|
|
THE STATE
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234 |
|
TO: |
EMSC-VESID Committee |
|
FROM: |
James A. Kadamus |
|
SUBJECT: |
Charter School Application |
|
DATE: |
August 31, 2005 |
|
STRATEGIC
GOAL: |
Goals 1 and 2 |
|
AUTHORIZATION(S): |
|
SUMMARY
Issue for Decision
Should the Regents approve the proposed charter for a charter school submitted to the Board of Regents?
Reason(s) for Consideration
Required by Education Law, State statute §2852.
Proposed Handling
This question will come before the
EMSC-VESID Committee on September 8, 2005 for action. It will then come before the full Board
for final action on September 9, 2005.
Procedural History
Under the New
York Charter Schools Act of 1998, the Board of Regents is authorized to make
recommendations on charter school applications submitted directly to the Board
as the charter entity.
Background Information
We have received one charter school application submitted to the Board of Regents as the charter entity that will be presented to you at your September meeting. The application is for the following:
- Rison Academy of Art Charter School, Mount Vernon
The application for the Rison Academy of Art Charter School was submitted in June 2005. It purports to serve 200 students in Mount Vernon in grades 6 –12. It has no management company or other institutional partner.
The following table summarizes the number of
new charters that may still be issued by charter entities in New
York:
|
Charter
Entity |
SUNY Trustees |
All Other Charter
Entities |
|
|
Remaining against statutory
ceiling |
8 |
10 |
|
The New York City Chancellor has also approved eight conversion charter schools and the Buffalo City School District has approved one conversion school, all of which do not count against the statutory ceiling.
Recommendation
VOTED:
That the Board of Regents deny the application to establish the following
charter school because:
1) the charter school
described in the application does not meet the requirements set out in Article
56 of the Education Law, and in all other applicable laws, rules, and
regulations; (2) the applicants cannot demonstrate the ability to operate the
school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and (3) granting the
application is unlikely to improve student learning and achievement or
materially further the purposes set out in subdivision two of section
twenty-eight hundred fifty of Article 56 of the Education
Law:
· Rison Academy of Art Charter School, Mount Vernon
Timetable for Implementation
The Regents action will become effective
pending the action of the full Board on September 9, 2005.
New York
State Education Department
Summary of Charter School
Review
Summary of Applicant Information
Name of Proposed Charter
School: Rison Academy of Art
Charter School
Address: 128 South 4th Avenue, Mount Vernon, NY 10550
Applicant(s): Martha Rison, Adrienne Rison-Isom, Dorothy Timmons, Sharri Timmons, Boston Chance, Lynette Brinson, D.L. Bearden, and Peter Lilly
Anticipated Opening Date: September 2006
District of Location: Mount Vernon City School District
Charter Entity: Board of Regents
Institutional Partner(s): None
Management
Partner(s):
None
Grades Served: 6-12 Projected Enrollment: 100 (200)
Application
Highlights
Applicants
Martha Rison is a retired teacher from New York who now lives in Austin, Texas.
Adrienne Rison-Isom is a teacher and the executive director of an arts organization. She lives in Austin, Texas.
Dorothy Timmons is a retired school administrator who lives in Mount Vernon, New York.
Sharri Timmons is a teacher who lives in Mount Vernon, New York.
Boston Chance is a retired school administrator who lives in Jamaica, New York.
Lynette Brinson is currently a school principal who lives in Brooklyn.
D. L. Bearden is the director of a non-profit educational organization who lives in Pflugerville, Texas.
Peter Lilly is a school administrator who lives in New York City.
Institutional/Management
Partner
None
Curriculum/Assessment/Instruction
·
The curriculum
is incomplete, and what was presented is not aligned with the New York State
Learning Standards.
· The Rison Academy of Art Charter School (“the School”) would serve students in grades 6-12 in one of the four artistic disciplines: music, dance, theater, or graphic arts.
· The curriculum addresses competence in the arts first before any other areas.
· The core curriculum would be a web-based virtual program.
· Languages Other Than English would be provided by a private language school and not by the charter school.
· Career Development and Occupational Studies would be limited to arts engineering and the business of arts and the humanities.
· Many books to be used are on-line only.
· Regarding the virtual approach, the application itself states, “There is no guarantee that the process is going to work for all learners.”
· The application provides for an impermissible enrollment criterion in that students must “have achieved a high level of technological skill and have stable access to the internet either at home or through a community resource.”
· The application does not address how the proposed educational program will enable students to meet or exceed the State’s performance standards.
Governance
· The applicants would also constitute the initial Board of Trustees.
· There is no discussion on how the Trustees who live in Texas would be able to meaningfully and consistently participate in Board meetings or otherwise manage the oversight of the School.
· The Board would have a regular meeting only every two months.
Students
· Only students who are technologically adept and who have regular access to the internet would be enrolled.
· The strategies and methods by which services to students with disabilities would be provided are vague, and show no understanding of the federal requirements per the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
· The strategies and methods by which services to students with limited English proficiency would be provided do not comprise an adequate program. The application references various resources on the Department’s website and confuses these with a “special language instructional program” that it intends to use.
· The School would serve only 100 students in grades 6-12, but it would allow for incremental increase up to 200 students if the School needed more revenue to balance its budget.
· The application provides no evidence of adequate community support such that the School could meet its intended enrollment.
Recommendation
· Deny the application.
Reasons for Recommendation