Meeting of the Board of Regents | December 2009
|
|
THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234
|
|
TO: |
|
|
FROM: |
John B. King, Jr. |
|
SUBJECT: |
Charter Schools: Proposed First Renewal Charter for Urban Choice Charter School |
|
DATE: |
December 4, 2009 |
|
STRATEGIC GOAL: |
Goals 1 and 2 |
|
AUTHORIZATION(S): |
SUMMARY
Issue for Decision
Should the Regents approve the proposed renewal of the charter for Urban Choice Charter School (Rochester)?
Background Information
We received a request from the Urban Choice Charter School (“the School”) for a first renewal of its charter. The School’s initial charter was granted by the Board of Regents in December 2004 for a period of five years. In December 2006, the Board of Regents approved a revision to the School’s charter allowing it to add a remedial Saturday program; in May, 2007, the Board of Regents approved the adoption of a remedial-based summer program for grades K-5; in October, 2007, the Board of Regents approved an after school program; in January, 2009, the Board of Regents approved changes to the bylaws and organizational structure; and in July009, the Board of Regents approved further changes to the organizational structure. The School is now requesting a first renewal for four and one-half years, commencing on January 12, 2010, with the addition of one grade level each year, up to grade twelve.
The proposed high school curriculum was deficient in a number of areas, including the Visual Arts, Career Development and Occupational Studies, Mathematics (where no curriculum was provided for grades 9-12), Science, and Social Studies (where no curriculum was provided for Global History and Geography, American History and Government, Participation in Government, or Economics). The proposed schedule was incomplete. The enrollment pattern for the proposed high school was based on fiscal needs, rather than educational soundness. Parent petitions for the high school grades were inadequate in that they expressed “enthusiastic support’ rather than a commitment to enroll a student. The organizational structure for K-8 has been revised recently and frequently and requires stability shown for a few years prior to establishing a high school. The professional development program for K-8 has built a foundation that requires a well-developed plan to be implemented prior to establishing a high school.
Staff recommends that the Board of Regents approves the first renewal charter application of the Urban Choice Charter School for K-8 grades only.
The Rochester City School District held a public hearing on June 24, 2009, regarding this proposed renewal application. No comments were made or received during the hearing. Rochester City School District made no comments.
Recommendation
VOTED: That the Board of Regents approves the renewal application of the Urban Choice Charter School to the extent that it provides for instruction in grades kindergarten though eight only, and directs the school to modify its application accordingly.
Reason for Recommendation
The charter school and its renewal application, once modified, 1) meet the requirements set out in Article 56 of the Education Law, and all other applicable laws, rules, and regulations; (2) demonstrate the ability to operate the school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; (3) 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; and (4) will have a significant educational benefit to the students expected to attend the charter school,
Timetable for Implementation
The Regents action for Urban Choice Charter School will become effective immediately.
New York State Education Department
Summary of Charter School Renewal Information
Summary of Applicant Information
Name of Proposed Renewed Charter School: Urban Choice Charter School (“the School”)
Address: 545 Humboldt Street, Rochester, New York 14610
Board of Trustees President: Susan W. Fox
Renewal Period: January 12, 2010 – June 30, 2014
District of Location: Rochester City School District
Charter Entity: Board of Regents
Institutional Partner(s): N/A
Management Partner(s): N/A
Grades Served per Year: January 12, 2010 – June 30, 2010: K-8
2010-2011: K-8
2011-2012: K-8
2012-2013: K-8
2013-2014: K-8
Projected Enrollment per Year: January 12, 2010 – June 30, 2010: 390
2010-2011: 390
2011-2012: 390
2012-2013: 390
2013-2014: 390
Renewal Application Highlights
Evidence of Educational Soundness/ Attainment of Educational Objectives
- For the School’s performance on State assessments, see Attachment 1.
- Overall, scores on State assessments have increased steadily, particularly in the past two years. Significant growth is shown in grades K-6, with somewhat lesser increases in grades 7 and 8 ELA. The 2008-09 4th grade Science assessment produced 100% proficiency.
- The School did not attain the State Performance Index in any area until the 2008-09 school year.
- All of the charter goals were met by Year 4, when the School outscored the Rochester City School District by 14 percentage points in ELA and 19 in math.
- There has been minimal Board turnover or staff turnover.
- While the School continues to build upon its professional development opportunities, and has built a foundation, Board, administration, and staff interviews all revealed there is a need for continuous efforts to be made in professional development. It has been recommended that the School work on a long-range plan, especially in light of the School’s request to expand into a high school.
Evidence of Fiscal Soundness/Projected Fiscal Impact
- The School has received a clean, unqualified audit each year of its operation, and no material weaknesses have been found.
- Four internal control matters were identified from the 2007-08 Financial Statements, none of which were considered a material weakness or significant deficiency. The School promptly implemented appropriate action regarding each of them.
- The School has maintained a positive cash balance at the end of each school year.
- Fiscal controls and financial management practices have been reviewed by both the auditors and the Board Finance Committee and been found to be adequate and effective.
- The School has obtained an increase in its line of credit.
- The potential fiscal impact upon the District is represented below. 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 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.
Projected Fiscal Impact of the Charter Schools on the
Rochester City School District
|
School |
2010-11 |
2011-12 |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
|
Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS |
.50 |
.51 |
.51 |
.53 |
.53 |
|
Genesee Community CS |
.35 |
.36 |
.36 |
.37 |
.37 |
|
Rochester Academy CS |
.47 |
.56 |
.57 |
.58 |
.58 |
|
True North Rochester Preparatory CS |
.47 |
.48 |
.49 |
.49 |
.50 |
|
Urban Choice |
.61 |
.62 |
.63 |
.64 |
.65 |
|
Total |
2.40 |
2.53 |
2.56 |
2.61 |
2.63 |
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 the Rochester City School District on June 24, 2009. No comments were made or received. The Rochester City School District made no comments.
- Parent satisfaction surveys for each year since the School opened have averaged over 95% expressing “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied’ with various aspects of the School.
- Student withdrawals from the School have dropped from 12% in the first year to 3% in 2008-09; most were due to families’ relocation.
- The School has been fully enrolled each year, with lengthy waiting lists.
- Parent petitions for the high school grades were inadequate in that they expressed “enthusiastic support’ rather than a commitment to enroll a student.
Attachment 1
2007-2008
Grades 3-8 State ELA and Math Assessments
Percent of Urban Choice Students at Levels 3 – 4
Grades 3-8 ELA
|
% at Level 3 |
% at Level 4 |
% Proficient |
|
|
Grade 3 |
54 |
2 |
56 |
|
Grade 4 |
49 |
2 |
51 |
|
Grade 5 |
56 |
0 |
56 |
|
Grade 6 |
41 |
2 |
43 |
Grades 3-8 Math
|
% at Level 3 |
% at Level 4 |
% Proficient |
|
|
Grade 3 |
80 |
4 |
84 |
|
Grade 4 |
58 |
5 |
63 |
|
Grade 5 |
59 |
0 |
59 |
|
Grade 6 |
58 |
3 |
62 |
* Due to statistical rounding, percentages may exceed 100.
2008-2009
Grades 3-8 State ELA and Math Assessments
Percent of Urban Choice Students at Levels 3 – 4
Grades 3-8 ELA
|
% at Level 3 |
% at Level 4 |
% Proficient |
|
|
Grade 3 |
70 |
9 |
79 |
|
Grade 4 |
80 |
7 |
87 |
|
Grade 5 |
72 |
2 |
74 |
|
Grade 6 |
59 |
4 |
63 |
|
Grade 7 |
61 |
3 |
64 |
Grades 3-8 Math
|
% at level 3 |
% at Level 4 |
% Proficient |
|
|
Grade 3 |
78 |
9 |
87 |
|
Grade 4 |
80 |
11 |
91 |
|
Grade 5 |
58 |
19 |
77 |
|
Grade 6 |
67 |
18 |
85 |
|
Grade 7 |
78 |
11 |
89 |