SUMMARY

Issue for Decision

Should the Regents approve and issue the proposed second renewal charter of Opportunity Charter School (New York City)?

Background Information

We have received a proposed second renewal charter from the Chancellor of the city school district of the City of New York for Opportunity Charter School (“the School”).   The School’s charter was initially granted on May 18, 2004.  The first renewal was granted on May 18, 2009 for a period of one year and three months, to expire on August 18, 2010.  The School served 396 students in grades 6 through12 during the 2009-2010 school year.  Upon renewal, it will serve 420 students in grades 6 through 12 throughout the proposed renewal term. 

The New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) recommended a renewal period of two academic years beginning August 19, 2010 up through and including June 30, 2012.  Notwithstanding notable improvements, NYCDOE did not find a clear structure to set and monitor goals for student achievement and professional growth.  It suggested that “the School should continue to develop and refine its data systems and encourage the use of data across the School to inform decision-making and improve outcomes.”  Furthermore, “observers noted that in some instances tasks for eleventh and twelfth graders did not substantially differ in degree of rigor from those given in the ninth grade” and that teachers in many classes did not differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all learners.

The NYCDOE recommended that the “Board of Trustees should continue to add skillful members to the Board and should continue to improve the overall management of the School.”

The School's mission is: “Through a positive belief in every student’s promise, we are committed to bringing their potential to life.  We will provide staff and students with a safe, supportive environment in which to pursue personal development through an individualized plan tailored to their unique needs.  We nurture intellectual and personal growth.  Students receive differentiated instruction in every curricular area from our highly-trained staff, with the goal of expanding their higher cognitive thinking.  Our school culture is performance-driven and results-oriented.  Students graduate having achieved a clearly demonstrated academic and social foundation, as well as a deep understanding of their own strengths and weaknesses.”

The School does not have a management partner.  The School will provide instruction from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. for 180 days per academic year.  The School is committed to “a higher level of rigor, demanding higher levels of student engagement which will help to boost students’ thinking skills and understanding of the world in which they live.”

The governing board of Opportunity Charter School and its authorizer, Chancellor Joel Klein, have agreed to a two-year academic renewal term for the school's charter. The new charter term runs through June 30, 2012.  The school's governing board, its authorizer and staff at the State Education Department have agreed to: 1) establishing a performance plan for the school, containing appropriate and timely indicators, measures and metrics in the area of student academic performance, operational performance (including finance), and governance performance for the school; 2) a performance evaluation calendar of events for the next 18 months that includes on-site school visits, performance review, program review, and coordinated compliance review; and 3) a high stakes renewal decision about the school's charter by Chancellor Klein and the Board of Regents in the winter of 2012 (December 2011/January 2012 Board of Regents meeting).

The NYCDOE held a public hearing in Community School District 3 on January 21, 2010 regarding this proposed renewal charter.  There were 26 verbal comments and seven written comments in favor of the renewal. 

Recommendation

              VOTED: That the Board of Regents approves and issues the second renewal charter of the Opportunity Charter School as proposed by the Chancellor of the city school district of the City of New York, and that its provisional charter be extended for a term up through and including June 30, 2012.

Reasons for Recommendation

              (1) The charter school described in the proposed second renewal charter meets the requirements set out in Article 56 of the Education Law, and all other applicable laws, rules, and regulations; (2) the applicants can demonstrate the ability to operate the school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and (3) approving and issuing the proposed second renewal charter is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the purposes set out in subdivision two of section twenty-eight hundred fifty of Article 56 of the Education Law. 

Timetable for Implementation

The Regents action for the Opportunity Charter School will be effective immediately.

New York State Education Department

Summary of Charter School Renewal Information

Summary of Applicant Information

Name of Proposed Renewed Charter School: Opportunity Charter School (OCS or “the School”)

Address: 240 West 113th Street, New York, NY 10026

Board of Trustees Co-Chairmen: Dr. Joseph P. Merlino and Philip Pallone

Renewal Period: August 19, 2010 – June 30, 2011

District of Location: New York City Community School District 3, Manhattan

Charter Entity: Chancellor of the city school district of the City of New York

Institutional Partner(s): N/A

Management Partner(s): N/A

Grades Served per Year: 6 - 12

Projected Enrollment per Year: 420

Renewal Application Highlights

Summary of Charter Entity’s Findings and Recommendations

New York City Department of Education (NYCDoE) has recommended a second renewal term of one academic year up through and including June 30, 2011.  This follows a first renewal term of one year and an initial charter term of five years.

NYCDoE’s approval in 2004 of the initial charter was made based on a proposed model that would extend an inclusive educational environment to a large group of students that would otherwise be served in self-contained classrooms, District 75, or residential treatment centers.  NYCDoE reported that there were no other programs that had successfully demonstrated an ability to effectively serve the most struggling students, particularly those with severe special needs. 

              In its first renewal visit of October 2008, NYCDoE found that the School had noteworthy accomplishments in terms of school culture, behavior management and support programs for students; however, a considerable amount of work lie ahead to improve the quality of teaching and learning, particularly in designing lessons and units that meet the needs of all learners, despite incoming proficiency levels.  Furthermore, NYCDOE placed OCS on probation on December 5, 2008 due to deficiencies in the delivery of services to special education students, non-compliance with teacher certification requirements, and low student performance.  After satisfying the requirements of the probation order, NYCDoE removed OCS from probation on December 18, 2009.

In its second renewal visit of November 2009, NYCDoE found that the School had made significant progress toward meeting many of the organization goals set forth in the Corrective Action Plan devised in the spring of 2009 as part of its one year renewal.  In broader terms, NYCDoE stated that “the School has made sufficient progress towards meeting the goals set forth in this plan.” 

NYCDoE also found that “OCS has formalized structures for special education in order to better comply with relevant regulations and to ensure that the educational needs of students with IEPs are effectively met.”  NYCDoE was pleased to see that the School’s Board of Trustees added new members with expertise in instruction, fund raising and fiscal management.

Notwithstanding notable improvements, NYCDoE did not find a clear structure to set and monitor goals for student achievement and professional growth.  It suggested that “the School should continue to develop and refine its data systems and encourage the use of data across the School to inform decision making and improve outcomes.”  Furthermore, “observers noted that in some instances tasks for eleventh and twelfth graders did not substantially differ in degree of rigor from those given in the ninth grade” and that teachers in many classes did not differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all learners.

NYCDoE recommended that the “Board of Trustees should continue to add skillful members to the Board and should continue to improve the overall management of the School.”

Evidence of Educational Soundness/ Attainment of Educational Objectives

• The student achievement results for the School are shown in Attachment 1 – Tables 1, 2, and 3.
• In 2009-2010, the School identified 50% of its students as students with disabilities (SWD), 4% as English language learners (ELL), and more than 71% as eligible for free or reduced lunch.
• The School reports that its population in 2009-2010 comprises 77% Black, 21% Hispanic, 1% White, and 1% Other.
• The School reports that during the first charter period, approximately 60 percent of SWD were previously placed in more restricted self-contained settings.
• From 2007-2008 to 2008-2009, student proficiency rates in ELA rose from nine percent to 18.9%, and proficiency rates in math rose from 14% to 40.5%.  See Attachment 1 – Tables 1 and 2.
• From 2007-2008 to 2008-2009, District 3 proficiency rates in ELA rose from 57% to 75%, and proficiency rates in math rose from 69% to 81%.   See Attachment 1 – Table 4.
• The School’s aggregate Performance Index (PI) of 115 on the NYS ELA and 131 on the math exams met the Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) set forth in the New York State (NYS) accountability system in 2008-2009.
• The School earned an A on its New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) progress report in 2008-2009, and a C in 2007-2008. 
• In 2008-2009 and 2007-2008, the School was deemed “In Good Standing” under the NYS Accountability System.  This follows three consecutive years of OCS performing furthest from State standards.
• NYCDOE reports that the average years of progress in student reading per school year as measured in grade level equivalents (GLE) from 2007-2009 is 1.3 GLE.
• In each applicable year of operation, the School has met its goal of all eighth grade students moving on to high school. 
• NYCDOE placed OCS on probation on December 5, 2008 due to deficiencies in the delivery of services to special education students, non-compliance with teacher certification requirements, and low student performance.  After satisfying the requirements of the probation order, NYCOE removed OCS from probation on December 18, 2009.
• The School provides instruction in each subject in the seven general curriculum areas, and the proposed curriculum is aligned to all 28 NYS learning standards.
• The School uses the Glencoe science program, the Prentice Hall series for math, History Alive and Patterns of Interaction for social studies, and the Elements of Literature and Step up to Writing programs in ELA.
• The School administers assessments to identify student levels and needs, and to inform teaching and learning.
• In addition to the mandated NYS exams, the School administers interim assessments such as the Scantron Performance Series and internally produced tests. 
• The School reports that it employs an integrated co-teaching model in which two teachers, one certified in special education and one certified in general education, collaboratively teach all or part of a class with an equal mix of students with and without Individualized Education Programs (IEP). 
• The School provides a 180 day school year from September to the end of June.
• The School provides instruction from 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday.  
• The School’s average daily attendance rate was 89.4% in 2008-2009, and 90% in 2007-2008.
• The teacher retention rate was 77% for 2008-2009, 57% for 2007-2008, and 85% for 2006-2007.
• OCS opened in 2004 with two co-directors as the School’s leaders.  As of July 2008, the responsibility of School leader was assumed by one of the co-directors, and given the title of executive director.  

Evidence of Fiscal Soundness/Projected Fiscal Impact

• The School maintained a positive fund balance in each year of the charter.
• NYCDOE reports that the School has over $1.2 million in liquid assets that can be converted to cash within 90 days.
• The School shows a negative change in its net assets from 2007-2008 to 2008-2009, and a positive change in the two previous years.  See Attachment 3.
• The School reports that is has no long term debt.
• The School is housed in a public school building in CSD 3 in Manhattan.
• The number of Trustees is not fewer than five and is not to exceed 15.  Currently, there are eight regular trustees serving on the board.
• The officers of the board of trustees are chair, vice chair, secretary and treasurer. 
• Regular meetings of the board of trustees are held bimonthly throughout the year.
• The standing committees of the board of trustees are executive, curriculum, finance, development and strategic planning committees. 
• The potential fiscal impact upon the District is in Attachment 4.  Please note that these projections are based upon several assumptions, which may or may not occur: that all existing charter schools will also exist in the next five years and serve the same grade levels as they do now; that the charter schools will be able to meet their projected maximum enrollment; that all students will come from New York City and no other districts; that all students will attend every day for a 1.0 FTE; that the District’s budget will increase at the projected rate; that the per pupil payment will increase (and not decrease); and that the per pupil payment will increase at the projected rate.

Evidence of Parent and Student Satisfaction and Community Support

• A public hearing to solicit comments from the community in connection with the charter school’s proposed renewal was conducted by NYCDOE on January 21, 2010.  NYCDOE reports that there were 26 verbal comments and seven written comments, all in favor of the renewal. 
• The student attrition rate was 13% in 2008-2009, 11% in
  2007-2008, and 10% in 2006-2007.   
• NYCDOE found that “students articulated a feeling of belonging and that the School has a family feel.”
• Following the lottery of April 2009, the waiting list held the names of 348 students interested in attending the School.
• The School reports that in 2008-2009, the parent satisfaction rate was
  91%, with a response rate of 28%.  In 2007-2008, the satisfaction rate was 91%, with a response rate of 22%. 

Attachment 1

Table 1

2008-2009

Grades 6-8 State ELA and Math Assessments

Percent of OCS Students at Levels 1 through 4

Table 2

2007-2008

Grades 6-8 State ELA and Math Assessments

Percent of OCS Students at Levels 1 through 4

Table 3

2006-2007

Grades 6-8 State ELA and Math Assessments

Percent of OCS Students at Levels 1 through 4

Table 4

2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009

Grades 6-8 State ELA and Math Assessments

Percent of OCS and District 3 Students at Proficiency Level

TABLE 5*

2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009

Grades 9-11 NYS Regents Exams

Percent of OCS Students Scoring At or Above 65%

* Comparison to CSD 3 scores is not provided because OCS had only three years in which to take the exams whereas the local public schools had four years in which to take the exams.

Attachment 2

Opportunity Charter School

2009-2010

Attachment 3

Opportunity Charter School

Change in Net Assets for 2006-07 through 2008-09*

*Source: Audited Financial Statements provided as a part of each Annual Report.

Attachment 4

Opportunity Charter School

Projected Fiscal Impact of the

Opportunity Charter School

(New York City – CSD 3 – Manhattan)

2010-2011

* Assumes no annual increase in the District’s budget from the base of $21 billion in 2010-2011; and no annual increase in the average expense per pupil per year from the 2010-2011 rate of $12,443.