Measuring Up



Maryland

Not scored

See a summary of the state’s charter law.

See additional observations about charters in the state and recommendations to support the growth of high-quality charter schools.

What is the state of charter schools in Maryland?

GROWTH INDICATORS

 

 

Score


1. Public school share
 (2013–14)

N/A

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

Number

Percentage

 

Public charter schools

52

4%

 

 


2. Public school student share
 (2013–14)

N/A

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

Number

Percentage

 

Public charter school students

21,397

3%

 

 

3. Students by race and ethnicity (2012–13)

N/A

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

Charters

Traditional

Difference

White

12%

43%

-31%

Black

76%

34%

42%

Hispanic

5%

13%

-8%

Asian

2%

6%

-4%

Other

2%

4%

-2%

Total minority

85%

57%

28%

 

4. Students in special populations (2012–13)

N/A

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

Charters

Traditional

Difference

Free and reduced-price lunch status

53%

44%

9%

Special education status

34%

7%

27%

English learner status

12%

11%

1%

Total special student populations

99%

62%

37%

 

5. Schools by geographic distribution (2011–12)

N/A

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

Charters

Traditional

Difference

City

78%

19%

59%

Suburb

16%

56%

-40%

Town

0%

5%

-5%

Rural

6%

20%

-14%

Total nonsuburban

84%

44%

40%

 

6. Communities with more than 10 percent of students in public charter schools (2012–13)

N/A

weight = 1 | Possible total = 4

 

 

 

Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in public charter schools

1

   
 

7. New public charter schools opened over the past five years  (2009–14)

N/A

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

 

 

 

2009–10

3

Average Annual Open Rate

10.3%

2010–11

9

2011–12

7

2012–13

2

2013–14

3

Total number

24

 

 

 

 

8. Public charter schools closed over the past five years (2008–13)

N/A

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

 

 

 

2008–09

1

Average Annual Closure Rate

2.8%

2009–10

1

2010–11

1

2011–12

0

2012–13

3

Total number

6

 

 

 

 
 

INNOVATION INDICATORS

 

 

Score

9. Public charter schools reporting use of various innovative practices (2011–12)

N/A

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

 

 

 

Extended day (30 minutes or more each day compared to traditional public schools)

23%

Average

10%

Extended year (10 or more days compared to traditional public schools)

0%

Year-round calendar

15%

Independent study

8%

School-to-work

8%

Higher education courses

8%

 
 

QUALITY INDICATORS

 

 

Score

10. Additional days of learning in reading (2007–11)

N/A

weight = 4 | Possible total = 16

 

 

 

Number of additional days of learning in reading

 

 

 

 

11. Additional days of learning in math (2007–11)

N/A

weight = 4 | Possible total = 16

 

 

 

Number of additional days of learning in math

 

 

 

Items Reported But Not Scored

Startups versus conversions (2012–13)

 

Startups

Conversions

 

 

Percentage of a state’s public charter schools

77%

23%

 

 

 

Public charter schools that are independent, associated with a CMO, or associated with an EMO (2010–11)

 

Number

Percentage

 

 

Independent

28

64%

 

 

Charter management organization

12

27%

 

 

Education management organization

4

9%

 

 

 

Charter authorizers (2013–14)

 

Number of authorizers

Number of charter schools

Average number of charters per authorizer

Percentage of the state’s public charters authorized by this type of authorizer

Local education agency

7

52

7

100%

State education agency

Independent charter board

Noneducational government entity

Higher education institution

Nonprofit

 

Virtual public charter schools and students (2012–13)

Number of virtual public charter school students

0

 

 

Percentage of a state’s public charter school student population enrolled
in virtual charter schools

0%

 

 

Number of virtual public charter schools

0

 

 

Percentage of a state’s public charter schools that are virtual charter schools

0%

 

 

 

Health of the Movement Summary

A state’s public charter school movement had to meet two conditions to be scored and ranked in this year’s report. First, the movement had to serve at least 1 percent of the state’s public school students. Second, the state had to participate in the Center for Research on Education Outcomes’ (CREDO) 2013 National Charter School Study so that we had a measure of student academic growth data for its public charter schools in comparison to its traditional public schools. While Maryland’s movement met the first condition, Maryland was not a partner state in CREDO’s 2013 study. Therefore, we did not score and rank Maryland’s public charter school movement in this year’s report.

However, we provided the data we were able to gather below. Based on this information, we offer the following observations:

  • In 2013–14, there were 52 public charter schools and 21,397 public charter school students in Maryland, constituting 4 percent of the state’s public schools and 3 percent of the state’s public school students, respectively.1
  • Public charter schools in Maryland served a higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students (28 percentage points more) and students in special populations (37 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools in 2012–13.
  • Eighty-four percent of public charter schools were located in nonsuburban areas in 2011–12 as compared to 44 percent of traditional public schools.
  • In 2012–13, one community in the state had more than 10 percent of its public school students enrolled in charters.
  • Between 2009–10 and 2013–14, 24 new public charter schools opened in Maryland, a 10.3 percent average annual open rate.
  • Six public charter schools closed in Maryland between 2008–09 and 2012–13, a 2.8 percent average annual closure rate.
  • An average of 10 percent of the state’s public charter schools reported using one of the six innovative practices that we tracked in 2011–12.
  • Seventy-seven percent of the state’s public charter schools were startups, and 23 percent were conversions in 2012–13.
  • In 2010–11, 64 percent of the public charter schools were independently managed, 27 percent were associated with a nonprofit charter management organization, and 9 percent were associated with a for-profit educational management organization.
  • Only local school districts are allowed to authorize in the state. Seven of them had done so as of 2013–14.
  • There were no virtual public charter schools in Maryland in 2012–13.

1Of these 52 schools, six are “transformation schools” that are operated by independent education entities and have a specific theme and a unique curriculum that focuses on college, career, or alternative programming. However, these schools do not have charter contracts. These six schools planned to close or reopen as traditional public schools in 2014.

Recommendations

Maryland has modest populations of public charter schools and public charter school students. To better support the growth of high-quality public charter schools, we encourage the state to change its law to create additional authorizing options, strengthen accountability, increase operational autonomy, and ensure equitable operational funding and equitable access to capital funding and facilities.