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

 

TO:	The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents
FROM:	James A. Kadamus
COMMITTEE:	EMSC-VESID
TITLE OF ITEM:	Renewal of Existing Charters
DATE OF SUBMISSION:	December 3, 2004
PROPOSED HANDLING:	Approval
RATIONALE FOR ITEM:	Statutory Authority to Act on Charter Schools Applications
STRATEGIC GOAL:	Goals 1 and 2
AUTHORIZATION(S):

 

SUMMARY:

 

Under the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998, the Board of Regents is authorized to act upon the renewal applications it receives directly as a charter entity.  We have received two such applications for renewal from:

 

·        Genesee Community Charter School at the Rochester Museum and Science Center, Rochester; and

·        Harriet Tubman Charter School, NYC CSD#9.

 

§2853(4) of the Education Law provides for the renewal of charters.  The statute states that charters may be renewed for a period of up to five years, and renewal applications must include the following:

 

1.      a report of the progress of the charter school in achieving the educational objectives set forth in the charter;

2.      a detailed financial statement that discloses the cost of administration, instruction and other spending categories for the charter school;

3.      copies of each of the annual reports of the charter school, including the charter school report cards and the certified financial statements; and

4.      indications of parent and student satisfaction.

 

§8.1 of the charter agreement (renewal applications) provides that “No later than the first of July in the year prior to expiration of the charter, the charter school may provide to the Regents an application to renew the Charter in accordance with subdivision 2851(4) of the Act (the "renewal application").”  Both charter schools submitted timely renewal applications, requesting 5-year extensions, with all required information.  Additional information was provided as requested, and staff made a comprehensive site visit to each school to verify the information presented in the renewal application as well as to gather any additional information that was necessary.

 

Complete copies of the applications are available for your review by contacting James R. Butterworth at 518-474-4817 and Shelia Evans-Tranumn at 718-722-2796.

 

VOTED:  That the Board of Regents approve the proposed renewal to the charter of the following charter school, and extend its charter and provisional charter for five years, based upon the information contained in the attachments and upon a finding by the Board of Regents that:  (1) the charter school meets the requirements set out in Article 56 of the Education Law and all other applicable laws, rules, and regulations; (2) the charter school has operated in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and (3) granting the extension 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:

 

·        Genesee Community Charter School at the Rochester Museum and Science Center, Rochester

 

VOTED: That the Board of Regents approve the proposed renewed charter for the following charter school, and extend its provisional charter for two years, based upon the information contained in the attachments and upon a finding by the Board of Regents that:  (1) the charter school meets the requirements set out in Article 56 of the Education Law and all other applicable laws, rules, and regulations; (2) the charter school has operated in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and (3) granting the extension 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:

 

·        Harriet Tubman Charter School, NYC CSD#9

 

 

 

Attachment

 

 

 

 

 

New York State Education Department

 

Summary of Charter School Renewal Information

 

Summary of Applicant Information

 

 

 

Name of Proposed Renewed Charter School:  Genesee Community Charter School

 

Address:  657 East Avenue, Rochester, New York 14607-2177

 

Board of Trustees President: William Colby

 

Renewal Period: 2005 - 2010

 

District of Location: Rochester City School District                 

 

Charter Entity:  Board of Regents

 

Institutional Partner(s): Rochester Museum and Science Center; Expeditionary Learning-Outward Bound

 

Management Partner(s): None

 

Grades Served per Year:              K-6                             

 

Projected Enrollment per Year: 200

 

 

 

 

Renewal Application Highlights

 

 

 

Evidence of Educational Soundness/ Attainment of Educational Objectives

• For the Genesee Community Charter School’s (“GCCS” or “the School”) performance on State assessments, see Attachment 1.
• For the 2003-04 school year, the School was the third highest performing charter school in terms of the grade 4 ELA results, with 74 percent of the students scoring at or above Level 3.
• On all State assessments, the School has consistently outperformed the Rochester City School District (“the District”) as well as all other charter schools located within the District.
• The goal of the School was to help 90 percent of its students attain Levels 3 and 4.  In 2003,  (the baseline year), the School was able to get 65 percent of its students to meet State standards in English Language Arts (ELA) and 70 percent in mathematics.  In 2004, the School was able to increase its student success rate in ELA from 65 to 74 percent.  This gain is made even more impressive by the fact that ELA scores tended to decrease statewide, and that the rate in the District was 42 percent.
• The School has met nearly all of the goals stated in its original charter.  For those that were not met, they were either very close (i.e., 89 percent versus the goal of 90 percent) or still showed significant progress towards attainment.  The School does disaggregate its student achievement data and uses it to inform instruction. 
• The School has used differentiated instruction within its Expeditionary Learning-Outward Bound (ELOB) instructional model to address the needs of all learners.  ELOB is infused throughout the School and is evident in the School’s instructional strategies, curriculum design, assessment methods, traditions and routines, and overall school culture.
• Learning expeditions comprise the core of the School’s instructional program.  An expedition is an in-depth study of a topic that leads to an ambitious final project.    Each expedition lasts 12 weeks, and allows for broader and deeper exploration of each topic and sufficient time for classes to write a book, stage a play, create a working model, and/or perform content-related service.  Art and music are completely integrated into classroom expeditions.  Three such expeditions have been implemented each year. 
• Expeditions have been rich and varied, incorporating a balance of other subject areas.  Examples of topics have included prehistoric life, the solar system, Seneca life, the American Revolution, simple machines, and immigration.  Culminating exhibitions are a major venue for demonstrating student learning to parents. 
• The ELOB design principles are actively incorporated into everyday interactions, and the Responsive Classroom model is used consistently throughout the School.  Crew work is standard practice in the School, and the students develop the social skills necessary to produce quality work in a collaborative manner

 

 

Evidence of Fiscal Soundness/Projected Fiscal Impact

• The School has been fortunate to be the recipient of funds from various sources, such as private donors, the State Education Department, and the federal government.
• Audits of all previous years have shown a substantial surplus.  See Attachment 2.
• Projected fiscal impact for the years 2005-06 through 2009-10 is shown in Attachment 3.
• The annual percent impact of the School upon the District is estimated to be between 0.35 and 0.37 percent.

 

 

Evidence of Parent and Student Satisfaction

• The School conducts yearly surveys of its parents to ascertain their satisfaction with various components of the School’s operation.
• In May 2002, an average of 82 percent of the parents responding indicated that they were “satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with communication from the School; an average of 92 percent of the parents responding indicated that they were “satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with opportunities for family involvement; an average of 83 percent of the parents responding indicated that they were “satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with the curriculum and instruction; an average of 91 percent of the parents responding indicated that they were “satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with the School environment; and an average of 92 percent of the parents responding indicated that they were “satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with their own child’s educational performance and growth.
• In contrast, in May 2004, an average of 94 percent of the parents responding indicated that they were “satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with communication from the School; an average of 93 percent of the parents responding indicated that they were “satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with opportunities for family involvement;  an average of 95 percent of the parents responding indicated that they were “satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with the curriculum and instruction;  an average of  97 percent of the parents responding indicated that they were “satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with the School environment; and an average of 95 of the parents responding indicated that they were “satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with their own child’s educational performance and growth.

 

 

Recommendation

 

Approve the renewal application and extend the term of the provisional charter for a period of five years.

 

Reason for Recommendation

 

(1) The charter school meets the requirements set out in Article 56 of the Education Law and all other applicable laws, rules, and regulations; (2) the charter school has operated in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and (3) granting the extension 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 1

 

Genesee Community Charter School

Performance on State Assessments

Assessment	Year	% Level 1	%  Level 2	% Level 3	% Level 4	Performance Index
Grade 4 ELA	2002-03	3.2	32.3	32.3	32.3	161
Grade 4 Math	2002-03	0.0	32.3	41.9	25.8	168
Grade 4 ELA	2003-04	0.0	25.9	48.1	25.9	174
Grade 4 Math	2003-04	0.0	11.5	61.5	26.9	188

 

Genesee Community Charter School

Comparative Performance

2002-03

School	Assessment	%  Level 1	% Level 2	%  Level 3	% Level 4	Performance Index
Rochester City School District	Grade 4 ELA	11.9	45.1	35.4	7.5	131
CS of Science and Technology	Grade 4 ELA	13.0	50.0	31.5	5.6	124
Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS	Grade 4 ELA	22.9	42.9	22.9	11.4	112
Genesee Community CS	Grade 4 ELA	3.2	32.3	32.3	32.3	162
Rochester Leadership Academy	Grade 4 ELA	6.4	57.4	34.0	2.1	130
Rochester City School District	Grade 4 Math	9.0	33.6	47.2	10.2	148
CS of Science and Technology	Grade 4 Math	8.7	47.6	39.8	3.9	135
Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS	Grade 4 Math	7.5	50.0	37.5	5.0	135
Genesee Community CS	Grade 4 Math	0.0	32.3	41.9	25.8	195
Rochester Leadership Academy	Grade 4 Math	14.6	50.0	35.4	0.0	121

 

 

Genesee Community Charter School

Comparative Performance

2003-04

School	Assessment	%  Level 1	% Level 2	%  Level 3	% Level 4	Performance Index
Rochester City School District	Grade 4 ELA	11.4	46.1	37.0	5.4	131
CS of Science and Technology	Grade 4 ELA	25.2	57.5	17.3	0.0	92
Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS	Grade 4 ELA	2.6	55.3	39.5	2.6	140
Genesee Community CS	Grade 4 ELA	0.0	25.9	48.1	25.9	174
Rochester Leadership Academy	Grade 4 ELA	13.2	58.8	23.5	4.4	115
Rochester City School District	Grade 4 Math	6.2	29.8	50.7	13.4	158
CS of Science and Technology	Grade 4 Math	9.6	48.8	38.4	3.2	132
Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS	Grade 4 Math	2.5	17.5	75.0	5.0	176
Genesee Community CS	Grade 4 Math	0.0	11.5	61.5	26.9	188
Rochester Leadership Academy	Grade 4 Math	8.5	49.2	33.9	8.5	134

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

 

Genesee Community Charter School

Change in Net Assets 2001-02 Through 2003-04*

 

Year	Change in Net Assets
2001-02	$338,989
2002-03	$235,253
2003-04	$474,347

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

 

 

Attachment 3

 

 

Projected Fiscal Impact of the

Genesee Community Charter School

2005-06 Through 2009-10

 

Year	Students	Revenue	Percent Impact
2005-06	200	$1,743,000	0.37
2006-07	200	$1,795,200	0.36
2007-08	200	$1,849,000	0.36
2008-09	200	$1,904,400	0.36
2009-10	200	$1,961,600	0.35

 

 

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools

on the Rochester City School District

2005-06

 

Charter School	Students*	Revenue	Percent Impact
CS for Science and Technology	1,100	$9,586,500	2.02
Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS	300	$2,614,500	0.55
Genesee Community CS	200	$1,743,000	0.37
Rochester Leadership Academy CS	650	$5,664,750	1.20
Urban Choice CS	220	$1,917,300	0.40
Totals	2,470	$21,526,050	4.54

*Estimated beyond 2004-05; assumes all schools will still be open and will have a second five-year charter term.

 

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools

on the Rochester City School District

2006-07

 

Charter School	Students*	Revenue	Percent Impact
CS for Science and Technology	1,100	$9,873,600	2.00
Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS	320	$2,872,320	0.58
Genesee Community CS	200	$1,795,200	0.36
Rochester Leadership Academy CS	650	$5,834,400	1.18
Urban Choice CS	266	$2,387,616	0.48
Totals	2,536	$22,763,136	4.62

*Estimated beyond 2004-05; assumes all schools will still be open and will have a second five-year charter term.

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools

on the Rochester City School District

2007-08

 

Charter School	Students*	Revenue	Percent Impact
CS for Science and Technology	1,100	$10,169,500	1.98
Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS	340	$3,143,300	0.61
Genesee Community CS	200	$1,849,000	0.36
Rochester Leadership Academy CS	650	$6,009,250	1.17
Urban Choice CS	312	$2,884,440	0.56
Totals	2,602	$24,055,490	4.69

*Estimated beyond 2004-05; assumes all schools will still be open and will have a second five-year charter term.

 

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools

on the Rochester City School District

2008-09

 

Charter School	Students*	Revenue	Percent Impact
CS for Science and Technology	1,100	$10,474,200	1.97
Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS	360	$3,427,920	0.64
Genesee Community CS	200	$1,904,400	0.36
Rochester Leadership Academy CS	650	$6,189,300	1.16
Urban Choice CS	358	$3,408,876	0.64
Totals	2,668	$25,404,696	4.77

*Estimated beyond 2004-05; assumes all schools will still be open and will have a second five-year charter term.

 

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools

on the Rochester City School District

2009-10

 

Charter School	Students*	Revenue	Percent Impact
CS for Science and Technology	1,100	$10,788,800	1.95
Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS	380	$3,727,040	0.67
Genesee Community CS	200	$1,961,600	0.35
Rochester Leadership Academy CS	650	$6,375,200	1.15
Urban Choice CS	404	$3,962,432	0.71
Totals	2,734	$26,815,072	4.84

*Estimated beyond 2004-05; assumes all schools will still be open and will have a second five-year charter term.

 

 

 

New York State Education Department

 

Summary of Charter School Renewal Information

 

Summary of Applicant Information

 

 

Name of Proposed Renewed Charter School: Harriet Tubman Charter School (HTCS)

 

Address: 3565 Third Avenue, Bronx NY 10456

 

Board of Trustees President: Cliff Frazier

 

Renewal Period: 2005 - 2010

 

District of Location: New York City (CSD 9); Region 1

 

Charter Entity: Board of Regents

 

Institutional Partner(s): African American Legal Defense and Education Fund; and New York Metropolitan Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolence.

 

Management Partner(s): Edison Schools, Inc. (Formerly Learn Now, Inc., which was acquired by Edison)

 

Grades Served: K–6 (K–8)                      

 

Projected Enrollment: 294 (428)

 

 

 

Renewal Application Highlights

 

Evidence of Educational Soundness/ Attainment of Educational Objectives

• For the Harriet Tubman Charter School’s (“HTCS” or “the School”) performance on State Assessments, see Attachments 1 through 4.[1] 
• Eleven public elementary schools are located within the same Zip Code (10456) as HTCS.  On the Grade 4 ELA assessment in 2003-04, HTCS had a higher percentage of students scoring proficient or above than 10 of the 11 schools.  In mathematics than 8 of the 11 schools (See Attachment 2). 
• The school exceeded the Performance Index of the local school district (CSD 9) for the 2003-2004 Grade 4 ELA Assessment.
• Students who have been at HTCS charter school for at least two years prior to being administered the Grade 4 ELA test in 2004 scored 15 scale score points higher on average than students who were newly enrolled in the school in Grade 4.
• Edison Schools, Inc. is in full support of the school and has recently assigned a seasoned school administrator, Dr. Marlaina Palmeri (Senior Vice President – Edison Schools, Charter Schools Division), to provide on-site technical assistance at the school 3 days per week, to help improve instructional leadership, instructional strategies and student outcomes.
• Each student at HTCS has an individual learning plan, which allows teachers to provide guidance and support to help a student master concepts and skills at his/her pace.
• The school is augmenting the ELA program with Open Court Reading and the America’s Choice curriculum with Everyday Math.  Also, the social studies program is being augmented with the Edison Schools Social Studies program.
• The school design incorporates positive learning environments, community services and support, high performance management, and parent and community engagement. 
• HTCS has created a safe learning environment for students through the implementation of Martin Luther King’s “Six Steps of Nonviolence.”  Students have learned to diffuse violence and bring about positive societal interaction and social change through the use of these principles.
• Although Edison acquired the school’s previous management company, Learn Now, Inc., the Learn-to-Learn program remains one of the strongest aspects of the HTCS culture.  Each teacher has taken the curriculum structure and adjusted it to meet the needs of the students.  The core themes include: belief, effort, step-by-step, feedback, respect, risk taking, cooperation, and leadership.  The author of the Learn-to-Learn program provides continued professional development for the school.

 

Evidence of Fiscal Soundness/Projected Fiscal Impact

• Edison Schools, Inc., the management company, has made a substantial financial commitment to the school.  The management company will defer all management fees, if the school is operating at a deficit.  In addition, if HTCS' operating costs cannot be met, Edison Schools, Inc. will cover the costs.  Lastly, Edison has notified all relevant grant makers that any money raised by the school will go directly to the school and not toward management fees for the for-profit entity.
• HTCS has over $300K in grant requests submitted.  Notification for all of these grants will be by February 2005.  Most recently, HTCS received a $60,000 grant from The Cheering for Children Foundation and Kaboom! And a $3,000 contribution from Citibank.  Modernista Advertising has given an in-kind donation, including custom-designed furniture and art supplies, for the school’s art room.  Additionally, the HTCS Parent Association made a $1,000 contribution to school programs.
• In January 2005, construction on the school’s second phase will be completed.  The school facility size will double with new classrooms that are on average 150 square feet larger than the current classrooms. 

• Audits of all previous years have shown an operating deficit.  See Attachment 5.
• Projected fiscal impact for the years 2004-05 through 2009-10 is shown in Attachment 6.
• The annual percent impact of the school upon the District is estimated to be between 0.0150 and 0.0271 percent.

 

Evidence of Parent and Student Satisfaction

• The school’s current wait list has 308 names of students who wish to attend HTCS.
• According to a survey of parents each spring regarding plans to re-enroll students in the upcoming year, the re-enrollment rate for the school was 98% for the 2001‑2002 school year, 94.8% for 2002‑2003 and 97.2% for 2003‑2004.  The average re-enrollment rate is over 96%, which indicates a high level of parent satisfaction.
• The number of students who have been withdrawn/discharged from the school by parents has remained relatively low over the life of the charter:   Year One - 6 students; Year Two - 5 students; Year Three - 4 students; and Year Four - 6 students. 
• The school uses the Harris Interactive Survey to gauge parent and student satisfaction.  The seven areas rated by parents and students include: Curriculum/Instruction, Teachers, Feedback on Child’s Performance*, Principal/Administration, Communication/Involvement*, School Bus and Facility/Equipment.  Results are based on a scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high).  The school exceeded its goal of 7.5 in all of the above-mentioned areas except Facilities, which parents rated 6.9 (students rated the facility at 8.8), for each year that the instrument was used – (2002-03 and 2003-04). 
• In addition to the Harris Interactive Survey, the school instituted an annual “live” survey to increase the return rate and more accurately measure parent satisfaction.  During morning drop-off and dismissal, the school asked parents to classify the overall performance of the school.  In fall 2003, 111 of 174 parents responded, with 83% agreeing that the school’s performance was either ‘good’ or ‘excellent.’  In fall 2004, 182 of 230 parents responded with 88% percent agreeing that the school’s performance was either ‘good’ or ‘excellent’.   This exceeds the school’s goal of 70% of parents agreeing with this statement. 
• The Harris Interactive Survey has gone from 31% return in 2001 to 50% return in 2003, the goal for 2004-05 is a 90% return rate.  Until such time that the return rates of the paper surveys are at 90%, the school will continue to conduct live surveys. 
• 18 of 22 new kindergarten students enrolled in the incoming 2004 kindergarten are younger siblings of HTCS students, indicating a high level of parent satisfaction.
• In 2003-2004, the overall attendance rate was 96.5% of students attending school every day.

 

 

Recommendation

 

Approve the renewal application and extend the provisional charter of the Harriet Tubman Charter School for a term of two years.  The school’s academic performance, which is superior to most of the public schools in the HTCS neighborhood, the commitment of Edison to provide further support to the professional staff, and the school’s strong parental support, pupil retention rate, and robust waiting list warrant approval of the application. However, the fact that the school’s performance is not at State standards and the school continues to maintain fiscal viability only with the assistance of Edison precludes a recommendation of a full five-year extension until better academic results and greater fiscal viability are demonstrated.

 

Reason for Recommendation

 

(1) The charter school meets the requirements set out in Article 56 of the Education Law and all other applicable laws, rules, and regulations; (2) the charter school has operated in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and (3) granting the extension 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.

 

Attachment 1

 

Explanation:  The chart above shows the percentage of Harriet Tubman Charter School scoring at proficiency or above on the 2004 Grade 4 ELA examination in relation to the other public schools in the Harriet Tubman zip code.   Of the thirteen schools, HTCS had the second highest percentage scoring at proficiency or above.

 

 

 

Attachment 2

 

 

Explanation:  The chart above shows the percentage of Harriet Tubman Charter School scoring at proficiency or above on the 2004 Grade 4 math examination in relation to the other public schools in the Harriet Tubman zip code.   Of the thirteen schools, HTCS was tied with four other schools for the third highest percentage scoring at proficiency or above.

 

 

 

Attachment 3

 

 

Explanation:  The above chart shows the change in the percentage of students at Harriet Tubman Charter School scoring at Levels 1-4 on the 2003 and 2004 Grade 4 ELA tests.  Overall, from 2003 to 2004 HTCS showed a decrease in the percentage of students scoring at Level 1 and a slight increase in the percentage of students scoring at proficiency (Levels 3 and 4).

Attachment 4

 

 

Explanation:  The above chart shows the change in the percentage of students at Harriet Tubman Charter School scoring at Levels 1-4 on the 2003 and 2004 Grade 4 Math tests.  Overall, from 2003 to 2004 HTCS showed a slight increase in the percentage of students scoring at Level 1 and a decrease in the percentage of students scoring at proficiency (Levels 3 and 4).
Attachment 5

 

 

Harriet Tubman Charter School

Change in Net Assets 2001-02 Through 2003-04*

 

Year	Change in Net Assets
2001-02	($28,683)
2002-03	($169,362)
2003-04	($13,619)

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

 

 

Attachment 6

 

Projected Fiscal Impact of the

Harriet Tubman Charter School

(New York City CSD 9/Region 1 – Bronx)

2004-05 Through 2009-10

School Year	Number of Students	Projected Payment*	Projected Impact
2004-05	250	$2,050,290	0.0150%
2005-06	308	$2,639,625	0.0187%
2006-07	356	$3,188,290	0.0219%
2007-08	428	$4,005,603	0.0268%
2008-09	428	$4,185,855	0.0271%
2009-10	428	$4,374,219	0.0275%

* Assumes a 3 percent annual increase in the district’s budget from a 2001-2002 base of $12.5 billion and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense per pupil, per year from the 2003-2004 final average expense per pupil of $7,848.