenues and expenditures on per pupil instruction and instructional services. The chapter closes with a conclusion that synthes izes all the findings as related to the autonomy of the schools. See Figure 5 1 for a summary of all statistically significant findings. Significance of Student Traits Ethnicity While research has indicated the achievement gap is closing, and proponents for the free market educational reform claim charter schools are closing this gap, the results of this study did not indicate Hometown Public Schools nor Education Management Organization (EMO) schools were closing the gap. 150 First, comparing the 150 National Center for Education Statistics , retrieved March 31, 2014 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cnj.asp http://nces.ed.gov/programs/ coe/indicator_cnj.asp Charter Schools and Regular Schools in the United States: Understanding the

PAGE 102

1 02 service d elivery models based on the percentages of ethnicities served in the models, it was found EMO schools were serving more Hispanic students than the Traditional Schools and the Hometown Public Schools (30 percent more than Traditi onal Schools in third grade, 33 percent more than Traditional Schools in fourth grade and 48 percent more than Traditional Schools in tenth grade). In fact, nearly half the population of all third, fourth, and tenth grade EMO students were Hispanic. It should then be expected, and was found, that the EMO schools would pass a higher percentage of Hispanic students. However, being Hispanic was not statistically significant, when accounting for all the other variables, resulting in there being no relationship between Hispanic and stud ent achievement. A conclusion may then be drawn that the success rate of the Hispanic population in EMO schools is the same as the success rate of Hispanic students in Traditional Schools; the EMO schools simply serve a higher portion of Hispanic students . An argument could be made that the autonomy of EMOs allowed them to serve a higher portion of Hispanic students and cater the education to meet the specific needs of those students. For example, possibly the teachers at these schools were required to s peak Spanish allowing them to provide instruction in the students primary students, the white students still passed the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT2.0) in greater per centages. Therefore, there is no evidence of EMO schools closing the achievement gaps between the ethnicities. U.S. Department of Education , 2004, accessed from http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/cache/documents/4848.pdf ; James L. Woodworth CREDO , 2013 http://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/CGAR%20Growth%20Volume%20II.pdf

PAGE 103

103 The only ethnic groups that were found to have a statistically significant relationship w ith the FCAT2.0 scores were white, the black and the co mbination of American Indian, Pacific Islander, and Multiracial (other) students. These relationships were only statistically significant in the math section, and they were all negative relationships. This meant for every increase in mean total students i n these groups, the school mean FCAT2.0 math developmental scale scores would decrease. The decrease was .17 points for white students, .21 points for black students, and .26 points for the other students on a scale of 140 to 298. 151 This negative relatio nship was supported in the descriptive data for the black group and the other group. The black students had the smallest percentage students pass the math section in each grade level and in each service delivery model. The other group represented a signi ficantly smaller portion of population than any group, which may have resulted in the negative relationship. The white group having a negative relationship with the math scores was contrary to what was expected, because that group had the highest percent age of passage rates. In sum, the actual impact on student achievement based on statistically significant relationships with ethnicity was very minimal and there were no differences between the service delivery models. These data are contrary to the claim the achievement gap is closing for ethnic groups, as the black population was producing the lowest achievement rates and white students the highest in all service delivery models. 151 Florida Department of Education , 2012, retrieved from http://fcat.fldoe.org/fcat2/pdf/pidss final.pdf.

PAGE 104

104 Gender While research indicated an achievement gap is present between male s and females, it was not detected in this study for reading or math. 152 Across the three grades analyzed, each service delivery model was serving roughly half males and half females. There were no major differences in the percentages of males and females passing the reading or math sections of the FCAT2.0. The descriptive data indicated a higher percentage of passage rates for females on the writing section for all three of the grade levels. However, gender was not found to be statistically significant f or any of the MLR models. So, it could be concluded while more females are passing the writing section of the FCAT2.0 than males, this success cannot be attributed to the service delivery model. Socio Economic Status Previous research found the achievem ent gap between high income and low income students was not only evident, but also continuing to widen. 153 Evidence of this gap was found in this study. In the third and fourth grades, Traditi onal Schools served at least 10 percent more students receiving Free/Reduced Lunch than the EMO schools and Hometown Public Schools. However, in the tenth grade, the EMO schools served a higher portion of students receiving Free/Reduced Lunch. The MLR found no 152 Oxford Review of Economic Policy 21, 3 (2005) 357 American Institutes for Research (1998), accessed from ht tp://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/gender gaps where schools still fail our children executive summary.pdf. 153 Faces of Poverty 70, 8 (2013) 10 16.

PAGE 105

105 significant relationships between students receiving free /reduced lunch or students not receiving free/reduced lunch and the reading and math scores. This lack of relationship was reflected in the descriptive data showing minimal differences between the service delivery models and the percentages of students pa ssing the FCAT2.0 reading and math sections. There was, however, a statistically significant relationship between the students not receiving free/reduced lunch and the writing scores. This positive relationship, which means students in the higher socio economic status brackets increased the writing scores, was expected as the higher income students passed at a higher rate in all service delivery models. In fact, the students not receiving free/reduced lunch passed in higher percentages in all FCAT2.0 sec tions across all three of the grades, which depicted the gap in achievement indicated in previous research. Interestingly, the students in Traditional Schools passed the highest percentage rate of students in both low income and higher income brackets, de spite the fact that Traditional Schools served the smallest portion of higher income students. Aside from the writing section, there were no differences in the percentage of students whom passed and the service delivery models. It could be concluded the o nly difference between the service delivery models and the achievement rates of low income or higher income students was the Traditional Schools passed the highest percentages of students in the writing section. Special Services Previous research indicat ed English Language Learner (ELL) students were fleeing Traditional Schools to enroll in charter schools whose mission was aligned with

PAGE 106

106 154 While that may explain the high portions of Hispanic students enrolled in EMO schools, it was not supported in these data. The traditional schools were serving near ly 30 percent more students who require ELL services in third and fourth grades, in tenth grade the EMO schools were serving the highest percentage. However, it could be possible the students receiving ELL services in elementary school in the Traditional Schools, no longer required the service by high school. The ELL students were statistically significant in all three MLR models. The ELL students were negatively corr elated with the FCAT2.0 scores meaning the greater the number of ELL students the lower the FCAT2.0 scores. The negative relationship was evident in the descriptive data. The Traditional Schools, while serving the higher percentage of ELL students in thi rd and fourth grades, did not pass the highest percentage of students in the reading and math sections. Yet, once again, the Traditional Schools passed the greatest percentage of students in the writing section, despite enrolling the highest percentage of students requiring ELL services. The EMO schools, while serving the second highest percentage of ELL students in third and fourth grades and the highest percentage in tenth grade, only passed a significantly higher percentage of students in fourth grade math. Hometown Public Schools, while serving the least percentage of ELL students, passed the highest percentage of students in tenth grade reading. In sum, it is evident the EMO and Hometown Charter Schools were not serving an equitable portion of stude nts whom require ELL services, and students whom require ELL services do have a negative relationship with student achievement. However, between the service delivery models, the Traditional Schools 154 Education Digest 75, 9 (2010).

PAGE 107

107 passed the highest percentage of students in the writing section, the EMO schools and Hometown Public Schools had success in passing the highest percentages in more localized contexts specific to a grade level and content area. The results of this study were aligned with the previous research, which found chart er schools are not serving the same portion of students with special needs as the Traditional Schools. 155 The Traditional Schools in all three of the grade levels served the most students with disabilities, which required special education services, the nex t highest was the Hometown Public Schools. The students requiring exceptional student education (ESE) services all require individualized education plans with varying levels of service to meet the educational needs. These varying levels of service span f rom intensive one on one professional supports to simple monthly consultations between the classroom teacher and a therapist. For this study, all of the students requiring specia l education services were grouped into one ESE variable. A follow up study, which breaks this group down into the level of services received, would provide more evidence of what types of disabilities are being served in which service delivery model. However, for this study, the ESE variable was found to be statistically significa nt for all sections of the FCAT2.0 with a negative relationship. It would then be expected that the Traditional Schools would have the lowest percentage of students passing the FCAT2.0, because they served the highest percentage of the ESE population. Ho wever, the Traditional Schools passed a higher percentage of ESE students in fourth 155 Protect Access for Students with Disabilities: Report to Congressional Requesters GAO US Government Accountability Office, acc essed October 10, 2013 from http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/ 591435.

PAGE 108

108 grade math than the EMO schools and passed a higher percentage of all students in the writing section. The EMO schools, which served the least number of ESE students, woul d be expected to pass the greatest percentage of ESE students. However, this was only true for the tenth grade math section. The Hometown Public Schools passed the highest percentages of ESE students in third grade reading and math sections and in the fo urth grade math section. In conclusion, the charter schools were not serving the same portion of ESE students as the Traditional Schools, and the ESE students had a negative relationship with the FCAT2.0. Despite this negative relationship, the Tradition al Schools continued to pass the highest percentages of students in the writing sections. The EMO schools served the least percentage of ESE students, yet only passed the highest percentage on one section in one grade level. Therefore, EMO schools were n ot serving an equitable portion of ESE students and were not promoting the academic achievement of ESE students. The Hometown Public Schools, while not serving an equitable portion of ESE students, did promote the academic achievement of the students they served. Significance of Teacher Traits Advanced Teaching Degrees who have graduate degrees and more teaching experience are more effective and therefore should automatically be

PAGE 109

109 156 The results of this student achievement. The Tradi tional Schools all employed the greatest percentage of Schools employing the greatest pe rcentage in tenth grade. The MLR analysis results relationship with the FCAT2.0 scores. Therefore, when holding all other variables constant, schools that employ a greater perc will have a greater percentage of student achievement. The MLR also found in the math section, teachers with a Specialist degree had a positive relationship, hence increased the math scores. The results of the ML R for the writing section were a bit negative relationship. Because over all three se rvice delivery models, the highest percentage of teacher , it is likely that this Aside f rom this unexpected result, data indicated te achers with advanced degrees increase student achievement. Because the Traditional Schools employ the highest percentage of teachers with advanced degrees, it can be concluded the Traditional 156 Prince, Cynthia D., Koppich, Julia, Azar, Tamara M., Bhatt, Monica, and Witham, tainment and Experience, Which Is The Traditional Way Center for Educator Compensation Reform, retrieved June 7, 2014 from http://cecr.ed.gov/guides/researchSyntheses/Research%20Synthesis_Q%20A2.pdf.

PAGE 110

110 Schools teachers, when holding all other variables constant, pr oduce greater levels of student achievement than the teachers at charter schools. Teacher Experience The previous research indicated charter schools tend to employ less experienced teachers than Traditional Schools. 157 These findings were parallel to the finding of this study. The average years of teaching experience in the Traditional Schools was four times more than the EMO schools and more than two times greater than the Hometown Public Schools. The EMO schools on average employed the least experienc ed teachers with less than three and a half years of teaching experience. Teaching experience was found to be statistically significant in the MLR reading and math models. So, with the increase in teaching experience, the reading and math scores will inc rease. Therefore, when holding all other factors constant, Traditional Schools should have the greatest percentages of students passing the reading and math sections and EMO schools should have the smallest percentage of students passing according to the descriptive data. 157 J.M. Cowin and Education Finance and Policy 8, 1 (2013) 14 42.; Econ omics of Education Review 31, 2 (2011) 280 292.

PAGE 111

111 Significance of Fiscal Traits Instruction and Instructional Services Although state legislatures are constantly being lobbied to increase funding to giv en spending levels, an increase in resources does not generally raise educational 158 Traditional Schools were collecting more dollars per pupil than the EMO or Hometown Public Schools. But the Traditional Schools were also serving a higher pe rcentage of students participating in the Free/Reduced Lunch program, and students receiving ELL and ESE services, all of which draws additional Federal fiscal support. The EMO and Hometown Public Schools were collecting a similar amount of money in third and fourth grades, but in tenth grade the Hometown Public Schools collected more than the EMO schools. While the Traditional Schools were collecting more money and expending more money per pupil on instruction and instructional services, they were also e xpending a greater portion of the revenue on instruction and instructional services, with the exception of the third grade EMO schools that expended a slightly larger percentage of the revenue than the Traditional Schools. In all three of the grade levels , the Tradit ional Schools were expending 70 percent of their revenue on instruction and instructional services. Th e EMO schools were expending 77 percent in third grade, 48 percent in fourth grade, and 43 percent in 10 th grade. The Hometown P ublic School s were expending 55 percent in third and fourth grades and 49 percent in tenth grade. In sum, the Traditional Schools are generating more funds and expending 158 Education Next 1, 2 (2001) retrieved from http://educationnext.org/whystudentsinsomecountriesdobetter/.

PAGE 112

112 a greater portion of the funds on instruction and instructional services than the charter schools . A statistically significant relationship was found between the per pupil expenditure on instruction and instructional services and the reading and writing sections of the FCAT2.0. In reading, the relationship was negative, although the prediction was sm all. The model predicted for every increase in per pupil expenditure on instruction and instructional services, the school mean reading scores will decrease by .001 points. On the contrary, for the writing section, the relationship was not only positive but had the largest predictive result. The model indicated for every increase in expenditure on instruction and instructional services, the school mean writing score will increase by 5.27 points. The descriptive data supported both of these relationships . While the Traditional Schools expended the most revenue per pupil on instruction and instructional services, the percentage of students that passed the reading section varied greatly between the service delivery models and the grade levels. The positiv e relationship with the expenditures and the writing section was expected, as the Traditional Schools expended the most funds and passed the highest percentage of students in the writing section in all grade levels. As a result, this study found Tradition al Schools are expending the greatest portion of revenue on instruction and instructional spending, and this increase in spending will produce greater student achievement in the writing portion of the FCAT2.0. The results also indicated for the reading an d math portions of the FCAT2.0, the school revenue and expenditure on instruction and instructional services does not impact student achievement for any of the service delivery models.

PAGE 113

113 Relationship Between Autonomy and Student Achievement The student trai ts, teacher traits, and fiscal traits all had a statistically significant relationship to the student achievement scores. Therefore, to make the most equitable comparison between the service delivery models, these traits must be accounted for. In the thr ee MLR models, the EMO Schools and the Hometown Public Schools were compared to the Traditional Schools, while holding all other variables constant. The MLR model for the reading scores indicated that, when holding all other variables constant, the Hometo wn Public Schools scored 2.65 points higher on the mean Developmental Scale Score than the Traditional Schools. The Developmental Scale Score range for reading is 140 to 302, and scores required to pass the assessment were 198 or greater in third grade, 2 08 or greater in fourth grade, ad 245 or greater in tenth grade. 159 So, while the Hometown Public Schools did make a positive impact on the reading scores, the impact was relatively small. There was no statistically significant relationship between the EMO Schools and the Traditional Schools. Furthermore, for the math section of the FCAT2.0, there were no statistically significant differences between the service delivery models, when holding all other variables constant. For the writing section of the F CAT2.0, there was a stati st ically significant difference between the service delivery models. The scaled scores ranged from 1.0 to 6.0, with 3.5 or greater required to pass the assessment. 160 The MLR model for the writing section indicated the Hometown Pub lic Schools scored .19 mean developmental scale score points higher than the Traditional Schools, and the EMO schools scored .02 points higher than the Hometown Public Schools. So, when holding all other variables 159 160 Florida Department of Education , retrieved June 7, 2014 from http://fcat.fldoe.org/mediapacket/2013/pdf/2013FCAT20_Writing_V10.pdf.

PAGE 114

114 constant, the service delivery model util ized by the EMO schools produced slightly greater student achievement results than the Hometown Public Schools, which produced slightly greater student achievement results than Traditional Schools. Conclusion The controversy surrounding the free market education reform centers on philosophical difference on the purpose of public education. While the MLR models were statistically significant, there was no strong evidence that one service delivery model yields greater student achievements or closes any ac hievement gaps, when holding all other variables constant. On average, all three of the service delivery models are the same. So, allowing school choice may permit families to select a school that promotes the heritage, values, or teaching philosophies t hat are aligned with the families. It also may lead to greater satisfaction in the publi c education system, but it would not lead to greater student achievement. While the autonomy of a school does not greatly influence student achievement, there are o ther factors that clearly do. For example, students requiring special services such as ELL or ESE have a negative relationship with student achievement. Also, students in the higher socio economic status have a positive relationship with student achievem ent. Schools with greater control over these factors can produce greater student achievement, leading the false conclusions that charter schools produce greater achievement than Traditional Schools. For this reason, an effort must be made to ensure chart er schools are serving an equitable portion of students that influence achievement, or that these traits are controlled for before making comparisons.

PAGE 115

115 Overall, Traditional Schools served a higher percentage of low income students, students receiving ELL se rvices and students receiving ESE services. The Traditional Schools employed the most experienced teachers and had the greatest percentage of teachers with advanced degrees. Traditional Schools also generated the greatest amount of fiscal revenue per pup il and expended the greatest percentage of that revenue on instruction and instructional spending. These data also indicated students in Traditional Schools were outperforming their peers in charter schools in the writing section of the FCAT2.0. However, when examining the relationships between these variables, the student traits justified the teacher and fiscal traits. For example, students requiring special services such as ELL and ESE also require teachers with specialized training, which would justif y the higher portion of teacher with advanced degrees and increased teaching experience. Furthermore, teachers with advanced degrees and greater years of experience receive higher salaries and these special services cost more to provide, hence the greater revenue and expenditure on instruction and instructional services. A similar argument can be made for the low income students, as these students qualify for additional federal programs, which require additional teacher training and come with the financia l support to operate the programs. After these justifications, the only trait remaining was the success rate of Traditional Schools in preparing students to pass the writing section of the FCAT2.0.

PAGE 116

116 F CAT 2.0 Reading Trait Significance ELL .000 .11 7 ESE .000 .235 Teacher Experience .000 .243 Teachers M.Ed. .001 .087 Instructional Expenditure .020 .001 Hometown Public Schools .001 2.646 FCAT 2.0 Math Trait Significance White .005 .169 Black .000 .214 Other Ethnicity .004 .259 ELL .000 .103 ESE .000 .290 Teacher Experience .000 .209 Teachers M.Ed. .014 .084 Teachers Specialist .001 .587 FCAT 2.0 Writing Trait Significance ELL .001 .003 ESE .000 .101 Not Low SES .028 .015 Teacher Experience .000 .011 Teachers B.A. .000 .004 Teachers M.Ed. .017 .003 Teachers Ph.D. .027 .027 Instructional Expenditure .000 5.273 Hometown Public Schools .000 .189 EMO .000 .213 Figure 5 1. Summary of Statically Significant Traits

PAGE 117

117 APPENDIX SCHOOL DISTRICT LEVEL DATA Table A 1 . School District Enrollment by Ethnicity 3 rd Grade White Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Alachua 44% 46% Bay 71% 87% Brevard 62% 62% 45% Broward 25% 18% 18% Collier 34% 3% Dade 8% 13% 7% Duval 38% 13% 33% Escambia 49% 33% Flagler 63% 61% Franklin 85% 75% Glades 41% 7% Hillsborough 36% 64% 41% Indian River 54% 79% 57% Lake 55% 62% 58% Lee 44% 48% 62% Leon 43% 56% 59% Levy 66% 61% Manatee 44% 72% 33% Marion 54% 60% Monroe 46% 74% Okaloosa 6 6% 74% Orange 30% 40% Osceola 28% 26% 17% Palm Beach 32% 49% 22% Pasco 65% 67% 70% Pinellas 55% 72% 57% Polk 41% 53% Putnam 50% 59% St. Lucie 34% 49% 49% Sarasota 61% 77% 77% Seminole 54% 77% Sumter 62% 81% Volusia 59% 71% 71% Waku lla 79% 100%

PAGE 118

118 Table A 1 . Continued 4 th Grade White Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Alachua 49% 49% Bay 72% 83% Brevard 63% 62% 47% Broward 25% 19% 26% Collier 37% 3% Dade 8% 13% 7% Duval 40% 19% 39% Escambia 49% 44% Flagle r 62% 57% Franklin 84% 75% Glades 49% 8% Hillsborough 38% 58% 43% Indian River 55% 84% 43% Lake 56% 63% 58% Lee 45% 54% 68% Leon 45% 53% 62% Levy 73% 83% Manatee 50% 80% 56% Marion 53% 58% Monroe 46% 74% Okaloosa 68% 77% Orange 31 % 40% Osceola 28% 21% 13% Palm Beach 35% 56% 23% Pasco 68% 61% 72% Pinellas 57% 77% 42% Polk 43% 59% Putnam 56% 48% St. Lucie 37% 52% 52% Sarasota 65% 75% 79% Seminole 55% 61% Sumter 63% 82% Volusia 58% 79% 71% Wakulla 81% 100%

PAGE 119

119 Table A 1 . Continued 10 th Grade White Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Alachua 53% 31% Bay 74% 87% 89% Broward 28% 26% 21% Charlotte 78% 70% Citrus 83% 92% Collier 44% 87% Dade 9% 6% 8% Duval 40% 38% Escambia 53% 51% Hillsborou gh 43% 70% 26% Indian River 63% 78% Lake 60% 56% Lee 53% 43% 65% Manatee 60% 71% Marion 58% 60% Martin 72% 88% Monroe 61% 50% Okaloosa 73% 42% 82% Orange 33% 20% 62% Osceola 27% 17% Palm Beach 42% 25% Pinellas 64% 53% Polk 47% 53% S umter 68% 78%

PAGE 120

120 Table A 1 . Continued 3 rd Grade Black Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Alachua 37% 34% Bay 15% 5% Brevard 14% 17% 29% Broward 39% 41% 38% Collier 13% 0% Dade 25% 11% 12% Duval 44% 70% 49% Escambia 36% 61% Flagler 15% 17% Franklin 10% 6% Glades 13% 3% Hillsborough 21% 13% 25% Indian River 16% 6% 12% Lake 17% 12% 11% Lee 16% 12% 10% Leon 44% 33% 26% Levy 19% 17% Manatee 16% 8% 21% Marion 20% 17% Monroe 11% 5% Okaloosa 13% 11% Orange 28% 35% Osceola 10% 10% 19% Palm Beach 29% 20% 47% Pasco 6% 3% 2% Pinellas 20% 2% 24% Polk 21% 16% Putnam 26% 30% St. Lucie 30% 17% 16% Sarasota 10% 2% 2% Seminole 15% 7% Sumter 18% 1% Volusia 14% 12% 6% Wakulla 11% 0%

PAGE 121

121 Table A 1 . Continued 4 th Grade Black Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Alachua 34% 38% Bay 16% 6% Brevard 14% 18% 29% Broward 40% 43% 37% Collier 12% 0% Dade 25% 11% 14% Duval 43% 60% 48% Escambia 35% 46% Flagler 16% 22% Fran klin 9% 13% Glades 17% 0% Hillsborough 20% 15% 24% Indian River 17% 2% 33% Lake 17% 10% 11% Lee 16% 11% 10% Leon 43% 32% 15% Levy 15% 0% Manatee 14% 2% 15% Marion 20% 24% Monroe 12% 2% Okaloosa 12% 6% Orange 27% 36% Osceola 10% 10 % 17% Palm Beach 28% 16% 50% Pasco 6% 5% 1% Pinellas 19% 1% 35% Polk 22% 14% Putnam 24% 44% St. Lucie 29% 13% 17% Sarasota 10% 5% 1% Seminole 15% 6% Sumter 19% 3% Volusia 15% 8% 6% Wakulla 12% 0%

PAGE 122

122 Table A 1 . Continued 10 th Grade Black Traditional EMO Hometown Public County 60% Alachua 31% 7% Bay 15% 13% 47% Broward 37% 36% 10% Charlotte 8% 0% Citrus 5% 0% Collier 12% 37% Dade 24% 5% 52% Duval 44% 42% Escambia 32% 38% Hillsborough 20% 13% 5% Indian River 16% 33 % Lake 16% 11% Lee 15% 20% 6% Manatee 14% 10% Marion 19% 1% Martin 7% 38% Monroe 9% 7% Okaloosa 11% 38% 11% Orange 26% 43% 18% Osceola 12% 38% Palm Beach 27% 28% Pinellas 17% 23% Polk 21% Sumter 17% 60%

PAGE 123

123 Table A 1 . C ontinued 3 rd Grade Hispanic Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Alachua 9% 14% Bay 5% 4% Brevard 14% 9% 16% Broward 29% 30% 34% Collier 48% 94% Dade 65% 75% 79% Duval 9% 12% 10% Escambia 6% 2% Flagler 14% 13% Franklin 3% 3% G lades 44% 3% Hillsborough 35% 19% 27% Indian River 24% 13% 29% Lake 20% 16% 25% Lee 35% 34% 24% Leon 6% 4% 7% Levy 12% 6% Manatee 36% 14% 43% Marion 18% 11% Monroe 38% 16% Okaloosa 11% 8% Orange 34% 19% Osceola 56% 59% 54% Palm Bea ch 32% 25% 26% Pasco 22% 15% 17% Pinellas 15% 14% 12% Polk 32% 24% Putnam 20% 5% St. Lucie 29% 28% 31% Sarasota 20% 16% 13% Seminole 23% 13% Sumter 17% 11% Volusia 20% 10% 22% Wakulla 4% 0%

PAGE 124

124 Table A 1 . Continued 4 th Grade Hispani c Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Alachua 7% 9% Bay 5% 3% Brevard 13% 10% 15% Broward 28% 31% 29% Collier 47% 92% Dade 66% 74% 77% Duval 9% 16% 8% Escambia 6% 5% Flagler 14% 8% Franklin 5% 0% Glades 33% 3% Hillsborough 34% 24% 25% Indian River 23% 10% 23% Lake 20% 16% 24% Lee 35% 30% 175 Leon 5% 9% 4% Levy 9% 4% Manatee 32% 11% 26% Marion 19% 11% Monroe 36% 20% Okaloosa 10% 8% Orange 34% 16% Osceola 56% 64% 64% Palm Beach 31% 21% 23% Pasco 20% 23% 12% Pinellas 15% 11% 14% Polk 30% 22% Putnam 15% 0% St. Lucie 27% 27% 22% Sarasota 18% 12% 6% Seminole 21% 15% Sumter 15% 10% Volusia 21% 7% 19% Wakulla 2% 0%

PAGE 125

125 Table A 1 . Continued 10 th Grade Hispanic Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Alachua 8% 6% Bay 5% 0% 2% Broward 28% 33% 29% Charlotte 9% 7% Citrus 7% 8% Collier 39% 9% Dade 65% 88% 54% Duval 8% 4% Escambia 5% 2% Hillsborough 30% 11% 32% Indian River 17% 13% Lake 18% 7% Lee 28% 34% 20% Manatee 22% 2 1% Marion 16% 27% Martin 17% 9% Monroe 26% 13% Okaloosa 7% 12% 6% Orange 33% 35% 19% Osceola 55% 61% Palm Beach 26% 33% Pinellas 12% 11% Polk 26% 19% Sumter 11% 9%

PAGE 126

126 Table A 1 . Continued 3 rd Grade Asian Traditional EMO Home town Public County Alachua 5% 1% Bay 2% 2% Brevard 2% 8% 3% Broward 3% 6% 4% Collier 1% 0% Dade 1% 1% 1% Duval 5% 3% 3% Escambia 3% 1% Flagler 3% 0% Franklin 0% 3% Glades 0% 0% Hillsborough 4% 0% 2% Indian River 2% 0% 0% Lak e 3% 6% 2% Lee 2% 3% 0% Leon 3% 3% 4% Levy 0% 0% Manatee 2% 2% 0% Marion 1% 0% Monroe 2% 2% Okaloosa 2% 2% Orange 5% 2% Osceola 2% 3% 3% Palm Beach 3% 3% 1% Pasco 2% 7% 7% Pinellas 5% 5% 4% Polk 2% 2% Putnam 0% 0% St. Lucie 2% 0% 0% Sarasota 3% 1% 3% Seminole 5% 1% Sumter 1% 3% Volusia 2% 0% 1% Wakulla 0% 0%

PAGE 127

127 Table A 1 . Continued 4 th Grade Asian Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Alachua 4% 5% Bay 2% 5% Brevard 2% 0.0% 2% Broward 4% 2.7% 4% Colli er 1% 0% Dade 1% 1.1% 1% Duval 5% 0.9% 3% Escambia 3% 1% Flagler 3% 5% Franklin 0% 0% Glades 1% 0.0% Hillsborough 3% 0.8% 3% Indian River 2% 0.0% 0% Lake 3% 5.7% 3% Lee 2% 2.2% 2% Leon 4% 0.0% 8% Levy 1% 0% Manatee 2% 1.6% 0% Mario n 1% 0% Monroe 1% 0% Okaloosa 2% 3% Orange 5% 3% Osceola 2% 3.5% 2% Palm Beach 3% 4.1% 1% Pasco 2% 8.9% 6% Pinellas 4% 4.5% 2% Polk 2% 1% Putnam 1% 4% St. Lucie 2% 2.7% 4% Sarasota 2% 1.6% 1% Seminole 4% 6% Sumter 1% 4% Volusi a 2% 0.0% 1% Wakulla 0% 0%

PAGE 128

128 Table A 1 . Continued 10 th Grade Asian Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Alachua 4% 0% Bay 2% 0% 1% Broward 4% 3% 2% Charlotte 2% 5% Citrus 1% 0% Collier 1% 0% Dade 1% 1% 1% Duval 5% 3% Escambia 3% 0% Hillsborough 3% 4% 2% Indian River 1% 2% Lake 3% 0% Lee 2% 25 2% Manatee 2% 0% Marion 1% 0% Martin 2% 0% Monroe 1% 0% Okaloosa 3% 0% 1% Orange 5% .4% 4% Osceola 3% 1% Palm Beach 3% 1% Pinellas 4% 5% Polk 2% 1% Sumter 1% 4%

PAGE 129

129 Table A 1 . Continued 3 rd Grade American Indian Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Alachua 0.2% 0.0% Bay 0.6% 0.0% Brevard 0.3% 1.5% 0.0% Broward 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% Collier 1.6% 0.0% Dade 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Duval 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Escambia 0.9% 2.9% Flagler 0.6% 0.9% Franklin 0.0% 0.0% Glades 1.1% 86.2% Hillsborough 0.3% 0.0% 0.6% Indian River 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% Lake 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% Lee 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% Leon 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% Levy 0.3% 5.6% Manatee 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Marion 0.9% 0.0% Monroe 0.2% 0.0% Okaloosa 0.4% 0.0% Orange 0.3% 0.5% Osceola 0.6% 0.3% 2.1% Palm Beach 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% Pasco 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% Pinellas 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Polk 0.8% 1.1% Putnam 0.3% 0.0% St. Lucie 0.4% 0.7% 1.2% Sarasota 0.5% 0.8% 0.0% Seminole 0.2% 0.9% Sumter 0.3% 0.5% Volusia 0.3% 1.4% 0.0% Wakulla 0.0% 0.0%

PAGE 130

130 Table A 1 . Continued 4 th Grade American Indian Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Alachua 0.2% 0.0% Bay 0.5% 1.7% Brevard 0.2% 0.0% 0.8% Browa rd 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% Collier 1.3% 5.4% Dade 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% Duval 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% Escambia 1.2% 1.0% Flagler 0.3% 0.0% Franklin 0.0% 0.0% Glades 0.0% 89.5% Hillsborough 0.3% 0.0% 0.8% Indian River 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% Lake 0.4% 1.6% 0.4% Lee 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% Leon 0.2% 1.5% 0.0% Levy 0.0% 0.0% Manatee 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Marion 0.7% 2.6% Monroe 0.7% 0.0% Okaloosa 0.4% 1.1% Orange 0.5% 0.5% Osceola 0.5% 0.0% 0.9% Palm Beach 0.8% 0.0% 0.4% Pasco 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% Pinellas 0.3% 1.5% 0.0% Po lk 0.7% 0.5% Putnam 0.3% 0.0% St. Lucie 0.3% 0.7% 0.0% Sarasota 0.4% 1.6% 1.0% Seminole 0.3% 0.0% Sumter 0.5% 0.0% Volusia 0.3% 1.4% 0.0% Wakulla 0.3% 0.0%

PAGE 131

131 Table A 1 . Continued 10 th Grade American Indian Traditional EMO Hometown Pub lic County Alachua 0.1% 0.0% Bay 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% Broward 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% Charlotte 0.0% 1.0% Citrus 0.5% 0.0% Collier 0.5% 0.0% Dade 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Duval 0.2% 0.0% Escambia 1.0% 0.0% Hillsborough 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% Indian River 0.1% 0.7% L ake 0.7% 1.8% Lee 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% Manatee 0.3% 0.6% Marion 1.7% 1.9% Martin 0.4% 0.0% Monroe 0.0% 0.0% Okaloosa 1.4% 3.8% 0.0% Orange 0.4% 1.0% 0.0% Osceola 0.4% 1.1% Palm Beach 0.5% 0.8% Pinellas 0.4% 0.4% Polk 0.6% 0.9% Sumter 0.3% 0 .0%

PAGE 132

132 Table A 1 . Continued 3 rd Grade Pacific Islander Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Alachua 0.2% 0.6% Bay 0.0% 0.0% Brevard 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Broward 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% Collier 0.1% 0.0% Dade 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Duval 0.2% 0.0 % 0.0% Escambia 0.1% 0.0% Flagler 0.1% 0.0% Franklin 0.0% 0.0% Glades 0.0% 0.0% Hillsborough 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% Indian River 0.2% 0.0% 2.4% Lake 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Lee 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Leon 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Levy 0.3% 0.0% Manatee 0.1% 0.7% 0.0% M arion 0.0% 2.1% Monroe 0.0% 0.0% Okaloosa 0.1% 0.0% Orange 0.1% 0.0% Osceola 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% Palm Beach 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Pasco 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Pinellas 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% Polk 0.1% 0.0% Putnam 0.0% 0.0% St. Lucie 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% Sarasota 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Seminole 0.2% 0.0% Sumter 0.0% 0.5% Volusia 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Wakulla 0.0% 0.0%

PAGE 133

133 Table A 1 . Continued 4 th Grade Pacific Islander Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Alachua 0.0% 0.0% Bay 0.0% 0.0% Brevard 0.1% 0.0% 0. 0% Broward 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Collier 0.1% 0.0% Dade 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Duval 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% Escambia 0.2% 0.0% Flagler 0.0% 0.0% Franklin 0.0% 0.0% Glades 0.0% 0.0% Hillsborough 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Indian River 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Lake 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% L ee 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% Leon 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Levy 0.0% 0.0% Manatee 0.1% 0.8% 0.0% Marion 0.1% 0.0% Monroe 0.0% 0.0% Okaloosa 0.1% 0.0% Orange 0.1% 0.0% Osceola 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Palm Beach 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pasco 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Pinellas 0.2% 0.0% 0.9% Polk 0.1% 0.0% Putnam 0.0% 0.0% St. Lucie 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Sarasota 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Seminole 0.4% 0.0% Sumter 0.0% 0.0% Volusia 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Wakulla 0.3% 0.0%

PAGE 134

134 Table A 1 . Continued 10 th Grade Pacific Islander Traditional EMO Ho metown Public County Alachua 0.0% 0.0% Bay 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Broward 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Charlotte 0.0% 1.1% Citrus 0.0% 0.0% Collier 0.1% 4.3% Dade 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Duval 0.1% 0.0% Escambia 0.2% 0.0% Hillsborough 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Indian River 0.0 % 0.0% Lake 0.1% 0.0% Lee 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Manatee 0.0% 0.0% Marion 0.1% 0.0% Martin 0.0% 0.0% Monroe 0.0% 0.0% Okaloosa 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Orange 0.1% 0.0% 0.7% Osceola 0.2% 0.6% Palm Beach 0.1% 0.3% Pinellas 0.2% 0.4% Polk 0.1% 0.0% Sumt er 0.0% 0.0%

PAGE 135

135 Table A 1 . Continued 3 rd Grade Multiracial Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Alachua 5% 5% Bay 6% 2% Brevard 7% 3% 8% Broward 3% 5% 4% Collier 2% 3% Dade 0% 0% 1% Duval 4% 3% 5% Escambia 6% 0% Flagl er 4% 8% Franklin 1% 14% Glades 1% 0% Hillsborough 4% 5% 4% Indian River 3% 2% 0% Lake 4% 3% 3% Lee 3% 2% 3% Leon 3% 5% 4% Levy 2% 11% Manatee 3% 3% 3% Marion 6% 11% Monroe 2% 4% Okaloosa 8% 5% Orange 3% 4% Osceola 3% 2% 4% P alm Beach 3% 3% 4% Pasco 4% 8% 3% Pinellas 4% 8% 4% Polk 4% 4% Putnam 3% 5% St. Lucie 4% 5% 2% Sarasota 5% 3% 5% Seminole 4% 2% Sumter 3% 2% Volusia 4% 5% 0% Wakulla 7% 0%

PAGE 136

136 Table A 1 . Continued 4 th Grade Multiracial Traditional E MO Hometown Public County Alachua 6% 2% Bay 6% 2% Brevard 7% 7% 8% Broward 4% 4% 4% Collier 2% 0% Dade 0% 0% 0% Duval 3% 4% 3% Escambia 7% 3% Flagler 5% 8% Franklin 2% 13% Glades 0% 0% Hillsborough 4% 2% 3% Indian River 3% 4% 0% La ke 4% 4% 3% Lee 2% 2% 3% Leon 4% 4% 12% Levy 3% 13% Manatee 2% 4% 2% Marion 5% 5% Monroe 4% 5% Okaloosa 8% 5% Orange 3% 4% Osceola 3% 2% 2% Palm Beach 3% 3% 2% Pasco 4% 2% 9% Pinellas 4% 5% 4% Polk 3% 4% Putnam 3% 4% St. Lucie 4% 5% 6 % Sarasota 4% 5% 2% Seminole 3% 5% Sumter 2% 1% Volusia 4% 4% 3% Wakulla 4% 0%

PAGE 137

137 Table A 1 . Continued 10 th Grade Multiracial Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Alachua 4% 3% Bay 3% 0% 1% Broward 2% 1% 1% Charlotte 4% 6% Citrus 4% 0% Collier 3% 0% Dade 0% 0% 0% Duval 3% 3% Escambia 6% 4% Hillsborough 3% 2% 2% Indian River 4% 1% Lake 2% 2% Lee 2% 2% 2% Manatee 2% 1% Marion 5% 2% Martin 2% 1% Monroe 2% 0% Okaloosa 5% 4% 4% Orange 2% 1% 3% Osceola 2% 2% Pa lm Beach 2% 2% Pinellas 3% 3% Polk 3% 3% Sumter 3% 5%

PAGE 138

138 Table A 2 . School Districts by FCAT2.0 Passage Rates and Ethnicity 3 rd Grade White Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Reading Readin g Reading Math Math Math Alachua 77% 71% 74% 56% Bay 59% 87% 54% 89% Brevard 71% 66% 83% 70% 39% 72% Broward 68% 72% 79% 71% 75% 81% Collier 70% * 69% * Dade 25% 17% * 78% 84% 91% Duval 24% 40% 25% 66% 27% 55% Escambia 23% 6% 62% 93% Flagler 28% 14% 69% 63% Franklin 16% 26% 16% 63% Glades 73% * 63% * Hillsborough 24% 33% 24% 65% 58% 77% Indian River 20% 28% 21% 63% 72% 83% Lake 23% 23% 24% 63% 30% 55% Lee 25% 24% 26% 73% 76% 81% Leon 22% 28% 13% 74% 46% 69% Levy 26% 18% 52% 73% Manatee 24% 25% 21% 59% 62% 52% Marion 22% 16% 65% 54% Monroe 22% 17% 58% 69% Okaloosa 26% 25% 68% 83% Orange 24% 20% 73% 72% Osceola 24% 24% 22% 60% 65% 58% Palm Beach 24% 25% 39% 71% 76% 64% Pasco 23% 20% 31% 51% 79% 85% Pin ellas 24% 32% 30% 57% 70% 69% Polk 21% 25% 58% 76% Putnam 21% 41% 62% 64% St. Lucie 27% 26% 30% 65% 56% 30% Sarasota 25% 38% 24% 73% 43% 80% Seminole 25% 21% 76% 93% Sumter 25% 25% 64% 80% Volusia 66% 60% 68% 61% 49% 61% Wakulla 72% 45% 68% 45%

PAGE 139

139 Table A 2 . Continued 4 th Grade White Trad EMO HPS Trad EMO HPS Trad EMO HPS County Reading Reading Reading Math Math Math Writing Writing Writing Alachua 72% 69% 69% 66% 57% 69% Bay 64% 83% 53% 83% 31% 62% Brevard 74% 77 % 71% 68% 79% 65% 51% 44% 46% Broward 74% 19% 80% 76% 67% 81% 61% 58% 55% Collier 74% * 71% * 50% * Dade 81% 13% 100% 82% 75% 92% 64% 50% 75% Duval 68% 19% 79% 69% 53% 64% 44% 26% 29% Escambia 67% 92% 63% 77% 41% 54% Flagler 71% 72% 65% 53% 6 5% 42% Franklin 57% 67% 56% 78% 41% 26% Glades 55% 8% 51% * 52% * Hillsborough 73% 58% 71% 66% 54% 63% 62% 57% 58% Indian River 72% 84% 81% 67% 75% 75% 54% 59% 63% Lake 68% 63% 70% 68% 39% 59% 48% 21% 43% Lee 72% 54% 69% 68% 60% 57% 56% 36% 34 % Leon 81% 53% 94% 77% 56% 94% 56% 43% 40% Levy 55% 32% 56% 47% 45% 16% Manatee 70% 80% 72% 64% 46% 55% 46% 35% 32% Marion 66% 54% 66% 80% 42% 0% Monroe 70% 82% 84% 85% 44% 44% Okaloosa 76% 87% 62% 79% 50% 46% Orange 76% 78% 73% 70% 49 % 49% Osceola 67% 21% 60% 61% 53% 70% 61% 35% 45% Palm Beach 76% 56% 75% 76% 64% 40% 63% 46% 17% Pasco 63% 61% 78% 55% 50% 58% 39% 39% 61% Pinellas 69% 77% 84% 60% 77% 76% 52% 51% 61% Polk 60% 73% 58% 76% 42% 53% Putnam 57% 77% 70% 77% 42% 58% St. Lucie 66% 52% 64% 64% 55% 21% 50% 27% 41% Sarasota 78% 75% 87% 70% 37% 83% 65% 49% 54% Seminole 79% 95% 78% 92% 55% 86% Sumter 69% 85% 68% 86% 55% 77% Volusia 67% 79% 48% 61% 44% 40% 44% 43% 32% Wakulla 75% 47% 72% 38% 44% 25%

PAGE 140

140 Table A 2 . Continued 10 th Grade White Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EM O Hometow n Public County Reading Reading Reading Writing Writing Writing Alachua 67% 0% 70% * Bay 54% 54% 66% 49% 35% 46% Broward 62% 52% 57% 74% 49% 47% Charlotte 46% 89% 50% 78% Citrus 52% 86% 48% 73% Collier 55% 60% 63% 75% Dade 66% 64% 77% 72% 64% 81% Duval 56% 58% 67% 56% Escambia 62% 55% 64% 68% Hillsborough 65% 53% 65% 71% 64% 64% Indian River 65% 74% 59% 61% Lake 52% 19% 54% 23% Lee 54% 34% 62% 63% 35% 59% Manatee 57% 68% 56% 63% Marion 48% 32% 41% 25% Martin 72% 86% 56% 80% Monroe 68% * 64% * Okaloosa 59% 9% 98% 51% 18% 86% Orange 62% 18% 76% 65% 23% 66% Osceola 59% 46% 66% 34% Palm Beach 65% 61% 77% 66% Pinellas 58 % 43% 65% 41% Polk 47% 42% 50% 59% Sumter 48% 72% 40% 73%

PAGE 141

141 Table A 2 . Continued 3 rd Grade Black Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EM O Hometow n Public County Reading Reading Reading Math Math Math Alachua 31% 37% 33 % 44% Bay 35% * 30% * Brevard 35% * 44% 35% * 39% Broward 42% 44% 45% 47% 49% 45% Collier 37% * 37% * Dade 19% 17% 21% 43% 46% 47% Duval 22% 20% 18% 43% 41% 41% Escambia 20% 6% 34% 17% Flagler 21% 42% 41% 42% Franklin * * * * Glades 45% * 27% * Hillsborough 21% 12% 26% 39% 41% 38% Indian River 16% * * 23% * * Lake 21% 31% 17% 39% 62% 27% Lee 23% 35% 26% 46% 42% 32% Leon 21% 31% * 49% 31% * Levy 13% * 25% * Manatee 17% * 8% 24% * 50% Marion 20% * 44% * Mon roe 35% * 41% * Okaloosa 20% 30% 41% 60% Orange 23% 14% 45% 27% Osceola 28% 38% 23% 37% 38% 41% Palm Beach 21% 24% 18% 39% 45% 21% Pasco 25% * * 37% * * Pinellas 21% * 12% 26% * * Polk 20% 18% 41% 41% Putnam 18% 36% 29% 55% St. Lucie 22% 22% 21% 41% 39% 29% Sarasota 25% * * 48% * * Seminole 22% 8% 53% * Sumter 13% * 45% * Volusia 43% * * 41% * * Wakulla 47% * 32% *

PAGE 142

142 Table A 2 . Continued 4 th Grade Black Trad EMO HPS Trad EMO HPS Trad EMO HPS County Rea ding Reading Reading Math Math Math Writing Writing Writing Alachua 37% 32% 35% 28% 38% 45% Bay 45% * 27% * 28% * Brevard 48% * 41% 32% * 33% 35% * 35% Broward 50% 55% 51% 50% 51% 44% 45% 36% 45% Collier 42% * 39% * 28% * Dade 43% 48% 37% 46 % 50% 37% 35% 42% 12% Duval 45% 61% 39% 48% 37% 42% 35% 37% 37% Escambia 40% 27% 38% 14% 35% 36% Flagler 49% 27% 38% 0% 49% 45% Franklin * * * * * * Glades 31% * 13% * 29% * Hillsboro ugh 45% 39% 50% 38% 22% 33% 50% 53% 48% Indian River 4 0% * 60% 26% * 60% 40% * 70% Lake 38% * 51% 45% * 47% 34% * 36% Lee 40% 61% 15% 40% 42% 8% 41% 28% 6% Leon 47% 36% * 48% 32% * 41% 13% * Levy 33% * 37% * 32% * Manatee 35% * * 30% * * 28% * * Marion 38% * 40% * 30% * Monroe 41% * 44% * 37% * Okaloosa 53% * 42% * 37% * Orange 50% 37% 47% 25% 37% 31% Osceola 54% 63% 60% 40% 53% 54% 46% 34% 53% Palm Beach 46% 56% 39% 45% 22% 37% 46% 54% 27% Pasco 56% * * 45% * * 47% * * Pinellas 32% * 17% 27% * 8% 33% * 13% Polk 39% 49% 36% 58% 3 5% 43% Putnam 29% 50% 45% 58% 35% 50% St. Lucie 42% 47% * 41% 37% * 41% 22% 27% Sarasota 48% * * 40% * * 44% * * Seminole 46% * 43% * 35% * Sumter 33% * 24% * 35% * Volusia 39% * * 31% * * 33% * * Wakulla 41% * 45% * 21% *

PAGE 143

143 Table A 2 . Continued 10 th Grade Black Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Reading Reading Reading Writing Writing Writing Alachua 26% 7% 40% 17% Bay 31% * * 31% * * Broward 35% 26% 39% 54% 41% 44% Charlotte 37% * 61% * Citrus 21% 40% Collier 33% 47% Dade 40% 17% 19% 53% 32% 26% Duval 30% 21% 54% 34% Escambia 26% 18% 45% 8% Hillsborough 31% * 28% 54% * 42% Indian River 38% * 38% 50% Lake 26% 5% 35% 12% Lee 35% 50% 46% 49% 26% 71% Manatee 23% 1 8% 29% 45% Martin 26% * 34% * Marion 27% * 36% * Monroe 14% * 32% * Okaloosa 43% * * 42% 0% * Orange 32% 12% * 52% 14% * Osceola 42% 50% 59% 54% Palm Beach 34% 47% 56% 44% Pinellas 20% * 43% 14% Polk 18% 18% 43% 47% Sumter 19% * 4 3% *

PAGE 144

144 Table A 2 . Continued 3 rd Grade Hispanic Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Reading Reading Reading Math Math Math Alachua 57% 36% 55% * Bay 51% * 43% * Brevard 52% * 43% 54% * 47% Broward 56% 65% 70% 59% 60% 74% Collier 47% 47% 49% 53% Dade 23% 25% 20% 61% 69% 61% Duval 24% 8% 33% 56% 50% 60% Escambia 20% * 67% * Flagler 24% 17% 53% 75% Franklin * * * * Glades 21% * 64% * Hillsborough 24% 8% 28% 50% 17% 5 7% Indian River 24% 45% 8% 50% 55% 75% Lake 23% 22% 20% 51% 33% 41% Lee 25% 25% 22% 58% 64% 67% Leon 13% * * 61% * * Levy 26% * 50% * Manatee 20% 50% 23% 38% 50% 51% Marion 22% * 57% * Monroe 24% 38% 53% 31% Okaloosa 21% * 49% * O range 25% 17% 55% 44% Osceola 24% 22% 28% 46% 34% 63% Palm Beach 23% 37% 25% 55% 58% 34% Pasco 21% 21% 33% 38% 57% 42% Pinellas 25% * 10% 42% * 50% Polk 20% 26% 47% 61% Putnam 25% * 47% * St. Lucie 25% 16% 27% 55% 42% 26% Sarasota 25% 3 6% 21% 59% 21% 36% Seminole 24% 29% 63% 93% Sumter 18% 38% 41% 67% Volusia 53% * 50% 50% * 25% Wakulla * * * *

PAGE 145

145 Table A 2. Continued 4 th Grade Hispanic Trad EMO HPS Trad EM O HPS Trad EMO HPS County Readin g Reading Reading Math Ma th Math Writing Writing Writing Alachua 51% * 49% 63% 47% * Bay 64% * 73% * 14% * Brevard 63% * 72% 58% * 72% 48% * 63% Broward 63% 66% 68% 64% 62% 66% 55% 51% 51% Collier 56% 32% 56% 53% 37% 3% Dade 60% 72% 61% 64% 71% 59% 49% 50% 37% Duva l 52% 50% * 60% 56% * 44% 29% * Escambia 60% * 52% * 45% * Flagler 69% * 60% * 60% * Franklin * * * * * * Glades 40% * 44% * 42% * Hillsborough 57% 31% 50% 51% 15% 48% 57% 23% 44% Indian River 48% * * 52% * * 47% * * Lake 55% 68% 50% 57% 32% 60% 43% 32% 36% Lee 56% 57% 75% 51% 48% 68% 48% 23% 38% Leon 64% * * 73% * * 36% * * Levy 50% * 76% * 39% * Manatee 45% * 53% 44% * 88% 37% * 39% Marion 52% * 56% * 39% * Monroe 58% 100% 64% 92% 41% 25% Okaloosa 58% * 49% * 37% * O range 57% 39% 54% 44% 40% 29% Osceola 54% 54% 65% 47% 49% 48% 52% 29% 48% Palm Beach 58% 61% 69% 61% 43% 70% 52% 68% 39% Pasco 55% 67% * 49% 56% * 36% 50% * Pinellas 52% * * 45% * * 43% * * Polk 50% 53% 50% 65% 41% 43% Putnam 49% * 72% * 30% * St. Lucie 49% 675 42% 49% 45% 33% 49% 33% 25% Sarasota 65% * 69% 61% * 62% 62% * 46% Seminole 67% 82% 63% 82% 45% 95% Sumter 53% 63% 64% 79% 63% 68% Volusia 49% * 50% 43% * 33% 36% * 55% Wakulla * * * * * *

PAGE 146

146 Table A 2 . Continued 10 th Grade Hispanic Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Reading Reading Reading Writing Writing Writing Alachua 49% * 52% * Bay 53% * * 41% * * Broward 49% 68% 36% 66% 77% 48% Charlotte 43% * 60% * Citrus 35% * 52% * Collier 40% * 53% * Dade 48% 51% 38% 62% 61% 45% Duval 48% * 63% * Escambia 51% * 60% * Hillsborough 43% * 18% 61% * 43% Indian River 36% 47% 44% 50% Lake 31% * 39% * Lee 41% 32% 63% 51% 75% 73% Manatee 30% 42% 37% 57% Marion 37% 14% 51% 36% Martin 50% * 60% * Monroe 45% * 50% * Okaloosa 58% * * 60% * * Orange 37% 15% 47% 51% 19% 53% Osceola 36% 32% 56% 49% Palm Beach 51% 37% 73% 67% Pinellas 44% 8% 58% 20% Polk 32% 39% 49% 49% Sumter 29% 57% 46% 40%

PAGE 147

147 Table A 2 . Continued 3 rd Grade Asian Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Reading Reading Reading Math Math Math Alachua 79% * 86% * Bay * * * * Brevard * * * * * * Broward 77% 90% 73% 84% 100% 93% Collier * * * * Dade 15% * * 93% * * Duval 23% * * 82% * * Escambia 27% * 53% * Flagler * * * * Franklin * * * * Glades * * * * Hillsborough 21% * * 94% * * Indian River * * * * * * Lake 26% * * 81% * * Lee * * * * * * Leon 25% * 8% 94% * * Levy * * * * Manatee * * * * * * Marion * * 100% * Monroe * * * * Okaloosa * * * * Orange 21% * 86% * Osceola * * * * * * Palm Beach 16% * * 91% * * Pasco 21% * * 93% * * Pinellas 29% * * 66% * * Pol k * * 82% * Putnam * * * * St. Lucie * * * * * * Sarasota 8% * * 100% * * Seminole 10% * 90% * Sumter * * * * Volusia 85% * * 92% * * Wakulla * * * *

PAGE 148

148 Table A 2 . Continued 4 th Grade Asian Trad EMO HPS Trad EMO HPS Trad EMO HPS County Reading Reading Reading Math Math Math Writing Writing Writing Alachua 74% * 97% 100% 83% * Bay * * * * * * Brevard * * * * * * * * * Broward 82% 80% 94% 86% 80% 96% 74% 90% 83% Collier * * * * * * Dade 71% * * 86% * * 79% * * D uval 75% * * 87% * * 66% * * Escambia 79% * 86% * 64% * Flagler * * * * * * Franklin * * * * * Glades * * * * * * * Hillsborough 89% * * 91% * * 86% * * Indian River * * * * * * * * * Lake 84% * * 95% * * 79% * * Lee * * * * * * * * * Leon 95% * * 93% * * 84% * * Levy * * * * * * Manatee * * * * * * * * * Marion * * * * * * Monroe * * * * * * Okaloosa * * * * * * Orange 77% * 88% * 64% * Osceola * * * * * * * * * Palm Beach 91% * * 97% * * 88% * * Pasco 89% * * 8 9% * * 87% * * Pinellas 67% * * 78% * * 65% * * Polk 90% * 80% * 80% * Putnam * * * * * * St. Lucie * * * * * * * * * Sarasota 100% * * 100% * * 94% * * Seminole 85% * 92% * 67% * Sumter * * * * * * Volusia * * * * * * * * * Wakulla * * * * * *

PAGE 149

149 Table A 2 . Continued 10 th Grade Asian Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Reading Reading Reading Writing Writing Writing Alachua 77% * 76% * Bay 77% * * 67% * * Broward 65% 79% 87% 78% 92% 79% Charlotte 45% * 82% * Citrus 79% 85% Collier 81% 85% Dade 77% * * 76% * * Duval 60% * 77% * Escambia 62% * 78% * Hillsborough 65% * * 74% * * Indian River 40% * 30% * Lake 70% 78% Lee 74% * * 85% * * Manatee 58% 75% Mario n 71% 64% Martin 80% 80% Monroe * * Okaloosa 72% * * 69% * * Orange 63% * * 73% * * Osceola 53% * 60% * Palm Beach 71% * 81% * Pinellas 48% 90% 65% 100% Polk 69% * 72% * Sumter * * * *

PAGE 150

150 Table A 3 . School District Dat a by Gender 3 rd Grade Gender Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Females Females Females Males Males Males Alachua 49% 0% 52% 50% 0% 48% Bay 40% 0% 47% 39% 0% 53% Brevard 35% 56% 45% 38% 44% 55% Broward 48% 48% 52% 52% 52% 48% Collier 46% 0% 47% 53% 0% 53% Dade 47% 50% 50% 52% 50% 50% Duval 49% 57% 51% 51% 43% 49% Escambia 47% 0% 49% 52% 0% 51% Flagler 37% 0% 61% 40% 0% 39% Franklin 43% 0% 50% 45% 0% 50% Glades 49% 34% 50% 66% Hillsborough 48% 54% 44% 5 2% 46% 56% Indian River 43% 42% 50% 43% 58% 50% Lake 47% 52% 48% 50% 48% 52% Lee 47% 54% 46% 53% 46% 54% Leon 47% 44% 48% 52% 56% 52% Levy 43% 0% 50% 51% 0% 50% Manatee 47% 53% 51% 52% 47% 49% Marion 49% 0% 45% 50% 0% 55% Monroe 48% 0% 57% 52% 0% 4 3% Okaloosa 48% 0% 57% 52% 0% 43% Orange 48% 0% 50% 52% 0% 50% Osceola 48% 47% 48% 52% 53% 52% Palm Beach 48% 45% 52% 52% 55% 48% Pasco 49% 52% 53% 51% 48% 47% Pinellas 48% 62% 60% 52% 38% 40% Polk 48% 0% 51% 52% 0% 49% Putnam 51% 0% 57% 49% 0% 43% St. Lucie 46% 46% 53% 54% 54% 47% Sarasota 49% 55% 49% 51% 45% 51% Seminole 50% 0% 55% 50% 0% 45% Sumter 47% 0% 52% 53% 0% 48% Volusia 48% 56% 61% 52% 44% 39% Wakulla 41% 0% 45% 59% 0% 55%

PAGE 151

151 Table A 3 . Continued 4 th Grade Gender Traditional EMO Hometown Public Trad EMO Hometown Public County Females Females Females Males Males Males Alachua 49% 59% 51% 41% Bay 51% 57% 49% 43% Brevard 48% 41.66% 54% 52% 56.66% 46% Broward 49% 47.78% 49% 51% 52.22% 51% Collier 49% 57% 51% 43% Dade 49% 50.92% 45% 51% 48.94% 55% Duval 49% 52.21% 49% 51% 47.78% 51% Escambia 49% 50% 51% 50% Flagler 49% 45% 51% 55% Franklin 45% 42% 55% 58% Glades 51% 45% 49% 55.26% Hillsborough 49% 41% 50% 51% 58.59% 49% Indian River 48% 38% 53% 52% 61.95% 45% Lake 50% 44% 47% 50% 56.095 53% Lee 48% 52% 53% 52% 47.77% 46% Leon 49% 57% 61% 51% 42.64% 38% Levy 49% 57% 51% 43% Manatee 50% 52% 42% 50% 47.54% 58% Marion 48% 47% 52% 53% Monroe 50% 51% 50% 49% Okaloosa 49% 49% 51% 51% Orange 49% 47% 51% 53% Osceola 48% 45% 50% 52% 55.24% 50% Palm Beach 49% 51% 48% 50% 48.77% 52% Pasco 48% 49% 41% 52% 51.48% 59% Pinellas 48% 48% 61% 52% 51.87% 37% Polk 48% 52% 52% 48% Putnam 49% 52% 51% 48% St. Lucie 46% 55% 54% 54% 44.52% 46% Sarasota 49% 57% 56% 51% 42.87% 44% Seminole 48% 52% 52% 48% Sumter 48% 53% 51% 47% Volusia 49% 62% 57% 51% 38.02% 43% Wakulla 51% 60% 49% 40%

PAGE 152

152 Table A 3 . Continued 10 th Grade Gender Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public Count y Females Females Females Males Males Males Alachua 48% 51% 52% 49% Bay 50% 47% 43% 50% 53% 57% Broward 50% 48% 50% 50% 52% 50% Charlotte 50% 54% 50% 46% Citrus 50% 42% 50% 58% Collier 49% 52% 51% 48% Dade 50% 53% 50% 50% 47% 50% Duval 52% 46% 48% 54% Escambia 52% 51% 48% 49% Hillsborough 51% 43% 48% 49% 57% 52% Indian River 48% 57% 52% 43% Lake 52% 39% 48% 61% Lee 49% 51% 52% 51% 49% 48% Manatee 50% 71% 50% 29% Marion 51% 25% 49% 75% Martin 48% 58% 52% 42% Monroe 47% 50% 53% 50% Okaloosa 49% 42% 58% 51% 58% 42% Orange 51% 46% 49% 49% 54% 51% Osceola 49% 48% 51% 52% Palm Beach 49% 61% 51% 39% Pinellas 50% 50% 50% 50% Polk 50% 56% 50% 44% Sumter 53% 52% 47% 48%

PAGE 153

153 Table A 4 . School Districts by FCAT2.0 Passage Rates and Gender 3 rd Grade Female Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Reading Reading Reading Math Math Math Alachua 54% 55% 52% 55% Bay 57% 87% 50% 91% Brevard 68% 68% 67% 64% 45% 53% Browa rd 56% 58% 59% 58% 59% 57% Collier 56% 59% 53% 47% Dade 23% 25% 20% 57% 66% 59% Duval 23% 20% 25% 54% 39% 44% Escambia 23% 4% 48% 48% Flagler 26% 20% 64% 34% Franklin 12% 33% 15% 61% Glades 40% 80% Hillsborough 23% 22% 27% 5 2% 55% 60% Indian River 21% 39% 19% 55% 61% 86% Lake 23% 19% 23% 58% 63% 42% Lee 26% 27% 31% 62% 69% 73% Leon 22% 31% 0% 62% 47% 85% Levy 24% * 52% * Manatee 22% 25% 24% 47% 56% 49% Marion 22% 14% 61% 57% Monroe 25% 21% 57% 64% Okaloos a 23% 26% 60% 78% Orange 24% 18% 58% 41% Osceola 23% 20% 22% 50% 43% 65% Palm Beach 23% 28% 20% 54% 76% 42% Pasco 22% 14% 31% 47% 78% 74% Pinellas 23% 27% 23% 49% 66% 43% Polk 21% 23% 51% 71% Putnam 24% 33% 53% 57% St. Lucie 25% 21% 24% 53% 45% 24% Sarasota 26% 32% 20% 66% 31% 72% Seminole 23% 22% 70% 87% Sumter 23% 24% 55% 77% Volusia 62% 45% 69% 55% 29% 56% Wakulla 71% * 62% *

PAGE 154

154 Table A 4 . Continued 4 th Grade Female Trad EMO HPS Trad EMO HPS Trad EMO HPS County Reading Reading Reading Math Math Math Writing Writing Writing Alachua 58% 46% 57% 51% 55% 76% Bay 60% 83% 46% 75% 39% 66% Brevard 72% 89% 62% 60% 83% 52% 57% 56% 45% Broward 62% 65% 66% 60% 57% 55% 60% 51% 53% Collier 64% 38% 57% 52% 49% 5% Dade 59% 71% 66% 59% 66% 56% 53% 54% 46% Duval 58% 72% 62% 58% 45% 52% 47% 41% 37% Escambia 57% 75% 49% 53% 45% 53% Flagler 70% 83% 59% 50% 68% 49% Franklin 55% 90% 38% 90% 45% 25% Glades 57% 71% 47% 76% 48% 82% Hillsborough 63% 61% 56% 52% 51% 48% 66% 67% 54% Indian River 66% 63% 75% 52% 66% 75% 57% 62% 83% Lake 64% 56% 61% 61% 39% 51% 53% 23% 54% Lee 62% 67% 62% 54% 50% 53% 58% 39% 41% Leon 64% 49% 75% 59% 31% 69% 56% 31% 31% Levy 55% 38% 47% 69% 49% 23% Manatee 59% 71% 54% 52% 29% 46% 50% 45% 32% Marion 58% 67% 59% 83% 48% 25% Monroe 62% 94% 68% 82% 48% 38% Okaloosa 74% 81% 56% 79% 57% 53% Orange 64% 58% 59% 47% 52% 49% Osceola 62% 57% 63% 50% 56% 47% 64% 36% 54% Palm Beach 60% 70% 50% 59% 62% 39% 61% 59% 39% Pasco 64% 67% 78% 51% 55% 56% 47% 56% 68% Pinellas 62% 80% 63% 51% 71% 47% 57% 56% 56% Polk 54% 67% 50% 71% 48% 60% Putnam 49% 50% 56% 50% 45% 64% St. Lucie 58% 62% 59% 50% 49% 24% 55% 37% 34% Sarasota 73% 65% 84% 63% 33% 72% 69% 59% 60 % Seminole 74% 84% 70% 84% 59% 98% Sumter 66% 88% 63% 88% 61% 82% Volusia 62% 64% 52% 52% 47% 31% 48% 46% 40% Wakulla 69% * 63% * 51% 20%

PAGE 155

155 Table A 4 . Continued 10 th Grade Female Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometow n Public County Reading Reading Reading Writing Writing Writing Alachua 52% * 70% * Bay 45% * 63% 52% 27% 60% Broward 43% 38% 35% 66% 49% 51% Charlotte 47% 82% 62% 83% Citrus 51% 80% 73% 80% Collier 44% 50% 67% 69% Dade 45% 49% 34% 67% 65% 53% Duval 41% 19% 69% 31% Escambia 51% 37% 67% 40% Hillsborough 49% 45% 20% 70% 55% 47% Indian River 55% 68% 62% 60% Lake 45% 5% 57% 25% Lee 44% 27% 55% 61% 38% 65% Manatee 39% 57% 52% 60% Marion 42% 15% 52% 38% Martin 64% 79% 71% 82 % Monroe 61% * 75% * Okaloosa 56% 9% 95% 60% 14% 93% Orange 40% 8% 65% 62% 18% 73% Osceola 41% 26% 68% 52% Palm Beach 48% 43% 72% 72% Pinellas 45% 38% 68% 45% Polk 34% 35% 55% 59% Sumter 41% 70% 75% 73%

PAGE 156

156 Table A 4 . Con tinued 3 rd Grade Male Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Reading Reading Reading Math Math Math Alachua 50% 53% 50% 36% Bay 51% 82% 51% 83% Brevard 62% 80% 60% 64% 80% 56% Broward 49% 53% 55% 56% 60% 59% C ollier 49% 42% 54% 63% Dade 21% 24% 21% 56% 69% 62% Duval 20% 23% 23% 52% 48% 45% Escambia 20% 18% 51% 43% Flagler 25% 30% 62% 61% Franklin 21% 28% 14% 61% Glades 16% 84% Hillsborough 22% 24% 24% 54% 40% 56% Indian River 22% 27% 19% 54% 71% 67% Lake 21% 37% 20% 55% 53% 44% Lee 22% 25% 25% 62% 70% 68% Leon 19% 31% 29% 60% 42% 64% Levy 25% * 45% * Manatee 18% 30% 25% 46% 53% 56% Marion 20% 12% 59% 76% Monroe 26% 29% 60% 58% Okaloosa 26% 24% 63% 78% Oran ge 22% 23% 58% 56% Osceola 25% 25% 27% 50% 45% 59% Palm Beach 21% 28% 20% 54% 65% 37% Pasco 22% 23% 27% 48% 67% 84% Pinellas 23% 29% 33% 50% 73% 54% Polk 21% 30% 52% 73% Putnam 18% 50% 47% 56% St. Lucie 22% 23% 24% 53% 55% 32% Sarasota 23% 37% 28% 68% 49% 76% Seminole 24% 15% 70% 99% Sumter 22% 29% 63% 82% Volusia 55% 60% 63% 56% 60% 55% Wakulla 70% 27% 68% 36%

PAGE 157

157 Table A 4 . Continued 4 th Grade Male Trad EMO HPS Trad EMO HPS Trad EMO HPS County Reading Reading Re ading Math Math Math Writing Writing Writing Alachua 52% 50% 50% 545 43% 30% Bay 58% 77% 51% 85% 24% 54% Brevard 67% 60% 58% 64% 67% 53% 41% 32% 27% Broward 55% 55% 53% 60% 57% 52% 44% 35% 39% Collier 57% 25% 60% 50% 35% 6% Dade 52% 66% 57% 60% 70% 63% 39% 41% 30% Duval 52% 61% 52% 60% 46% 49% 33% 28% 24% Escambia 52% 50% 53% 51% 33% 47% Flagler 63% 65% 61% 58% 54% 41% Franklin 57% 50% 66% 57% 37% 31% Glades 38% 57% 43% 86% 44% 48% Hillsborough 56% 41% 55% 55% 26% 50% 50% 31 % 44% Indian River 57% 74% 64% 59% 79% 55% 43% 55% 36% Lake 57% 51% 63% 61% 52% 59% 37% 30% 33% Lee 58% 57% 68% 58% 53% 54% 44% 26% 30% Leon 59% 62% 80% 64% 55% 80% 40% 19% * Levy 48% 20% 56% 30% 35% 10% Manatee 56% 67% 64% 56% 55% 66% 34% 28% 29% Marion 53% 50% 58% 75% 29% 0% Monroe 63% 70% 71% 84% 36% 28% Okaloosa 68% 86% 62% 82% 38% 39% Orange 57% 57% 58% 56% 36% 34% Osceola 56% 62% 59% 52% 51% 61% 47% 28% 41% Palm Beach 54% 58% 42% 59% 54% 31% 46% 53% 16% Pasco 58% 57% 83% 56 % 49% 72% 33% 28% 57% Pinellas 55% 83% 25% 53% 75% 37% 38% 49% 11% Polk 49% 63% 53% 69% 35% 38% Putnam 52% 69% 67% 77% 36% 33% St. Lucie 48% 58% 72% 53% 53% 24% 36% 20% 29% Sarasota 70% 67% 78% 68% 43% 78% 56% 37% 36% Seminole 68% 94% 69% 93% 43% 81% Sumter 55% 77% 59% 83% 44% 70% Volusia 56% 67% 56% 54% 44% 37% 32% 41% 32% Wakulla 72% * 71% * 31% 0%

PAGE 158

158 Table A 4 . Continued 10 th Grade Male Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Reading Reading Rea ding Writing Writing Writing Alachua 44% 20% 50% 0% Bay 51% * 68% 39% * 33% Broward 46% 28% 29% 53% 41% 34% Charlotte 42% 88% 41% 77% Citrus 48% 93% 45% 64% Collier 47% 73% 47% 58% Dade 48% 52% 32% 52% 57% 41% Duval 42% 35% 51% 31% Escam bia 47% 38% 46% 31% Hillsborough 50% 54% 29% 56% 35% 38% Indian River 55% 72% 44% 57% Lake 45% 20% 41% 9% Lee 46% 28% 70% 49% 30% 68% Manatee 42% 67% 37% 61% Marion 35% 28% 29% 20% Martin 66% 96% 62% 82% Monroe 56% * 46% * Okaloosa 5 8% 13% 100% 41% 0% 77% Orange 44% 14% 68% 46% 16% 49% Osceola 43% 43% 53% 45% Palm Beach 50% 49% 63% 54% Pinellas 45% 36% 48% 35% Polk 36% 39% 38% 47% Sumter 39% 74% 41% 62%

PAGE 159

159 Table A 5 . School District Data by Free/Reduced Lunch St atus 3 rd Grade Lunch Status Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Free/Reduced Lunch Free/Redu ced Lunch Free/Reduced Lunch Not Free/Reduc ed Lunch Not Free/Reduc ed Lunch Not Free/Reduce d Lunch Alachua 58% 51% 42% 49% Bay 66% 54% 34% 46% Brevard 53% 45% 13% 47% 55% 87% Broward 64% 63% 58% 36% 37% 42% Collier 68% 48% 32% 52% Dade 79% 59% 81% 21% 41% 19% Duval 62% 42% 63% 38% 58% 37% Escambia 72% 43% 28% 57% Flagler 69% 67% 31% 33% Franklin 94% 55% 6% 45% Glades 78% 0% 72% 22% 100% 28% Hillsborough 62% 46% 38% 54% Indian River 66% 25% 43% 34% 75% 57% Lake 64% 14% 52% 36% 86% 48% Lee 75% 54% 68% 25% 46% 32% Leon 55% 25% 28% 45% 75% 72% Levy 79% 19% 22% 81% Manatee 64% 31% 89% 36% 69% 11% Marion 73% 67% 27% 33% Monroe 55% 64% 45% 36% Okaloosa 49% 16% 51% 84% Orange 69% 21% 31% 79% Osceola 72% 71% 49% 28% 29% 51% Palm Beach 63% 50% 66% 37% 50% 34% Pasco 60% 32% 71% 40% 68% 29% Pinellas 62% 23% 24% 38% 77% 76% Polk 78% 50% 22% 50% Putnam 82% 59% 18% 42% St. Lucie 76% 42% 65% 24% 58% 35% Sarasota 59% 50% 55% 41% 50% 45% Seminole 51% 30% 49% 70% Sumter 81% 24% 19% 76% Volusia 66% 59% 28% 34% 41% 72% Wakulla 55% 46% 45% 54%

PAGE 160

160 Table A 5 . Continued 4 th Grade Lunch Status Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Free/Reduced Lunch Free/Reduc ed Lunch Free/Reduced Lunch Not Free/Reduc ed Lunch Not Free/Red uced Lunch Not Free/Reduced Lunch Alachua 55% 68% 44 % 32% Bay 64% 18% 35% 82% Brevard 49% 43% 61% 50% 55% 39% Broward 62% 66% 48% 37% 34% 51% Collier 65% 81% 35% 19% Dade 77% 62% 59% 22% 38% 41% Duval 59% 49% 41% 40% 50% 59% Escambia 69% 67% 30% 33% Flagler 68% 48% 30% 52% Franklin 88% 63 % 13% 38% Glades 73% 0% 26% 100% Hillsborough 61% 46% 39% 39% 54% 60% Indian River 65% 29% 75% 34% 71% 23% Lake 63% 17% 65% 36% 83% 33% Lee 72% 49% 27% 27% 50% 72% Leon 52% 34% 12% 47% 65% 88% Levy 70% 83% 28% 17% Manatee 58% 36% 66% 41% 62% 3 3% Marion 73% 66% 26% 32% Monroe 56% 12% 43% 87% Okaloosa 46% 14% 53% 86% Orange 66% 50% 32% 50% Osceola 72% 63% 72% 26% 36% 28% Palm Beach 59% 51% 69% 40% 49% 31% Pasco 57% 39% 19% 42% 61% 81% Pinellas 61% 22% 65% 38% 78% 33% Polk 75% 56 % 24% 43% Putnam 79% 63% 20% 375 St. Lucie 74% 47% 48% 25% 53% 525 Sarasota 55% 45% 47% 44% 55% 53% Seminole 50% 19% 49% 81% Sumter 76% 31% 22% 69% Volusia 68% 52% 51% 31% 45% 49% Wakulla 54% 100% 44% 0%

PAGE 161

161 Table A 5 . Continued 10 th Grad e Lunch Status Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Free/Reduced Lunch Free/Redu ced Lunch Free/Reduced Lunch Not Free/Reduce d Lunch Not Free/Red uced Lunch Not Free/Reduced Lunch Alachua 40% 51% 59% 49% Bay 39% 0% 13% 59% 100% 85% Broward 53% 47% 45% 46% 51% 54% Charlotte 52% 38% 47% 62% Citrus 51% 33% 48% 67% Collier 51% 26% 49% 74% Dade 69% 72% 59% 31% 28% 33% Duval 44% 45% 55% 52% Escambia 51% 49% 49% 51% Hillsborough 48% 20% 48% 51% 78% 51% India n River 52% 7% 48% 92% Lake 48% 68% 51% 25% Lee 60% 56% 25% 39% 42% 74% Manatee 47% 45% 52% 55% Marion 60% 60% 39% 40% Martin 29% 25% 70% 75% Monroe 35% 25% 64% 75% Okaloosa 25% 73% 15% 74% 23% 85% Orange 55% 61% 25% 44% 35% 75% Osceol a 65% 52% 34% 45% Palm Beach 44% 62% 56% 38% Pinellas 42% 62% 57% 36% Polk 61% 53% 39% 45% Sumter 67% 25% 32% 75%

PAGE 162

162 Table A 6 . School Districts by FCAT2.0 Passage Rates and Lunch Status 3 rd Grade F/R Lunch Traditional EMO Hometown Pu blic Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Reading Reading Reading Math Math Math Alachua 40% 53% 41% 60% Bay 46% 67% 42% 92% Brevard 56% 60% 56% 55% 50% 48% Broward 46% 48% 50% 51% 55% 59% Collier 44% 48% 46% 52% Dade 23% 25% 21% 53% 6 4% 53% Duval 22% 30% 22% 47% 38% 34% Escambia 21% 15% 46% 41% Flagler 27% 18% 56% 47% Franklin 17% 38% 13% 50% Glades 20% * 60% * Hillsborough 24% 21% 21% 46% 40% 38% Indian River 22% 43% 23% 46% 48% 68% Lake 22% 21% 19% 48% 0% 39% Lee 25% 27% 26% 57% 64% 62% Leon 22% 25% * 49% 35% * Levy 21% 19% 42% 69% Manatee 20% 40% 18% 36% 42% 48% Marion 22% 18% 55% 45% Monroe 24% 30% 50% 49% Okaloosa 25% 17% 51% 78% Orange 24% 17% 50% 35% Osceola 23% 22% 24% 45% 39% 60% Palm Beach 22% 23% 23% 46% 52% 27% Pasco 21% 12% 48% 39% 57% 76% Pinellas 25% 17% 21% 40% 75% 32% Polk 21% 27% 47% 63% Putnam 21% 42% 46% 46% St. Lucie 23% 23% 19% 48% 35% 15% Sarasota 26% 41% 23% 60% 33% 68% Seminole 25% 34% 59% 7 2% Sumter 25% 38% 56% 69% Volusia 52% 43% 60% 49% 34% 45% Wakulla 63% 39% 57% 39%

PAGE 163

163 Table A 6 . Continued 4 th Grade F/R Lunch Trad EMO HPS Trad EMO HPS Trad EMO HPS County Reading Reading Reading Math Math Math Writing Writing Writing Alac hua 43% 48% 45% 42% 38% 51% Bay 52% 68% 41% 68% 28% 39% Brevard 62% 57% 55% 53% 61% 42% 41% 37% 33% Broward 53% 54% 51% 54% 54% 47% 47% 40% 44% Collier 54% 27% 53% 47% 37% 3% Dade 52% 65% 56% 57% 63% 53% 42% 44% 30% Duval 48% 59% 49% 52% 35% 46% 34% 35% 32% Escambia 50% 40% 45% 355 35% 32% Flagler 62% 47% 56% 25% 57% 29% Franklin 55% 60% 52% 60% 41% 25% Glades 40% * 37% * 41% * Hillsborough 52% 45% 50% 46% 38% 47% 52% 56% 45% Indian River 53% 67% 50% 47% 78% 60% 43% 74% 54% Lake 54% 12% 59% 54% 12% 49% 39% 11% 42% Lee 54% 52% 485 49% 40% 34% 46% 26% 27% Leon 52% 30% * 50% 22% * 40% 12% * Levy 43% 32% 44% 42% 36% 16% Manatee 48% 67% 53% 44% 34% 56% 35% 29% 31% Marion 50% 53% 53% 71% 33% 12% Monroe 56% % 63% * 39 % * Okaloosa 63% 58% 50% 50% 40% 25% Orange 54% 41% 52% 30% 39% 29% Osceola 55% 53% 59% 48% 47% 51% 53% 30% 46% Palm Beach 51% 61% 49% 53% 46% 38% 48% 60% 27% Pasco 53% 52% 92% 44% 44% 50% 34% 31% 83% Pinellas 50% 86% 36% 43% 77% 33% 41% 41% 1 8% Polk 48% 58% 47% 62% 38% 44% Putnam 45% 47% 57% 59% 37% 56% St. Lucie 48% 54% 62% 47% 49% 8% 43% 30% 30% Sarasota 65% 62% 71% 59% 33% 64% 55% 50% 42% Seminole 61% 71% 60% 71% 42% 95% Sumter 55% 74% 56% 84% 49% 72% Volusia 52% 72% 52%% 47% 50% 26% 35% 44% 36% Wakulla 62% 47% 60% 38% 30% 25%

PAGE 164

164 Table A 6 . Continued 10 th Grade F/R Lunch Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Reading Reading Reading Writing Writing Writing Alachua 33% 13% 44% 13% Bay 39% * 62% 39% * 17% Broward 37% 29% 30% 55% 46% 44% Charlotte 39% 81% 47% 84% Citrus 36% * 43% * Collier 34% * 46% * Dade 42% 46% 30% 57% 60% 44% Duval 34% 23% 55% 29% Escambia 37% 29% 52% 8% Hillsborough 34% * 19% 55% 60% 28% Indi an River 39% 45% 42% 46% Lake 35% 15% 42% 12% Lee 38% 24% 34% 51% 28% 52% Manatee 29% 47% 37% 53% Marion 33% 19% 35% 26% Martin 46% 71% 37% 76% Monroe 46% * 51% * Okaloosa 47% 5% 91% 41% 4% 73% Orange 33% 10% 59% 48% 18% 52% Osceola 37 % 31% 56% 50% Palm Beach 39% 42% 59% 53% Pinellas 33% 33% 45% 38% Polk 28% 28% 40% 52% Santa Rosa 33% 36% 55% * Sumter 33% 56% 44% 75%

PAGE 165

165 Table A 6 . Continued 3 rd Grade Not F/R Lunch Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Reading Reading Reading Math Math Math Alachua 81% 67% 78% 47% Bay 74% 89% 70% 89% Brevard 77% 75% 82% 76% 54% 75% Broward 72% 76% 70% 75% 74% 73% Collier 78% * 76% * Dade 23% 24% 22% 80% 80% 72% Duval 24% 20% 22 % 69% 45% 57% Escambia 23% 5% 72% 86% Flagler 25% 22% 80% 72% Franklin * 10% * 90% Glades 8% 24% 83% 83% Hillsborough 25% 32% 28% 71% 59% 76% Indian River 22% 29% 15% 69% 73% 85% Lake 23% 29% 25% 73% 59% 66% Lee 24% 23% 26% 81% 82% 76% Leon 23% 33% 18% 78% 48% 77% Levy 31% * 70% * Manatee 23% 22% 31% 67% 60% 48% Marion 21% 9% 75% 82% Monroe 25% 21% 70% 66% Okaloosa 26% 28% 74% 78% Orange 22% 26% 80% 75% Osceola 25% 22% 25% 62% 56% 65% Palm Beach 24% 33% 1 6% 74% 79% 60% Pasco 25% 23% 23% 60% 76% 82% Pinellas 23% 28% 33% 67% 68% 73% Polk 24% 27% 72% 85% Putnam 21% 38% 71% 77% St. Lucie 26% 22% 31% 72% 62% 44% Sarasota 24% 30% 24% 80% 50% 77% Seminole 23% 16% 80% 96% Sumter 15% 21% 78% 84% Volusia 76% 63% 73% 72% 53% 68% Wakulla 78% * 75% *

PAGE 166

166 Table A 6 . Continued 4 th Grade Not F/R Lunch Trad EMO HPS Trad EMO HPS Trad EMO HPS County Reading Reading Reading Math Math Math Writing Writing Writing Alachua 80% * 80% 76% 70% * Bay 77% 81% 69% 81% 44% 65% Brevard 80% 95% 77% 73% 95% 70% 57% 42% 50% Broward 76% 76% 78% 76% 72% 69% 63% 57% 59% Collier 80% * 74% * 54% * Dade 78% 80% 69% 79% 76% 71% 62% 55% 42% Duval 73% 72% 62% 75% 54% 56% 51% 34% 32% Escambia 77% 10 0% 74% 100% 56% 77% Flagler 79% 74% 72% 57% 72% 58% Franklin * * * * * * Glades 62% 63% 59% 82% 63% 63% Hillsborough 79% 54% 67% 73% 34% 61% 71% 37% 52% Indian River 79% 71% * 74% 72% * 61% 51% * Lake 74% 63% 70% 74% 59% 72% 57% 31% 46% L ee 80% 75% 845 76% 68% 79% 62% 44% 45% Leon 78% 68% 78% 77% 51% 78% 59% 33% 32% Levy 75% * 70% * 62% * Manatee 75% 69% 80% 70% 48% 60% 52% 38% 45% Marion 71% * 75% * 51% * Monroe 74% 82% 86% 85% 48% 41% Okaloosa 80% 88% 69% 85% 56% 49% O range 82% 78% 79% 70% 57% 50% Osceola 73% 71% 67% 63% 65% 59% 66% 39% 52% Palm Beach 78% 67% 66% 78% 67% 43% 66% 50% 13% Pasco 74% 68% 77% 66% 61% 64% 47% 52% 61% Pinellas 77% 81% 93% 69% 72% 72% 59% 48% 70% Polk 72% 79% 70% 81% 53% 65% Putnam 83% 80% 84% 70% 62% 40% St. Lucie 71% 65% 68% 68% 53% 39% 54% 29% 33% Sarasota 83% 72% 93% 77% 42% 84% 74% 46% 56% Seminole 83% 95% 81% 94% 60% 85% Sumter 79% 86% 79% 86% 62% 78% Volusia 78% 83% 49% 71% 65% 435 54% 61% 29% Wakulla 80% * 76% * 54% *

PAGE 167

167 Table A 6 . Continued 10 th Grade Not F/R Lunch Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Reading Reading Reading Writing Writing Writing Alachua 70% * 71% 7% Bay 60% 47% 67% 54% 30% 49% Broward 57% 46% 40% 68% 51% 36% Charlotte 65% 88% 68% 78% Citrus 60% 88% 67% 75% Collier 55% 59% 66% 59% Dade 58% 59% 47% 67% 61% 45% Duval 48% 33% 63% 35% Escambia 64% 57% 67% 64% Hillsborough 64% 47% 29% 72% 37% 54% Indian River 72% 72% 65% 60% Lake 55 % 14% 58% 30% Lee 57% 29% 76% 63% 40% 75% Manatee 58% 69% 57% 66% Marion 53% 33% 52% 23% Martin 73% 92% 58% 84% Monroe 66% * 64% * Okaloosa 60% * 98% 52% * 88% Orange 56% 11% 69% 63% 15% 67% Osceola 55% 38% 67% 45% Palm Beach 58% 51% 75% 59% Pinellas 57% 64% 69% 61% Polk 50% 65% 59% 56% Sumter 58% 77% 68% 65%

PAGE 168

168 Table A 7 . School District Data by Special Services 3 rd Grade Spec. Services Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County ELL ELL ELL ESE ESE ESE Alachua 2% 0% 13% 15% Bay 2% 1% 18% 14% Brevard 4% 2% 2% 16% 9% 12% Broward 12% 9% 7% 13% 9% 8% Collier 19% 22% 12% 25% Dade 27% 15% 26% 10% 5% 4% Duval 3% 1% 2% 12% 9% 8% Escambia 1% 0% 18% 11% Flagler 3% 0% 12% 5% Franklin 2% 6% 9% 6% Glades 8% 0% 16% 21% Hillsborough 10% 6% 8% 14% 11% 10% Indian River 12% 0% 5% 14% 7% 10% Lake 5% 0% 6% 12% 10% 9% Lee 7% 3% 0% 13% 5% 13% Leon 2% 0% 0% 16% 11% 19% Levy 4% 0% 25% 22% Manatee 14% 1% 16% 18% 16 % 7% Marion 6% 0% 17% 30% Monroe 9% 1% 17% 12% Okaloosa 3% 0% 13% 10% Orange 21% 12% 10% 9% Osceola 21% 14% 14% 9% 3% 7% Palm Beach 16% 4% 10% 14% 16% 7% Pasco 6% 1% 0% 15% 10% 8% Pinellas 7% 0% 1% 11% 3% 6% Polk 15% 11% 10% 7% Putnam 13% 3% 13% 8% St. Lucie 8% 4% 1% 10% 4% 2% Sarasota 8% 4% 3% 15% 7% 11% Seminole 4% 1% 13% 2% Sumter 5% 3% 12% 8% Volusia 7% 6% 6% 15% 3% 7% Wakulla 0% 0% 13% 25%

PAGE 169

169 Table A 7 . Continued 4 th Grade Spec. Services Tradition al EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County ELL ELL ELL ESE ESE ESE Alachua 2% 1% 13% 11% Bay 2% 1% 16% 6% Brevard 3% 3% 1% 17% 17% 14% Broward 9% 8% 6% 13% 8% 10% Collier 11% 8% 11% 5% Dade 23% 14% 21% 10% 5% 6% Duval 3% 4% 2% 12% 6% 6% Escambia 2% 0% 15% 4% Flagler 2% 2% 11% 4% Franklin 2% 0% 22% 29% Glades 2% 0% 12% 13% Hillsborough 14% 7% 8% 14% 15% 11% Indian River 9% 0% 8% 15% 11% 3% Lake 4% 0% 2% 10% 10% 10% Lee 5% 3% 0% 13% 6% 11% Leon 2% 3% 0% 14% 9% 19% Levy 3% 0% 21% 30% Manatee 11% 0% 7% 16% 15% 14% Marion 6% 0% 17% 32% Monroe 8% 2% 16% 11% Okaloosa 2% 0% 14% 9% Orange 18% 14% 10% 9% Osceola 20% 14% 11% 9% 5% 7% Palm Beach 13% 2% 5% 14% 14% 14% Pasco 4% 4% 0% 14% 7% 9% Pinellas 7% 1% 1% 11% 6% 7% Polk 14% 7% 9% 8% Putnam 7% 0% 14% 19% St. Lucie 7% 1% 6% 10% 6% 6% Sarasota 8% 3% 2% 14% 10% 11% Seminole 4% 0% 14% 6% Sumter 4% 4% 15% 8% Volusia 7% 1% 3% 15% 8% 9% Wakulla 0% 0% 10% 20%

PAGE 170

170 Table A 7 . Continued 10 th Grade Spec. Services Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County ELL ELL ELL ESE ESE ESE Alachua 1% 0% 15% 40% Bay 1% 0% 0% 10% 27% 7% Broward 6% 2% 4% 8% 7% 8% Charlotte 1% 0% 14% 1% Citrus 1% 0% 11% 0% Collier 7 % 0% 12% 9% Dade 12% 9% 6% 9% 5% 8% Duval 3% 5% 10% 11% Escambia 1% 0% 12% 11% Hillsborough 7% 0% 5% 10% 5% 25% Indian River 3% 1% 8% 7% Lake 2% 0% 12% 16% Lee 6% 6% 2% 12% 6% 7% Manatee 3% 1% 14% 9% Marion 2% 0% 13% 8% Martin 4% 0 % 12% 6% Monroe 7% 0% 14% 0% Okaloosa 1% 9% 0% 9% 27% 1% Orange 10% 16% 6% 11% 21% 13% Osceola 10% 10% 10% 10% Palm Beach 6% 4% 11% 10% Pinellas 2% 2% 9% 11% Putnam 6% 2% 10% 8% Sumter 3% 1% 14% 6%

PAGE 171

171 Table A 8 . School District s by FCAT2.0 Passage Rates and Special Services 3 rd Grade ELL Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Reading Reading Reading Math Math Math Alachua 12% * 35% * Bay 20% * 10% * Brevard 25% * * 43% * 58% Broward 24% 55% 34% 34% 73% 57% Collier 19% * 25% * Dade 17% 20% 13% 36% 38% 29% Duval 16% * * 26% * * Escambia 15% * 31% * Flagler 30% * 60% * Franklin * * * * Glades 8% * 8% * Hillsborough 16% * 35% 26% * 54% Indian River 17% * * 32% * * Lake 23% * 11% 33% * 11% Lee 14% * * 22% * 8% Leon * * * 55% * * Levy * * * * Manatee 12% * 7% 16% * 64% Marion 23% * 42% * Monroe 26% * 34% * Okaloosa 10% * 10% * Orange 19% 19% 37% 38% Osceola 16% 12% 22% 24% 19% 50% P alm Beach 14% * 6% 29% * 13% Pasco 10% * * 15% * * Pinellas 18% * * 28% * * Polk 14% 16% 31% 42% Putnam 16% * 39% * St. Lucie 14% * * 30% * * Sarasota 25% * * 39% * 25% Seminole 17% * 32% * Sumter * * * * Volusia 30% * * 29% * * W akulla * * * *

PAGE 172

172 Table A 8 . Continued 4 th Grade ELL Trad EMO HPS Trad EMO HPS Trad EMO HPS County Reading Reading Reading Math Math Math Writing Writing Writing Alachua 6% * 28% * 19 % 8 % Bay * * * * * * Brevard 0% * 23% 33% * 46% 8 % * 29 % Broward 27% 33% 31% 37% 57% 35% 33 % 57% 30% Collier 10% * 22% * 20 % * Dade 28% 30% 36% 40% 41% 35% 29 % 30% 22% Duval 7% * * 35% * * 17 % * * Escambia 27% * 27% * * * Flagler * * * * * * Franklin * * * * * * Glades * * * * * * Hills borough 29% * 33% 32% * 45% 44 % * 42% Indian River 22% * * 25% * * 34 % * * Lake 22% * * 17% * * 45 % * * Lee 11% * * 16% * * 25 % * * Leon * * * * * * * * * Levy * * * * * * Manatee 17% * * 22% * * 22 % * * Marion 18% * 23% * 15 % * Monroe 47% * 75% * 63 % * Okaloosa * * * * * * Orange 33% 13% 37% 11% 31 % 8% Osceola 21% 24% 55% 24% 25% 18% 34 % 11% 41% Palm Beach 22% * * 36% * * 32 % * * Pasco 32% * * 31% * * 44 % * * Pinellas 27% * * 35% * * 47 % * * Polk 24% 23% 34% 36% 38 % 33% Pu tnam 28% * 63% * 29 % * St. Lucie 14% * * 27% * * 44 % * * Sarasota 27% * * 31% * * 47 % * * Seminole 25% * 38% * 23 % * Sumter * * * * * * Volusia 24% * * 26% * * 21 % * * Wakulla * * * * * *

PAGE 173

173 Table A 8 . Continued 10 th Grade ELL Traditi onal EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Reading Reading Reading Writing Writing Writing Alachua 33% * 11% * Bay * * * * Broward 13% * 31 % 29% * 29 % Charlotte * * Citrus * * Collier 7% 18% Dade 11% 11% 10 % 24% 31% 9 % Duval 6% * 32% * Escambia * * 15% * Hillsborough 10% * * 30% * * Indian River * * 5% * Lake 5% 15% Lee 12% 20% * 25% 10% * Manatee 10% * 6% * Marion 5% 30% Martin 14% 34% Monroe 8% 13% Okaloosa * * 0% * Orange 10% * * 28% 10% * Osceola 7% * 30% 0 % Palm Beach 11% 20 % 29% 16 % Pinellas 11% * 28% * Polk 8% * 21% * Sumter * * * *

PAGE 174

174 Table A 8 . Continued 3 rd Grade ESE Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Readi ng Reading Reading Math Math Math Alachua 33% 38% 36% 8% Bay 35% 65% 35% 71% Brevard 38% * * 41% * * Broward 33% 34% 44% 37% 38% 64% Collier 33% * 32% * Dade 16% 9% * 30% 53% * Duval 18% * * 38% * 8% Escambia 15% * 28% * Flagler 11 % * 32% * Franklin * * * * Glades * * * 8% Hillsborough 19% 45% * 30% 45% 0% Indian River 12% * * 28% * * Lake 14% 0% 6% 25% 27% 15% Lee 18% 30% 31% 35% 20% 56% Leon 15% * * 40% * * Levy 17% * 30% * Manatee 17% 18% * 29% 45% * Mar ion 12% 10% 36% 70% Monroe 24% * 36% * Okaloosa 18% * 33% * Orange 15% 25% 28% 58% Osceola 14% * 7% 18% 49% 36% Palm Beach 16% 29% * 34% * * Pasco 17% * * 27% * * Pinellas 20% * * 32% 49% * Polk 13% 25% 23% 36% Putnam 15% * 2 8% * St. Lucie 20% * * 28% * * Sarasota 18% * 60% 28% * 30% Seminole 22% * 42% * Sumter 16% * 49% 47% Volusia 19% * * 19% * 8% Wakulla 47% * 46% *

PAGE 175

175 Table A 8 . Continued 4 th Grade ESE Trad EMO HPS Trad EMO HPS Trad EMO HPS County Reading Reading Reading Math Math Math Writing Writing Writing Alachua 30% 0% 29% 21% 26% * Bay 33% * 31% * 19% * Brevard 39% * 54% 35% * 59% 28% * 12% Broward 36% 43% 49% 41% 29% 45% 35% 28% 34% Collier 30% * 35% * 21% * Dade 26% 39% * 37% 29% 18% 23% 24% * Duval 32% * * 37% * * 24% * * Escambia 26% * 29% * 19% * Flagler 22% * 20% * 25% * Franklin 21% * 36% * 21% * Glades 9% * 0% * 27% * Hillsborough 27% * 20% 27% * 25% 40% * 17% Indian River 21% 30% * 22% 59% * 26% * * L ake 26% 42% 28% 32% 33% 15% 21% * 19% Lee 27% 29% 61% 28% 43% 56% 31% * 39% Leon 39% * * 41% * * 31% * * Levy 23% * 23% * 9% * Manatee 32% * * 33% * * 25% * * Marion 23% * 32% * 15% * Monroe 33% * 51% * 17% * Okaloosa 38% * 37% * 28% * Orange 25% 34% 27% 17% 22% 17% Osceola 21% * * 20% * * 26% * * Palm Beach 31% 41% 20% 38% 30% 20% 33% 36% 20% Pasco 28% * * 27% * * 18% * * Pinellas 30% * * 28% * * 28% * * Polk 14% 29% 23% 30% 20% 21% Putnam 32% * 41% * 25% * St. Lucie 24% * * 28% * * 21% * * Sarasota 31% * * 34% * * 33% * * Seminole 39% * 42% * 28% * Sumter 35% 53% 33% 87% 36% 60% Volusia 22% * * 21% * * 16% * * Wakulla 58% * 39% * 25% *

PAGE 176

176 Table A 8 . Continued 10 th Grade ESE Traditional EMO Hometown Publ ic Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Reading Reading Reading Writing Writing Writing Alachua 18% * 30% * Bay 17% * * 18% * * Broward 22% 34% 14% 37% 47% 24% Charlotte 21% * 32% * Citrus 13% 20% Collier 23% * 37% * Dade 21% 26% * 34% 22% 10% Duval 14% * 32% 0% Escambia 14% * 22% * Hillsborough 22% * 21% 35% * 14% Indian River 18% 40% 18% 50% Lake 15% * 19% * Lee 21% * * 31% * * Manatee 19% 53% 25% 54% Marion 18% * 20% * Martin 31% * 30% * Monroe 34% 38% Oka loosa 39% * * 31% 0% * Orange 21% 10% 50% 30% 2% 60% Osceola 14% 6% 28% 4% Palm Beach 22% 31% 41% 69% Pinellas 21% 8% 28% 5% Polk 11% 6% 19% 9% Sumter 24% * 32% 33%

PAGE 177

177 Table A 9 . School District Data by Teacher Degree 3 rd Grade Tea chers Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree Alachua 45% 56% 52% 42% Bay 69% 79% 29% 21% Brevard 64% 74% 80% 3 4% 26% 19% Broward 58% 72% 72% 39% 27% 27% Collier 59% 70% 39% 25% Dade 52% 82% 84% 40% 17% 15% Duval 72% 74% 77% 27% 24% 23% Escambia 66% 81% 32% 19% Flagler 67% 89% 32% 11% Franklin 83% 76% 15% 24% Glades 98% 70% 2% 30% Hills borough 73% 92% 79% 27% 8% 20% Indian River 72% 75% * 25% 25% * Lake 69% 100% 74% 30% 0% 25% Lee 68% 94% 77% 31% 5% 22% Leon 62% 98% 71% 35% 2% 29% Levy 71% 88% 27% 13% Manatee 58% 80% 77% 39% 20% 23% Marion 73% 83% 25% 17% Monroe 57% 69% 43% 31% Okaloosa 61% 73% 36% 25% Orange 71% 80% 28% 20% Osceola 70% 96% 74% 28% 4% 25% Palm Beach 75% 100% 100% 24% 0% 0% Pasco 71% 72% 93% 29% 28% 7% Pinellas 67% 79% 77% 32% 21% 23% Polk 76% 74% 23% 24% Putnam 76% 85% 23% 15% St. Lucie 71% 100% 91% 28% 0% 9% Sarasota 43% 84% 84% 57% 15% 16% Seminole 57% 78% 41% 20% Sumter 75% 76% 24% 24% Volusia 65% * 79% 34% * 21% Wakulla 74% 56% 25% 44%

PAGE 178

178 Table A 9 . Continued 4 th Grade Teachers Traditional EMO Hometown P ublic Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree Alachua 45% 56% 52% 42% Bay 69% 79% 27% 21% Brevard 64% 74% 80% 35% 24% 19% Broward 58% 78% 69% 40% 22% 30% Collier 59% 70% 39% 25% Dade 52% 82% 84% 40% 17% 15% Duval 72% 74% 77% 27% 24% 23% Escambia 66% 81% 32% 19% Flagler 67% 89% 32% 11% Franklin 83% 76% 15% 24% Glades 82% 70% 4% 30% Hillsborough 73% 90% 79% 27% 10% 20% Indian River 72% 75% * 25% 25% * Lake 69% 100% 74% 30% 0% 25% Lee 68% 94% 77% 31% 5% 22% Leon 62% 98% 71% 35% 2% 29% Levy 71% 88% 27% 13% Manatee 58% 80% 77% 39% 20% 23% Marion 72% 83% 27% 17% Monroe 57% 69% 43% 31% Okaloosa 61% 73% 36% 25% Orange 71% 80% 28% 20% Osceola 70% 92% 77% 28% 8% 22% Palm Beach 75% 100% 100% 24% 0% 0% Pasco 71% 72% 93% 29% 28% 7% Pinellas 67% 79% 77% 32% 21% 23% Polk 76% 74% 23% 24% Putnam 76% 85% 23% 15% St. Lucie 71% 100% 91% 28% 0% 9% Sarasota 43% 84% 84% 57% 15% 16% Seminole 57% 78% 41% 20% Sumter 75% 76% 24% 24% Volusia 65% * 79% 34% * 21% Wakulla 74% 56% 25% 44%

PAGE 179

179 Table A 9 . Continued 10 th Grade Teachers Traditional EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree Alachua 48% 85% 45% 10% Bay 64% 71% 20% 33% 29% 70% Broward 52% 78% 68% 44% 21% 26% Charlotte 57% 77% 40% 23% Citrus 61% 25% 37% 75% Collier 53% 40% 44% 20% Dade 50% 68% 67% 36% 26% 31% Duval 65% 77% 32% 23% Escambia 57% 83% 40% 17% Hillsborough 65% 33% 80% 35% 67% 14% Indian River 63% 53% 35% 47% Lake 60% 56% 37% 44% Lee 64% 81% 72% 32% 17% 26% Manatee 50% 57% 44% 42% Marion 66% 67% 31% 33 % Martin 69% 0% 29% 83% Monroe 58% * 38% * Okaloosa 56% 60% 0% 42% 33% 100% Orange 68% 75% 75% 29% 25% 24% Osceola 57% 49% 39% 43% Palm Beach 70% 100% 28% 0% Pinellas 62% 76% 36% 24% Polk 67% 77% 31% 21% Sumter 72% 76% 28% 24%

PAGE 180

180 Table A 10 . School District Data by Teacher Experience 3 rd Grade Teach Experience Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Alachua 12.57 6.7 Bay 13.05 5.5 Brevard 13.08 7.1 5 Broward 14.46 5.3 8.6 Collier 11.99 5 Dade 11.24 1.8 1.1 Duval 11.78 2 3.3 Escambia 9.93 6.2 Flagler 12.24 3.2 Franklin 11.5 5.9 Glades 9.00 15 Hillsborough 11.12 1.7 1.1 Indian River 13.49 10.2 * Lake 12.08 6 8 Lee 12.68 3.3 3.7 Leon 13.37 4.2 7.8 Levy 14.35 4 Manatee 12.4 6.3 6.4 Marion 13.05 7.1 Monroe 14.51 5.3 Okaloosa 14.48 6.4 Orange 10.96 4 Osceola 10.49 2.6 5.6 Palm Beach 11.64 7.2 5.4 Pasco 11.15 4 6.4 Pinellas 14.15 1.3 5.9 Polk 11.53 8 Putnam 13.21 7.5 St. Lucie 12.02 2.2 4.8 Sarasota 14.18 3.9 6.2 Seminole 13.18 9.7 Sum ter 12.6 6.6 Volusia 13.99 * 3.6 Wakulla 13.53 0

PAGE 181

181 Table A 10 . Continued 4th Grade Teach Experience Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Alachua 12.57 7.53 Bay 13.05 5.50 Brevard 13.21 7.06 4.95 Broward 14.60 4.43 9.23 Collier 12.07 5 .00 Dade 11.43 1.84 1.15 Duval 11.78 2 3.28 Escambia 9.93 6.22 Flagler 12.24 3.15 Franklin 11.50 5.90 Glades 9.00 15 Hillsborough 11.20 1.73 1.06 Indian River 13.49 10.2 * Lake 12.08 6 9.58 Lee 12.68 3.34 3.70 Leon 13.37 4.2 7.80 Levy 14.35 4.00 Manatee 12.40 6.33 6.40 Marion 13.05 7.10 Monroe 14.51 6.67 Okaloosa 13.97 6.40 Orange 10.96 4.09 Osceola 10.49 2.96 4.95 Palm Beach 11.85 7.23 5.35 Pasco 11.15 4 6.35 Pinellas 14.08 1.26 6.46 Polk 11.53 7.96 Putnam 13.21 7.50 St. Lucie 12.02 2.2 4.80 Sarasota 14.18 3.85 6.15 Seminole 14.07 9.65 Sumter 12.60 6.60 Volusia 13.99 * 3.60 Wakulla 13.53 0.00

PAGE 182

182 Table A 10 . Continued 10 th Grade Teach Experience Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Alachua 15.57 6.83 Bay 14.76 2.9 1.50 Broward 15.39 3.06 5.40 Charlotte 15.26 2.20 Citrus 13.40 14.00 Collier 12.03 1.60 Dade 11.65 1.58 0.48 Duval 11.56 4.33 Escambia 11.08 1.70 Hillsborough 12.49 .30 2.23 Indian River 16.10 11.40 Lake 10.23 11.60 Lee 13.37 4. 7 7.76 Manatee 13.03 9.90 Marion 12.68 13.80 Martin 11.24 8.40 Monroe 12.44 * Okaloosa 14.49 4.7 9.80 Orange 10.81 3.1 3.53 Osceola 11.71 5.35 Palm Beach 12.73 5.88 Pinellas 13.51 6.87 Polk 12.55 8.35 Sumter 8.90 6.60

PAGE 183

183 Table A 1 1 . School District Data by Revenue and Expenditure 3 rd Grade Expenditures Traditional EMO Hometown Public Tradition al EMO Hometow n Public County Per Pupil Revenue Per Pupil Revenue Per Pupil Revenue % Revenue on Instruction % Revenue on Instruction % Rev enue on Instruction Alachua $9,319 $6,893 69% 50% Bay $5,970 $7,690 66% 50% Brevard $8,219 $5,314 $8,290 71% 26% 51% Broward $8,926 $8,455 $8,404 78% 53% 45% Collier $11,310 $5,012 67% 38% Dade $9,497 $8,093 $7,200 75% 47% 50% Duval $8,543 $7,220 $7,558 77% 50% 51% Escambia $8,901 $6,611 69% 54% Flagler $9,418 $6,762 76% 44% Franklin $9,418 $7,539 76% 63% Glades $7,387 $7,501 98% 49% Hillsborough $9,372 $6,976 $7,895 70% 16% 54% Indian River $6,956 $7,914 $7,465 98% 330% 44% Lake $8,282 8,041 $6,895 73% 70% 68% Lee $9,682 $8,041 $7,066 68% 232% 45% Leon $9,356 $22,355 $6,836 59% 45% 67% Levy $8,820 $7,584 68% 65% Manatee $9,607 $7,092 $7,143 67% 43% 61% Marion $8,439 $6,433 68% 65% Monroe $13,975 $8,938 60% 54% Okaloosa $8,499 $6,683 69% 61% Orange $10,348 $7,507 56% 57% Osceola $9,342 $9,008 $6,297 67% 126% 58% Palm Beach $9,620 $6.799 $7,667 67% 145% 57% Pasco $8,759 $6,343 $7,484 70% 152% 55% Pinellas $9,279 $6,751 6,851 70% 79% 62% Polk $8,7 02 $8,657 79% 66% Putnam $8,837 $6,720 67% 69% St. Lucie $9,170 $6,439 $6,110 64% 175% 46% Sarasota $12,026 $7,878 $8,610 74% 46% 50% Seminole $8,012 $7,413 72% 56% Sumter $8,915 $9,170 101% 52% Volusia $8,826 $6,436 $8,330 66% 53% 53% W akulla $8,163 $7,189 60% 50%

PAGE 184

184 Table A 11 . Continued 4 th Grade Expenditures Traditional EMO Hometown Public Tradition al EMO Hometow n Public County Per Pupil Revenue Per Pupil Revenue Per Pupil Revenue % Revenue on Instruction % Revenue on Instructi on % Revenue on Instruction Alachua $9,320 $6,884 69% 65% Bay $9,083 $7,690 66% 50% Brevard $8,219 $6,247 $8,290 71% 52% 51% Broward $8,926 $8,512 $8,145 78% 46% 455 Collier $11,310 $5,012 67% 38% Dade $9,497 $7,951 $7,200 75% 48% 50% Duval $ 8,543 $7,993 $7,558 77% 48% 51% Escambia $8,901 $6,611 69% 54% Flagler $9,419 $6,762 76% 44% Franklin $9,418 $7,540 76% 63% Glades $7,387 $22,355 98% 72% Hillsborough $9,372 $7,014 $7,895 70% 49% 54% Indian River $6,956 $7,502 $7,978 98% 47% 48% Lake $8,282 $9,125 $6,792 73% 46% 72% Lee $9,682 $8,727 $7,066 68% 47% 455 Leon $9,358 $6,445 $6,836 59% 44% 67% Levy $8,822 $7,585 68% 65% Manatee $6,394 $6,947 $7,143 67% 47% 61% Marion $8,439 $6,433 68% 65% Monroe $13,975 $8,983 60% 55% Okaloosa $8,499 $6,683 69% 61% Orange $10,348 $6,638 56% 56% Osceola $9,342 $6,465 $6,185 67% 49% 54% Palm Beach $9,620 $7,417 $7,667 67% 44% 56% Pasco $8,759 $6,843 $7,484 70% 51% 55% Pinellas $9,279 $6,437 $6,909 70% 57% 60% Polk $8,702 $8,6 57 79% 66% Putnam $8,837 $6,721 67% 69% St. Lucie $9,171 $6,347 $6,110 64% 47% 46% Sarasota $12,026 $7,878 $8,610 74% 47% 48% Seminole $8,013 $7,413 72% 56% Sumter $8,915 $9,171 100% 52% Volusia $8,826 $6,985 $8,330 66% 47% 53% Wakulla $8,163 $7,190 60% 50%

PAGE 185

185 Table A 11 . Continued 10 th Grade Expenditures Tradition al EMO Hometown Public Traditional EMO Hometown Public County Per Pupil Revenue Per Pupil Revenue Per Pupil Revenue % Revenue on Instruction % Revenue on Instructio % Revenue o n Instruction Alachua $9,319 $7,323 69% 50% Bay $9,078 $5,749 $6,293 66% 46% 65% Broward $8,926 $6,810 $10,093 78% 43% 38% Charlotte $9,349 $6,380 63% 47% Citrus $9,216 $6,012 62% 75% Collier $11,310 $14,912 67% 38% Dade $9,497 $7,405 $7,89 1 75% 46% 46% Duval $8,543 $8,162 77% 43% Escambia $8,901 $6,538 69% 50% Hillsborough $9,372 $5,841 $9,234 70% 40% 50% Indian River $6,956 $6,679 98% 63% Lake $8,282 $6,571 73% 43% Lee $9,682 $6,474 $13,260 68% 41% 44% Manatee $6,394 $6,868 67% 59% Marion $8,439 $6,145 68% 64% Martin $9,687 $7,431 66% 57% Monroe $13,975 $7,138 60% 62% Okaloosa $8,499 $6,870 $6870 69% 45% 45% Orange $10,348 $6,639 $6,517 56% 41% 53% Osceola $9,342 $5,630 67% 54% Palm Beach $9,620 $8,501 67% 55% Pinellas $9,279 $9,556 70% 39% Polk $8,702 $7,699 79% 53% Sumter $8,915 $9,171 100% 52%

PAGE 186

186 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abdulkadiroglu, Atila, Josh Angrist, Sara Cohodes, Susan Dynarski, Jon Fulleron, The Boston Foundation , 2009 retrieved March 25, 2014 from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~pfpie/pdf/InformingTheDebat e_Final.pdf http://www.achievementfirst.org/results/across achievement first/ . ACT Re Bases Student Achievement Gaps Grow http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/RaceEthnicityReport.pdf Schools Journal of Education Finance 38, no. 2 (2012): 170 176. gaps where schools stil l fail our children executive summary.pdf. Angrist, Joshua D., Parag A. Pathak, and Christopher R. Walters. "Explaining Charter School Effectiveness." American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 5, no. 4 (2013): 1 27. Effects of Charter School Competition on School Educational Administration Quarterly 48, no. 1 (2012): 3 38. Journal of Special Educat ion Leadership 17, no. 2 (2004): 71 81. American Journal of Education 116, no. 3 (2010): 303 335. Bett Economics of Education Review 24, no. 2 (2005): 133 147. Evidence from North Caroli Education Finance and Policy 1, no. 1 (2006): 50 90.

PAGE 187

18 7 Journal of School Choice 1, no. 4 (2007): 89 108. Buckley, Jack and Sattin Bajaj, Carol Charter Schools? Demographic Trends in New York City, 2006 Journal of School Choice 5 , no. 1 (2011). Budde, Ray. Education by Charter: Restructuring School Districts. Key to Long Term Continuing Improveme nt in American Education. Andover, MA: Publication Sales, 1988. Economics of Education Review 31 (2012): 254 267. Carmines, Edward G. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 1979. International Journal of Educational Reform 20, no. 1 (2011): 33 56. Carruthers, Cele Economics of Education Review 31, no. 2 (2011): 280 292. Evidence cessed October 9, 2013. http://www.crpe.org/our story . Chung, Jae Young, In School: Synthesizing Standardized Mean Kedi Journal of Education al Policy 6, no.1 (2009): 61 80. Cohen, Barry H. Explaining Psychological Statistics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008. Cohen, Jacob, Patricia Cohen, Stephen G. West, and Leona S. Aiken. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for Be havioral. Sciences. New York: Routledge, 2013. Education Finance and Policy 8, no. 1 (2013): 14 42. Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/AR_CHARTER%2 0SCHOOL%20REPORT_CR EDO_2009.pdf .

PAGE 188

188 Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/AZ_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CR EDO_2009.pdf . Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 fr om http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/CA_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CR EDO_2009.pdf Center for Research on Educatio n Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/CO_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CR EDO_2009.pdf , Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 fromhttp://credo.stanford.edu/reports/DC_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT _CREDO_2009.pdf. Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/repo rts/FL_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CR EDO_2009.pdf . Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/GA_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CR EDO_2009.pdf . Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved Marc h 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/IL_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CRE DO_2009.pdf . Center for Resear ch on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2012) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/IN_State_Report_CREDO_%202011.pdf . Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2014) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/L os_Angeles_report_2014_FINAL_000.pdf .

PAGE 189

189 Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2013) retrieved March 29, 2014 from https://credo.stanford.edu/documents/MAReportFinal.pdf . Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2013) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/MI_report_2012_FINAL_1_11_2013_no_watermar k.pdf . Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford Univer sity (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MN_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CR EDO_2009.pdf. Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved Ma rch 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MO_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CR EDO_2009.pdf. Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/NC_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CR EDO_2009.pdf . Center for Research on Education Out comes at Stanford University (2009) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/OH_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CR EDO_2009.pdf . Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2011) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/re ports/PA%20State%20Report_20110404_FINAL.pdf . Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (2011) retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/TX_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REP ORT_CR EDO_2009.pdf. Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University , 2013 retrieved March 29, 2014 from http ://credo.stanford.edu/documents/NCSS%202013%20Executive%20Summary .pdf Creswell, John W. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . California: Sage, 2013.

PAGE 190

190 F ree Market Foundation . (2011) accessed from http://www.freemarketfoundation.com/issues/improve schooling let in the entrepreneurs . Urban Lawyer 44, no. 1 (2012): 37 83. Nature, Society, and Thought 19, (2006): 194 200. Excuses Charter S 2014 from http://edcommentary.blogspot.com/p/no excuses charter movement.html . 8 Facility with Single Gender Core Palm Beach Post . April 30, 2013. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 26. (2009): 487 491. Fiala, Thomas J. Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) , ED510611 (2010), 30. https://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/Charter_Schools/Directory/defaul t.aspx. Florida Constitution, Education, Article IX. from http://fcat.fldoe.org/hand bk/fcathandbook.asp. https://app1.fldoe.org/fcatdemographics/https://app1.fldoe.org/fcatdemographics/. Florida Department of Educa http://www.fldoe.org/fefp/redtoc.asp. essed March 14, 2014 from http://fcat.fldoe.org/fcat2/.

PAGE 191

191 Accessed October 10, 2013. http://www.fcat.fldoe.org . Florida Department A ccessed Oct 9, 2013. http://www.fldoe.org/fefp/pdf/fefpdist.pdf. Accessed October 10, 2013. http://www.fldoe.org/asp/hsap/hsap9000.asp#1996 . http://doeweb prd.d oe.state.fl.us/eds/nclbspar/year1112/main1112.cfm. Comparison of the Performance of Charter School Students with Traditional 2013. https://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/pdf/Charter_Student_Achievement_2012.pdf Florida Department of Education Office of Independent Education and Parental Choice. http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/Charter_Schools/ Florida K 12 Education Code XLVIII. Assessment and Accountability. §1008.22 Florida K 12 Education Code XLVIII. Charter Schools. §1002.33 Florida K 12 Education Code XLVIII. Charter Schools . §1002.33(2)(a)1 Florida K 12 Education Code XLVIII. Planning and Budgeting . §1011.62. Florida K 12 Education Code XLVIII. Uniform Records and Accounts . §1010.01. Kappa Delta Phi Record 47, no. 3, (2011). Frankenberg, Erica, Genevieve Siegel Education Policy Analysis Archives 19, no.1 (2011). School Effectiveness: Guidelines for Educational ERIC/TIME Report , 93 (1987). Economics and the Public Interest (1955). Accessed October 4, 2013. http://www.edchoice.org/The Friedmans/The Friedmans on School Choice/The Role of Government in Education %281995%29.aspx

PAGE 192

192 Friedman, Milton and Rose D. F The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. ( 1980) Accessed from http://www.edchoice.org/The Friedmans/The Friedmans on School Choice/What s Wrong with Our Schools .aspx. Furgeson, Joshua, Brian Gill, Joshua Haimson, Alexandria Killwakd, Moria McCullough, Ira Nichols Barrer, Bing ru Teh, Natalya Verbitsky Savitz, Melissa Bowen, School Management Organizations Diverse Strategies and Diverse Student The Center on Reinventing Public Education and Mathematica Policy Research . Retrieved July 10, 2013. http://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/pub_cmofinal_Jan12_0.pdf Gay, L. R. and P. Airasian. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis an d Application. Englewood Cliffs, NE: Prentce Hall, 2000. Gleason, Philip, Melissa Clark, Christina Clark Tuttle, Emily Dwoyer, and Marsha Institute of Education Sciences , (2010) retrieved March 25, 2014 from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104029/pdf/20104030.pdf .; The Cato Journal 32, no. 3 (2012 ): 557 579. Journal of Public Economics 91, no. 5/6 (2007): 823 848. rivate Solutions: School Choice and Its The Cato Journal 25, no. 2 (2005): 197 215. Education Week 29, no. 19 (2010): 18 21. Schools and Regular Schools in the United U.S. Department of Education , 2004, Accessed from http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/cache/docume nts/4848.pdf The Review of Economics and Statistics 32, no.2 (2011): 416 435. al Practice of https://na.theiia.org/standards guidance/Public%20Documents/IPPF%202013%20English.pdf.

PAGE 193

193 Education Digest 75, no. 9 (2010). Education and Urban Society 45, no. 4 (2011): 459 482. Johnson, Burke. Educational Researcher 30, no. 2 (2001). A Glossary of Political and Economic Terms. Accessed October 9, 2013. http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/ allocation. A Glossary of Political and Economic Terms. Accessed October 9, 2013. http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/efficiency. ccessed September 30, 2013. http://www.kipp.org/question3. Kirk, Roger E. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. California: SAGE, 1995. Education Evolving (200 5):1 3. The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement . Accessed October 4, 2013. http://www.centerforcsri.org/pubs/restructuring/KnowledgeIssues3Contracting.pdf Journal for Critical Educ ation Policy 7, no. 2 (2013): 127 153. Levy, Roger. Probabilistic Models in the Study of Language. Unpublished Book, University of California, San Diego, 2012. Laws of Minnesota, Chapter 265 § (9)3, (1991). Journal for Critical Education Policy 7, no 1 (2009); 365 381. Childhood Educa tion 89, no. 2 (2013): 99.

PAGE 194

194 International Journal of Educational Reform 20, no. 3 (2011): 192. and influence in Oxford Review of Education 39, no. 4 (2013): 498 513. and Unintended Consequences of Competition Based Educational Reform American Journal of Education 111, no. 4 (2005): 464 486. Macfie, Brian P. and Philip M. Nufrio. Applied Statistics for Public Policy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2006. h Oxford Review of Economic Policy 21, no. 3 (2005): 357 372. dissertation, Harvard University, 2010. Mason, Emanuel J. and William J. Bramble. Understanding and Conducting Research: Applications in Education and Behavioral Sciences. University of Minnesota: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1989. CATO Institutie: Policy Analysis 542, (2005): 1 20 Accessed from http://www.cato.org/publications/policy analysis/corruptio n public schools market is answer . Journal of School Choice 3, no. 2 (2009): 138. Arkansas Open Enrollment Charter Journal of Education Finance 38, no. 4 (2013): 320 242. Profit and Nonprofit Education Management Organizations: Fourteenth Edition 2011 National Educ ation Policy Center . (2013) http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/EMO profiles 11 12. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools . October 9, 2013. http://www.publiccharters.org/About Charter Schools/How Charters Perform.aspx

PAGE 195

195 April 22, 2014, http://www.publiccharters.org/get the facts/law database /. 9, 2013. http://www.publiccharters.org/About Charter Schools/Why Chart er Schools003F.aspx . America's Charter Schools: Results From the NAEP 2003 Pilot Study Accessed September 30, 2012 from htt p://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/charter/2005456.aspx . http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cnj.asp N http://nichcy.org/disability/categories . of Charter Schools on Student Composition in Educational Policy 26, no. 2 (2012): 215 242. Economics and Education Review 31, no. 5 (2012): 835 849. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. PL 107 110, Title 1, Sec. 1001. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evalua tion 8, no. 2 (2002): 1 5. Accessed from http://www.ronpaul.com/2013 05 27/ron paul we need a free market in education/ . Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University . Accessed July 10, 2013. http://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/CGAR %20Growth%20Executive%20Summary.pdf Innovation in District Context: Comparing Traditional Public Schools and Charter Economics of Education Review 31, no. 2 (2012): 31 8 330.

PAGE 196

196 Privitera, Gregory J. Statistics for Behavioral Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2012. Roots in History . Accessed April 13, 2014 from http://www .pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/roots_in_history/choice.html. http://www.rand.org/conten t/dam/rand/pubs/corporate_pubs/2007/RAND_CP472 2007 10.pdf Ravitch, Diane. The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education. Basic Books, 2011. Faces of Poverty 70, no. 8 (2013): 10 16. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 . Section 504. 29 U.S.C. 794. The SAGE Handbook of Quantitative Methods in Pyschology, ed. Roger E. Millsap and Alberto May deu Olivares. California: SAGE Publications Inc., 2009. Economic Policy Insititute, (2012). Accessed October 10, 2013. http://www.epi.org/publichation/educational inequality racial segregation significance/ . Education Finance and Policy . (2006): 9 1 122. Access for Students with Disabilities: Report to Congressional Requesters GAO US Government Accountability Office . Accessed October 10, 2013. http://www .gao.gov/assets/600/591435. The Clearing House 76, no. 1 (2002): 8 12.

PAGE 197

197 of Internal A https://na.theiia.org/standards guidance/Public%20Documents/IPPF%202013%20English.pdf. The Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts ( Harvard University Press, 1929). Accessed September 30, 2013. http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/docs/DeluderSatan.pdf . http://www.whiteho use.gov/issues/education/k 12 . http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/reform . The Objective Standard 8, no. 4 (2013): 32 48. Interchange 43, no. 4 (2013): 295 316. Cathie Marsh Centre for Census and Survey Research, accessed April 20, 2014, http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/publications/teaching/mlr.pdf . Tuttle, Christina C., Brian Gill, Phili p Gleason, Virginia Knechtel, Ira Nichols Barrer, Mathematica Policy Research , 2013, retrieved from http://www.kipp.org/files/dmfile/2013_Mathematica_KIPP_Executive_Summary1. pdf . Uline, Cynthia L. Daniel M. Miller, and Megan tschannen Educational Administration Quarter ly 34, no. 4 (1998): 462 483. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, and National Center for America's Charter Schools: Results From the NAEP 2003 Accessed September 30, 2012. http://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/charter/2005456.aspx Research, More Charter School Level 2013. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d055.pdf. CREDO , 2013. from http://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/CGAR%20Growth%20Volume%20II.pdf

PAGE 198

198 Economics of Education Revie w 31, no. 2 (2012): 213 224. Education Finance and Policy 9, 1 (2014) 59 85. Profit Charter S chools and Students with The Phi Delta Kappan 80, no. 2 0 (1998): 297 304.

PAGE 199

199 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Brittany Larkin is the mother of two children, Jacob and Reese, and the wife of Scott. She graduated fr om the University of Flo egree in early childhood in 2001. She taught in Alachua County Public Schools for nine years with students with varying exceptionalities. During her tenure as a teacher, she was the departme nt chair, new teacher mentor, served on several committees, secured numerous grants, and presented at professional organizations. In 2010, she returned to the University of Florida to earn a doctorate degree in e duca tional l eadership. Working under the s upervision of Dr. Craig Wood, she has been the administrative assistant for the National Education Finance Conference, presented at several professional conferences, published a research article in the Journal of Education Finance , and honed her research s kills in the area of education finance and policy. She graduated with a doctorate in 2014.