Skip to main content

Meeting of the Board of Regents | November 2003

Saturday, November 1, 2003 - 8:00am

 

THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234

TO:

The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents

FROM:

James A. Kadamus

COMMITTEE:

EMSC-VESID Committee

TITLE OF ITEM:

Draft Report to the Governor and the Legislature on the Educational Effectiveness of the Charter School Approach

DATE OF SUBMISSION:

November 7, 2003

PROPOSED HANDLING:

Discussion

RATIONALE FOR ITEM:

Compliance with State legislation

STRATEGIC GOAL:

Goals 1 and 2

AUTHORIZATION(S):

SUMMARY:

Under �2857(4) of the Education Law, the Board of Regents is required to submit no later than December 31, 2003 a five-year report to the Governor, the Temporary President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the Assembly on the Educational Effectiveness of the Charter School Approach. Attachment A The attached draft report provides a brief description of the components of the five-year report as well as a summary of preliminary findings indicated by the data. Attachment B includes the full draft text of the Background and Executive Summary section, a sample data item for one charter school, the full draft text for the Discussion and Conclusions section (which also includes draft recommendations for modification of the charter school legislation), Appendix A (data summaries) and a portion of Appendix B relating to the financial stability of charter schools. The Report is still a working draft. Preliminary draft recommendations in italics relating to special education are still under discussion by staff. Further details will be provided before the Report is submitted to the Board for Approval in December.




 

 

REPORT TO THE

GOVERNOR,

THE TEMPORARY PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE,

AND

THE SPEAKER OF THE ASSEMBLY

AND

THE BOARD OF REGENTS

ON

 

THE EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CHARTER SCHOOL APPROACH IN NEW YORK STATE

 

DECEMBER 2003

 

THE

UNIVERSITY

OF THE

STATE

OF

NEW YORK

 

 

 

THE STATE

EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents

 

Executive Summary

Charter School Data

Amber Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Ark Community Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Austin L. Carr Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Bedford-Stuyvesant Preparatory Charter School for Excellence

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Beginning with Children Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Brighter Choice Charter School for Boys

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Brighter Choice Charter School for Girls

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Bronx Charter School for Better Learning

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Bronx Charter School for the Arts

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Bronx Charter School for Children

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Bronx Charter School for Excellence

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Bronx Preparatory Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Buffalo United Charter School.

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Carl C. Icahn Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Central New York Charter School for Math and Science

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Charter School for Applied Technologies

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Charter School for Science and Technology

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Clearpool Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

COMMUNITY Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Community Partnership Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

East Harlem Village Academy Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

East New York Village Academy Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Enterprise Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Eugenio Maria de Hostos Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Explore Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Family Academy Charter School of New York

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Family Life Academy Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Genesee Community Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Global Concepts Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Harbor Science and Arts Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Harlem Day Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Harriet Tubman Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics, and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

International Charter High School at LaGuardia Community College

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

International Charter School of Schenectady

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

John A. Reisenbach Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

King Center Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

KIPP Academy Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

KIPP Sankofa Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

KIPP S.T.A.R. College Preparatory Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Merrick Academy � Queens Public Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Middle College Charter High School at LaGuardia Community College

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

New Covenant Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Our World Neighborhood Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Pinnacle Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

REACH Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

The ReadNet Bronx Charter School at Metropolitan College

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Renaissance Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Riverhead Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Roosevelt Children�s Academy Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Sisulu Children�s Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

South Buffalo Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Southside Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Stepping Stone Academy Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Sullivan Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Syracuse Academy of Science Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Tapestry Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Discussion and Conclusions

 

Recommendations

 

Appendices

 

Appendix A: Data Summaries

 

Table 1: Summary of Charter School Population by Gender and Ethnicity 1999-2003

 

Table 2: Longitudinal Disaggregated Enrollment by Charter School 1999-2003

 

Table 3: Students with Disabilities and Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch by Charter School 1999-2003

 

Table 4: ELA 4 Results by Charter School and District of Location 2000-03

 

Table 5: ELA 8 Results by Charter School and District of Location 2000-03

 

Table 6: Math 4 Results by Charter School and District of Location 2000-03

 

Table 7: Math 8 Results by Charter School and District of Location 2000-03

 

Table 8: Cumulative Financialscal Impact of Charter Schools 2002-03

 

Appendix B: Projections of Financial Stability

 

Appendix C: Charter Schools in New York State as of July 18, 2003

 

Appendix D: The New York Charter Schools Act of 1998


 

Attachments

Annual Reports for Each Charter School, 1999-2000 through 2002-03




 

Executive Summary

Components of the Report

This report is organized into several sections. First is the Executive Summary, followed by Charter School Data sections for each of the charter schools. These data include: each school�s mission statement;, attendance and dropout statistics;, the distribution of charter schools and enrollment of students by grade, gender, and ethnicity; , the number of reported English language learners;, student academic performance on all State, national, and local standardized assessments;, fiscal impact upon the sending districts; , and a comparison of assets and liabilities, total net assets or fund balance, and changes in unrestricted net assets or fund balance, as described in the yearly audits. A Discussion and Conclusions section follows, which provides detailed analyses of the data. A Recommendations section then follows, which includes a rationale for expanding, terminating or modifying the charter school approach. The appendices include data summaries for all charter schools, projections of financial stability, a list of all current approved charter schools, and the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998. The attachments include all annual reports for all charter schools for the school years 1999-2000 through 2002-03.

Background

The Board of Regents is required by �2857(4) of the Education Law to "review the educational effectiveness of the charter school approach authorized by this article and the effect of charter schools on the public and nonpublic school systems." This report contains data for each charter school that includes s its mission statement, attendance statistics and dropout rates, student performance on standardized tests, and fiscal impact data. Where appropriate, comparisons with other public schools are made. Recommendations are provided concerning the charter school approach in New York State.

Projections of financial stability, are also provided in the form of five-year projected revenues and expenses, and are included in Appendix B. It should be noted that such information is not available for all schools chartered by either the Trustees of the State University of New York or the Chancellor of the New York City Schools. Representatives from those charter entities have concluded that the Department has no authority to ask charter schools for any information other than that specifically referenced by the New York Charter Schools Act. Related correspondence may also be found in Appendix B.

Distribution and Enrollment

To date, a total of 60 charter schools have been created by the Board of Regents (16), the Chancellor of the New York City Public Schools (9), the Trustees of the State University of New York (34), and the Buffalo Board of Education (1). Of those, 55 continue to exist today. In the 2003-04 school year, 50 of them are are slated to be open for instruction. Three have surrendered their charters, and two have had their charters revoked. Most charter schools are located in urban areas and generally serve a mostly minority student population. The dispersal of approved charter schools in New York State as of July 18, 2003 is as follows:

  • Albany: three
  • Buffalo: nine
  • Kenmore-Tonawanda: one

  • Lackawanna: one

  • New York City: 29

  • Riverhead: one

  • Rochester: four

  • Roosevelt: one

  • Schenectady: one

  • Syracuse: three

  • Troy: one

  • Wainscott: one

The distribution of students overall by gender and ethnicity, for the 2002-03 school year, is as follows:

  • Male: 5,160 students/48.8 percent

  • Female: 5,417 students/51.2 percent

  • Black: 7,101 students/67.1 percent

  • Hispanic: 1,678 students/15.9 percent

  • White: 1,598 students/15.1 percent

  • American Indian/Alaskan Native and Asian/Pacific Islander: 200 students/1.9 percent

  • Total number of students in charter schools 2002-03: 10,577

Based on these data, it is clear that charter schools attract a predominantly minority population. Two-thirds of the students are Black, which is a high percentage compared to the Black enrollment in the districts of location. The percent of Hispanic students is n charter schools is low (15.9 percent) compared to the enrollment of Hispanic students in the districts of location. The percent of White students in charter schools is generally less than that seen in the districts of location.

There are many students in poverty attending charter schools. The majority of charter school students are eligible for free or reduced lunch (74 percent in 2002-03). Many charter schools have over 50 percent of their students receiving public welfare. In 20032-03, 21 of 37 charter schools reported having more than 50 percent of their students coming from families who receive public welfare.

The percent of students with disabilities in charter school is smaller compared to the percent of students with disabilities in the districts of location. In 2002-03, the charter schools reported a total of 896 students with disabilities out of 10,577 students. In the district of location the percent generally ranged from 10.4 percent in Roosevelt to 16.9 percent in Syracuse (Wainscott reported only 4.1 percent).

 

Student Academic Performance

Student academic performance results for charter schools tend to be mixed. First-year test results on State assessments tend to be very low, which may be explained in part because the grade 4 State English Language Arts (ELA) exam is given only four months after students have enrolled in a charter school for the first time. Most charter schools fall below State standards on grade 4 ELA, grade 8 ELA, and grade 8 math. The majority of charter schools meet the State standard for grade 4 math. The performance of general education students in charter schools is below that of general education students in the districts of location for grade 4 ELA and math and grade 8 math. However, general education students in charter schools perform better than the general education students in the districts of location on grade 8 ELA. Students with disabilities in charter schools generally performed at comparable levels to students with disabilities in the districts of location on all State assessments in grades 4 and 8.

Most charter schools, even those which had very low student academic performance on the State assessments, have improved. The pattern of gains accelerated in 2002-03. The largest improvement was seen in the grade 4 math results, consistent with the statewide pattern of results for all public schools. In many cases, charter school gains exceeded the gains made by their districts of location (12 of 16 charter schools that had given the grade 4 math exam for two or more years). See also Tables 4 - 7 in Appendix A.

The number of years a charter school has been in operation does not predict student academic performance on State assessments. Some of the highest performing charter schools were only in their first year of operation when they demonstrated high levels of student performance (e.g., the South Buffalo Charter School and the Tapestry Charter School, both in Buffalo, for grade 4 ELA). Conversely, some of the lowest performing charter schools are in their third or fourth year of operation (e.g., the John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School in CSD #2 and the New Covenant Charter School in Albany, on grade 8 math).

In 2000-01, one charter school (the REACH Charter School) was considered to be furthest from State standards. In 2001-02, five charter schools (the Ark Community Charter School in Troy, the Charter School of Science and Technology in Rochester, the Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School in Rochester, the Sisulu Children�s Academy Charter School in CSD #5, and the Stepping Stone Academy Charter School in Buffalo) were considered to be furthest from State standards. In 2003-03, two charter schools (the John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School in CSD#2 and the New Covenant Charter School in Albany) were considered to be furthest from State standards.

Conversely, the KIPP Academy Charter School in CSD #7 has consistently been the highest performing charter schools on both the grade 8 ELA and math State assessments over the past three years. Student achievement has ranged from 61.5 percent of students scoring at or above Level 3 on both the grade ELA and math exams in 2001-02 to 78.9 percent of students scoring at or above Level 3 on the grade 8 math exam in 2002-03. The South Buffalo Charter School in Buffalo and the Beginning with Children Charter School in CSD #14 have been the highest performers in grade 4 ELA. The Renaissance Charter School in CSD #30 has consistently been the highest performing charter school on the grade 4 State assessment in math over the past three years. Student achievement has ranged from 60.0 percent of students scoring at or above Level 3 in 2000-01 to 95.6 percent of students so scoring in 2002-03. All of these high-performing charter schools exceed the State standards.

Fiscal Impact

In the 1999-2000 school year, the lowest adjusted expense per pupil (AEP) paid was $6,207 per student in New York City, and the highest was $8,104 per pupil paid by the Troy City School District. The average AEP was $6,523. Overall fiscal impact in New York City appeared to be negligible (0.01 � 0.03 percent impact on the district budget), while it was 2.76 percent of the Albany City School District budget.

In the 2000-01 school year, the lowest AEP paid was $6,029 per student in Syracuse, and the highest was $26,287 per pupil paid by the Wainscott Common School District. The average AEP was $6,663. Overall fiscal impact in New York City appeared to be negligible (0.002 � 0.03 percent impact on the district budget). In 2000-01, fiscal impact ranged from .01 percent of the school budget for several school districts with a small number of students attending charter schools to 3.05 percent of the Roosevelt Union Free School District budget.

In the 2001-02 school year, the lowest AEP paid was $5,902 per student in the Cleveland Hill Union Free School District, and the highest was $33,379 per pupil paid by the Bridgehampton Union Free School District. The mean AEP was $7,425. Overall fiscal impact in New York City appeared to be negligible (0.193 percent impact overall on the district budget). In 2001-02, fiscal impact ranged from .01 percent of the school budget for several school districts with a small number of students attending charter schools to 4.40 percent of the Albany City School District budget. Cumulative impact was 2.90 percent on the Rochester City School District budget and 2.66 percent on the Buffalo City School District budget.

For the 2002-03 school year, the lowest AEP paid was $6,177 per student in the Gananda Central School District, and the highest paid was $18,681 per pupil by the Shelter Island Union Free School District. The average AEP was $8,554. Overall fiscal impact in New York City appeared to be negligible (0.29 percent overall on the district budget). Fiscal impact ranged from 0.01 of the school budget for several school districts with a small number of students attending charter schools to 5.30 percent of the Lackawanna City School District Budget. The cumulative fiscal impact was 5.00 percent for the Albany City Schools, 3.75 percent for the West Irondequoit Central Schools, 3.33 percent for the Buffalo City Schools, 2.94 percent for the Rochester City Schools, 2.05 percent for the Schenectady City Schools, and 2.02 percent for the Syracuse City Schools.

Charter School Data

This section provides information for each charter school that has been created since the enactment of the New York Charter Schools Act. At a minimum, that information includes:

  • the school�s mission statement as provided in its charter;

  • the maximum allowable enrollment per year, as determined by the charter;

  • attendance and dropout statistics from each school�s BEDS report for each year that the school has provided instruction;

  • student enrollment disaggregated by grade, gender, and ethnicity, as reported by the schools on their BEDS reports;

  • student achievement data from State test results and/or the school�s annual report for each year that the school has provided instruction;

  • fiscal impact data, which are taken from Schedule U of the State Aid Claim Worksheet and Projections (�3601 and �3604(11) of Education Law);

  • comparisons of assets and liabilities, total net assets or fund balance, and changes in unrestricted net assets or fund balance, as described in the yearly audits; and

  • projections of financial stability based upon five-year projected revenues and expenditures

Note that most of the information is self-reported by the charter schools, and it is their responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the data. If the reader has questions regarding the accuracy of any data, s/he is encouraged to contact the charter school directly.

Additional data may also be included, as appropriate, to provide a more comprehensive picture of a particular charter school.

Summary data are also provided in Appendix A. The projections of financial stability, in the form of revenues and expenditures projected over five years, may be found in Appendix B.

 

Ark Community Charter School

2247 13th Street

Troy, New York 12180-3017

Mission Statement

"We believe that all children have the right to quality education that addresses their academic and social needs. The Ark Community Charter School (ACCS) will challenge all students to increase their understanding, to develop their skills, critical judgment and intellectual curiosity, and to acquire knowledge. We seek to provide quality education and increase student learning and achievement for the children who traditionally have been labeled "at risk" because of limited English proficiency, poverty, race, geographic location, or economic disadvantage. It is our goal to nurture early success and leadership skills which will encourage the students to love learning, lead meaningful lives, earn a good living, and "do for others," in the hope of creating a better world for all.

We believe that treating children as if they were all the same is not the same as treating them equally, because all have different needs. We believe that it is necessary to acknowledge the differences in children's backgrounds, since some come to school privileged and others are disadvantaged. The Ark Community Charter School seeks to counteract this "dysconscious racism" by providing a curriculum that is
child-centered
and
multicultural
, where every class is different and every interaction is uniquely tailored to the children's needs.

We believe that there are
multiple learning styles
and many ways in which the children can demonstrate intelligence. We believe that children thrive in situations where their strengths are celebrated and their needs are appropriately addressed. We believe that when teachers expect excellence from all their students, the students respond with excellence. To this end we will provide multiage classes where children have an opportunity to stay with the same teacher for two years to help them build a longer-lasting relationship with their teachers while learning from a wider range of peers.

We believe that all children need opportunities to develop habits that lead to ethical behavior, responsible action and a strong sense of justice. To this end our curriculum will provide opportunities for the children to discuss and critically evaluate relevant ethical issues.

We believe that educated teachers are a critical component in the learning process. They need to acquire a careful balance between theory and practice. To this end the Ark Community Charter School is committed to providing their teachers with
educational opportunities
and
time for reflection and collaboration
in order to create an innovative curriculum and environment.

We believe that
parents are partners
in the education of their children. Parents and guardians are their children's first teachers and continue to be a vital influence in their education. Since we believe that the parents and guardians have valuable information to offer about their children, we will actively involve them as educational colleagues. We will be open and receptive to the wisdom of the local community and the community-at-large."

Revision of 1/11/01:

Amended Mission Statement (bold words have been newly added)

"The Ark Community Charter School's continuing mission is to create within the city of Troy a community that fosters the academic, social and spiritual growth of our members in an environment that is both supportive and challenging. In this community everyone is celebrated, respected and heard; all are intellectually engaged, socially concerned, ethically responsible, and culturally open-minded.

With the addition of the two new phrases, we hope that our mission statement now makes it evident that student learning and achievement in the Troy community is of paramount importance to the Ark Community Charter School. By fostering the academic growth of our students we will strive to enhance their learning and academic achievement. They will be continually challenged to learn more about themselves and the world around them, to become thinking beings who will greatly benefit their local communities and society at large. "



 

Ark Community Charter School

Attendance and Dropout Statistics

Other Data

 

School Year: 2001-02

Maximum enrollment: 96 students K-5

Percentage of Attendance: not reported

Dropouts: None

Number of special education students: 12

Number LEP students: 11

Number students receiving free/reduced lunch: 92

Poverty Data: 51-60% pupils on public welfare

Number of students suspended: not reported

 

School

Assets

2001-02

Liabilities

2001-02

Total Net Assets or Fund Balance

2001-02

Change in Unrestricted Net Assets or Fund Balance

2001-02

Ark Community CS

$675,884

$109,292

$566,592

$421,442

School Year: 2002-03

Maximum enrollment: 96 students K-5

Percentage of Attendance: 93.1%

Number of special education students: 13

Number LEP students: 13

Number students receiving free/reduced lunch: 89

Poverty Data: 51-60% pupils on public welfare

Number of students suspended: 5

 

School

Assets

2002-03

Liabilities

2002-03

Total Net Assets or Fund Balance

2002-03

Change in Unrestricted Net Assets or Fund Balance

2002-03

Ark Community CS

*

*

*

*

*Information not yet available.

 

School Year: 2003-04

 

Maximum enrollment: 96 students K-5

Other information not yet available.




 

Ark Community Charter School

 

Student Enrollment Data

 

2001-02 Enrollment Disaggregated

 

Grade

American Ind./Alaskan Native

Black

Asian/Pacific Islander

Hispanic

White

Totals

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

Kdg.

   

6

5

   

1

2

 

2

7

9

1st

   

5

4

   

4

3

   

9

7

2nd

   

4

3

   

3

4

2

 

9

7

3rd

   

3

3

   

4

4

1

1

8

8

4th

   

5

3

   

6

1

1

 

12

4

5th

   

2

6

   

4

2

2

 

8

8

6th

                       

Ungraded Elem.

                       

7th

                       

8th

                       

9th

                       

10th

                       

11th

                       

12th

                       

Ungraded Secondary

                       

Totals

   

25

24

   

22

16

6

3

53

43

2002-03 Enrollment Disaggregated

Grade

American Ind./Alaskan Native

Black

Asian/Pacific Islander

Hispanic

White

Totals

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

Kdg.

   

6

4

   

3

3

   

9

7

1st

   

4

3

   

1

5

1

2

11

5

2nd

   

5

5

   

3

3

   

8

8

3rd

   

6

2

   

3

4

1

 

10

6

4th

   

4

4

   

2

4

1

1

7

9

5th

   

5

6

   

1

3

1

 

7

9

6th

                       

Ungraded Elem.

                       

7th

                       

8th

                       

9th

                       

10th

                       

11th

                       

12th

                       

Ungraded Secondary

                       

Totals

   

30

24

   

13

22

4

3

47

49




Ark Community Charter School

 

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

 

New York State Assessments

 

 

Percent of Students Performing at Level:

2001-02

1

2

3

4

Grade 4 ELA

Troy City Schools

18.2

4.4

72.7

32.0

9.1

53.0

0.0

10.7

Grade 4 Math

Troy City Schools

0.0

4.7

64.3

32.2

28.6

51.6

7.1

11.6

2002-03

       

Grade 4 ELA

Troy City Schools

7.1

6.7

78.6

40.1

7.1

38.2

7.1

15.0

Grade 4 Math

Troy City Schools

13.3

5.8

53.3

23.9

33.3

55.0

0.0

15.3



Stanford Achievement Test-9 Reading Battery

2002-03

 

Grade

Date of Test (DOT)

# Enrolled in Grade on DOT

# Exempted in Grade by IEP

# Absent in Grade on DOT

# Exempted in Grade by ELL Status

# Students Assessed in Grade

Score:

Normal Curve Equivalent

Qualitative Level & Percent Attaining

2

5/03

16

0

0

0

16

33

NA

3

5/03

15

0

0

0

15

30

NA

5

5/03

16

1

0

0

15

43

NA

 

Comparison of SAT-9 Grade 3 Reading Battery and New York State Grade 4 ELA

2004 Cohort Group (N=9)

 

SAT-9 Reading Battery � Spring 2003 (grade 3)

Scaled Score: 570

NYS ELA � Spring 2003 (grade 4)

Scaled Score: 620



Stanford Achievement Test-9 Math Battery

2002-03

 

Grade

Date of Test (DOT)

# Enrolled in Grade on DOT

# Exempted in Grade by IEP

# Absent in Grade on DOT

# Exempted in Grade by ELL Status

# Students Assessed in Grade

Score:

Normal Curve Equivalent

Qualitative Level & Percent Attaining

2

5/03

16

0

0

0

16

26

NA

3

5/03

16

0

1

0

15

24

NA

5

5/03

16

1

0

0

15

39

NA




Ark Community Charter School

 

Fiscal Impact Data

 

2001-02

Name

Sending District

Number of Students

2001-02

AEP

Per Student 2001-02

Total AEP 2001-02

District�s 2001-02 Approved General Fund Budget

Percent of Impact on District

Budget

Ark Community Charter School

Lansingburgh

6

$7,055

$42,330

$24,542,924

0.17

Troy

90

$8,640

$777,600

$64,415,500

1.21


 

2002-03

Name

Sending District

Number of Students

2002-03

AEP

Per Student 2002-03

Total AEP 2002-03

District�s 2002-03 Approved General Fund Budget

Percent of Impact on District

Budget

Ark Community Charter School

Lansingburgh

9

$7,197

$64,773

$25,403,338

0.26

Troy

86

$8,769

$754,134

$62,652,468

1.20

Watervliet

1

$6,349

$6,349

$15,401,926

0.04


 

Discussion and Conclusions

Distribution and Enrollment

As can be seen from the information provided above, charter schools tend to be located in predominantly urban areas. The three exceptions are the Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School in Wainscott, the Roosevelt Children�s Academy Charter School in Roosevelt, and the Riverhead Charter School located in Riverhead. All three are communities on Long Island.

The charter schools also tend to attract a predominantly minority student population. For example, the Troy City School District reported that for the 2001-02 school year, 64.7 percent of its student population was White, 25.8 percent was Black, and 7.1 percent was Hispanic. In contrast, for the same year, the Ark Charter School reported that its student body was 9.3 percent White, 51.1 percent Black, and 39.6 percent Hispanic. For the same school year, the Albany City School District1 reported that 27.1 percent of its student body was White, 62.1 percent was Black, and 7.8 percent was Hispanic, while the New Covenant Charter School reported that 1.0 percent of its student body was White, 94.9 percent was Black, and 3.1 percent was Hispanic. The Riverhead Central School District reported that 63.3 percent of its student body was White, 27.7 percent was Black, and 7.4 percent was Hispanic. In contrast, the Riverhead Charter School reported that 20.8 percent of its student body was White, 66.7 percent was Black, and 10.2 percent was Hispanic.

While the student population of charter schools in New York State has remained fairly evenly balanced between boys and girls, the ethnic distribution is about two-thirds Black and about one-sixth each Hispanic and White. The dominance of Black students in the charter school population has remained steady at two-thirds over the past three years, while the proportions of Hispanic and White students have become more similar during that period. The ethnic distribution of students in charter schools contrasts with the student population in public schools statewide. Statewide, White students represent a majority (55 percent for the most recent year information is available), with Black and Hispanic students representing 20 and 18 percent, respectively. Thus, the Hispanic population in charter schools is similar to the general population, while by that reckoning Blacks are over-represented in charter schools and Whites are under- represented.

If the ethnic representation of students in charter schools is compared to the distribution of students in public schools in New York City and the large city districts, Black students remain over- represented in charter schools (two-thirds in charter schools vs. 37 percent in the large cities). For the large cities, Hispanic students represent 36 percent of the public school population (vs. 16 percent for charter schools statewide). The population of White students in charter schools (15 percent) closely reflects the White student population in the large cities (16 percent).

___________________________

1All district data are taken from New York State of LearningA report to the Governor and the Legislature on the Educational Status of the State's Schools.  Statistical Profiles of Public School Districts.  June 2002

 

Of 20 charter schools operating in their third or fourth year, 10 show increases in the percent of enrollment of female students, 3 show increases in the percent of enrollment of male students, 7 show increases in the percent of enrollment of Black students, and 5 show increases in the percent of enrollment of Hispanic students.

Of 13 charter schools operating in their second year and submitting enrollment data, 7 show increases in the percent of enrollment of female students, 1 shows an increase in the percent of enrollment of male students, 4 show increases in the percent of enrollment of Black students, 2 show increases in the percent of enrollment of Hispanic students, and 3 show increases in the percent of enrollment of White students.

Overall, 17 of 34 charter schools show increases in the percent of enrollment of female students, 4 show increases in the percent of enrollment of male students, 11 show increases in the percent of enrollment of Black students, 7 show increases in the percent of enrollment of Hispanic students, and 3 show increases in the percent of enrollment of White students.

Only six charter schools currently operating report less than 50 percent of their student body as Black and/or Hispanic.

In the 2000-01 school year, the charter schools reported a total of 468 English language learners, with 78 being enrolled in grades K-6 and the remaining 390 students enrolled in grades 7-12. In 2001-02, they reported a total of 147 English language learners, with 108 enrolled in grades K-6 and the remaining 39 students enrolled in grades 7-12. In the 2002-03 school year, the charter schools reported a total of 207 English language learners, with 173 enrolled in grade K-6 and the remaining 34 students enrolled in grades 7-12. The decline in enrollment of English language learners is attributable primarily to International Charter High School at LaGuardia Community College, whose enrollment consisted exclusively of English language learners, surrendering its charter at the end of the 2000-01 school year.

When compared with their districts of location, the data also show that charter schools tend to attract more students who receive free or reduced lunch. For example, for the 2001-02 school year, the Troy City School District reported that 56.9 percent of the students were eligible for free or reduced lunch, while the Ark Charter School reported that 95.9 percent of its students were eligible. For the same year, the Albany City School District reported that 67.2 percent of its students were eligible for free or reduced lunch, while the New Covenant Charter School reported that 76.2 percent of its students were so eligible. The Riverhead Central School District reported that 41.9 percent of its student population was eligible for free or reduced lunch during the 2001-02 school year, while the Riverhead Charter School reported that 67.1 percent of its student population was so eligible. In the large cities, the distribution of students by free or reduced lunch is relatively comparable.

 

Table 1

Number of Charter Schools by

Percent of Pupils from Families on Public Welfare

Percent of Pupils from Families on Public Welfare

School Year

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

0

 

1

 

1

1-10

 

1

2

1

11-20

 

2

5

4

21-30

 

2

1

2

31-40

1

3

2

5

41-50

1

1

1

3

51-60

 

1

5

4

61-70

 

5

5

9

71-80

3

4

3

1

81-90

 

2

7

7

91-100


The data reported in the Table 1 above indicate that for each year in which charter schools have been operating in New York State, more than 50 percent of the charter schools have served student populations in which over 50 percent of students were from families receiving welfare. The students who attend charter schools typically do not represent affluent families.

Table 2

Charter School Student Enrollment by

Students with Disabilities and Free/Reduced Lunch

School Year

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

Enrollment

1,698

5,699

8,093

10,577

Students with Disabilities

**

318

751

896

Percent Students with Disabilities

**

6.1*

9.4*

8.5

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

1,363

3,774

5,942

7,829

Percent Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

80.2

72.9*

74.7*

74.0

*Enrollment adjusted for calculation because of incomplete data submissions.

**Charter schools operating in 1999-00 did not submit information on students with disabilities.

A second indicator of the economic backgrounds of students in New York�s charter schools is the percent of students receiving free or reduced lunch at their charter schools. Over four years, about three-fourths of the students in charter schools have received free or reduced lunch. See Table 2 above.

Regarding students with disabilities, statewide data for Fall 2000 show that over 11 percent of students received special education, a percentage that had been increasing over the past two decades but has leveled off. In charter schools, students with disabilities have represented a lower percentage, ranging from approximately six to nine percent over the last three years.

Thus, charter schools in New York State tend to attract minority and poverty-level students to a greater degree than is represented in the schools� districts of location. Though the percent of charter school students with disabilities has fluctuated over the three years for which there are data, it is still below that seen in the districts.

Student Academic Performance

In 1999-2000, the first year that charter schools began to operate in New York State, only one charter school had students in grade 4 or grade 8, grades in which required New York State assessments are administered. In each subsequent year, the number of operating charter schools with 4th or 8th grade students has increased, and the number of charter schools reporting results on State assessments in ELA and math has increased. When the grade 4 and 8 assessments were introduced, the Department established four levels of performance for each assessment. Level 1 represents very little proficiency in the State Learning Standards; Level 2 represents partial proficiency; Level 3 represents proficiency; and Level 4 represents advanced proficiency. Using these levels, a performance index is calculated for each school and for each district. The performance index is calculated by summing the percent of tested students scoring at Levels 2 through 4 and the percent scoring at Levels 3 and 4. Consequently, for each charter school that administers State assessments, a performance index is calculated. Each school�s performance index is expected to meet or exceed the State standard. The State standards established for the past four school years are as follows:shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3

Year

State Standard

1999-2000

140

2000-2001

140

2001-2002

145

2002-2003

150


During the 2002-03 school year, 38 charter schools were in operation. Of these, 28 had students in either grade 4 or grade 8 (or both), grades in which New York State assessments are administered. Of the 28 charter schools eligible to administer State assessments, all of them reported results for 2002-03 for either ELA or mathematics.

English Language Arts

Regarding performance on the State ELA assessments, the charter schools and the districts (including community school districts in New York City) in which they are located have not generally achieved levels of student academic success at or above the State standards established for the four years in which charter schools have been operating.

Table 4

Charter Schools and Districts of Location Meeting or Exceeding State Standards

 

 

Year

State Standard

ELA 4

ELA 8

Charter Schools

Districts of Location

Charter Schools

Districts of Location

Number

Number at or above Standard

Number

Number at or above Standard

Number

Number at or above Standard

Number

Number at or above Standard

1999-00

140

1

0

1

0

0

NA

0

NA

2000-01

140

7

1

6

0

4

1

3

0

2001-02

145

16

2

11

3

5

1

4

0

2002-03

150

22

8

14

5

10

2

9

1

As the Table 4 above reveals, in the first three years that charter schools were in operation, no more than two charter schools achieved the State standard. In the fourth year of charter schools, eight schools met or exceeded the State standard for 4th grade four. That represents not only an increase in charter schools demonstrating academic success, but the increase occurred even though the State standard had been raised above the level required previously.

The academic performance of charter schools can also be compared to that of districts within respect to progress toward the State standard. While it is true that the majority of charter schools and the districts of their location have not yet demonstrated student achievement at the level of the State standard, in the 2002-2003 school year charter schools have made notable gains toward that standard. Of 15 charter schools for which grade 4 ELA data are available for both the 2001-02 and 2002-03 school years, 14 showed gains in their performance indices, with the average gain being over 30 points. For the 11 districts in which those charter schools are located, 9 showed gains in their performance index, with average gains of 8 points. In contrast, for the 7 charter schools that reported achievement data in 2000-01 and 2001-02, their average gain on the performance index was less than 2 points, with the districts showing an average gain of 7 points for the same period. Thus, the pattern of gains in the districts housing charter schools has remained steady over the past two years, while the results for the charter schools have improved substantially in 2002-03.

Results on the ELA 8 assessments show that of the 4 charter schools reporting data for 2001-02 and 2002-03, all made gains on the performance index, with the average gain being 15 points. For the 3 districts of location, all showed declines in performance, with the average loss being 5 points. The same 4 charter schools had reported data for 2000-01, with only 1 of the 4 registering a gain against the State standard (average gain 0.25 points) in 2001-02. For the 3 districts, all made gains from 2000-01 to 2001-02, averaging 8 points. The 2002-03 school year was a year in which the districts where charter schools are located showed performance declines in contrast to previous gains. It also seems worthy of note that the charter school gains on the ELA 8 assessment for 2002-03 run counter to a general pattern of decline in the districts.

Mathematics

Regarding performance on the State math assessments, prior to the 2002-03 school year, the charter schools and the districts (including community school districts in New York City) in which they are located have not generally achieved levels of student academic success at or above the established State standard. However, in the 2002-03 school year, that pattern changed for grade 4 math results in both the charter schools and the districts in which they are located.

Table 5

Charter Schools and Districts of Location Meeting or Exceeding State Standards

 

 

Year

State Standard

Math 4

Math 8

Charter Schools

Districts of Location

Charter Schools

Districts of Location

Number

Number at or Above State Standard

Number

Number at or Above State Standard

Number

Number at or Above State Standard

Number

Number at or Above State Standard

1999-00

140

1

0

1

0

0

NA

0

NA

2000-01

140

7

1

6

2

4

1

3

0

2001-02

145

16

4

15

6

5

1

4

0

2002-03

150

23

12

15

11

10

2

9

1

As Tthe table 5 above reveals, in the first three years that charter schools were in operation, no more than 4 charter schools achieved the State�s standard. In the fourth year of charter schools, 12 schools - more than half of the charter schools administering the State assessments - met or exceeded the State standard for 4th grade mathematics. That represents not only an increase in charter schools demonstrating academic success, but the increase occurred even though the State standard had been raised above the level required previously. For the same school year, district results on the grade 4 mathematics assessment also improved, with 11 of 15 districts exceeding the State standard.

To pursue the comparison further, of 15 charter schools for which grade 4 math data are available for both the 2001-02 and 2002-03 school years, 13 showed gains in their performance indices, with the average gain over 33 points. For the 11 districts in which those charter schools are located, all showed gains in their performance index, with average gains of 16 points. In contrast, for the 6 charter schools that reported achievement data in 2000-01 and 2001-02, their average gain on the State performance index was slightly more than 3 points, with the 5 districts of location showing an average loss of 0.2 of a point for the same period. Thus, while the pattern of gains in both the charter schools and the districts housing them has improved during the past year, the rate of improvement for the charter schools has exceeded that of the districts.

Results on the grade 8 mathematics assessment shows that, of the 5 charter schools reporting data for 2001-02 and 2002-03, 4 made gains on the performance index, with an average gain of 26 points. Of the 4 districts of location, 2 showed gains in performance, with an average gain of 9 points. Four of those charter schools had reported data for 2000-01, with none of the 4 registering gains against the State performance index (average loss of 11 points) in 2001-02. For the 3 districts of location, all had made gains from 2000-01 to 2001-02, averaging 12 points. The 2002-03 school year was a year in which the performance of districts where charter schools are located was mixed.

Highest and Lowest Performing Charter Schools

In the 2000-01 school year, the highest and lowest performing schools relative to the State assessments were as follows (note that this was the first year of operation for each charter school):

  • Grade 4 ELA:

South Buffalo Charter School (Buffalo), 56.5 percent of students at or above Level 3

Harbor Science and Arts Charter School (NYC CSD#4), 16.7 percent of students at or above Level 3

  • Grade 4 math:

Renaissance Charter School (NYC CSD#30), 60.0 percent of students at or above Level 3

REACH Charter School (NYC CSD#1), 5.9 percent of students at or above Level 3

  • Grade 8 ELA:

KIPP Academy Charter School (NYC CSD#7), 64.2 percent of students at or above Level 3

Charter School of Science and Technology (Rochester) and Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School (Rochester) both with 12.5 percent of students at or above Level 3

  • Grade 8 math:

KIPP Academy Charter School (NYC CSD#7), 72.7 percent of students at or above Level 3

Charter School of Science and Technology (Rochester), 10.5 percent of students at or above Level 3

During the 2000-01 school year, the REACH Charter School (New York City) was designated as being furthest from State standards.

In the 2001-02 school year, the highest and lowest performing schools relative to the State assessments were as follows:

  • Grade 4 ELA:

South Buffalo Charter School (Buffalo), 64.0 percent of students at or above Level 3

Ark Community Charter School (Troy), 9.1 percent of students at or above Level 3 (first year of operation)

  • Grade 4 math:

Renaissance Charter School (NYC CSD#30), 82.6 percent of students at or above Level 3

Sisulu Children�s Charter School (NYC CSD#5), 4.5 percent of students at or above Level 3

  • Grade 8 ELA:

KIPP Academy Charter School (NYC CSD#7), 61.5 percent of students at or above Level 3

REACH Charter School (NYC CSD#1), no students at or above Level 3.

  • Grade 8 math:

KIPP Academy Charter School (NYC CSD#7), 61.5 percent of students at or above Level 3

REACH Charter School (NYC CSD#1), no students at or above Level 3

In the 2001-02 school year, the Ark Community Charter School (Troy), the Charter School for Science and Technology (Rochester), the Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School (Rochester), the Sisulu Children�s Charter School (NYC CSD#5), and the Stepping Stone Academy Charter School (Buffalo) were designated as being furthest from State standards.

For the 2002-03 school year, the highest and lowest performing charter schools relative to the State assessments are as follows:

  • Grade 4 ELA:

Beginning with Children Charter School (NYC CSD#14), 85.8 percent of students at or above Level 3

Southside Academy Charter School (Syracuse), no students at or above Level 3 (first year of operation)

  • Grade 4 Math:

Renaissance Charter School (NYC CSD#30), 95.6 percent of students at or above Level 3

King Center Charter School (Buffalo), 26.3 percent of students at or above Level 3

  • Grade 8 ELA:

KIPP Academy Charter School (NYC CSD#7), 71.9 percent of students at or above Level 3

John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School (NYC CSD#2), no students at or above Level 3

  • Grade 8 Math:

KIPP Academy Charter School (NYC CSD#7), 78.9 percent of students at or above Level 3

John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School (NYC CSD#2), no students at or above Level 3

In 2002-03, the New Covenant Charter School (Albany) and the John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School (NYC CSD#2) were designated as being furthest from State standards.

Summary and Analysis of Charter School Performance on State Assessments

Charter schools can be divided into three groups according to their academic performance on the 2003 State assessments in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics: high-performing schools that exceeded the State standard in ELA and mathematics; adequately performingschools that exceeded the State standard in grade 4 mathematics and were within 20 points of the standard in grade 4 ELA; and low-performing schools that performed far (i.e., more than 20 points) from the State standard.

The high-performing schools include seven with grade 4 enrollment, one with grade 8 enrollment, and one with enrollment in both grades. These schools can be found in New York City and in districts across the State from Long Island to Buffalo. Some of the schools opened for the first time in the 2003-04 school year, while some had been operating for two or three years.

Adequately performing schools include four schools with grade 4 enrollment. One of these schools is in New York City. Two of these schools opened in 2002-03.

Low-performing schools include eight with grade 4 enrollment, six schools with grade 8 enrollment, and two schools with enrollment in grades 4 and 8. Two schools that were low- performing in grade 8 were high- performing in grade 4. Schools in this category had been open from one to four years.

While the performance of charter schools reporting data for both 2001-02 and 2002-03 improved during that time, the number of years that a school has been operating does not predict performance. Some schools which have been operating for three or four years continue to be low- performing, while other schools, newly opened in 2002-03, performed above the State standard.

When comparing charter school performance with that of the district of location, it is important to remember that the student population in the charter school may not be representative of the student population of the district. Some charter schools may draw from the lowest-performing district schools. On the other hand, data in a previous section showed that, on average, charter schools enroll a mostly minority and economically-disadvantaged population, and also generally enroll a smaller percentage of students with disabilities and limited English proficiency than do the districts of location. Further, the students with disabilities that charter schools enroll are unlikely to have severe disabilities.

The table below shows the performance of general-education students and students with disabilities in charter schools, in New York City, and in other districts where charter schools are located. The only assessment on which general-education students in charter schools outperformed those in districts of location was the grade 8 ELA. On that test, a larger percentage of general-education students in charter schools than in districts of location outside New York City were proficient (scored at Level 3 or 4). The performance of students with disabilities in charter schools and districts of location was more comparable, with charter schools frequently performing as well or better than districts of location. Students with disabilities, however, represented a smaller percentage of tested students in charter schools than districts of location. See Table 6 below.

Table 6

Comparison Between Among Charter Schools, the New York City Public Schools and Other Districts of Location on the Performance of General-Education Students and Students with Disabilities

Subject

Category

General Education

Students with Disabilities

Number Tested

% Levels 2+3+4

% Levels 3+4

Number Tested

% Levels 2+3+4

% Levels 3+4

Grade 4 ELA

Charter Schools

970

90.0%

47.3%

92

70.7%

16.3%

New York City

64,817

95.4

58.2

9,758

62.2

15.3

Other Districts

8,547

93.7

51.7

1,815

66.1

17.1

Grade 4 Math

Charter Schools

967

90.3

58.9

90

81.1

34.4

New York City

69,576

95.0

72.4

9,979

67.2

32.0

Other Districts

8,906

95.2

69.3

1,952

80.1

42.8

Grade 8 ELA

Charter Schools

451

88.7

35.0

31

45.2

3.2

New York City

61,156

91.2

37.3

10,212

48.0

3.5

Other Districts

7,985

89.6

29.9

1,944

49.6

4.3

Grade 8 Math

Charter Schools

507

69.6

26.6

33

33.3

15.2

New York City

65,979

78.3

39.0

10,093

30.8

5.0

Other Districts

8,015

75.2

32.8

1,869

44.4

11.0

Note: "Other Districts" included in this analysis were Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, Schenectady, Troy, Roosevelt, Kenmore-Tonawanda, Wainscott and Riverhead.

The table 7 below compares the percent of tested students with disabilities in charter schools and districts of location. Several charter schools did not report any test scores for students with disabilities, including some of the highest performing schools: Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School, Genesee Community Charter School, Roosevelt Children's Academy Charter School, KIPP Academy Charter School, Bronx Preparatory Charter School, Harriet Tubman Charter School, and the International Charter School of Schenectady. Harbor Science and Arts Charter School and the Renaissance Charter School reported no 4th grade 4 test results for students with disabilities.

 

Table 7

Comparison Among Charter Schools, the New York City Public Schools and Other Districts of Location on the Percentage of All Tested Students Who Were Disabled

Subject

Category

Percent

Grade 4 ELA

Charter Schools

8.7

New York City

13.1

Other Districts

17.5

Grade 4 Math

Charter Schools

8.5

New York City

12.5

Other Districts

18.0

Grade 8 ELA

Charter Schools

6.4

New York City

14.3

Other Districts

19.6

Grade 8 Math

Charter Schools

6.1

New York City

13.3

Other Districts

18.9


 

Caution

The 2002-03 math and ELA results on the State assessments show that students in charter schools increased their achievement compared to previous years. In addition to increased rates of gain, the numbers of charter schools showing gains also increased. Some of the charter schools achieved results that compared well to the districts in which they are located. Six of 24 charter schools with students in grade 4 and 7 of 10 charter schools with students in grade 8 achieved performance indices in math higher than those of their districts of location. In ELA, 9 out of 23 charter schools with 4th graders and 6 out of 10 with eighth graders achieved performance indices higher than their districts of location.

While these results seem to be encouraging, they should be viewed with some caution. Most charter schools have not existed long enough to have sufficient data to support conclusions or predictions. The 2002-03 results may mark the beginning of a continuing trend of improvement and even success for charter schools, but they may also be an anomaly. It is too soon to tell. For example, some of the charter schools had very few tested students, and in such populations the performance of one or two students can completely alter the general pattern without providing a sure foundation for the prediction of future results. Likewise, just as the large gains in performance exhibited by some of the charter schools could not have been predicted on the basis of results from previous years, it is not possible to predict that similar leaps will continue. A few of the charter schools that made large gains in performance are still far below the State performance indices, and it is not possible to forecast either a continuation of improvement or the rate of improvement.

Whether improvements in charter school performance in 2002-03 may be explained by the increasing effectiveness over time of the charter schools� approaches to education cannot yet be known. Some of the schools had just opened, and others had exhibited inconsistency of results in previous years. What may have changed, or what may yet change, cannot be forecast. The first opportunity to consider explanations of charter school performance will occur when the first applications for renewal of charters are submitted. Then the schools will have to provide explanations to account for their results, and reviewers will be able to weigh alternative explanatory hypotheses.

Other Standardized Assessments

Not all charter schools serve grades in which State assessments are given. Those charter schools (as well as those that do give the State assessments) use a variety of other standardized assessments by which they purport to measure students� academic progress.

Of the 32 charter schools operating as of the 2001-02 school year, 15 submitted student performance data on standardized assessments. The data illustrate the difficulty of determining the educational effectiveness of charter schools, a frequently noted difficulty. The 15 schools reported using 13 different standardized assessments. This in itself would not necessarily represent a barrier to interpretation; for instance, if the schools reported results using the same metric (percentile, normal curve equivalent [NCE], grade equivalent, etc.), then patterns could be discovered. But the 15 schools employed no fewer than 8 distinct ways of expressing student results on the 13 different assessments. In addition, some of the schools change metrics from one year to the next, thus rendering interpretation dubious. Most vexing of all, 4 charter schools that all reported results in terms of a metric called "qualitative level and % attaining" use multiple forms of expression within the metric. One school expressed results in terms of decimals, then switched the next year to whole numbers. Another used percentages at 4 defined categories (advanced, proficient, etc.). One merely reported percent above and below grade level. The last used two sets of standards; one is not explained, and the other involved four ccategories not employed by any of the other 4 schools. Combining these difficulties with the fact that the 15 schools manifest eight8 different combinations of grades in their initial year of operation (with 6six subsequent changes in grade combinations) virtually dooms any attempt to derive helpful interpretations.

___________________________

1Sandra Vergari, ed., The Charter School Landscape (Pittsburgh:  U Pittsburgh Press, 2002, p. 269) provides a recent example.

These variations in type of assessment, metric, and expression within metric limit analysis to observing that of 15 charter schools submitting data on standardized assessments, 6 had data yielding possible interpretations. None of the data were comparative data between or among schools. No charter school claimed to have data on standardized assessments that could predict performance on State assessments.

One charter school reported Fall-Spring results in the 2000-01 school year as percentiles. Kindergarten students gained 1 percentile on the New York City English Language Assessment Battery, while students in 1st grade gained 7.5 percentiles. Two issues make interpretation problematic. The first is that the number of students for whom data were reported was 6 for kindergarten and 4 for 1st grade. Such a small sample does not support generalization. The second issue is that the percentiles in both grades were very low: 8 for kindergarten, increasing to 9, and 4 for 1st grade, increasing to 11. Changes in the light of such initially low levels are of little significance.

In a second charter school, results for students in grades 1 through 3 showed declines, on the average of 5 NCEs, in both reading and math on the Stanford 9. These results represented one year of schooling.

A third charter school reported Fall to Spring results on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), showing an increase of 4.5 NCEs in reading and a decrease of 2.8 NCEs in math for kindergarten; for 1st grade, results in reading showed a decrease of 0.9 NCEs, and results in math showed an increase of 0.7 NCEs. However, the accuracy of these results is questionable because the school�s report seems to miscalculate the results in reading.

In a fourth charter school, two problems confound interpretation of results. In the first place, though the school reported its results over three years, it changed the metric in which it expressed those results. Thus, the first year�s data cannot be used as a baseline for interpretation of the second year�s data. Between its second and third years, the school reported gains on the ITBS - Core Total in grades 2, 6, and 7 and a decline in grade 1. The other problem with interpretation of results is that for the 2000-01 school year, the number of students reported in grade 6 for a Fall testing was 61 fewer than for the corresponding Spring testing. This discrepancy undercuts the credibility of the other data reported by the school.

A fifth charter school is unique in reporting cohort data (data on the same group of students) over two years. Expressed in NCEs, for two grades there were modest increases and for two other grades slight decreases. Overall, the change is negligible.

Finally, one school reported results in Language and Math for three grades from Spring to Spring on the ITBS. Expressed in a very unusual metric (percent above the 50th percentile), the results vary widely, with large gains in language for grade three offset by declines in math for grades one and two.

Overall, the student performance data from the administration of standardized assessments other than the State tests leave the question of charter schools� academic effectiveness unresolved. Indeed, the data can hardly be said even to address the question of academic effectiveness. Partly this is a result of charter schools not communicating, for example, about the standardized tests they elected to purchase and administer. Partly it is a result of a similar lack of communication about the metrics the charter schools selected and reported. But another aspect of the problem of deriving meaningful generalizations based on data from standardized tests is that the charter schools have not made an effective effort to organize and present their data to make the case for their academic effectiveness.

To date, inferences regarding the academic performance of charter schools depend on data collected from the administration of the grade 4 and 8 State ELA and math assessments. These are the only assessments that are comparable longitudinally.

Fiscal Impact

Overall impact upon a district�s budget depends upon the number of resident students attending a charter school, the total amount paid to the charter school, and the size of the district�s own budget. Although New York City hosts most of the charter schools, the overall impact upon its budget has been negligible. The Albany City School District seems to have consistently had one of the higher levels of impact. In 1999-2000 (the first year in which charter schools operated in New York State), the overall fiscal impact in Albany was 2.76 percent. In 2000-01, the Roosevelt Union Free School District showed the highest level of impact (3.05 percent), but the Albany City School District also had an impact of 2.53 percent. In the 2001-02 school year, the impact in Albany was 4.40 percent (once again the highest in the State), and was 5.00 percent in 2002-03 (the highest was 5.30 percent in the Lackawanna City School District).

Both State Education Law and Regulations of the Commissioner of Education describe the method by which charter schools are financed. In short, districts must make six substantially equal installments beginning on the first business day of July and every two months thereafter. The payments equal 100 percent of the AEP, which is calculated by the Department. The districts must also pay directly to the charter school any State or federal aid attributed to a resident student with a disability attending the charter school in proportion to the level of services for each such student that the charter school provides, directly or indirectly. If a district refuses to pay monies owed the charter school, the Department will certify the amount in arrears to the State Comptroller, who will then deduct the amount owed from the district�s State aid and send it instead to the charter school. To date, only two school districts (the Longwood Central School District and the Riverhead Central School District) have consistently refused to pay the amounts owed, although their superintendents have stated that they will begin paying starting with the 2003-04 school year. Other than the deduction of State aid, there is no penalty to a district for refusing to make payments to a charter school.

_______________________________

2 Section 2856 of the Education Law

3 Commissioner's Regulation 119.1

Most districts report little financial and/or programmatic impact from having students attend charter schools. Most of the concerns are raised in districts with the largest number of students per capita attending charter schools (e.g., Albany City School District, Buffalo City School District). Both the Albany and Buffalo school districts have consistently reported that teaching staff had to be terminated, and Buffalo has further reported that administrators and teacher aides have also been terminated. It should be noted, however, that an on going fiscal crisis within the Buffalo City School District not related to the establishment of charter schools has heavily contributed to the need to terminate staff and otherwise re-organize.

Other consistent issues that have arisen are the increased amount of time that administrators must spend on charter school-related matters, and the need to add clerical staff to handle charter school tasks. Since students from all over the district (as opposed to all of them coming from one school building) enroll in charter schools, the districts often find that they are unable to reasonably consolidate classes and/or programs, in order to compensate for the lost revenue. One district (Syracuse) did report that some overcrowding had been alleviated by children leaving the district to attend a charter school. In no instance did a district report that enrollment in any remedial programs or special education programs decreased as a result of children attending a charter school.

In conclusion, the following can be said about the charter school approach thus far in New York State:

  1. charter schools tend to attract higher percentages of minority students than is seen in the district of location;

  2. charter schools tend to attract more students in poverty than is seen in the district of location, as determined by the percent of students receiving free or reduced lunch, or who report receiving public welfare;

  3. charter schools tend to serve fewer students with disabilities and English language learners than do the districts of location;

  4. student results on State assessments tend to be very low in the first year;

  5. student results on State assessments showed substantial increases by the 2002-03 school year;

  6. a higher percent of charter schools met the State standards for the 2002-03 grade school year;

  7. a higher percent of charter schools met the State standard for the 2002-03 grade 8 ELA and math exams than did the districts of location;

  8. a higher percent of districts of location met the State standard for the 2002-03 grade 4 math exam than did charter schools;

  9. the percent of charter schools and districts of location meeting the State standard for the 2002-03 grade 4 ELA is comparable;

  10. other standardized assessment data reported by the charter schools is nearly unusable when trying to ascertain if students are actually making academic progress; and

  11. charter school authorizers take accountability seriously, as evidenced by the revocation of charters, the surrender of charters, and placing charter schools on probation for violations of the charter and/or applicable law or regulation.

    ____________________

    4See the appendix in the appropriate year's Annual Report to the Governor, the Temporary President of the Senate, the Speak of the Assembly and the Board of Regents on the Status of Charter school in New York State.



Recommendations

Pursuant to �2857(4) of the Education Law, the Board of Regents shall include in this report "recommendations to modify, expand, or terminate [the charter school] approach." Those recommendations are described below.

Recommendations to Expand

With respect to expansion, by the submission date (December 31, 2003) for the five-year report, it is virtually certain that the number of charter schools approved will not have exceeded 60. Since 7seven of those 60 have been conversion charter schools, the total number of new charter schools created under the 1998 statute is 53. Indeed, even if all the charter schools that have been approved and are scheduled to open by Fall 2004 actually open, there would still be only 51 operational, new charter schools. These numbers and projections, considered along with the pattern of application submissions, do not support a recommendation to expand the charter schools approach to allow for raising the ceiling on the number of allowable new charter schools. The only proposed modification (see below) would be to allow district boards of education, acting in their capacity as charter entities, unlimited creation of new charter schools.

Recommendations to Terminate

There is no basis for recommending the termination of the charter schools approach. Cause for termination would have had to reside either in evidence of widespread fiscal irregularity, widespread academic failure, or substantial impact on the educational viability of school districts. While a few charter schools have struggled financially and some have not excelled academically, there is no evidence of widespread fiscal irregularity or academic failure. Regarding the effect of charter schools on school districts, there is no case to be made that the educational viability of any school district has been compromised solely because of the financial burden of a charter school.

Some charter schools have been less successful with their students than other charter schools. However, in general the charter schools have not been educational failures. The appropriate context for dealing with academically unsuccessful charter schools is the renewal process. The statute provides a remedy for educationally unsound charter schools: non-renewal or revocation of their charters. If some charter schools have fared poorly on the educational front, this should surface during the charter renewal process. No charter school that has failed educationally over the course of four to five years should be given an opportunity to experiment with children�s learning for five more years. The challenge for the renewal process will be the borderline charter schools, those that have shown modest improvement but have not inspired great confidence educationally. None of this addresses the case for recommending the termination of the charter schools approach.

Recommendations to Modify

It is recommended that the charter school approach be modified. The analysis of charter school fiscal data, charter school student academic performance data, and operational experience provide the bases for the recommendations below. Department staff are available to further discuss these recommendations and provide more detail on how they might be operationalized.

Application Process

  1. �2852(1) of the Education Law should be amended to require the submission of applications by July 1 of a year for action by the charter entity on or before January 1 of the succeeding calendar year. This will allow the charter entities more time to interact meaningfully with the applicants to reach a decision regarding approval, and will also provide earlier notification to districts regarding the possible establishment of a charter school within their boundaries.

  2. �2852(2)(c) of the Education Law should be clarified to describe under what circumstances preferences may be given to students who are at-risk of academic failure. This would help to better describe the characteristics of an "at-risk" student rather than relying solely or primarily upon poverty measures.

  3. �2852(3) of the Education Law should be amended to allow for the administrative disapproval of unacceptable applications without formal action of the charter entity. This would allow for a more timely review and decision-making process, and would alleviate the need to take up meeting time with routine matters. The charter entity would be informed monthly of all such actions being taken.

  4. �2852(5-a) of the Education Law should be amended to allow the Board of Regents 120 days to review and approve proposed charters submitted by other charter entities. This will allow for a more meaningful interaction between the charter entities as well as provide sufficient time for the review process itself.

  5. �2852(7) of the Education Law should be amended to provide the Commissioner of Education with the discretionary authority to approve non-material changes to existing charters as recommended by any charter entity. This will allow for emergency action to be taken and will also alleviate the need to take up meeting time with non-material matters.

  6. �2852(9) of the Education Law should be amended to allow local boards of education, and the chancellor of any school district in a city with a population of one million or more, to create unlimited numbers of new charter schools. This is in keeping with the spirit of the No Child Left Behind Act, with its emphasis on parental choice, and would expand the options available to local boards of education when schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress while in corrective action must make alternative governance arrangements as part of a restructuring plan.

7. �2854(2)(b) of the Education Law should be amended to provide that, in New York City, the student�s district of residence would be the Community School District in which s/he resides.

Conversion Process

  1. �2851(3)(c) of the Education Law should be amended to require that a Board of Education, when acting in its capacity of a charter entity, enter into a memorandum of agreement with the school before its conversion, to define the support and the services that will be provided by the Board to the charter school. It should also specify any agreements that have been reached regarding facilities, disposition of supplies and equipment, and personnel issues such as pension benefits. This will help to alleviate confusion after the fact and will more clearly describe ahead of time the roles and responsibilities of all parties.

  2. �2851(3)(c) of the Education Law should be further amended to allow the Commissioner of Education to promulgate regulations describing the process by which the parents or guardians of a majority of the students then enrolled in the existing public school shall vote on the issue of conversion. This will help ensure that consistent processes are enacted to provide for a fair and meaningful vote.

  3. �2856 of the Education Law should be amended to clarify the extent to which the district of location, in the case of a conversion charter school, can provide services to charter school students and claim State aid for those services, as if the students were enrolled in a district-operated program. This will help to clarify requirements and assist districts and charter schools to operate in a fiscally sound manner.

Renewal Process

  1. �2851(4) of the Education Law sets forth the current process for the renewal of charters. Charters may be renewed for a term of up to five years. It is recommended that this portion of the law be amended to allow for charters to be renewed for up to ten (10) years. The discretion for the actual length of the renewed charter should remain with the charter entity. This will allow successful charter schools to more successfully negotiate leases, loans, and lines of credit when seeking to expand their facilities.

Financing of Charter Schools

  1. �2853(1)(d)and �2853(3)(b) should be amended to allow charter schools access to financing of the construction or renovation of facilities through the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, including the ability to pledge or assign monies provided under �2856.

  2. �2857(2)(c) and various other provisions of the Education Law should be amended to make charter schools eligible for certain State categorical aids, such as limited English proficiency aid and transportation aid, as they relate to services provided to students by the charter school, directly or by contract.

  3. �2856(1) of the Education Law and Commissioner�s Regulation 119.1 set forth the current process for the financing of charter schools. This has been perhaps the most contentious area surrounding charter schools. While the Legislature correctly determined that public school districts were not entitled to keep certain State aid funds for students whom they were no longer educating, it appears that other measures should be taken to help initially offset the financial impact of charter schools on a district. It is recommended that the Legislature annually fully fund a Charter Schools Impact Fund to be administered by the Commissioner of Education. Regulations would be promulgated for this program. Criteria to determine the initial and on- going eligibility of each district would be set. One example would be to use the percent of district students attending charter schools as a threshold measure to determine eligibility for financial assistance. Each affected district would then be eligible to receive financial assistance on a sliding scale (relative to the projected impact; not a dollar-for-dollar reimbursement) for a maximum of three years, and on a decreasing basis for each of those three years. No funds would be provided to an affected district after the third year. Each district would thus have three years to plan for and adjust to the financial impact of having resident students attend charter schools. This would not be retroactive but would be intended for districts with charter schools commencing operation or significantly expanding in the 2004-05 school year. Any district that has had resident students attending an existing charter school for the 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003-04 school years would not be able to claim those students under this program, since they have already had three years to adjust their operations.

  4. �2856(2) of the Education Law should be amended to allow the Commissioner of Education to impose a financial penalty or other sanction upon a school district for its persistent failure to pay monies owed to charter schools. Commissioner�s Regulation 119.1 would also be amended to reflect this proposed change in the law. This will help to ensure timely payments to the charter schools. If the districts dispute the enrollment figures, they must use the complaint procedure described in �2855(4) of the Education Law.

Charter School Operation

  1. �2856 of the Education Law should be amended to provide Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) with the authority to provide the same services to charter schools, at cost, as they do for public school districts. This will allow charter schools to operate in a more efficient manner, and will also provide BOCES with the ability to provide services to new customers.

  2. �2857(2)(c) should be amended to provide that the date for the receipt of financial statements and audits is October 1, in order to coincide with the due date for other public schools. This will help to streamline the audit review process.

  3. Further review is needed to determine whether specific legislative changes are needed relative to charter schools� implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.



 

APPENDIX A

 

Data Summaries

Table 1

 

Summary of Charter School Student Population Distribution

By Gender and Ethnicity 1999-2003

Year

N

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

   

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

1,698*

584

46.6

668

53.4

787

46.3

524

30.9

247

14.5

140

8.2

2000-01

5,699**

2,407

50.9

2,318

49.1

3,458

66.8

919

17.8

612

11.8

185

3.6

2001-02

8,093***

3,990

50.2

3,958

49.8

5,384

67.7

1,269

16.0

1,101

13.9

194

2.4

2002-03

10,577

5,160

48.8

5,417

51.2

7,101

67.1

1,678

15.9

1,598

15.1

200

1.9

Note: Percents may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

*Incomplete data reported. Denominator reduced by 446 for computation of Male and Female percents.

**Incomplete data reported. Denominator reduced by 974 for computation of Male and Female percents; denominator reduced by 525 for computation of racial percents.

****Incomplete data reported. Denominator reduced by 145 for all computations of percents.

 

Table 2

Longitudinal Disaggregated Enrollment by Charter School 1999-2003

Amber CS

NYC CSD 4

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

116

47

40.5

69

59.5

95

81.9

21

18.1

       

2001-02

127

65

51.2

62

48.8

107

84.3

19

14.9

1

0.8

   

2002-03

168

91

54.2

77

45.8

151

89.9

17

10.1

       


Ark Community CS

Troy CSD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

                         

2001-02

96

53

55.2

43

44.8

49

51.1

38

39.6

9

9.3

   

2002-03

96

47

49.0

49

51.0

54

56.3

35

36.4

7

7.3

   


Beginning with Children CS

NYC CSD 14

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

                         

2001-02

417

184

44.1

233

55.9

148

35.5

229

54.9

36

8.6

4

1.0

2002-03

435

188

43.2

247

56.8

156

35.9

245

56.3

28

6.4

6

1.4


Brighter Choice CS for Boys

Albany CSD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

                         

2001-02

                         

2002-03

43

43

100.0

   

38

88.4

4

9.3

1

2.3

   


Brighter Choice CS for Girls

Albany CSD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

                         

2001-02

                         

2002-03

45

   

45

100.0

40

88.9

1

2.2

3

6.7

1

2.2


Bronx Preparatory CS

NYC CSD 9

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

100

48

48.0

52

52.0

56

56.0

44

44.0

       

2001-02

146

71

48.6

75

51.4

75

51.4

71

48.6

       

2002-03

192

83

43.2

109

56.8

100

52.1

92

47.9

       


Carl C Icahn CS

NYC CSD 9

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

                         

2001-02

107

54

50.5

53

49.5

52

48.6

44

41.2

1

0.9

10

9.3

2002-03

145

70

48.3

75

51.7

78

53.8

66

45.5

1

0.7

   


Central NYCS Math Science

Syracuse CSD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

449

230

51.2

219

48.8

334

74.4

8

1.8

107

23.8

   

2001-02

462

241

52.2

221

47.8

343

74.2

4

0.9

77

16.7

38

8.2

2002-03

505

254

50.3

251

49.3

454

89.9

2

0.4

45

8.9

4

0.8


CS for Applied Technologies

Kenmore-Tonawanda CSD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

                         

2001-02

697

380

54.5

317

45.5

270

38.7

61

8.8

350

50.2

16

2.3

2002-03

813

416

51.2

397

48.8

328

40.3

59

7.3

408

50.2

18

2.2


CS of Science & Technology

Rochester CSD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

805

448

55.7

357

44.3

688

85.5

56

6.9

54

6.7

7

0.9

2001-02

976

504

51.6

472

48.4

834

85.4

73

7.5

37

3.8

32

3.3

2002-03

952

484

50.8

468

49.2

868

91.1

51

5.4

33

3.5

   


Child Dev Ctr Hamptons CS

Wainscott Common SD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

24

14

58.3

10

41.7

   

1

4.2

23

95.8

   

2001-02

47

30

63.8

17

36.2

2

4.3

6

12.7

38

80.9

1

2.1

2002-03

59

35

59.3

24

40.7

6

10.2

6

10.2

45

76.3

2

3.3


Clearpool CS

NYC CSD 16

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

79

38

48.1

41

51.9

76

96.2

2

2.5

   

1

1.3

2001-02

127

54

42.5

73

57.5

125

98.4

2

1.6

       

2002-03

96

34

35.4

62

64.6

94

97.9

2

2.1

       


Community Partnership CS

NYC CSD 13

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

92

50

54.3

42

45.7

83

90.2

9

9.8

       

2001-02

149

76

51.0

73

49.0

132

88.6

12

8.1

5

3.3

   

2002-03

200

103

51.5

97

48.5

174

87.0

20

10.0

5

2.5

1

0.5


Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS

Rochester CSD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

120

64

53.3

56

46.7

86

71.7

28

23.3

6

5.0

   

2001-02

160

75

46.9

85

53.1

100

62.5

52

32.5

8

5.0

   

2002-03

200

104

52.0

96

48.0

115

57.5

80

40.0

5

2.5

   


Explore CS

NYC CSD 13

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

                         

2001-02

                         

2002-03

169

76

45.0

93

55.0

147

87.0

21

12.4

   

1

0.6


Family Life Academy CS

NYC CSD 9

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

                         

2001-02

99

47

47.5

52

52.5

22

22.2

77

77.8

       

2002-03

145

69

47.6

76

52.4

35

24.1

109

75.2

   

1

0.7


Genesee Community CS

Rochester CSD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

                         

2001-02

117

61

52.1

56

47.9

56

47.9

4

3.4

55

47.0

2

1.7

2002-03

155

66

42.6

89

57.4

60

38.7

8

5.2

81

52.2

6

3.9


Global Concepts CS

Lackawanna CSD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

                         

2001-02

                         

2002-03

170

81

47.6

89

52.4

50

29.4

8

4.7

112

65.9

   


Harbor Science & Arts CS

NYC CSD 4

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

140

88

62.9

52

37.1

115

82.1

25

17.9

       

2001-02

151

90

59.6

61

40.4

121

80.1

30

19.9

       

2002-03

173

99

57.2

74

42.8

128

74.0

45

26.0

       


Harlem Day CS

NYC CSD 4

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

                         

2001-02

50

26

52.0

24

48.0

42

84.0

8

16.0

       

2002-03

120

65

54.2

55

45.8

102

85.0

18

15.0

       


Harriet Tubman CS

NYC CSD 9

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

                         

2001-02

117

59

50.4

58

49.6

109

93.2

8

6.8

       

2002-03

152

74

48.7

78

51.3

144

94.7

8

5.3

       


Intern�l CS LaGuardia CC

NYC CSD 24*

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

446

11

2.5

227

50.9

100

22.4

108

24.2

2000-01

449

       

8

1.8

245

54.6

91

20.3

105

23.3

2001-02

                         

2002-03

                         


Intern�l CS Schenectady

Schenectady CSD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

                         

2001-02

                         

2002-03

271

131

48.3

140

51.7

133

49.1

36

13.3

87

32.1

15

5.5


John A Reisenbach CS

NYC CSD 5

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

118

54

45.8

64

54.2

111

94.1

7

5.9

       

2000-01

269

128

47.6

141

52.4

244

90.7

25

9.3

2001-02

276

137

49.6

139

50.4

248

89.9

28

10.1

       

2002-03

285

142

49.8

143

50.2

253

88.8

32

11.2

       


J V Lindsay Wildcat Academy CS

NYC CSD 2

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

151

84

55.6

67

44.4

93

61.6

52

34.4

4

2.7

2

1.3

2001-02

188

100

53.2

88

46.8

105

55.8

78

41.5

3

1.6

2

1.0

2002-03

411

211

51.3

200

48.7

204

49.6

193

47.0

13

3.2

1

0.2


King Center CS

Buffalo CSD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

80

45

56.3

35

43.7

72

90.0

   

8

10.0

   

2001-02

101

60

59.4

41

40.6

97

96.0

   

4

4.0

   

2002-03

102

55

53.9

47

46.1

98

96.1

   

4

3.9

   


KIPP Academy CS

NYC CSD 7

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

249

107

43.0

142

57.0

128

51.4

121

48.6

       

2001-02

239

101

42.3

138

57.7

127

53.1

112

46.9

       

2002-03

240

101

42.1

139

57.9

128

53.3

112

46.7

       


Merrick Academy - Queens Public CS

NYC CSD 29

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

125

56

44.8

69

55.2

125

100.0

           

2001-02

169

83

49.1

86

50.9

161

95.3

7

4.1

1

0.6

   

2002-03

349

159

45.6

190

54.4

336

96.2

10

2.9

1

0.3

2

0.6


Middle College CS at LaGuardia CC

NYC CSD 24**

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

512

220

43.0

292

57.0

107

20.9

262

51.1

117

22.9

26

5.1

2000-01

525

                       

2001-02

                         

2002-03

                         


New Covenant CS

Albany CSD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

377

178

47.2

199

52.8

328

87.0

13

3.4

30

8.0

6

1.6

2000-01

367

171

46.6

196

53.4

351

95.6

11

3.0

   

5

1.4

2001-02

712

344

48.3

368

51.7

676

94.9

22

3.1

7

1.0

7

1.0

2002-03

759

378

49.8

381

50.2

729

96.1

25

3.3

1

0.1

4

0.5


Our World Neighborhood CS

NYC CSD 30

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

                         

2001-02

                         

2002-03

368

211

57.3

157

42.7

107

29.1

86

23.3

135

36.7

40

10.9


REACH CS

NYC CSD 4***

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

103

54

52.4

49

47.6

75

72.8

28

28.2

       

2001-02

145

                       

2002-03

                         


Renaissance CS

NYC CSD 30

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

474

226

47.7

248

52.3

120

25.3

193

40.7

99

20.9

62

13.1

2001-02

476

223

46.8

253

53.2

126

26.5

193

40.5

92

19.3

65

13.7

2002-03

490

218

44.5

272

55.5

134

27.3

200

40.8

87

17.8

69

14.1


Riverhead CS

Riverhead CSD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

                         

2001-02

216

111

51.4

105

48.6

144

66.7

22

10.2

45

20.8

5

2.3

2002-03

292

152

52.1

140

47.9

179

61.3

16

5.5

88

30.1

9

3.1


Rochester Ldrshp Aca CS

Rochester CSD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

278

148

53.2

130

46.8

217

78.1

26

9.3

34

12.2

1

0.4

2001-02

343

172

50.1

171

49.9

297

86.6

24

7.0

21

6.1

1

0.3

2002-03

408

188

46.1

220

53.9

365

89.4

17

4.2

24

5.9

2

0.5


Roosevelt Children�s CS

Roosevelt UFSD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

145

70

48.3

75

51.7

138

95.2

7

4.8

       

2001-02

191

92

48.2

99

51.8

179

93.7

10

5.3

2

1.0

   

2002-03

221

96

43.4

125

56.6

206

93.2

13

5.9

2

0.9

   


Sisulu Children�s C S

NYC CSD 5

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

245

132

53.9

113

46.1

230

93.9

15

6.1

       

2000-01

322

173

53.7

149

46.3

309

96.0

13

4.0

       

2001-02

297

139

46.8

158

53.2

281

94.6

16

5.4

       

2002-03

304

136

44.7

168

55.3

291

95.7

13

4.3

       


South Buffalo CS

Buffalo CSD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

237

118

49.8

119

50.2

45

19.0

4

1.7

186

78.5

2

0.8

2001-02

294

146

49.7

148

50.3

47

16.0

11

3.7

230

78.3

6

2.0

2002-03

383

192

50.1

191

49.9

64

16.7

20

5.2

288

75.2

11

2.9


Southside Academy CS

Syracuse CSD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

                         

2001-02

                         

2002-03

147

72

49.0

75

51.0

141

95.9

   

6

4.1

   


Stepping Stone Academy CS

Buffalo CSD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

                         

2001-02

297

163

54.9

134

45.1

295

99.4

1

0.3

1

0.3

   

2002-03

384

176

45.8

208

54.2

383

99.7

   

1

0.3

   


Tapestry CS

Buffalo CSD

Male

Female

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Year

N

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999-00

                         

2000-01

                         

2001-02

104

49

47.1

55

52.9

14

13.5

7

6.7

78

75.0

5

4.8

2002-03

130

60

46.2

70

53.8

28

21.5

8

6.2

87

66.9

7

5.4


*International Charter High School at LaGuardia Community College surrendered its charter July 2001. The school did not submit complete annual reports for the 1999-00 and 2000-01 school years; student data were incomplete.

**Middle College Charter High School at LaGuardia Community College surrendered its charter July 2001. The school did not submit a complete annual report for the 2000-01 school year; student data were incomplete.

***The charter for the REACH Charter School was revoked July 2002. The school did not submit an annual report for the 2001-02 school year.

Table 3

Students with Disabilities and Students

Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch by Charter School

1999-2003

Amber CS

NYC CSD 4

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

116

3

2.5

98

84.4

2001-02

127

1

0.7

96

75.5

2002-03

168

4

2.3

134

79.7


Ark Community CS

Troy CSD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

         

2001-02

96

12

12.5

92

95.9

2002-03

96

13

13.5

89

92.7


Beginning with Children CS

NYC CSD 14

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

         

2001-02

417

63

15.1

310

74.3

2002-03

435

68

15.6

290

66.7


Brighter Choice CS for Boys

Albany CSD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

         

2001-02

         

2002-03

43

2

4.6

43

100.0


Brighter Choice CS for Girls

Albany CSD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

         

2001-02

         

2002-03

45

4

8.9

45

100.0


Bronx Preparatory CS

NYC CSD 9

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

100

6

6.0

91

91.0

2001-02

146

7

4.8

124

84.9

2002-03

192

7

3.6

173

90.1


Carl C Icahn CS

NYC CSD 9

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

         

2001-02

107

7

6.5

102

95.3

2002-03

145

5

3.4

130

89.6


Central NY CS for

Math and Science

Syracuse CSD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

449

36

8.0

246

54.8

2001-02

462

51

11.0

350

75.7

2002-03

505

63

12.4

345

68.3


CS for Applied Technologies

Kenmore-Tonawanda CSD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

         

2001-02

697

88

12.6

475

68.1

2002-03

813

85

10.4

529

65.0


CS of Science & Technology

Rochester CSD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

805

82

10.2

499

61.9

2001-02

976

103

10.6

815

83.5

2002-03

952

79

8.3

788

82.7


Child Dev Ctr Hamptons CS

Wainscott Common SD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

24

   

0

0.0

2001-02

47

25

53.2

0

0.0

2002-03

59

36

61.0

0

0.0


Clearpool CS

NYC CSD 16

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

79

   

67

84.8

2001-02

127

7

5.5

92

72.4

2002-03

96

7

7.3

92

95.8


Community Partnership CS

NYC CSD 13

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

92

8

8.7

72

78.2

2001-02

149

14

9.3

104

69.8

2002-03

200

17

8.5

163

81.5


Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS

Rochester CSD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

120

5

4.2

109

90.8

2001-02

160

5

3.1

146

91.2

2002-03

200

12

6.0

178

89.0


Explore CS

NYC CSD 13

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

         

2001-02

         

2002-03

169

0

0.0

136

80.4


Family Life Academy CS

NYC CSD 9

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

         

2001-02

99

7

6.8

87

87.8

2002-03

145

10

6.9

137

94.5


Genesee Community CS

Rochester CSD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

         

2001-02

117

8

6.8

54

46.2

2002-03

155

10

6.4

40

25.8


Global Concepts CS

Lackawanna CSD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

         

2001-02

         

2002-03

170

17

10.0

136

80.0


Harbor Science & Arts CS

NYC CSD 4

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

140

4

2.8

111

79.3

2001-02

151

12

7.9

120

79.4

2002-03

173

15

8.7

151

87.2


Harlem Day CS

NYC CSD 4

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

         

2001-02

50

4

8.0

44

88.0

2002-03

120

13

10.8

97

80.8


Harriet Tubman CS

NYC CSD 9

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

         

2001-02

117

5

4.3

65

55.5

2002-03

152

7

4.6

98

64.4


Intern�l CS LaGuardia CC

NYC CSD 24

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

446

   

411

92.2

2000-01

449

0

 

393

87.5

2001-02

         

2002-03

         


Intern�l CS Schenectady

Schenectady CSD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

         

2001-02

         

2002-03

271

10

3.7

203

74.9


John A Reisenbach CS

NYC CSD 5

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

118

   

118

 

2000-01

269

   

118

43.9

2001-02

276

15

5.4

228

82.6

2002-03

285

13

4.6

231

81.0


J V Lindsay Wildcat Academy CS

NYC CSD 2

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

151

17

11.3

134

88.7

2001-02

188

19

10.1

164

87.2

2002-03

411

53

12.9

380

92.4


King Center CS

Buffalo CSD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

80

   

65

81.2

2001-02

101

12

11.9

86

85.1

2002-03

102

9

8.8

86

84.3


KIPP Academy CS

NYC CSD 7

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

249

2

0.8

225

90.4

2001-02

239

1

0.4

225

94.1

2002-03

240

7

2.9

240

100.0


Merrick Academy � Queens Public CS

NYC CSD 29

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

125

7

5.6

94

75.2

2001-02

169

6

3.6

112

66.3

2002-03

349

18

5.2

246

70.4


Mid Coll CS LaGuardia CC

NYC CSD 29

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

512

   

423

82.6

2000-01

525*

       

2001-02

         

2002-03

         


New Covenant CS

Albany CSD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

377

   

210

55.7

2000-01

367

24

6.5

266

72.4

2001-02

712

59

8.3

543

76.2

2002-03

759

65

8.6

443

58.3


Our World Neighborhood CS

NYC CSD 30

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

         

2001-02

         

2002-03

368

11

2.9

290

78.8


REACH CS

NYC CSD 4

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

103

   

97

94.2

2001-02

145**

       

2002-03

         


Renaissance CS

NYC CSD 30

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

474

47

9.9

366

77.2

2001-02

476

45

9.4

292

61.3

2002-03

490

48

9.7

285

58.2


Riverhead CS

Riverhead CSD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

         

2001-02

216

12

5.5

145

67.1

2002-03

292

22

7.5

169

57.9


Rochester Ldrshp Aca CS

Rochester CSD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

278

23

8.3

172

61.9

2001-02

343

30

8.7

214

62.4

2002-03

408

30

7.4

334

81.9


Roosevelt Children�s CS

Roosevelt UFSD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

145

4

2.8

98

67.6

2001-02

191

5

2.6

115

60.2

2002-03

221

2

0.9

120

54.2


Sisulu Children�s C S

NYC CSD 5

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

245

   

201

 

2000-01

322

19

5.9

297

92.2

2001-02

297

17

5.7

267

89.9

2002-03

304

21

6.9

267

87.8


South Buffalo CS

Buffalo CSD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

237

31

13.1

156

65.8

2001-02

294

24

8.2

213

72.4

2002-03

383

58

15.1

268

70.0


Southside Academy CS

Syracuse CSD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

         

2001-02

         

2002-03

147

13

8.8

125

85.0


Stepping Stone Academy CS

Buffalo CSD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

         

2001-02

297

36

12.1

245

82.5

2002-03

384

37

9.6

314

81.8


Tapestry CS

Buffalo CSD

Students with Disabilities

Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch

Year

N

N

%

N

%

1999-00

         

2000-01

         

2001-02

104

4

3.8

17

16.3

2002-03

130

6

4.6

34

26.2


*Middle College Charter High School at LaGuardia Community College surrendered its charter July 2001. The school did not submit a complete annual report for the 2000-01 school year; student data were incomplete.

**The charter for REACH Charter School was revoked July 2002. The school did not submit an annual report for the 2001-02 school year.



Table 4

ELA 4 Results by Charter School and District of Location 2000-03

Charter School

District of Location

2000

2001

Difference 00-01

2002

Difference 01-02

2003

Difference 02-03

 

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

The Ark Community Charter SchoolS

           

9.1

91

   

14.2

107

5.1

16

Troy City SD

           

63.7

159

   

53.2

147

-10.5

-12

Beginning with Children Charter SchoolS

           

52.0

146

   

85.8

186

33.8

40

NYC CSD 14

           

42.7

126

   

62.0

156

19.3

30

Central NY C S for Math & and Science.

   

26.0

96

   

19.7

89

-6.3

-7

34.8

120

15.1

31

Syracuse City SD

   

37.8

117

   

36.1

116

-1.7

-1

48.5

139

12.4

23

CS harter School for Applied Technologies

           

30.7

110

   

38.8

130

8.1

20

Kenmore-Tonawanda CSD

           

72.4

171

   

75.1

173

2.7

2

Buffalo City SD*

           

33.9

115

   

33.9

117

0.0

2

CS Charter School of Science and Technology

   

27.6

109

   

16.0

80

-11.6

-29

35.7

124

21.1

44

Rochester City SD

   

41.9

127

   

46.5

136

4.6

9

42.9

131

-3.6

-5

Child Development Ctr. of the Hamptons

Charter School

           

25.0

113

   

0.0

75

   

Wainscott Common SD

                           

Eugenio Maria de Hostos CSharter School

                   

34.3

112

   

Rochester City SD

                   

42.9

131

   

Genesee Community CSharter School

                   

64.6

161

   

Rochester City SD

                   

42.9

131

   

Harbor Science and Arts Charter School

   

16.7

104

   

27.3

118

10.6

14

56.5

157

29.2

39

NYC CSD 4

   

31.3

108

   

36.2

121

4.9

13

38.8

128

2.6

7

Harriet Tubman Charter School

                   

30.0

105

   

NYC CSD 9

                   

37.3

124

   

International C S of Sch�dy.enectady

                   

46.7

130

   

Schenectady City SD

                   

47.4

139

   

King Center Charter School

           

11.1

83

   

22.2

111

11.1

28

Buffalo City SD

           

33.9

115

   

33.9

117

0.0

2

Merrick Acad. emy Queens Public C S

                   

67.4

163

   

NYC CSD 29

                   

54.2

149

   

New Covenant Charter School

9

58

22.2

80

13.2

22

15.1

75

-7.1

-5

39.6

121

25.1

46

Albany City SD

43

128

41.5

125

-1.5

-3

48.4

136

6.9

11

46.7

137

-1.7

1

Charter School

District of Location

2000

2001

Difference 00-01

2002

Difference 01-02

2003

Difference 02-03

 

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

Our World Neighborhood C S

                   

44.4

133

   

NYC CSD 30

                   

57.9

152

   

Renaissance Charter School

   

40.9

136

   

47.8

143

6.9

7

82.6

178

34.8

35

NYC CSD 30

   

46.1

132

   

52.1

141

6.0

9

57.9

152

5.8

11

Riverhead Charter School

           

35.7

107

   

54.6

142

18.9

35

Riverhead CSD

           

60.8

155

   

69.8

165

9.0

10

Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School

   

19.5

95

   

27.3

107

7.8

12

36.2

130

8.9

23

Rochester City SD

   

41.9

127

   

46.5

136

4.6

9

42.9

131

-3.6

-5

Roosevelt Children�s Academy Charter School

                   

60.0

156

   

Roosevelt UFSD

                   

69.3

165

   

Sisulu Children�s Academy Charter School

           

21.7

104

   

36.8

118

15.1

14

NYC CSD 5

           

29.0

107

   

41.0

130

12.0

23

South Buffalo Charter School

   

56.5

143

   

64.0

162

7.5

19

51.9

150

-12.1

-12

Buffalo City SD

   

35.7

113

   

33.9

115

-1.8

2

33.9

117

0.0

2

Southside Academy Charter School

                   

0.0

80

   

Syracuse City SD

                   

48.5

139

   

Stepping Stone Academy Charter School

           

16.7

83

   

29.1

122

12.4

39

Buffalo City SD

           

33.9

115

   

33.9

117

0.0

2

Tapestry Charter School

           

50.0

125

   

90.0

190

40.0

65

Buffalo City SD

           

33.9

115

   

33.9

117

0.0

2

*For both 2001-02 and 2002-03, over 85 percent of the students in the Charter School for Applied Technologies resided in the Buffalo CSD.

 

Table 5

ELA 8 Results by Charter School and District of Location 2000-03

Charter School

District

2000

2001

Difference 00-01

2002

Difference 01-02

2003

Difference 02-03

 

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

Beginning with Children Charter School

           

40.4

128

   

68.2

168

 

40

NYC CSD 14

           

21.0

102

   

39.0

130

 

28

Bronx Preparatory Charter School

                   

31.7

127

   

NYC CSD 9

                   

16.0

93

   

Charter School of Science and Technology

   

12.5

84

   

6.7

88

-5.8

4

22.6

112

15.9

24

Rochester City S D

   

25.1

102

   

18.5

106

-6.6

4

17.7

97

-0.8

-9

Harbor Science and Arts Charter School

                   

16.7

100

   

NYC CSD 4

                   

23.6

105

   

John A Reisenbach Charter School

                   

14.3

98

   

NYC CSD 5

                   

22.6

104

   

John V Lindsay Wildcat Academy CS

                   

0.0

47

   

NYC CSD 2

                   

59.2

155

   

KIPP Charter School

   

64.2

164

   

61.5

163

-2.7

-1

71.9

172

10.4

9

NYC CSD 7

   

16.6

82

   

13.9

94

-2.7

12

15.7

89

1.8

-5

New Covenant Charter School

                   

20.8

94

   

Albany City S D

                   

26.6

110

   

Renaissance Charter School

   

51.1

134

   

36.8

132

-14.3

-2

46.0

144

9.2

12

NYC CSD 30

   

33.2

111

   

28.8

119

-4.4

8

32.3

118

3.5

-1

Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School

   

12.5

88

   

4.2

88

-8.3

0

21.7

104

17.5

16

Rochester City S D

   

25.1

102

   

18.5

106

-6.6

4

17.7

97

-0.8

-9

Table 6

Math 4 Results by Charter School and District of Location 2000-03

Charter School

District of Location

2000

2001

Difference 00-01

2002

Difference 01-02

2003

Difference 02-03

 

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

The Ark Community Charter SchoolCS

           

35.7

136

   

33.3

120

-2.4

-16

Troy City SD

           

63.2

159

   

70.3

165

7.1

6

Beginning with Children CS Charter School

           

64.0

160

   

93.9

194

29.9

34

NYC CSD 14

           

56.5

146

   

74.2

169

17.7

23

Central NY C S for Math & and Sci. ence

   

35.6

105

   

26.9

97

-8.7

-8

58.5

143

31.6

46

Syracuse City SD

   

48.8

133

   

45.0

128

-3.8

-5

68.5

161

23.5

33

CS harter School for Applied Technologies

           

33.0

115

   

61.5

159

28.5

44

Kenmore-Tonawanda CSD

           

87.1

185

   

91.7

190

4.6

5

Buffalo City SD*

           

45.3

132

   

57.6

148

12.3

16

CSharter School of Science and Technology

   

44.8

125

   

13.7

74

-31.1

-51

43.7

135

30.0

61

Rochester City SD

   

47.5

132

   

44.9

132

-2.6

0

57.4

148

12.5

16

Child Dev. Ctr. of the Hamptons C S

           

62.5

163

   

60.0

160

-2.5

-3

Wainscott Common SD

                           

Eugenio Maria de Hostos CSharter School

                   

42.5

135

   

Rochester City SD

                   

57.4

148

   

Genesee Community CSharter School

                   

67.7

168

   

Rochester City SD

                   

57.4

148

   

Harbor Science and Arts CSharter School

           

40.0

110

   

56.5

152

16.5

42

NYC CSD 4

           

47.3

135

   

62.1

154

14.8

19

Harriet Tubman Charter School

                   

57.1

143

   

NYC CSD 9

                   

58.0

146

   

International C S of Sch�dy.enectady

                   

72.4

155

   

Schenectady City SD

                   

69.6

164

   

King Center Charter School

           

5.6

56

   

26.3

105

20.7

49

Buffalo City SD

           

45.3

132

   

57.6

148

12.3

16

Merrick Acad. demy Queens Public CS S

                   

56.3

152

   

NYC CSD 29

                   

66.3

159

   

New Covenant Charter School

3

42

21.7

89

18.7

47

32.1

105

13.4

16

58.5

148

26.4

43

Albany City SD

53

141

53.4

141

0.4

0

57.0

148

3.6

7

64.7

157

7.7

9

Charter School

District of Location

2000

2001

Difference 00-01

2002

Difference 01-02

2003

Difference 02-03

 

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

Our World Neighborhood C S

                   

72.0

162

   

NYC CSD 30

                   

73.8

167

   

Renaissance Charter School

   

60.0

156

   

82.6

174

22.6

18

95.6

196

13.0

22

NYC CSD 30

   

64.4

155

   

64.8

157

0.4

2

73.8

167

9.0

10

Riverhead Charter School

           

30.8

108

   

59.4

150

28.6

42

Riverhead CSD

           

70.3

166

   

90.1

177

19.8

11

Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School

   

27.3

102

   

35.0

120

7.7

18

35.4

121

0.4

1

Rochester City SD

   

47.5

132

   

44.9

132

-2.6

0

57.4

148

12.5

16

Roosevelt Children�s Academy Charter School

                   

68.0

164

   

Roosevelt UFSD

                   

79.0

177

   

Sisulu Children�s Academy Charter School

           

4.5

55

   

40.5

122

36.0

67

NYC CSD 5

           

34.1

117

   

54.9

143

20.8

26

South Buffalo Charter School

   

45.4

132

   

60.0

158

14.6

26

52.0

154

-8.0

-4

Buffalo City SD

   

50.2

137

   

45.3

132

-4.9

-5

57.6

148

12.3

16

Southside Academy Charter School

                   

50.0

120

   

Syracuse City SD

                   

68.5

161

   

Stepping Stone Academy Charter School

           

10.0

68

   

27.5

92

17.5

24

Buffalo City SD

           

45.3

132

   

57.6

148

12.3

16

Tapestry Charter School

           

53.3

147

   

94.8

190

41.5

43

Buffalo City SD

           

45.3

132

   

57.6

148

12.3

16

*For both 2001-02 and 2002-03, over 85 percent of the students in the Charter School for Applied Technologies resided in the Buffalo CSD.

 

Table 7

Math 8 Results by Charter School and District of Location 2000-03

Charter School

District

2000

2001

Difference 00-01

2002

Difference 01-02

2003

Difference 02-03

 

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

% Pass

P.I.

Beginning with Children CSCharter School

           

25.0

120

   

56.8

157

31.8

37

NYC CSD 14

           

25.5

89

   

39.4

115

13.9

26

Bronx Preparatory CSCharter School

                   

38.1

136

   

NYC CSD 9

                   

24.9

90

   

Charter School of Science

and Technology

   

10.5

52

   

7.4

43

-3.1

-9

18.5

84

11.1

41

Rochester City S D

   

10.7

53

   

12.0

59

1.3

6

9.5

58

-2.5

-1

Harbor Science and Arts CSCharter School

                   

25.0

108

   

NYC CSD 4

                   

22.6

87

   

John A Reisenbach CSCharter School

                   

7.2

55

   

NYC CSD 5

                   

21.5

83

   

John V Lindsay Wildcat

Academy Charter School

                   

0.0

20

   

NYC CSD 2

                   

65.8

157

   

KIPPCharter School

   

72.7

171

   

61.5

160

-11.2

-11

78.9

179

17.4

19

NYC CSD 7

   

6.8

43

   

11.7

57

4.9

14

10.3

57

-1.4

0

New Covenant Charter School

                   

1.4

48

   

Albany City S D

                   

27.1

100

   

Renaissance Charter School

   

45.8

119

   

43.6

136

-2.2

17

38.8

125

-4.8

-11

NYC CSD 30

   

23.6

85

   

31.2

101

7.6

16

36.3

111

5.1

10

Rochester Leadership

Academy Charter School

   

33.3

89

   

4.4

39

-28.9

-50

19.2

85

14.8

46

Rochester City S D

   

10.7

53

   

12.0

59

1.3

6

9.5

58

-2.5

-1

 

Table 8

Cumulative Financial Impact of Charter Schools

2002-03

District

2002-03 Budget

Charter School

% Fiscal Impact

Albany City Schools

$128,956,981

Brighter Choice CS for Boys

0.26

   

Brighter Choice CS for Girls

0.28

   

International CS of Schenectady

0.01

   

New Covenant Charter School

4.45

Cumulative Impact

   

5.00

       

Buffalo City Schools

$ 444,644,182

CS for Applied Technologies

1.39

   

Global Concepts Charter School

0.02

   

King Center Charter School

0.20

   

South Buffalo Charter School

0.72

   

Stepping Stone Academy CS

0.75

   

Tapestry Charter School

0.25

Cumulative Impact

   

3.33

       

Cheektowaga CSD

$ 26,386,921

CS for Applied Technologies

0.05

   

Stepping Stone Academy CS

0.03

Cumulative Impact

   

0.08

       

Cheektowaga-Maryvale UFSD

$ 29,475,285

Charter School for Applied Technologies

0.03

   

Stepping Stone Academy CS

0.03

Cumulative Impact

   

0.06

       

Cheektowaga-Sloan UFSD

$ 20,645,398

Charter School for Applied Technologies

0.09

   

Stepping Stone Academy CS

0.05

   

Tapestry Charter School

0.05

Cumulative Impact

   

0.19

       

East Irondequoit CSD

$ 43,483,082

Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS

0.02

   

Genesee Community CS

0.02

Cumulative Impact

   

0.04

       

Hamburg CSD

$ 42,832,728

CS for Applied Technologies

0.02

   

Global Concepts Charter School

0.02

Cumulative Impact

   

0.04

       

Hampton Bays UFSD

$ 23,145,167

Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School

0.07

   

Riverhead Charter School

0.03

Cumulative Impact

   

0.10

District

2002-03 Budget

Charter School

% Fiscal Impact

Lackawanna City SD

$ 29,360,000

Charter School for Applied Technologies

0.50

   

Global Concepts Charter School

4.44

   

South Buffalo Charter School

0.36

Cumulative Impact

   

5.30

       

Liverpool CSD

$ 95,114,606

Central New York Charter School for Math and Science

0.05

   

Southside Academy CS

0.03

Cumulative Impact

   

0.08

       

New York City

$12,360,782,961

Amber Charter School

0.01

   

Beginning with Children CS

0.03

   

Bronx Preparatory CS

0.01

   

Carl C. Icahn Charter School

0.01

   

Clearpool Charter School

0.01

   

Community Partnership CS

0.01

   

Explore Charter School

0.01

   

Family Life Academy CS

0.01

   

Harbor Science and Arts CS

0.01

   

Harlem Day Charter School

0.01

   

Harriet Tubman Charter School

0.01

   

John A. Reisenbach CS

0.02

   

John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School

0.03

   

KIPP Academy Charter School

0.02

   

Merrick Academy � Queens Public Charter School

0.02

   

Our World Neighborhood CS

0.02

   

Renaissance Charter School

0.03

   

Roosevelt Children�s Academy Charter School

NA

   

Sisulu Children�s Charter School

0.02

Cumulative Impact

   

0.29

       

District

2002-03 Budget

Charter School

% Fiscal Impact

Rochester City SD

$ 422,042,816

Charter School of Science and Technology

1.44

   

Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS

0.40

   

Genesee Community CS

0.28

   

Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School

0.82

Cumulative Impact

   

2.94

       

Rush-Henrietta CSD

 

Charter School of Science and Technology

0.03

   

Genesee Community CS

0.01

Cumulative Impact

   

0.04

       

Schenectady City SD

$ 93,467,189

International CS of Schenectady

2.00

   

New Covenant Charter School

0.05

Cumulative Impact

   

2.05

       

Syracuse City Schools

$ 208,800,000

Central New York Charter School for Math and Science

1.56

   

Southside Academy CS

0.46

Cumulative Impact

   

2.02

       

Tonawanda City SD

$ 26,089,442

CS for Applied Technologies

0.35

   

Stepping Stone Academy CS

0.03

Cumulative Impact

   

0.38

       

Troy City Schools

$ 62,652,468

Ark Community Charter School

1.20

   

New Covenant Charter School

0.27

Cumulative Impact

   

1.47

       

Watervliet City SD

$ 15,401,926

Ark Community Charter School

0.04

   

New Covenant Charter School

0.25

Cumulative Impact

   

0.29

       

Webster CSD

$ 98,088,413

CS of Science and Technology

0.01

   

Genesee Community CS

0.01

Cumulative Impact

   

0.02

       

West Seneca CSD

$ 79,076,297

South Buffalo Charter School

0.05

   

Tapestry Charter School

0.01

Cumulative Impact

   

0.06

       

W. Irondequoit CSD

$ 43,312,359

CS of Science and Technology

3.71

   

Genesee Community CS

0.04

Cumulative Impact

   

3.75



 

APPENDIX B

 

Projections of Financial Stability

 

 

Projections of Financial Stability

In order to be able to meaningfully make projections of financial stability for each charter school, the Department determined that the best way to do so was to ask each charter school to prepare a five-year budget showing projected revenues and expenses. A copy of the letter that was sent to each charter school is included in this Appendix.

Also included are two letters the Department received from the Charter Schools Institute, alleging that the Department had overstepped its authority by requesting such information. Both letters further state that the Institute was informing its charter schools that they were under no obligation to comply with the Department�s request. The Department�s response to the initial letter from the Institute is also included in this Appendix.

The responses received from each charter school (including all Board of Regents authorized charter schools) are included in this Appendix. Thus, we are only able to make projections of future financial stability for those charter schools that responded to the Department�s request. For the remainder, such an interpretation is questionable, at best.

Also included in this section are two tables from the 2001-02 Annual Report to the Governor, the Temporary President of the Senate, the Speaker of the Assembly and the Board of Regents on the Status of Charter Schools in New York State. These tables show the financial position and change in net assets for each charter school in operation during that year, as well as the revenues, expenses, and changes in unrestricted net assets for these charter schools.

 

 

June 20, 2003

Inside Address

Dear :

As you know, the Department is required to submit a report to the Governor and the legislature on the educational effectiveness of the charter school approach by December 31, 2003. One of the required data elements is to provide "projections of financial stability" for each charter school. In order to do so, we are asking you to provide us with updated financial information.

By the close of business Monday, July 14, 2003, please provide me with an updated proposed five-year financial plan, including all projected revenues and expenditures and balance sheet information. Provide an explanation for revenue/expenditure increases greater than ten percent from any given year, along with assumptions considered in developing these projections. Examples of assumptions considered are:

  1. increases in enrollment;

  2. key assumptions used in preparing the budget;

  3. the responsibilities and the number of consultants, professional, and support staff to be hired;

  4. any significant services to be purchased and from whom;

  5. facility costs including any acquisition costs, rental fees, and required improvement;

  6. equipment purchases; and,

  7. the source and types of revenues and expenses for any significant amounts included in the "Other" category.

Using the enclosed form, and using 2001-02 school year as the base year, project out revenues, expenses, and net assets to the 2006-07 school year. Describe any long-term debt that you anticipate incurring, such as the purchase or construction of a building, and describe the terms and conditions for financing and re-payment of any loans.

Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please call the Charter Schools Unit at 518-474-1762.

Sincerely,

Darlene M. Mengel, Ph.D.

Supervisor

Enclosure

cc: James R. Butterworth



 






 

Table 8

Charter Schools Data Related to Financial Position and Change in Net Assets 2001-02

School Name

Assets

Liabilities

Total Net Assets or Fund Balance

Change in Unrestricted Net Assets or Fund Balance

(see Table 9)

Ark Community Charter School

$675,884

$109,292

$566,592

$421,442

Amber Charter School

461,168

85,521

375,647

-31,751

Beginning with Children Charter School

1,191,468

784,515

406,953

389,308

Bronx Preparatory Charter School

1,148,242

379,046

769,196

337,152

Carl C. Icahn Charter School

547,671

403,983

143,688

39,962

Central New York CS for Math and Science

7,284,216

7,679,734

-395,518

-86,570

Charter School for Applied Technologies

8,071,597

7,693,891

377,706

377,706

Charter School of Science and Technology

2,578,883

2,456,531

122,352

-7,413

Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School

316,842

387,737

-70,895

-78,056

Clearpool Charter School

25,524

154,985

-129,461

79,281

Community Partnership Charter School

766,544

521,789

244,755

43,689

Eugenio Maria de Hostos Charter School

484,593

200,627

283,966

40,778

Family Life Academy Charter School

535,684

141,170

394,514

394,514

Genesee Community Charter School

709,022

175,225

533,797

338,989

Harbor Science and Arts Charter School

232,499

320,202

-87,703

-192,794

Harlem Day Charter School

3,098,417

368,123

2,730,294

2,180,294

Harriet Tubman Charter School

1,017,478

838,050

179,428

-28,683

John A. Reisenbach Charter School

2,585,454

2,333,267

252,187

-645,374

John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School

1,092,872

331,389

761,483

509,327

King Center Charter School

340,533

109,778

230,755

259,648

KIPP Academy Charter School

1,615,026

460,263

1,154,763

-24,958

Merrick Academy-Queens Public Charter School

1,526,992

1,283,617

243,375

268,713

New Covenant Charter School

14,025,547

14,131,031

-105,484

-30,165

School Name

Assets

Liabilities

Total Net Assets or Fund Balance

Change in Unrestricted Net Assets or Fund Balance

(see Table 9)

REACH Charter School

Financial statements not received.

Renaissance Charter School

1,804,604

0

1,804,604

131,820

Riverhead Charter School

3,377,102

3,397,931

-20,829

-2,528

Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School

121,147

86,095

35,052

4,874

Roosevelt Children's Academy Charter School

1,751,534

1,927,086

-175,552

-159,366

Sisulu Children's Charter School

642,398

2,521,109

-1,878,711

-667,205

South Buffalo Charter School

1,544,427

686,713

857,714

690,495

Stepping Stone Academy Charter School

4,020,475

3,947,115

73,360

73,360

Tapestry Charter School

477,797

254,142

223,655

185,314

Totals

$64,071,640

$54,169,957

$9,901,683

$4,811,803

Source: Audited Financial Statements July 1, 2001 � June 30, 2002.

 

Table 9

Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Unrestricted Net Assets for Charter Schools 2001-02

Revenues

Expenses

School Name

Government Contracts and Grants

Private Grants, Contributions and Other Revenue

Net Assets Released from Restrictions or Proceeds From Long-Term Debt

Total Revenue & Support

Program

Mgmt. & General

Total Expenses

Change in Unrestricted Net Assets or Fund Balance

Ark Community Charter School

$1,147,815

$272,719

$0

$1,420,534

$881,379

$117,713

$999,092

$421,442

Amber Charter School

1,191,434

120,590

10,000

1,322,024

1,187,908

165,867

1,353,775

-31,751

Beginning with Children Charter School

3,743,299

351,175

0

4,094,474

3,216,281

488,885

3,705,166

389,308

Bronx Preparatory Charter School

1,289,095

742,474

0

2,031,569

1,291,381

403,036

1,694,417

337,152

Carl C. Icahn Charter School

614,222

20

275,644

889,886

710,156

139,768

849,924

39,962

Central New York CS for Math and Science

3,847,312

91,973

0

3,939,285

2,936,530

1,089,325

4,025,855

-86,570

Charter School for Applied Technologies

6,473,547

1,878

0

6,475,425

4,353,569

1,744,150

6,097,719

377,706

Charter School of Science and Technology

8,381,686

116,662

0

8,498,348

6,548,475

1,957,286

8,505,761

-7,413

Child Development Center of the Hamptons CS

775,005

112,924

297,550

1,185,479

1,086,678

176,857

1,263,535

-78,056

Clearpool Charter School

805,345

412,934

0

1,218,279

799,487

339,511

1,138,998

79,281

Community Partnership Charter School

1,598,884

210,102

0

1,808,986

1,503,459

261,838

1,765,297

43,689

Eugenio Maria de Hostos Charter School

1,508,743

88,132

30,653

1,627,528

1,253,772

332,978

1,586,750

40,778

Family Life Academy Charter School

713,986

17,050

563,254

1,294,290

683,186

216,590

899,776

394,514

Genesee Community Charter School

911,982

421,909

93,830

1,427,721

872,136

216,596

1,088,732

338,989

Harbor Science and Arts Charter School

1,318,205

123,586

0

1,441,791

1,577,465

57,120

1,634,585

-192,794

Harlem Day Charter School

833,670

2,429,219

0

3,262,889

625,215

457,380

1,082,595

2,180,294

Harriet Tubman Charter School

1,095,985

157,285

1,253,270

572,037

709,916

1,281,953

-28,683

John A. Reisenbach Charter School

2,063,664

327,650

0

2,391,314

2,257,087

779,601

3,036,688

-645,374

John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy CS

1,939,574

67,819

0

2,007,393

1,429,554

68,512

1,498,066

509,327

King Center Charter School

826,800

8,438

367,300

1,202,538

570,186

372,704

942,890

259,648

KIPP Academy Charter School

2,214,603

721,860

40,798

2,977,261

2,548,404

465,285

3,013,689

-36,428

Merrick Academy-Queens Public CS

2,036,184

43,154

0

2,079,338

797,083

1,013,542

1,810,625

268,713

New Covenant Charter School

6,308,709

223,924

91,420

6,624,053

4,867,819

1,794,714

6,662,533

-30,165

REACH Charter School

Financial statements not received.

Renaissance Charter School

3,749,351

1,245

0

3,750,596

2,737,410

869,618

3,607,028

131,820

Riverhead Charter School

1,755,493

0

0

1,755,493

1,367,690

390,331

1,758,021

-2,528

Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School

2,769,844

2,735

0

2,772,579

1,099,399

1,668,306

2,767,705

4,874

Roosevelt Children's Academy Charter School

1,933,495

46,165

0

1,979,660

1,172,075

966,951

2,139,026

-159,366

Sisulu Children's Charter School

2,769,125

68,920

0

2,838,045

1,899,228

1,606,022

3,505,250

-667,205

South Buffalo Charter School

2,878,360

19,051

0

2,897,411

1,735,669

471,247

2,206,916

690,495

Stepping Stone Academy Charter School

2,521,857

197,561

280,318

2,999,736

1,153,171

1,773,205

2,926,376

73,360

Tapestry Charter School

842,255

24,095

554,640

1,420,990

793,213

442,463

1,235,676

185,314

Totals

$70,859,529

$7,423,249

$2,605,407

$80,888,185

$54,527,102

$21,557,317

$76,084,419

$4,800,333

Source: Audited Financial Statements July 1, 2001 � June 30, 2002.