Charter School Annual Report 2020
*Insert Official Title Page Here*
Executive Summary
North Carolina state statute requires an annual reporting of charter school performance, impact on
traditional public schools, best practices and other factors. The North Carolina State Board of
Education (SBE), Charter Schools Advisory Board (CSAB), and Office of Charter Schools (OCS)
welcome this opportunity to reflect on the successes and challenges encountered in the charter
sector over the past year, and to chart a path towards high academic outcomes for all students as
embodied in the first two purposes of the charter legislation.
The demand for charter schools continues to grow, as evidenced by the growth in charter
enrollment. More than 110,000 North Carolina students are enrolled in charter schools, totaling
7.6% of the total public school population. This report highlights areas for charter school growth
and improvement, and provides examples of best practices resulting from charter school operations.
Charter schools will need continued support, both in curriculum and instruction as well as financial
resources (i.e. state transportation funding), as they work to eliminate barriers to enrollment and to
provide high-quality academic opportunities for all students. With the funds available through the
23.4 million federal CSP grant in conjunction with the additional $10 million in supplemental
funding offered, OCS is confident that the number of high-quality charter schools serving
economically disadvantaged students will increase.
The North Carolina State Board of Education and the North Carolina General Assembly have each
provided critical supports to ensure accountability, oversight, and autonomy in the state’s 196
charter schools. We look forward to continued partnership to high-quality expanded choices in the
charter sector as charter schools meet measurable student achievement results through its
performance based accountability systems.

1

 Table of Contents

Legislation and Historical Background ................................................................................. 3
Charter School Oversight in North Carolina .......................................................................... 5
Charter School Student Enrollment ....................................................................................... 8
2019 Charter Sector Growth and Sustainability .................................................................... 11
2019 Legislative Updates...................................................................................................... 15
Office of Charter School Updates ........................................................................................ 16
Charter School Academic Performance ............................................................................... 18
Charter School Impact on Local Districts ............................................................................ 44
Ensuring Autonomy and Accountability ............................................................................. 48
Best Practices Resulting from Charter School Operations................................................... 50
Charter Schools Receiving Special Awards and Recognition ............................................... 52
Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 53

2

 Tables and Figures
Table 1. 2019 Charter School Advisory Board Members
Table 2. Office of Charter School Workflows/Responsibilities
Table 3. Charter School Student Demographics
Table 4. Charter Schools Requesting to Implement Weighted Lotteries
Table 5. Charter Schools Approved in 2018 Application Cycle
Table 6. 2019 Charter Renewals
Table 7. 2018-19 School Grades for Charter and Non-Charter Schools
Table 8. 2018-2019 Charter School Performance Grade Trends
Table 9. School Performance Grade Trends: Schools Earning a C or Higher
Table 10. School Performance Grade Trends: Charter Schools Earning a D or F
Table 11. 2018-19 Charter and Non-Charter Growth Comparison
Table 12. Number and Percentage of Schools At or Above 60% Grade Level Proficient and
College/Career Ready
Table 13. Low-Performing/Continually Low-Performing Charter School Trends
Table 14. Number of Charters Approved, Opened, Closed and Total State Funds Allotted
Table 15. LEAs with at Least 13% of Students Enrolled in Charter Schools
Table 16. SBE Districts/Regions and Total Charter Membership
Figure A. School Performance Grade Trends: Number of A & B Charter Schools Since 2014-2015
Figure B. Bar Graph of School Performance Grade Trends of Charter Schools Earning a C or
Higher Over Past Five Years
Figure C. School Performance Grade Trends: Charter Schools Earning a D or F
Figure D. School Performance Grades and the Percentage of ED Students Tested
Figure E. School Performance Grades and the Length of Time in Operation
Figure F. Charter School Growth Trends Over Past Five Years
Figure G. 2018-2019 Charter School Growth Status and Percentage of ED Students Tested
Figure H. Academic Growth with Economically Disadvantaged Students
Figure I. Academic Growth with English Learners
Figure J. Academic Growth with Students with Disabilities
Figure K. Academic Growth with Students of Color
Figure L. Charter School Growth Status and Length of Time in Operation
Figure M. Total Number of LP/CLP Charter Schools - Three Year Trend
Figure N. Percent of Students Scoring a Level 3 or Above on ELA EOC/EOG
Figure O. Percent of Students Scoring a Level 3 or Above on English Language Arts EOG
Figure P. Percent of Students Scoring a Level 3 or Above on English/Language Arts EOG
Figure Q. Percent of Students Scoring a Level 3 or Above on English/Language Arts EOC
Figure R. Percent of Students Scoring a Level 3 or Above on Math EOC/EOG
Figure S. Elementary School Subgroup Comparison
Figure T. Middle School Subgroup Comparison
Figure U. High School Subgroup Comparison
Figure V. Percent of Students Scoring a Level 3 or Above on Science EOC/EOG
Figure W. Elementary School Subgroup Comparison
Figure X. Middle School Subgroup Performance
Figure Y. High School Subgroup Performance
Figure Z. Percent of Students Meeting UNC 2017 ACT Benchmark
Figure AA. Percentage of Public School Students in Membership at Charter Schools
Figure AB. North Carolina State Board of Education Districts
3

 Legislation and Historical Background
In 1996, the North Carolina General Assembly passed the Charter School Act, thereby authorizing
the establishment of “a system of charter schools to provide opportunities for teachers, parents,
pupils, and community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently of
existing schools, as a method to accomplish all of the following:
1. Improve student learning;
2. Increase learning opportunities for all students, with special emphasis on expanded learning
experiences for students who are identified as at-risk of academic failure or academically
gifted;
3. Encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods;
4. Create new professional opportunities for teachers, including the opportunity to be
responsible for the learning at the school site;
5. Provide parents and students with expanded choices in the types of educational
opportunities that are available within the public school system;
6. Hold the schools established under this Part accountable for meeting measurable student
achievement results and provide the schools with a method to change from rule-based to
performance-based accountability systems.”
Current statute sets the parameters for how the system of charter schools must operate. The law
includes the following sections:
§ Purpose of charter schools; establishment of North Carolina Charter Schools Advisory
Board and North Carolina Office of Charter Schools
§ Eligible applicants; contents of applications; submission of applications for approval
§ Opportunity to correct applications; opportunity to address Advisory Board
§ Fast-track replication of high-quality charter schools
§ Final approval of applications for charter schools
§ Review and renewal of charters
§ Material revisions of charters
§ Nonmaterial revisions of charters
§ Charter school exemptions
§ Charter school operation
§ Civil liability and insurance requirements
§ Open meetings and public records
§ Accountability; reporting requirements to State Board of Education
§ Charter school facilities
§ Charter school transportation
§ Admission requirements
§ Charter school nonsectarian
§ Nondiscrimination in charter schools
§ Student discipline
§ Driving eligibility certificates
§ General operating requirements
§ Display of the United States and North Carolina flags and the recitation of the Pledge of
Allegiance
§ Course of study requirements
§ Employment requirements
4

 §
§
§
§
§
§

Identification of low-performing and continually low-performing schools
Causes for nonrenewal or termination; disputes
Dissolution of a charter school
State and local funds for a charter school
Notice of the charter school process; review of charter schools
Operation of NC Pre-K programs

Finally, G.S. 115C-218.110 directs that the State Board “shall report no annually no later than
February 15 to the Joint Legislative Education Oversight Committee on the following:
1) The current and projected impact of charter schools on the delivery of services by the public
schools.
2) Student academic progress in charter schools as measures, where available, against the
academic year immediately preceding the first academic year of the charter schools’
operation.
3) Best practices resulting from charter school operations.
4) Other information the State Board considers appropriate.”
This report addresses this legislated reporting requirement.
Charter School Oversight in North Carolina
North Carolina State Board of Education
Codified in NC General Statute as Article 14A of Chapter 115C (115C-218, et al,) the charter schools
law assigns the State Board of Education the sole authority of charter school oversight in North
Carolina, including but not limited to the approval of charter applications, the approval of material
revisions to the charter agreement, and the renewal of charter agreements.
North Carolina Charter Schools Advisory Board
In 2013, the North Carolina Charter Schools Advisory Board (CSAB) was created in statute, with
four expressed powers and duties:
A. To make recommendations to the State Board of Education on the adoption of rules
regarding all aspects of charter school operation, including timelines, standards, and criteria
for acceptance and approval of applications, monitoring of charter schools, and grounds for
revocation of charters.
B. To review applications and make recommendations to the State Board for final approval of
charter applications.
C. To make recommendations to the State Board on actions regarding a charter school,
including renewals of charters, nonrenewals of charters, and revocations of charters.
D. To undertake any other duties and responsibilities as assigned by the State Board.
The CSAB is comprised of 11 voting members; four appointed by the North Carolina Senate, four
appointed by the North Carolina House of Representatives, two appointed by the State Board of
Education, and the Lieutenant Governor or the Lieutenant Governor’s designee. The
Superintendent of Public Instruction or the Superintendent’s designee, serves as the secretary of the
board and a nonvoting member. Appointed members serve four-year terms, and are limited to
serving no more than eight consecutive years. In 2019, three new members were appointed to the

5

 CSAB to fill vacant positions: Jeannette Butterworth, Joel Ford, and Rita Haire. The entire slate of
CSAB members, their date of appointment, and their term is below.
Table 1. 2019 Charter School Advisory Board Members
Appointed By

First
Name

Last Name

County

Start
Date of
Current
Term

End Date
of Current Appointment
Term

State Board of
Education
Cheryl
State Board of
Education
Alex
Superintendent
- (Non-Voting) Joe

June 30,
Turner
Mecklenburg
2019
2023
June 2019 SBE
June 30,
Quigley
Durham
2017
2021
July 2017 SBE
June 30,
Maimone
Wake
2017
2021
Superintendent
December
Lt. Governor
Lt. Governor
Steven
Walker
Wake
2017
31, 2020
June 30,
House
Bruce
Friend
Wake
2017
2021
SL 2018-139
June 30,
House
Lindalyn Kakadelis
Mecklenburg
2017
2021
SL 2017-75
June 30,
House
Lynn
Kroeger
Union
2017
2021
SL 2017-75
June 30,
House
Heather
Vuncannon Randolph
2019
2023
SL 2019-122
June 30,
Senate
Sherry
Reeves
Pamlico
2017
2021
SL 2017-75
June 30,
Senate
Jeannette Butterworth* Henderson
2019
2021
SL 2018-139
June 30,
Senate
Rita
Haire*
Davidson
2017
2021
SL 2019-233
June 30,
Senate
Joel
Ford*
Mecklenburg
2017
2021
SL 2019-122
*Indicates board members who were appointed to fill unexpired term vacancies in 2019. Their terms
will expire in 2021.
Office of Charter Schools
N.C. General Statute 115C-218(c) stipulates the establishment of the NC Office of Charter Schools,
staffed by an executive director and additional personnel to carry out necessary duties. Pursuant to
state statute, the Office of Charter Schools has the following powers and duties:
A. Serve as staff to the Advisory Board and fulfill any tasks and duties assigned to it by the
Advisory Board.
B. Provide technical assistance and guidance to charter schools operating within the State.
C. Provide technical assistance and guidance to nonprofit corporations seeking to operate
charter schools within the State.
D. Provide or arrange for training for charter schools that have received preliminary approval
from the State Board.
6

 E. Assist approved charter schools and charter schools seeking approval from the State Board
in coordinating services within the Department of Public Instruction.
1. Assist certain charter schools seeking to participate in the NC
prekindergarten program in accordance with G.S. 115C-218.115.
F. Other duties as assigned by the State Board.
The Office of Charter Schools is currently staffed by six consultants, a program assistant, and an
executive director, with office responsibilities divided into multiple workflows, each managed by an
individual consultant. The current division of workflows within the office is as follows (listed
alphabetically):
Table 2. Office of Charter School Workflows/Responsibilities
Workflow
Responsibilities
1. Amendments/Risk Assessment/CSAB
Facilitates process of obtaining approval for
Planning
any modifications to a school’s charter
agreement, manages grievances and complaints
from stakeholders, conducts site visits to
schools falling out of academic, operational, or
financial compliance, and organizes CSAB and
SBE meetings.
2. Applications
Facilitates the new school application process,
provides training to applicants, hires and trains
external evaluators, provides updates to CSAB
members.
3. Communications
Manages all internal and external
communication between the Office of Charter
Schools and the general public.
4. Performance Framework
Facilitates the yearly collection and audit of
documents from schools to ensure compliance
with NC statute, SBE policy, and the Charter
Agreement.
5. Planning Year/Ready-to-Open Process Provides training to newly approved schools
prior to opening, reviews documentation to
ensure compliance with statute, policy, and the
Charter Agreement, provides CSAB with
progress newly approved schools make towards
a successful open.
6. Professional Development
Plans and provides ongoing in-person and
virtual training to currently operating schools.
7. Renewals
Facilitates the charter renewal process.
In addition, OCS consultants provide general guidance and technical support to each charter school
in the state. Best practices indicate that in order to provide the highest quality oversight and support,
the ratio of charter office staff to schools should be approximately one consultant to eight schools.
North Carolina currently has 196 charter schools in operation, and the Office of Charter Schools is
staffed by six consultants, which results in a ratio of one consultant providing support to
approximately 33 schools.

7

 Charter School Student Enrollment
State statute originally capped at 100 the number of charter schools that could operate in the state in
a given school year, but the N.C. General Assembly removed that ceiling in August 2011. Since then,
the number of charter schools in the state has grown from 100 to 196 (as of September 2019). 194
are brick-and-mortar charter schools operating in 67 different local education agencies, and two are
virtual charter schools. Both virtual charter schools have brick-and-mortar headquarters in Durham
county.
According to the second month Average Daily Membership (ADM) figures certified in November
2019, 116,316 students are now being served by charter schools. This represents 7.6% of the total
public school population (1,526,144).
Table 3. Charter School Student Demographics
2018-2019 School Year
Charter
Traditional
All
Race/Ethnicity/Gender
#
%
#
%
#
%
Total White
59,703
54.0%
671,727
47.3%
731,430
47.8%
Total Black
28,676
26.0%
355,201
25.0%
383,877
25.1%
Total Hispanic
11,845
10.7%
262,894
18.5%
274,739
17.9%
Other
10,240
9.3%
131,459
9.2%
141,699
9.3%
Male
55,189
50.0%
730,619
51.4%
785,808
51.3%
Female
55,275
50.0%
690,662
48.6%
745,937
48.7%
Total Enrollment
110,464
100.0% 1,421,281 100.0% 1,531,745 100.0%
A Closer Look at Racial/Ethnic Diversity in Charter Schools
N.C. General Statute 115C-218.45(e) states, “within one year after the charter school begins
operation, the charter school shall make efforts for the population of the school to reasonably
reflect the racial and ethnic composition of the general population residing within the local school
administrative unit in which the school is located or the racial and ethnic composition of the special
population that the school seeks to serve residing within the local school administrative unit in
which the school is located.”
To gain insight on the extent to which charter schools reasonably reflect the areas in which they are
located, charter school racial demographics were compared first to the racial demographics of the
school district in which they are located, and secondly to the racial demographics of the general
population of the county in which they are located. Because the virtual charter schools enroll
students from across the state, they were compared to the state of North Carolina demographics,
instead of the county in which they are headquartered. District demographic data was collected from
the Statistical Profile Online database, and geographic county data was collected from the 2017 U.S.
Census Bureau American Community Survey. Charter schools whose demographics were +/- 10
points of the district or county were considered to “reasonably reflect” the comparison group.

8

 Charter/District Comparisons
White Student Enrollment
Out of 185 schools that were in operation last year, 47 schools (25%) had a White student
enrollment within 10% points of the White student enrollment of the district in which the school is
located.
When comparing White student enrollment to the non-Hispanic White demographics of the general
population, the percentage of charter schools with an enrollment within 10% points of the general
population is 36.8% (68 schools).
Black Student Enrollment
Seventy-nine schools (43%) had a Black student enrollment within 10% points of the Black student
enrollment of the local district.
Seventy-seven schools (42%) had a Black, non-Hispanic student enrollment within 10% points of
the general population of their geographic county.
Special Population Student Enrollment
Students with Disabilities
In the 2018-19 school year, charter schools enrolled 11,455 students with disabilities, which
represented 10.34% of the total charter school enrollment at that time. During the same period,
traditional public schools enrolled 176,837 students with disabilities, which represented 12.53% of
total traditional public school enrollment (not including enrollment at DOJ, NC HHS, and NC DJJ
schools).
English Learners
Based on the October 1, 2018 headcount, charter schools enrolled 3,612 English Learners, and
LEAs enrolled 112, 745 English Learners.
Economically Disadvantaged Students
As of November 2019, charter schools enrolled 22,069 economically disadvantaged students, which
represents 18.8% of total charter school enrollment. Traditional public schools enrolled XX
economically disadvantaged students, which represents XX% of total traditional public school
enrollment.
It is important to note that the ED student data (collected through NCDPI Testing and
Accountability Services) is self-reported by charter schools. While charter schools do certify to
NCDPI that the numbers they report are accurate, some schools have expressed concern that since
they must ask families to self-report income information to verify ED status, the figures may
underrepresent the true ED population in a given school and across all charter schools. Charter
schools that do not participate in the National School Lunch Program, and therefore do not have
that participation rate to use as a proxy for ED status, may be most likely to report figures that
underrepresent the true ED population at their schools. Improvements to this data collection are
being implemented through the Direct Certification System.
Eliminating Barriers to Access
9

 Transportation
N.C. General Statute 115C-218.40 states that a charter school “may provide transportation enrolled
at the school. The charter school shall develop a transportation plan so that transportation is not a
barrier to any student who resides in the local school administrative unit in which the school is
located.”
In 2017, S.L. 2017-57 appropriated $2.5 million to the Charter School Transportation Grant. Grant
awards were available to schools where 50% or more of the student population was economically
disadvantaged. These grant funds were not renewed for the following year. Providing transportation
is a costly endeavor for charter schools, and those providing transportation receive minimal financial
resources to do so. The charter schools providing transportation are often the schools with the most
racially and socioeconomically diverse student populations. The dearth of transportation funds
provided to charter schools often forces schools to make significant financial trade-offs. Adequate
transportation funding is critical to ensuring that charter schools are accessible to all students,
regardless of their ability to provide their own transportation to and from school.
As of November 2019, 98 charter schools (50% of all charter schools in the state) indicated that they
provide bus transportation for students.
61% of schools that have been open for 1-5 years provide bus transportation.
41% of schools that have been open for 6-10 years provide bus transportation.
50% of schools that have been open for 11-15 years provide bus transportation.
33% of schools that have been open for 16-20 years provide transportation.
58% of schools that have been open for 21+ years provide bus transportation.
Child Nutrition
Charter schools in North Carolina are not required to participate in the National School Lunch
Program, however, similar to the transportation plan provision, they are required to have a plan that
ensures that every child who needs lunch provided will receive a meal.
As of November 2019, 61 charter schools (31% of all charter schools) are participants in the
National School Lunch Program.
Weighted Lotteries
The ability to conduct a weighted lottery is codified in G.S. 115C-218.45(g1). Charter schools may
not discriminate in their admissions process on the basis of race, creed, national origin, religion, or
ancestry; however, they are allowed to utilize additional controls to enroll underserved populations,
if supported by the school’s mission.
In 2018, North Carolina was awarded a federal Charter Schools Program grant to increase
educationally disadvantaged student access to high quality charter schools in the state. One
stipulation that North Carolina wrote into the grant application is that subgrantees would agree to
10

 implement a weighted lottery. In 2019, the Office of Charter Schools saw a marked increase in the
number of schools asking to amend their charter to include the use of a weighted lottery. Prior to
2019, six charter schools requested and received permission to implement a weighted lottery. In
2019, that number increased to 21, with nine schools being approved to amend their charter to
include a weighted lottery, and six schools receiving approval to use weighted lotteries after
requesting permission in their original charter applications. The full list of schools with approval to
implement weighted lotteries is below.

Table 4. Charter Schools Requesting to Implement Weighted Lotteries

School Name
Central Park School for Children
Community School of Davidson
Charlotte Lab School
GLOW Academy
Raleigh Oak Charter School
The Exploris School
Moore Montessori Community School
Movement East Charter School
IC Imagine
Willow Oak Montessori
MINA Charter School of Lee County
Evergreen Community Charter
Pocosin Innovative Charter
Alamance Community School
Tillery Charter Academy
Wake Preparatory Academy
East Voyager Academy
Hobgood Charter School
North Raleigh Charter Academy
Wendell Falls Charter
Wilmington School of the Arts

Amendment/Policy
Approval

Original App or
Amendment?

Jan-13
Mar-16
Jan-17
Jan-17
Jul-18
Oct-18
Jan-19
May-19
May-19
Jul-19
Jul-19
Jul-19
Jul-19
Oct-19
Nov-19
Nov-19
Nov-19

Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
Original App
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
Original App
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
Original App
Original App
Original App
Original App

2019 Charter Sector Growth and Sustainability
2018 Charter Application Updates

11

 During the 2018 application cycle, thirty-five applications were submitted for new charter schoolssixteen applications were submitted for Fast-Track Replication or Acceleration. The Office of
Charter Schools screened each application for completeness, and the applicant groups with
incomplete applications were given five days to submit or clarify incomplete items. Of the thirty-five
applications submitted, six applications were withdrawn prior to receiving a recommendation from
the CSAB. Of the remaining 29 applications, fifteen received favorable recommendations from the
CSAB and were approved by the State Board of Education. Three of the fifteen schools requested
and received approval to open on an accelerated timeline. Each of the approved schools is listed
below.
Table 5. Charter Schools Approved in 2018 Application Cycle
School Name
County
Approved Special Request
Alamance Community School
Alamance
N/A
Achievement Charter Academy
Harnett
N/A
CE Academy
Wake
N/A
CFA Community Public Charter
Gaston
Acceleration
Doral Academy of North Carolina
Wake
Replication
Elaine Riddick Charter
Perquimans
N/A
Hobgood Charter Academy
Halifax
Acceleration
MINA Charter School of Lee County Lee
N/A
North Raleigh Charter Academy
Wake
Replication
Pocosin Innovative Charter School
Washington
Acceleration
Revolution Academy
Guilford
N/A
Robert J. Brown Leadership Academy Guilford
N/A
Wake Preparatory Academy
Wake
Replication
Wendell Falls Charter Academy
Wake
Replication
Wilmington School of the Arts
New Hanover
N/A
The three schools approved to open on an accelerated timeline successfully opened in
August/September 2019, and 11 of the 12 approved schools are in their planning year. One school,
Robert J. Brown Leadership Academy, elected to relinquish their charter prior to beginning the
planning year process.
2019 Charter Application Updates
Prior to the 2019 charter application cycle, the CSAB recommended a number of changes to the
application timeline and process to the State Board of Education. Among them, a separate, earlier
deadline for Fast-Track and Acceleration applications, and a stipulation that applications requesting
Fast-Track or Acceleration only be considered for opening on an accelerated timeline, as opposed to
being considered to open on a traditional timeline, should they not meet the requirements for FastTrack Replication or Acceleration. The State Board of Education approved the recommended
changes to the charter application timeline and process at its April 2019 meeting.
During the 2019 application cycle, five applications were submitted for Fast-Track Replication or
Acceleration, and fourteen applications were submitted for the Traditional timeline. Of the five
applications submitted to open on an accelerated timeline, one received approval from the State
Board of Education. The CSAB has conducted a preliminary review of the fourteen applications
submitted for the Traditional timeline, and nine were invited for full interviews. The CSAB will
12

 conduct full interviews and forward their recommendations to the SBE by their April meeting, per
SBE policy CHTR-012. The SBE will make final decisions regarding approval by August 15.
Eleven of the nineteen applications were for schools in urban districts and surrounding areas:
§ Mecklenburg County (6 applicants)
§ Wake County (2 applicants)
§ Guilford County (2 applicants)
§ Durham County (1 applicants)
2019 Ready-to-Open Updates
In 2018-19, 16 schools participated in the Planning Year process. Two of the sixteen schools
requested a one-year delay, and were approved delay their opening until 2020. Fourteen schools
completed the Planning Year process and were deemed Ready-to-Open. These schools opened in
the fall of 2019. Of the fourteen schools that opened, ten opened with fewer than 75% of their
approved ADM. The chart contained in Appendix X outlines each of the fourteen schools that
opened, the approved year 1 maximum enrollment, the initial year 1 enrollment requested in the
charter application, the self-reported enrollment as of September 2019, the school’s breakeven
enrollment number, their actual month 1 funded ADM, and the funded percentage of the school’s
approved or amended maximum enrollment.
2019 Charter Renewal Updates
Thirty-two schools were considered for renewal in 2019. The SBE-approved renewal policy is in
Appendix X. Of the 32 schools considered for renewal, the CSAB recommended a ten-year renewal
for 21 schools, a seven-year renewal for two schools, a five-year renewal for one school, a three-year
renewal for 7 schools, and non-renewal for one school. With the exception of two schools, the SBE
accepted all of the CSAB’s recommendations. The two ALS alternative high schools were
recommended to receive 10-year renewals but were approved for 7-year renewals by the NC State
Board of Education, with the stipulation that the OCS develop a framework for evaluating the
success of schools with alternative status.
Table 6. 2019 Charter Renewals
SBE-Approved Renewal Term
10 Years

School Name
American Renaissance School
Anderson Creek Academy
Cardinal Charter
Envision Science Academy
Evergreen Community
Forsyth Academy
Greensboro Academy
Invest Collegiate - Imagine
Quest Academy
Raleigh Charter High School
Research Triangle Charter
South Brunswick Charter
The Franklin School of Innovation
The Mountain Community School

13

 7 Years

5 Years
3 Years

Non-Renewal

Thomas Jefferson Classical Academy
Vance Charter School
Wake Forest Charter School
Wayne Preparatory Academy
Wilson Preparatory Academy
Bradford Preparatory School
Commonwealth High School (Alternative High School)
Pioneer Springs Community School
Stewart Creek High School (Alternative High School)
The Capitol Encore Academy
A.C.E. Academy
Carter Community Charter
Dillard Academy
Haliwa-Saponi Tribal School
Lakeside Charter Academy
Reaching All Minds Academy
United Community Charter
Charlotte Learning Academy

2020 Charter Renewal Updates
Nineteen schools are being considered for renewal in 2020. The CSAB voted on renewal
recommendations for each school in December 2019, and their recommendations will be forwarded
to the SBE in January 2020.
Charter School Closure and Relinquishment Updates
Due to low academic performance, Charlotte Learning Academy was recommended for a
nonrenewal of its charter and closed effective June 30, 2019.
The non-profit board operating Hope Charter Academy voted to relinquish their charter effective
June 30, 2019.
Anson Charter requested a second delay and was denied by the CSAB. The school’s governing
board subsequently voted to relinquish their charter, and the SBE approved the relinquishment at its
April 2019 meeting.

14

 2019 Legislative Updates
S.L. 2019-51: Created a term “public school unit” in Chapter 115C to include all types of public
schools in the state, including charter schools.
S.L. 2019-82: Amended G.S. 115C-218.85(a) and now requires charter schools to provide financial
literacy instruction as required by the State Board of Education, including required professional
development for teachers of the financial literacy course.
S.L. 2019-122: Appointed Joel Ford to the Charter School Advisory Board to fill the unexpired term
of Alan Hawkes, and re-appointed Heather Vuncannon for another full term.
S.L. 2019-165: Made various changes to laws related to education. Officially changed the reporting
date for the annual charter school report to February 15.
S.L. 2019-222: Appropriated funds for school safety. School resource officer grants are to be made
available to qualifying school units – including charter schools – to improve school safety.
S.L. 2019-71: Modified teacher licensure requirements.
S.L. 2019-154: Adopted a 15-point scale in the determination of school performance grades.

15

 Office of Charter School Updates
NC ACCESS Grant
In 2018, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) was awarded a Public
Charter Schools Program (CSP) grant from the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) of
approximately $26,600,000. The CSP grant is currently being used to implement the North Carolina
Advancing Charter Collaboration and Excellence for Student Success (NC ACCESS) Program to:
1. Increase the number of educationally disadvantaged students attending high-quality charter
schools and expand the number of high-quality charter schools available to educationally
disadvantaged students;
2. Develop a cohort of one hundred (100) charter school leaders who can develop and
demonstrate best practices in serving educationally disadvantaged students; and
3. Broadly disseminate best practices in serving educationally disadvantaged students and foster
collaboration in the charter school community and between charter schools and traditional
public schools.
NC ACCESS Progress to Date:
1. ACCESS team has been fully staffed and consists of a Grant Administrator, Program
Coordinator, Technical Assistance Specialist, and Finance Administrator.
2. Nine subgrants, totaling $3.4 million, were awarded in the first application cycle. This
includes three Planning and Implementation subgrants, four Implementation subgrants, and
one Expansion subgrant.
3. ACCESS Fellowship was launched. Four workshops have been held; three in-person and
one virtual. Topics covered include school culture and design, parent and community
engagement, leadership and empowering teacher leaders, intentional marketing and
recruitment, and addressing adverse childhood experiences and the socioemotional learning
needs of students.
4. ACCESS team applied for and received $10 million supplemental grant to further expand
the reach of the program, and to support low-performing charter schools across the state.
Team will now be able to award 10 additional subgrants (60 instead of 50) over the life of
the CSP grant.
5. ACCESS team is piloting a Visiting Fellows program for leaders of low-performing schools.
These leaders will participate in the ACCESS fellowship and have access to all resources and
support provided through that initiative.
6. ACCESS team received approval to expand the eligibility criteria to better serve schools and
to expand the reach of the program.
Epicenter
S.L. 2017-57 mandated that funds be used to support the purchase of a Web-based
electronic records and data management system to automate and streamline reporting and
accountability requirements to assist the Office of Charter Schools in complying with annual
reporting obligations. OCS has adopted Epicenter for this purpose and has worked with
representatives from the National Charter Schools Institute to train school leaders on the use of the
platform. Over the past year, each workflow within OCS has transitioned to the Epicenter platform.
All charter-related documents are now submitted or collected via the Epicenter portal. OCS

16

 consultants are working with multiple divisions within NCDPI that have expressed interest in also
collecting and reviewing documentation through Epicenter.
Professional Development
The Office of Charter Schools continues to welcome feedback in order to better serve the
professional learning needs of the charter school community and its stakeholders. Some of the
opportunities this year included:
• Office of Charter Schools Huddle West, July 2019 at Gray Stone Day School;
• Office of Charter Schools Charter School Leadership Institute, October 17 & 18, 2019, at
Envision Science Academy;
• Leading & Learning Day (formerly known as LP/CLP training), September 26, 2019, at
Healthy Start Academy, Durham;
• For Counselors By Counselors: A network of support and professional learning for NC charter
school counselors. This collaborative cohort works to unify knowledge and offer superior
counselor support to students in our charter network;
• Quick Takes: 15 minute pre-recorded webinars in topics of interest to the charter community;
• Online professional development and renewal newsletters, through S’more have been very
well received and widely read;
• Increased collaboration and professional learning within and across NC DPI divisions;
• Number of Twitter/Social Media followers has increased and professional learning is
actively promoted on our Twitter feed;
• Epicenter is now being used as a resource for professional learning as well through an
application called OCS Professional Learning Resource Center, which will serve as a ‘library’ of
professional learning resources;
• Charter School Teacher of the Year is Ms. Ashley Bailey of Roxboro Community School;
• NCCAT inaugural Beginning Teacher of the Year award had three (3) charter school
teachers in the running for Beginning Teacher of the Year.

17

 Charter School Academic Performance
The sixth legislative purpose of charter schools outlined in G.S. 225C-218 is to “hold schools
established under this Part accountable for meeting measurable student achievement results and
provide the schools with a method to change from rule-based to performance-based accountability
systems.” This section of the Annual Report examines the student achievement results of North
Carolina’s charter schools. Please note that this reporting includes data from North Carolina’s two
virtual charter schools, which are both currently in pilot status.
With the exception of schools operating under an alternative status, all public schools are assigned
School Performance Grades (A-F) based on test scores, and for high schools, additional indicators
that measure college and career readiness. School Performance Grades are based on student
proficiency (80%) and growth (20%).

Table 7. 2018-19 School Grades for Charter and Non-Charter Schools
Charter
Grade
A
B
C
D
F
I
N/A
Alternative
Total A-F
Total A
and B
Total D
and F
Total
Schools

#
20
59
53
34
12
2
0
4
178

%
11%
32%
29%
18%
7%
1%
N/A
2%
97%

Non-Charter
#
%
183
7%
686
28%
991
40%
426
17%
79
3%
12
1%
3
.1%
90
4%
2362
96%

79

44%

869

37%

948

37%

46

26%

502

21%

548

22%

184

2467

All
#
203
745
1044
459
89
14
3
94
2540

%
8%
29%
41%
18%
4%
1%
.1%
4%

2651

A “Closer Look” at Charter School Academic Proficiency and Growth
The chart below depicts trends in charter school SPGs over the past five years. The percentage of
charter schools earning Ds and Fs increased slightly from 2017-18 to 2018-19. The percentage of
charter schools earning As and Bs also increased over the past year.
Table 8. 2018-2019 Charter School Performance Grade Trends

18

 2014 – 15

2015 – 16

2016 – 17

Grade

#

%

#

%

#

%

A+NG

12

8.5%

12

7.7%

11

6.7%

A

7

4.9%

5

3.2%

5

B

50

35.2%

45

29.0%

C

31

21.8%

50

D

24

16.9%

F

18

12.7%

Total

142

2017 - 18

2018-19

#

%

#

%

3.1%

15

8.9%

20

11%

55

33.7%

55

32.7%

59

32%

32.3%

51

31.3%

60

35.7%

53

29%

29

18.7%

28

17.2%

29

17.4%

34

18%

14

9.0%

13

8.0%

8

4.8%

12

7%

155

163

167

178

Figure A below depicts the charter school performance grade trends since 2014-2015. Table 9
presents the trends in charter schools earning a grade of C or higher over the past five years. This
percentage was on the rise from 2014-15 until the most recent year, when the percentage of charter
schools earning a C or higher decreased 6.1 percentage points. Figure B visually depicts the trends of
charter schools earning a C or higher over the past five years. Table 10 contains the percentages of
charter schools earning grades of D or F over the past five years, and Figure C visually depicts this
trend.
Figure A. School Performance Grade Trends: Number of A & B Charter Schools Since 20142015

19

 55

59

55

50
45

20
15
7

5

5

14-15

15-16

16-17
A

B

17-18

18-19

Table 9. School Performance Grade Trends: Schools Earning a C or Higher

Percentage of C or
Better Charter Schools

2014 – 15

2015 – 16

2016 – 17

2017 – 18

2018-19

70.4%

72.3%

74.8%

77.8%

71.7%

20

 Figure B. Bar Graph of School Performance Grade Trends of Charter Schools
Earning a C or Higher Over Past Five Years

77.8
74.8
72.3

71.7

70.4

14-15

15-16

16-17

17-18

18-19

Table 10. School Performance Grade Trends: Charter Schools Earning a D or F

Percentage of D and
F Charter Schools

2014 – 15

2015 – 16

2016 – 17

2017 – 18

2018-19

29.6%

27.7%

25.2%

22.2%

25%

Figure C. School Performance Grade Trends: Charter Schools Earning a D or F

29.6

14-15

27.7

15-16

25.2

16-17

22.2

17-18

25

18-19

21

 Additional Context for Charter School Performance Grades
As discussed previously, school performance grades are based on a formula of 80% proficiency and
20% growth. To provide additional context around charter school performance, the next several
graphs describe the percentage of economically disadvantaged students tested at charter schools
earning school performance grades, as well as the average length of time charter schools earning
school performance grades have been in operation.
School Performance Grades and Economically Disadvantaged Students
Figure D depicts the total number of charter schools receiving A-F letter grades. Within each bar,
color-coded sections indicate the percentage of economically disadvantaged students tested at each
school earning a particular letter grade. At the bottom of the graph is a key outlining the percentage
of ED students each color represents.
Figure D. School Performance Grades and the Percentage of ED Students Tested
100%

1

90%

1
2

1

Percentage of Schools

1

12

5

10

10

80%

4

70%

11

60%
50%

4

19

40%

46

10

30%

4

27

20%

5

10%

2

3

0%
A

B

C

D

F

School Performance Grade Received
0-20% EDS

21-40% EDS

41-60% EDS

61-80% EDS

81-100% EDS

Twenty charter schools earned an A in 2018-2019, as shown in the first column in the graph above.
Of those twenty schools, nineteen (95%) tested between 0-20% economically disadvantaged
students. For example, School A earned an A letter grade, and is one of the 19 schools that tested
between 0-20% economically disadvantaged students. If School A tested 100 students, between 0-20
of the tested students were identified as economically disadvantaged.
Within the 0-20% EDS category of schools earning an A, thirteen of the nineteen schools tested
student populations that were fewer than 5% EDS. Southeastern Academy tested the largest
percentage of ED students of all schools earning an A, at 39.3% EDS.

22

 Of the 59 charter schools earning a B, 46 (or approximately 78%) tested student populations that
were between 0 – 20% EDS. Ten of the 59 schools tested between 20.5 – 40% EDS, and three
tested greater than 40% EDS (Alpha Academy – 49.3%, Bethel Hill Charter – 44%, and Sallie B.
Howard – 61.1%).
Of the 53 charter schools earning a C, 27 (51%) tested between 0 – 20% EDS. Eleven schools
(21%) tested between 20.5 – 40% EDS, four tested between 40.5 – 60% EDS, and ten tested
between 60.5 – 80% EDS. One school, Maureen Joy Charter, tested greater than 80% ED students,
with an ED population of at least 95%.
Of the 34 charter schools earning a D, three (10%) tested between 0 – 20% EDS. Five schools
tested between 20.5 – 40% EDS, and ten (29%) tested between 40.5 – 60% EDS. Four schools
(12%) tested greater than 80% EDS, and twelve schools (35%) served between 60.5 – 80% EDS.
On the far right of the chart is the bar depicting the number of schools that earned an F letter grade.
Of the twelve schools earning an F, none of them tested between 0-20% EDS. Two schools tested
21-40% EDS, four schools tested 41-60% EDS, five schools tested 61-80% EDS, and one school
tested 80-100% EDS.

School Performance Grades and Length of Time in Operation
The bar graph in Figure E depicts the number of schools earning grades A-F and contains colorcoding to identify the length of time schools earning each particular grade have been in operation.
Figure E. School Performance Grades and the Length of Time in Operation
60
6

Number of Schools

50

6
11

24

40

4

30
7
20
10
0

3

6

7
2
6

2
14

8
2
4
4

8

A

B

26

C

16

3
0
3
6

D

F

School Performance Grade Received
1-5 Years

6-10 Years

11-15 Years

16-20 Years

21+ Years

23

 Of the twenty schools earning an A, four (20%) have been in operation for 1-5 years, four (20%)
have been in operation for 6-10 years, and twelve (65%) have been in operation for 11 years or
more.
Of the 59 schools earning a B, 37 schools (64%) have been in operation for 11 years or more. Eight
of the 59 (3%) have been in operation for 1-5 years, and 14 of the 59 (32% have been in operation
for 6-10 years.
Of the 53 schools earning a C, 26 (49) have been in operation for 1-5 years, six (11%) have been in
operation for 6-10 years, four (8%) have been in operation for 11-15 years, 11 (21%) have been in
operation for 16-20 years, and 6 (11%) have been in operation for 21 years or more.
Of the 34 schools earning a D, sixteen (47%) have been in operation for 1-5 years. Six (18%)
schools earning a D have been in operation for 6-10 years, two (6%) have been in operation for 1115 years, seven (21%) have been in operation for 16-20 years, and 3 (9%) have been in operation for
21 years or more.
Of the 12 schools earning an F, 6 (50%) have been open for 1-5 years, 3 (25%) have been open 6-10
years, and 3 (25%) have been open for 21 years or more.
2018-2019 Charter School Academic Growth
The section below examines charter school growth compared to non-charter schools, charter school
growth trends over the past five years, the demographics of charter schools compared to their
growth scores, and growth scores in comparison to the length of time schools have been in
operation.
In a comparison of charter and non-charter academic growth, more non-charters met and exceeded
growth in 2018-2019 than did charters. 69.4% of charter schools met or exceeded growth whereas
73.6% of traditional public schools met or exceeded growth. A higher percentage of charters failed
to meet growth (30.2%) compared to non-charter schools (26.5%). However, as Figure F shows, the
percentage of charter schools meeting or exceeding growth increased from 2017-18 to 2018-19,
breaking a four-year slide in growth scores.
Table 11. 2018-19 Charter and Non-Charter Growth Comparison
Charter
Non-Charter
All
Growth
#
%
#
%
#
%
Status
Exceeded
48
26.4%
647
27.4%
695
27.3%
Met
77
43%
1095
46.2%
1172
46%
Not Met
54
30.2%
627
26.5%
681
26.7%
*May not equal 184. Alternative schools and those with insufficient data did not receive a growth
score.

24

 Figure F. Charter School Growth Trends Over Past Five Years

74.00%

73.40%

72.00%

70.40%

70.00%

70.10%

70%
68.50%

68.00%
66.00%
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Percent Meeting or Exceeding Growth
School Growth Status Compared to Percentage of ED Students Tested
Figure G illustrates the growth status achieved by North Carolina’s charter schools and the
percentage of economically disadvantaged students tested at each school.
Figure G. 2018-2019 Charter School Growth Status and Percentage of ED Students Tested
80
3

70

11

60

9

50
40
30

10

3
7

18

6

4
3

8

20
31

32

30

Exceeded

Met

Not Met

10
0
0-20%

21-40%

41-60%

61-80%

81-100%

25

 Of the 48 schools that exceeded growth, 31 schools (65%) tested fewer than 20% EDS; 3 (6%)
tested 21-40% EDS; 4 (8%) tested 41-60% EDS; and ten (21%) tested 61-80% EDS.
Of the 73 that met growth, 32 schools (44%) tested between 0 – 20% EDS; 18 (25%) tested 21-40%
EDS; nine (12%) tested 41-60% EDS; 11 (15%) tested 61-80% EDS; and three (4%) tested greater
than 80% EDS.
Of the 54 schools that did not meet growth, 30 schools (56%) tested between 0 – 20% EDS; eight
(15%) tested between 21-40% EDS; six (11%) tested between 41-60% EDS, seven (13%) tested
between 61-80% EDS, and three (6%) tested greater than 80% EDS.
High Academic Growth with Disadvantaged Student Populations
One of the six legislative purposes of charter schools in North Carolina is to increase
learning opportunities for all students, particularly those who are identified as at-risk of academic
failure. One measure of excellence for charter schools is achieving high academic growth with a
student population that is economically disadvantaged. The figure below illustrates the growth index
achieved by each school compared to the percentage of economically disadvantaged students who
were assessed in EOC or EOG assessments in 2018-2019.
It is important to note that the ED% in the chart below is reflective of the percentage of
economically disadvantaged students in tested grades only as opposed to the school as a whole.
Further, because charter schools are not required to participate in the National School Lunch
Program, there is no standard manner in which to accurately capture the EE student population
enrolled in charter schools. This may result in ED populations being largely underreported amongst
charter schools.
Figure H. Academic Growth with Economically Disadvantaged Students

26

 Based on this data, five schools had an ED population (in tested grades) of at least 70% and
exceeded growth by achieving an EVAAS growth score of greater than +2:
• Wilmington Preparatory Academy (81.01% ED in tested grades; +2.66 growth score)
• Sugar Creek Charter (79.31% ED in tested grades; +3.29 growth score)
• CIS Academy (76.67% ED in tested grades; +3.75 growth score)
• PreEminent Charter (74.36% ED in tested grades; +8.38 growth score)
• Healthy Start Academy (71.03% ED in tested grades; +5.6 growth score)
KIPP Durham College Preparatory nearly met the 70% ED and +2 growth score threshold; the
school had 69.9% ED students in tested grades and earned a +3.9 growth score.
Academic Growth with English Learners
The figure below illustrates the growth index achieved by each school compared to the percentage
of English Learners who were assessed in EOG or EOC assessments in 2018-2019.
Based on this data, four schools had a tested EL population of at least 25% and exceeded growth by
achieving an EVAAS score of greater than +2:
• KIPP Durham College Preparatory (38.6% EL tested population; +3.9 growth score)
• Torchlight Academy (31.02% EL tested population; +5.14 growth score)
• Healthy Start Academy (28.17% EL tested population; +5.6 growth score)
• Sallie B. Howard School of the Arts (25.82% EL tested population; +4.55 growth score)
Figure I. Academic Growth with English Learners

27

 Academic Growth with Students with Disabilities
The figure below illustrates the growth index achieved by each school compared to the percentage
of students with disabilities who were assessed in EOG or EOC assessments in 2018-2019.
Based on this data, eight schools had a tested SWD population of at least 15% and exceeded growth
by achieving an EVAAS score of greater than +2:
• Arapahoe Charter School (18.02% SWD tested population; +3.56 growth score)
• CIS Academy (16.67% SWD tested population; +3.75 growth score)
• Island Montessori Charter School (20.29% SWD tested population; +3.59 growth score)
• Magellan Charter (15.21% SWD tested population; +2.14 growth score)
• Mountain Discovery Charter (15.38% SWD tested population; +2.32 growth score)
• PreEminent Charter (17.95% SWD tested population; +8.38 growth score)
• Quest Academy (17.02% SWD tested population; +2.02 growth score)
• United Community School (18.8% SWD tested population; +4.83 growth score)

Figure J. Academic Growth with Students with Disabilities
28

 Academic Growth with Students of Color
The figure below illustrates the growth index achieved by each school compared to the percentage
of students of color who were assessed in EOC or EOG assessments in 2018-2019.
Based on this data, eleven schools had a tested student of color population of at least 70% and
exceeded growth by achieving an EVAAS score of greater than +2:
• Alpha Academy (86.3%; +2.53)
• CIS Academy (95%; +3.75)
• Guilford Preparatory Academy (95%; +2.39)
• Healthy Start Academy (95%; +5.6)
• Henderson Collegiate (94.74%; +2.72)
• KIPP Durham College Preparatory (95%; +3.9)
• PreEminent Charter (95%; +8.38)
• Quality Education Academy (95%; +2.84)
• Research Triangle Charter (95%; +5.44)
• Sugar Creek Charter (95%; +3.29)
• Torchlight Academy (95%; +5.14)
Figure K. Academic Growth with Students of Color

29

 Charter Academic Growth And Length of Time in Operation
Figure L depicts the number of charter schools not meeting, meeting, and exceeding growth, and the
length of time that schools have been in operation.

Figure L. Charter School Growth Status and Length of Time in Operation

30

 80
70

9

Number of Schools

60
21

50

8

7

40
30

21

20

3
8

10

5
5

7

9

15

29

21

9

0

Exceeded

Met

Not Met

Growth Status
1-5 Years

6-10 Years

11-15 Years

16-20 Years

20+ Years

Of the 48 schools that exceeded growth, nine (19%) have been in operation for 1-5 years; 8 (17%)
have been in operation for 6-10 years; three (6%) have been in operation for 11-15 years; 21 (44%)
have been in operation for 16-20 years; and seven (15%) have been in operation for 21 years or
more.
Of the 73 schools meeting growth, 21 (29%) have been in operation for 1-5 years; 15 (21%) have
been in operation for 6-10 years; seven (10%) have been in operation for 11-15 years; 21 (29%) have
been in operation for 16-20 years; and nine (12%) have been in operation for more than 20 years.
Of the 54 schools not meeting growth, 29 (54%) have been in operation for five years or fewer; 9
(17%) have been in operation for 6-10 years; five (9%) have been in operation for 11-15 years; eight
(15%) have been in operation for 16-20 years; and five (9%) have been in operation for greater than
20 years.
Table 12. Number and Percentage of Schools At or Above 60% Grade Level Proficient and
College/Career Ready
Charter
Schools
At/Above
60% GLP
(Level 3, 4,
or 5)
Schools
At/Above
60% CCR

Non-Charter
#
%

All

#

%

#

104

56%

1068

44%

1172

46

25%

350

15%

396

%

31

 (Level 4 or
5)
Academic Performance: Low-Performing and Continually Low-Performing Schools
S.L. 2016-79 defines Low-Performing and Continually Low-Performing Charter Schools as the
following:
1. Low-Performing charter schools are those that receive a school performance grade of D or
F and a school growth score of “met expected growth” or “not met expected growth.”
2. Continually Low-Performing charter schools are those that have been designated by the
State Board as Low-Performing for at least two of the last three years.
In 2018-19, 47 total schools were identified as either Low-Performing or Continually LowPerforming. Thirty-eight schools were identified as Continually Low-Performing, and forty-two
schools were identified as Low-Performing. There was considerable overlap between the LowPerforming and Continually Low-Performing lists. Of the 42 Low-Performing schools, 31 were also
Continually Low-Performing. Two of these schools were closed at the end of the 2018-19 school
year. Of the 38 Continually Low-Performing Schools, five were not identified as Low-Performing
because they received a grade higher than a D and either met or exceeded growth in 2018-19.
The number of LP/CLP charter schools increased from 34 in 2017-18 to 47 in 2018-19.
Table 13. Low-Performing/Continually Low-Performing Charter School Trends
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
LP Schools

37 (22.6%)

28 (16.8%)

42 (23.6%)

CLP Schools

20 (12.3%)

28 (16.8%)

38 (21.3%)

Table 14. Total Low-Performing/Continually Low-Performing Charter School Trends
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19

Total LP/CLP
Schools

37 (22.7%)

34 (19.8%)

47 (26.4%)

32

 Figure M. Total Number of LP/CLP Charter Schools - Three Year Trend
Total LP/CLP Schools

47

37

16-17

34

17-18

18-19

In order to hold charter schools accountable for student achievement results, the CSAB
requires every school on the Low-Performing or Continually Low-Performing list to appear before
them and present a plan for school improvement. CSAB members ask pointed questions about the
efficacy of school plans and often encourage schools to establish student achievement goals that are
feasible and ambitious.

33

 Academic Performance: Grade Level Proficiency Across Subject Areas and Subgroups
The next several charts depict charter school student proficiency in English/Language Arts,
Math, Science, and the ACT, both overall and within specific subgroups. The number of students
captured within each subgroup score is located in Appendix X.
English Language Arts
Charter Schools and Non-Charter Schools
All Students Comparisons 2019
Figure N. Percent of Students Scoring a Level 3 or Above on English/ELA EOC/EOG
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%

71.0%

68.7%

64.7%
55.5%

59.1%

57.2%

50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Elementary

Middle

Charter

High

Non-Charter

English Language Arts
Charter Schools and Non-Charter Schools
Elementary Subgroup Comparison
Figure O. Percent of Students Scoring a Level 3 or Above on English Language Arts EOG

34

 80.0%
70.0%
60.0%

75.0%
69.4%

64.7%
55.5%

54.7%

50.0%

44.9%
38.7%

40.0%

42.1%

44.7%
41.7%
35.2%
29.4%

30.0%

24.3%

20.9%

20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
All

White

Black

Charter ELA 3-5

Hispanic

EDS

ELS

SWD

Non-Charter ELA 3-5

Middle School Subgroup Comparison
Figure P. Percent of Students Scoring a Level 3 or Above on English/Language Arts EOG
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%

77.2%
68.7%

70.2%
61.4%

57.2%
51.7%

50.0%

40.0%

40.0%

45.3%

50.7%
42.6%

25.5%

30.0%

28.1%
17.5%

20.0%

10.3%

10.0%
0.0%
All

White

Black

Charter ELA 6-8

Hispanic

EDS

ELS

SWD

Non-Charter ELA 6-8

35

 High School Subgroup Comparison
Figure Q. Percent of Students Scoring a Level 3 or Above on English/Language Arts EOC
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%

71.0%

78.4%
71.0%
63.7%

59.1%

60.0%
50.5%

50.0%

47.9%

41.0%

48.2%
42.9%

40.0%
27.0%

30.0%
20.0%

12.5%
9.4%

10.0%

17.0%

0.0%
All

White

Black

Charter 9-12

Hispanic

EDS

ELS

SWD

Non-Charter 9-12

36

 Mathematics Performance
Mathematics
Charter Schools and Non-Charter Schools
All Students Comparisons 2019
Figure R. Percent of Students Scoring a Level 3 or Above on Math EOC/EOG
70.0%

63.4%

60.3%

63.6%

60.0%

56.0%

50.0%

44.6%

40.9%

40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Elementary

Middle

Charter

High

Non-Charter

Mathematics
Charter and Non-Charter Schools
Percent of Students Scoring a Level 3 or Above on Math EOC/EOG
Figure S. Elementary School Subgroup Comparison

37

 73.1%72.6%
70.0%

63.4%
60.4%

60.0%

56.0%
53.1%

50.0%

47.1%
43.8%

43.8%
41.5%

46.4%
40.8%

40.0%
30.8%
30.0%

24.3%

20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
All

White

Black

Charter 3-5

Hispanic

EDS

ELS

SWD

Non-Charter 3-5

Figure T. Middle School Subgroup Comparison
70.0%
60.0%

63.6%

72.6%
68.9%

56.0%

57.3%

50.0%

45.2%

40.0%

47.5%

44.3%
41.0%

36.2%

37.3%

30.0%

24.9%
19.5%

20.0%

17.2%

10.0%
0.0%
All

White

Black

Charter 6-8

Hispanic

EDS

ELS

SWD

Non-Charter 6-8

Figure U. High School Subgroup Comparison

38

 60.0%
52.7%52.5%
50.0%

44.6%
40.9%

41.2%

40.0%

35.1%
28.8%
27.1%

30.0%

31.8%
29.6%

20.0%

28.6%

16.3%

18.9%
13.7%

10.0%
0.0%
All

White

Black

Charter 9-12

Hispanic

EDS

ELS

SWD

Non-Charter 9-12

39

 Science Performance
Science
Charter Schools and Non-Charter Schools
All Students Comparisons 2019
Figure V. Percent of Students Scoring a Level 3 or Above on Science EOC/EOG
80.0%

75.1%

78.1%

72.3%

65.6%

70.0%

59.3%

60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Elementary

Middle

Charter

High

Non-Charter

Science
Charter and Non-Charter Schools
Percent of Students Scoring a Level 3 or Above on Math EOC/EOG
Figure W. Elementary School Subgroup Comparison
90.0%
80.0%

75.7%
72.3%

83.9%83.8%

70.0%

59.7%
56.8%

60.0%

70.2%
63.3%

60.4%61.6%
52.1%

50.0%

44.7%

40.0%

42.2%
34.9%

30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
All

White

Black

Charter 3-5

Hispanic

EDS

ELS

SWD

Non-Charter 3-5

40

 Figure X. Middle School Subgroup Performance
100.0%
90.0%

85.1%
78.1%

91.4%
88.1%
80.6%

80.0%

71.9%

70.0%

63.8%

69.1%

73.1%
67.5%

60.0%

54.9%
47.3%

50.0%

41.5%

40.0%

32.5%

30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
All

White

Black

Charter 6-8

Hispanic

EDS

ELS

SWD

Non-Charter 6-8

Figure Y. High School Subgroup Performance
80.0%
70.0%

65.6%
59.3%

72.7%72.1%

60.0%

55.4%

50.0%

43.8%
39.2%

40.0%

47.2%

43.4%43.3%
30.6%

30.0%

24.1%

20.0%

21.6%

15.0%

10.0%
0.0%
All

White

Black

Charter 9-12

Hispanic

EDS

ELS

SWD

Non-Charter 9-12

41

 ACT Performance
Charter Schools and Non-Charter Schools
Figure Z. Percent of Students Meeting UNC 2017 ACT Benchmark
80.0%

70.0%

70.0%
60.0%

55.1%

54.7%

50.0%

45.7%

43.5%
38.4%

40.0%
30.0%

34.5%

31.8%
24.9%

33.4%
24.2%

28.8%

20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
ACT

ACT English

ACT Math

Charter

ACT Reading

ACT Science

ACT Writing

Non-Charter

42

 State Board of Education Strategic Plan
Goals and Measures for Charter Schools
The State Board of Education sets targets for charter school academic performance, as
measured by school performance grades, school growth, and Low-Performing/Continually LowPerforming status. The chart below shows charter schools’ actual results relative to the State Board’s
goals and targets.
The Office of Charter Schools, Charter Schools Advisory Board, and State Board of
Education are committed to providing the supports necessary to ensure that the charter sector is
progressing towards the goals outlined in the SBE strategic plan.
Table 13. SBE Goals and Measures for Charter Schools
2018-2019
Measure
Targeted
Actual
Percentage of charter
2.4.1
schools receiving SPG
45.5%
43%
of A or B
Percentage of charter
schools meeting or
2.4.2
exceeding expected
75%
69%
annual academic
growth
Percentage of charter
schools meeting or
exceeding all financial
2.4.3
and operational goals
90%
TBD
as measured by the
OCS’ Performance
Framework
Decrease number of
2.4.4a
Low Performing
25
42
charter schools
Decrease number of
Continually Low
2.4.44b
8
38
Performing charter
schools

43

 Charter School Impact on Local Districts
In 2018-2019, charter school average daily membership (ADM) accounted for 7.2% of the
state’s total ADM. Of the $9.44 billion in state funding for public education, 7.1% (or $674,314,240)
was allotted to charter schools.
Table 14. Number of Charters Approved, Opened, Closed and Total State Funds Allotted

Unlike local education agencies, charter schools are not bound to serve only the students
residing within a particular county or district. Many charter schools serve students from multiple
districts, which often poses challenges related to transportation and funding allocations. Given the
large number of districts from which a charter school may enroll students, it is difficult to pinpoint
the specific fiscal impact of a given charter school on its “home district.” The map below illustrates
the percentage of public school students in membership for each district in the state.

44

 Figure AA. Percentage of Public School Students in Membership at Charter Schools

In 2018-2019, the individual LEAs with the highest percentages of charter school membership
(compared to total district and charter ADM) were located predominantly in rural areas, with the
exception of Durham Public Schools. The table below outlines the LEAs where charter membership
is at least 13% of the total district and charter ADM. A table of percentage of charter membership
for every LEA in NC is in Appendix X.
Table 15. LEAs with at Least 13% of Students Enrolled in Charter Schools
Region LEA
Charter Membership
LEA Allotted Total LEA
% of LEA
ADM
and CS
1
Halifax
959
2,472
3,431
28.0%
1
Northampton 530
1,651
2,181
24.3%
3
Vance
1,853
5,928
7,781
23.8%
1
Weldon City 251
899
1,150
21.8%
3
Person
1,134
4,449
5,583
20.3%
3
Durham
6,957
33,080
40,037
17.4%
Public
3
Granville
1,500
7,511
9,011
16.6%
3
Warren
378
2,039
2,417
15.6%
2
Pamlico
230
1,250
1,480
15.5%
3
Wilson
1,834
11,554
13,388
13.7%
8
Rutherford
1,236
8,183
9,419
13.1%
3
Franklin
1,224
8,198
9,422
13.0%
In 2018-2019, the SBE Education districts with the highest percentages of charter school
membership (compared to total district and charter ADM) were Regions 3 and 6. The table below
45

 outlines the total percentage of charter membership for each region. A map of the eight State Board
of Education Districts is also below for reference.
Figure AB. North Carolina State Board of Education Districts

Table 16. SBE Districts/Regions and Total Charter Membership
2019 Charter
LEA Allotted
Total LEA
Membership
ADM
and CS
North Central – 3
35,420
352,216
387,636
Southwest – 6
34,523
343,488
378,011
Western – 8
6,123
81,266
87,389
Northeast – 1
4,632
71,272
75,904
Piedmont-Triad – 5
15,273
238,458
253,731
Southeast – 2
5,293
140,320
145,613
Sandhills – 4
4,804
134,812
139,616
Northwest – 7
1,104
82,705
83,809
Region

% of LEA
9.1%
9.1%
7.0%
6.1%
6.0%
3.6%
3.4%
1.3%

Charter schools also have positive potential impacts on local districts, such as relieving
overcrowding, supplementing educational offerings currently available to parents, and reducing the
financial strain on districts of building new facilities.
Prior to 2013, the State Board of Education was required by legislation to solicit impact statements
from LEAs when new applications for charters were being considered or when exiting charter
schools wanted to grow beyond what was normally allowed within the statute. The General
Assembly removed the requirement that LEAs submit impact statements, but the State Board has

46

 continued to consider comments from school districts in situations involving charter school
enrollment growth.

47

 Ensuring Autonomy and Accountability
As schools of choice, charter schools are accountable to parents and guardians, who may withdraw
their student(s) and re-enroll them elsewhere, should the school not meet their expectations.
However, the North Carolina General Assembly and State Board of Education have approved
several additional, concrete measures through which charter schools are held accountable to
stakeholders:
1) Per General Statute 115C-218.25, all charter school boards are subject to the Open Meetings
Laws and must publish the board meeting schedule on their website.
2) Per General Statute 115C-218.25, all charter schools are subject to the Public Records Act
and must promptly comply with citizen requests.
3) Per General Statute 115C-218.90(b), all charter schools must adopt a criminal history check
policy mirror that of the local school administrative unit in which the school is located.
Further, all charter school board members must have criminal background checks.
4) Per General Statute 115C-218.85(3) and SBE policy CHTR-001, all charter schools are
required to conduct the student assessments required by the SBE. Further, all charter
schools are required to comply with North Carolina’s Accountability Model, unless
otherwise approved by the SBE. Currently, four charter schools have been approved for an
alternative accountability model.
5) Per General Statute 115C-218.30 and SBE policy CHTR-006, every charter school is
required to undergo an annual audit for both its finances and its compliance with applicable
federal and state laws and policies. These audits conducted by an independent auditor
approved by the Local Governance Commission, and the audit must be published on the
school’s website. (LGC Audit Requirements located in Appendix X)
6) Per General Statute 115C-218.94 and SBE policy CHTR-010, every charter school identified
as Low Performing or Continually Low Performing is required to come before the Charter
School Advisory Board and outline their plan for improving student achievement.
7) Goal 2, Objective 2.4 of the SBE’s Strategic Plan is to “Increase the number of schools
meeting academic, operational, and financial goals.” Annually, the Office of Charter Schools’
Performance Framework serves as the standard mechanism for reporting on progress
toward achievement of these goals. The framework provides a consolidated view of the
school’s performance relative to a list of academic, operational, and financial requirements.
The academic elements of the Framework are all standard indicators provided by the State
accountability system. The operational and financial elements of the Framework are all
required by General Statute, State Board Policy, or the Charter Agreement. This yearly
compliance review involves divisions across the entire Department of Public Instruction
(such as Exceptional Children and Financial Business Services) and ensures that charter
schools are also in compliance with federal reporting requirements. (Performance
Framework Guidelines located in Appendix X)
8) Per General Statute 115C-218.6 and SBE policy CHTR-007, every charter school is required
to undergo a rigorous renewal process prior to having their charter term extended. Schools
48

 not meeting the expected academic, financial, and/or governance standards are subject to
renewal terms of 7, 5, 3 years or non-renewal. (Renewal Policy and Framework located in
Appendix X)

49

 Best Practices Resulting from Charter School Operations
Northeast Academy for Aerospace and Advanced Technologies “NEAAT” is a charter school
physically located on the campus of Elizabeth City State University in Elizabeth City, North
Carolina. NEAAT’s school operations provide several examples of best practices that may be
transferred to other charter and traditional public schools.
1) NEAAT’s governing board has established a five-year strategic plan, complete with goals,
objectives, and yearly milestones. The strategic plan includes an emphasis on an exceptional
school culture through parent and community engagement, sustained extracurricular
activities, demographics that mirror the geographic region, and stakeholder surveys;
college/career readiness through academic pathways and internship opportunities,
professional development for teachers, opportunities for students to present research, and
an emphasis on helping students earn industry-recognized credentials/certifications; and the
long-term sustainability of the school through a growing fund balance, multiple highly
qualified candidates for each staffing vacancy, increased teacher retention, and collaborative
projects with external partners such as other schools, districts, community organizations, etc.
2) NEAAT has demonstrated a commitment to university/community partnerships, as
evidenced by its collaborative agreement with Elizabeth City State University. In addition to
sharing physical classroom space, the university offers NEAAT students opportunities to
utilize other campus resources related to NEAAT’s unique school mission and academic
pathways – aerospace, computer science, and health sciences. The school has obtained
sponsorships from organizations such as the William R. Kenan, Jr. Charitable Trust, the
Golden Leaf Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Elizabeth City
Foundation, and Sentara Albemarle Medical Center. Moreover, the school’s strategic plan
contains objectives related to increasing signed partnership agreements and volunteer hours
with community and business organizations, and designing/implementing high-quality
project-based learning assignments that have been informed by business and community
partners.
The North Carolina Advancing Charter Collaboration and Excellence for Student Success
(NC ACCESS) program provided training to NC ACCESS fellows on developing meaningful
relationships and effective parent and community engagement with educationally
disadvantaged students and their families. Each subgrantee was charged with creating a plan to
engage diverse populations during the school’s initial enrollment drive and throughout the grant
period, and monitoring indicators were provided to ensure that the plans developed were intentional
and comprehensive. At the conclusion of the training, the NC ACCESS team offered subgrantees an
opportunity to submit a mini-proposal to implement a parent engagement activity. Groups
submitting the strongest proposals were awarded $500 towards project implementation.
IC Imagine was awarded a $500 award to create a parent resource library (both online and physical)
to support parents in multiple areas, including the use of social media, bullying, homework help,
child/family wellness, literacy and core academic support at home, access to PowerSchool, and
college entry. To engage parents with the resource center, the school will host an opening event with
dinner for families. At the event, teachers and staff will show families how to access the resources,
and then allow families time for exploration. Multiple community organizations, such as the
Buncombe County Library and ECAC’s Western Office will partner with the school in the provision
50

 of resources. Finally, IC Imagine will host a Parent Resource Orientation Night with dinner each
semester to provide an overview of available resources, share information on community
agencies/partners willing to assist, and to continue fostering relationships with families, teachers,
and administrators.

51

 Charter Schools Receiving Special Awards and Recognition
In 2018-2019, Envision Science Academy was the only school in the state to be
recognized as an NC Model STEM School of Distinction.
Multiple charter schools were recognized by the CSAB for outstanding qualities:
1) Lake Norman Charter was recognized in Newsweek as one of America’s Best
STEM High Schools
2) East Wake Academy teacher Heather Futtrell was honored for her exceptional
ability to teach and connect with students
3) Charter School Teacher of the Year Ashley Bailey from Roxboro Community
School was recognized for her stellar accomplishments
4) Lincoln Charter School was recognized for outstanding sportsmanship and
character
5) Henderson Collegiate and its founder/leader Eric Sanchez was recognized for
outstanding student achievement
U.S. News and World Report released a list of Top Ranked NC Schools based on six
indicators: College Readiness, Math and Reading Proficiency, Math and Reading
Performance, Underserved Student Performance, College Curriculum Breadth, and
Graduation Rate. Several charter schools were among the highest rated:
• Raleigh Charter High School (#2)
• Woods Charter (#5)
• Thomas Jefferson Classical Academy (#7)
• Lake Norman Charter School (#9)
• Pine Lake Preparatory (#19)
• Franklin Academy (#20)
• Community School of Davidson (#22)
• Gray Stone Day School (#24)
• Gaston College Preparatory (#28)
• Research Triangle High School (#31)
• The Hawbridge School (#39)
• Union Academy (#46)
• Voyager Academy (#48)
• Longleaf School of the Arts (#51)
• Oxford Preparatory Academy (#52)
• Lincoln Charter (#53)
• East Wake Academy (#54)

52

 Appendices

DRAFT

53