|
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
2004-05
JULY
2006
|
|
THE
UNIVERSITY
OF
THE
STATE
OF
NEW
YORK
THE
STATE
EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
|
Background and
Introduction
The New York Charter Schools Act, now Article 56 of the Education Law,
was enacted on December 17, 1998.
This Act amended existing Education Law to allow for the creation of
charter schools. The stated purpose
of the Article “is to authorize a system of charter schools to provide
opportunities for teachers, parents, and community members to establish and
maintain schools that operate independently of existing schools and school
districts in order to accomplish the following objectives:
(a)
Improve student learning and achievement;
(b)
Increase learning opportunities for all students,
with special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for students who are at
risk of academic failure;
(c)
Encourage the use of different and innovative
teaching methods;
(d)
Create new professional opportunities for
teachers, school administrators and other school personnel;
(e)
Provide parents and students with expanded
choices in the types of educational opportunities that are available within the
public school system; and
(f) Provide schools with a method to change from
rule-based to performance-based accountability systems by holding the schools
established under this article accountable for meeting measurable student
achievement results”(§2850(2) of Education Law).
Article 56
also requires the Board of Regents to report annually to the Governor, the
Temporary President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the Assembly on the status
of charter schools in New York State (§2857(3) of Education Law). This report covers the 2004-05 school
year.
This report includes data submitted by the charter
schools and local school districts.
Executive Summary
This report
provides data required by §2857(3) of the Education Law and covers the 2004-05
school year, during which a total of 61 charter schools were open for
instruction. Of these 61
schools, 16 were chartered by the Board of Regents, 32 were chartered by
the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York (“SUNY”), 11 were
chartered by the Chancellor of the New York City Public Schools, and two were
chartered by the Board of Education of the Buffalo City School District.
Twenty-one had management companies as partners. There were six charter schools with
Edison Schools, Inc. as a partner, four schools each with Victory Schools, Inc.
and National
Heritage Academies as a partner, three schools with
Chancellor Beacon Academies as a partner, and one school each with SABIS,
Lighthouse Academies, Uncommon Schools, Inc. and Mosaica Education Inc. as a
management partner. There were 32 charter schools located in New York
City, 12 in Buffalo, four in Rochester, three in Albany, three in Syracuse, and
one each in East Hampton (Wainscott Common School District), Kenmore,
Lackawanna, Riverhead, Roosevelt, Schenectady, and Troy. The largest student enrollment reported was
1,105 at the Charter School of Science and Technology in Rochester, and the smallest was 88 at the Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School in Wainscott. There were 36 schools that
served elementary students (i.e.,
K-6) in a variety of grade configurations (e.g., K-1, K-2). Seven served
students in grades K-8, three served students in grades K-7, two served students
in grades K-9, two served students in grades 5-6, and two schools served
students in grade 9 only. Finally, one each served students in grades 5-10, 7-9,
K and 6, 5-6, 8-12, 5-8, 6-7, 7-10, and K-12.
The charters
for three charter schools were not renewed by SUNY past the 2004-05 school
year. The schools that were closed
are the Central New York Charter School for Math and Science (Syracuse), the Charter School of Science and
Technology (Rochester),, and the Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School (Rochester).
According to
the Basic Educational Data System (BEDS) forms that were submitted in October
2004, a total of 18,408
students were reported enrolled in these 61 charter schools during 2004-05. Most (12,634) were reported as Black
(not Hispanic origin) and the fewest (65) were reported as being American Indian
or Alaskan Native. There were 255
Asian or Pacific Islander students reported. Hispanics made up the second
largest population, with 3,059 students enrolled. The number of White (not
Hispanic origin) students was reported to be 2,395. In grades K and 1, there were more Black
(not Hispanic) students reported as being enrolled (3,762) than there were
students in any other ethnic group in grades K-12.
Most students (15,305) were enrolled in
grades K-6, while 3,103 were enrolled in grades 7-12. No students were reported
as “Ungraded Secondary” but five students were reported as “Ungraded
Elementary.” Among the elementary
students, most (9,737) continue to be enrolled in grades K-3. Enrollment in grades 4-6 was 5,563. Grade 6 had the lowest enrollment
(1,612) at the elementary level. At
the secondary level, most students (1,915) continue to be enrolled in grades 7
and 8, but the enrollment gap between grades 7 - 8 and grades 9-12 is decreasing
as several charter schools expand or are created to serve high school
students. In 2004-05, 1,188
students were enrolled in grades 9-12.
Fiscal impact
is calculated using the number of students reported on each charter school’s
BEDS form multiplied by the adjusted expense per pupil (AEP) for that
district. That figure is then
compared with the annual operating budget of the resident district and a percent
is derived. This figure may be
different from what the districts actually pay to a charter school since such
payments are based upon a full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment figure that must
be derived per Commissioner’s Regulation 119.1. Those FTEs are not reported herein since
final reconciliation of payments occurs in July of each year and the data are
not readily available. The figures
reported herein are a reasonable estimate, however, of the
potential fiscal impact upon any district.
Overall fiscal impact in New York City appeared to
be negligible (0.30 percent impact on the district budget). In 2004-05, fiscal
impact ranged from .01 percent of the school budget for several school districts
with a small number of students attending charter schools to 10.15 percent of
the Albany
City School
District budget. Cumulative impact was 8.25 percent on
the Lackawanna City School District budget, 7.77 percent on the Buffalo City
School District budget, 4.52 percent on the Roosevelt Union Free School
District, 4.06 percent on the Rochester City School District budget, 3.64
percent on the Schenectady City School District, 3.27 percent on the Shelter
Island Union Free School District, 3.18 percent on the Syracuse City School
District, 3.17 percent on the Sagaponack Common School District, 3.03 percent
impact on the Wainscott Common School District, and 2.07 percent impact on the
Troy City School District budget.
According to the
information provided by the financial audits, 15 schools had a decrease in
unrestricted net assets (i.e., fund balance) for the year. The total amount of Revenue
and Support for the charter schools totaled $186.6 million. Government contracts and grants
accounted for 89 percent of the total Revenue and Support.
Academic achievement, as measured by State exams, was
mixed. For those schools for which
the 2004-05 school year was the first year of instruction in the grades
assessed, the test results should be interpreted as a baseline by which all
future test results will be judged.
On the grade 4 English Language Arts (ELA) exam, the top
performers were as follows (percentages are for the percent of students scoring
at or above Level 3):
§
Harlem Day Charter School, New
York City: 100.0%
§
Renaissance Charter School, New
York City:
95.7%
§
Roosevelt
Children’s Academy Charter School, Roosevelt:
87.3%
§
Carl C. Icahn Charter School, New
York City:
86.2%
§
Genesee Community
Charter School, Rochester: 83.8%%
On the grade 4 English Language Arts exam, the weakest
performers were as follows (percentages are for the percent of students scoring
at or above Level 3):
§
Pinnacle Charter
School, Buffalo (baseline year): 18.4%
§
Stepping
Stone Academy Charter School, Buffalo: 20.4%
§
Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School, New
York City:
29.9%
§
COMMUNITY Charter
School, Buffalo: 32.5%
§
Charter School of
Science and Technology, Rochester: 33.9%
On the grade 4 math exam, the top performers were as
follows (percentages are for the percent of students scoring at or above Level
3):
§
Carl C. Icahn Charter School, New
York City:
100.0%
§
International Charter
School of Schenectady, Schenectady, 100.0%
§
Tapestry Charter
School, Buffalo: 100.0%
§
Our World Neighborhood Charter School, New
York City: 95.8%
§
Harlem Day Charter School, New
York City:
94.4%
§
Renaissance Charter School, New
York City:
92.0%
§
Roosevelt
Children’s Academy Charter School, Roosevelt:
91.8%
§
Genesee Community
Charter School, Rochester, 90.7%
On the grade 4 math exam, the weakest performers were as
follows (percentages are for the percent of students scoring at or above Level
3):
§
Stepping
Stone Academy Charter School, Buffalo: 33.9%
On the grade 8 ELA exam, the top performer was as
follows (percentages are for the percent of students scoring at or above Level
3):
§
KIPP Academy Charter School, New
York City:
71.5%
On the grade 8 ELA exams, the weakest performers were as
follows (percentages are for the percent of students scoring at or above Level
3):
§
John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter
School, New
York City:
8.3%
§
Buffalo Academy of
Science Charter School, Buffalo: 13.6%
§
Enterprise Charter
School, Buffalo: 16.3%
§
Stepping
Stone Academy Charter School, Buffalo: 20.0%
§
Charter School for Applied Technologies, Kenmore-Tonawanda:
27.3%
Based upon their 2004-05
State assessment date, five charter schools have been identified as being
furthest from State standards. They
are:
§
Ark Community Charter School, Troy: grade 4 ELA;
§
Enterprise Charter School, Buffalo: grade 8 math;
§
John V. Lindsay
Wildcat Academy Charter School, NYC: HS ELA and HS
math.
§
Pinnacle Charter School, Buffalo: grade 4 ELA; and
§
Stepping Stone Academy
Charter School, Buffalo: grade 4 ELA and grade 4
math.
Results for the 2001 grade 9 cohort show that most students (60.6 percent) in the
John
V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School did not take the Regents English
exam, while 17.1 percent of the students scored between 0 and 64, and 22.2
percent scored between 65 and 100.
For the Regents math exam, most students (80.8 percent) did not take the
exam, while 10.1 percent scored between 0 and 64, while 9.1 percent scored
between 65 and 84.
Most students in the
Renaissance
Charter School (81.4 percent) did take the Regents
English exam. The results show that
23.0 percent scored between 0 and 64, while 74.4 percent scored between 65 and
100. The results for the
Regents math exam show that all students attending the Renaissance Charter School took the exam, with 38.5 percent
scoring between zero and 64, and 61.6 percent scoring between 65 and 100.
In the 2004-05 school year, the charter schools reported
serving a total of 358 English
language learners, with 343 being enrolled in grade K-6 and the remaining 15
students enrolled in grades 7-12.
A total of 1,502 students
with disabilities were reported in grades K-12, representing nine percent of the
student enrollment in charter schools.
The Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School had the largest percentage of
students with disabilities, 48 of its 88 students (55 percent).
A total of 11,555 students
receiving Free or Reduced Lunch were reported, representing 63 percent of all
students attending a New
York State
charter school during 2004-05.
Of that number, 9,903 were reported at the K-6 level, and 1,652 were
reported at the 7-12 level.
During the 2004-05 school year, a total of 1,445 students were reported as
having transferred out of charter schools and into other educational
settings. Of the 1,445, 1,331
transferred into another public school, and 114 were reported as having
transferred into a non-public school or to home instruction.
Charter schools reported
serving 23 homeless students, and two migrant students.
Additional
information is provided that describes many of the issues and concerns that have
been raised regarding the implementation of Article 56, the New York Charter
Schools Act. Suggestions are made
for possible amendments to the legislation.
The Number, Distribution, and Brief
Description of New Charter Schools Operating in New York State in 2004-05
Table 1 provides information for each charter school open for instruction
during the 2004-05 school year and includes the grades and number of students to
be served, the management company (if applicable), the specific educational
approach to be used, the date that instruction commenced, and the charter
entity.
Table 2
shows the distribution of students reported enrolled by grade, ethnicity, and
gender.
Other Information Regarding Charter Schools
Article 56
authorizes the Board of Regents to include in this report any other information
that it deems necessary. This
section includes observations and reflections based on concerns that have arisen
since the enactment of Article 56.
Though the Department has developed policies and procedures to address
both the letter and the spirit of the statute, concerns remain. The most relevant of these concerns are
listed below in an attempt to help focus future discussion on potential
amendment recommendations to the Legislature.
Application Process
1.
§2852(1) of the Education Law should be amended
to require the submission of applications by July 1, rather than October 1, in
order to trigger the requirement that
action be taken 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(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 would allow for a more meaningful interaction between the charter
entities as well as provide sufficient time for the review process itself.
3. §2854(2)(b) of the Education Law
should be amended to provide that, in New York City, the student’s district of
residence for purposes of the enrollment preference for students residing in the
school district 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.
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.
The charter entities would maintain their right and responsibility to
oversee and monitor the continued educational and fiscal soundness of the
schools, and to require corrective action as necessary. The Department would also maintain its
role as the ultimate overseer of all public schools.
Relocation of Charter
Schools
1. A new subdivision 7-a should be added to §2852 of the
Education Law to require that, where a charter is amended upon renewal or
otherwise to relocate the charter school to a new school district, an analysis
of community support and the programmatic and fiscal impact of the charter
school on the proposed new school district of location and other public and
nonpublic schools must be conducted.
At least 45 days' notice of the proposed relocation should be given to
the proposed new school district of location, so that it has an opportunity to
comment on the relocation and to hold a public hearing to solicit comment from
the community.
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.
§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.
3.
The current method for determining the level of
per pupil payments to charter schools should be reviewed by the Legislature to
determine if differential funding by grade level would be more appropriate, and,
if so, the formula by which such determinations would be made.
Facilities
1.
§2853(3) of the Education Law should be amended
to require that the State Education Department, rather than local building code
enforcement officials, approve the plans and specifications and issue
certificates of occupancy for charter school facilities. This would not be retroactive but would
pertain to all charter school applications approved after February 1, 2004 for
charter schools that seek to commence instruction in September 2005.
Charter
School
Operation
1.
§§2853(4)(c) and 1950(4)(h) 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 and to explicitly authorize school districts to similarly contract
with a charter school to provide services at cost . Education Law §282 should
also be amended to authorize school library systems to provide services to
charter school libraries. This will allow charter schools to operate in a more
efficient manner, and provide charter school students with the benefit of access
to the same service providers that serve other public schools.
2. The current special education IEP
service delivery and funding scheme should be reviewed to determine if there is
a more cost efficient and programmatically effective approach to delivery of special education
programs and services to students with disabilities enrolled in charter
school.
APPENDIX
A
