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.



 

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
 

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

 

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



 

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

2247 13^th Street
Troy, New York 12180-3017

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 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."

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
 

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
 

*Information not yet available.

Maximum enrollment: 96 students K-5

Other information not yet available.



 

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 Learning.  A 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

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

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.

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 4^th or 8^th 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

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.

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

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 4^th 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.

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

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 4^th 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.

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:

• Grade 4 math:

• Grade 8 ELA:

• Grade 8 math:

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:

• Grade 4 math:

• Grade 8 ELA:

• Grade 8 math:

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:

• Grade 4 Math:

• Grade 8 ELA:

• Grade 8 Math:

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.

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 performing schools 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.

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 4^th grade 4 test results for students with disabilities.

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 4^th 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.

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 1^st 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 50^th 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Table 1

Summary of Charter School Student Population Distribution
By Gender and Ethnicity 1999-2003

Table 2

Longitudinal Disaggregated Enrollment by Charter School 1999-2003