Meeting of the Board of Regents | April 2003

SUMMARY:

The Board of Regents is authorized to approve proposed revisions to existing charters. The Riverhead Charter School has submitted an amendment for the remaining three years of its charter. Specifically, the school seeks to increase the grade levels offered from K-5 to K-8 starting in September 2003. There would be no increase in enrollment from the totals already approved in the charter. Attached are copies of materials submitted by the Board of Trustees of the Riverhead Charter School. Also attached is information relating to questions raised by the Committee when it first reviewed the proposed revision at its March 24, 2003 meeting.

VOTED: That the Board of Regents approve the proposed revisions to the charter of the following charter school based upon the information contained in the attachments and upon a finding by the Board of Regents that: (1) the revision meets the requirements set out in Article 56 of the Education Law, and all other applicable laws, rules, and regulations; (2) the revision (together with the other terms of the charter) will permit the charter school to operate in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and (3) the revision (together with the other terms of the 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:

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE REGENTS EMSC COMMITTEE IN MARCH 2003

Question 1: What is the demographic profile of the Riverhead CSD?

Student Demographic Comparison, June 2002

The Riverhead CSD serves a majority White population. More than one-quarter of the students are Black, seven percent are Hispanic, nearly 42 percent are eligible for free or reduced lunch programs, and nearly 14 percent are students with disabilities.

In contrast, the Riverhead Charter School population is two-thirds Black. Compared to the district, the charter school serves slightly higher percentages of Hispanic students and students eligible for free or reduced lunch programs, while the proportion of students classified as disabled is less than half the proportion of students with disabilities in the district.

Question 2: Is the student population served by the Riverhead Charter School similar to the Riverhead CSD with respect to need?

Riverhead CSD Grade 4 and 8 ELA and Math Results, 2000-01

Riverhead CSD Grade 4 and 8 ELA and Math Results, 2001-02

Riverhead Charter School Grade 4 ELA and Math Results, 2001-02

Achievement data for the Riverhead CSD indicate that for 2000-01, the percent of White students who achieved Levels 3 or 4 on the grade 4 ELA test was 43 points higher than for Black students. Similarly, for the grade 4 math test, the percent of White students who achieved Levels 3 or 4 was 37 points higher than for Black students. Though this disparity in performance was reduced in 2001-02, the percent of White students passing the ELA test in grade 4 was still 37 points higher than for Black students, and 33 points higher in math.

With respect to eighth grade student performance, the disparities on both the ELA and math tests are larger than at grade four. In 2000-01, 49 percent more White students passed the grade 8 ELA test than Black students. This difference was reduced to 38 percent in 2001-02; though the percent of Black students passing the ELA test actually declined slightly, this was offset by a greater decline in the percent of White students passing the test. For grade 8 math, in 2000-01 the disparity between White and Black students passing was 45 percent, while in 2001-02 the disparity was reduced to 40 percent.

Charter school results in grade 4 resemble to some degree the results of Black students in the district. For 2001-02, 36 percent of students passed the ELA test and 31 percent passed the math test. The ELA results for the charter school students are identical to the results for the Black students in the district. In math, the performance of Black students in the district exceeded by 20 percent the performance of the charter school students. It has been the Department�s practice to view first-year charter school performance results as a baseline against which to compare future years� results. The ELA exam is administered in January, only four months after the students enter the charter school.

The data suggest that Black students in the Riverhead CSD are not benefiting academically to the same degree as White students. The charter school is clearly attracting a predominantly minority population.

Question 3: What is the cost impact of the Riverhead Charter School on the Riverhead CSD?

Riverhead CSD Projected AEP Payments to Riverhead CS, 2003-04 to 2005-06

*Projected numbers of Riverhead resident students are based on the historical figure of 43.5 percent.

**Based on average annual AEP increase of 3 percent.

Riverhead Charter School

Projected Enrollments, Existing Charter and Revised Charter

Under the conditions of the existing charter, the projected increase of the cost of the Riverhead Charter School for the Riverhead CSD is approximately $800,000 for 2003-04. If the requested revision is approved, the projected increase is $631,510. The projected cost to the district in 2003-04 is reduced by approximately $170,000 under the requested revision, because the number of students in the charter school under the revision is less than the approved number in the existing charter. When it is noted that historically only 43.5 percent of the charter school students have been residents of the Riverhead CSD, it is evident that the financial impact on the district is far less than the impact envisioned when the charter was originally approved and the projections were based on the assumption that all the students in the charter school would be residents of the district.

Question 4: What is the history of the Riverhead Charter School?

• Regents approval December 2000. Management company partner was Beacon Educational Management, LLC.
  

• Revision approval June 2001. Charter school switched to Edison Schools, Inc. as management company.
  

• Enrollment ceilings per year approved in the school�s charter reflect careful consideration of the financial impact of the charter school on the Riverhead CSD.
  

• Opened September 2001. Initially served 175 K-4 students, less than the allowed ceiling of 246 students.
  

• Historically, less than 45 percent of the charter school students have been residents of the Riverhead CSD, with students attending the charter school residing in 14 districts.
  

• Riverhead CSD brought suit against the charter school and the Regents, contending that the Regents did not legally approve the charter school. A New York Supreme Court judge dismissed the lawsuit. The dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
  

• Riverhead CSD has persistently violated its legal obligation to submit required average operating expense payments to the charter school. Consequently, the charter school has had to seek redress through the provisions of the charter schools statute, by which the Office of the State Comptroller pays the charter school from State funds due to the school district. The district�s failure to comply with the law in this respect has placed financial strain on the charter school because of the great delay in the time in which the charter school receives its money. The district�s payments to the charter school are four months in arrears.
  

• 2002-03 serving 280 students, less than the allowed ceiling of 400 students.
  

• In the existing charter, the school would serve 474 students in 2003-04, 540 in 2004-2005, and 600 in 2005-2006. Under the proposed revised charter, this ceiling would be reduced by 49 students in 2003-2004, reduced by 2 students in 2004-2005, and remain the same in 2005-2006.

Question 5: What are the pros and cons regarding the requested charter revision?

Pros: The Board of Trustees of the charter school is requesting that the grades the school serves be extended from K-5 to K-8. The extension would proceed one grade per year, and would not increase the enrollment of the charter school beyond the ceiling allowed in its charter. The Board indicates that the extension is in part a response to requests from parents of charter school students who desire the continuity their children would experience from an extension of the charter school�s program, as well as the exercise of expanded choices in the types of educational opportunities that are available within the public school system. The Board agrees with the parents that educational benefits will result from this extension because the students will experience a continuation of the charter school�s educational program as opposed to the disruption of transitioning back to district schools after grade 5. The board also contends that the ability of the charter school to provide a continuous K-8 program will increase the likelihood of the school�s reaching its approved enrollment ceiling. Another advantage of the extension would be further evidence of accountability for the charter school because students in grade 8 would take the required State exams for that grade. Support for the extension includes nearly 200 letters from parents.

Cons: Riverhead CSD contends that the reconfiguration of grades will make it more likely that the charter school will meet its enrollment targets. This would result in a greater fiscal impact on the district. However, because less than 50 percent of the students come from the Riverhead CSD, even if the school meets its enrollment targets, the fiscal impact will be far less than anticipated by the Regents and Riverhead CSD when the charter school was initially approved. (The fiscal impact analyses by the Department and the Riverhead CSD performed before the initial approval of the school assumed that all of the students would be from Riverhead CSD.) Riverhead CSD also claims that the grade reconfiguration would result in greater fiscal impact on the district because the school will take fewer students from the district in each grade, which will make it more difficult for the district to cut costs through economies of scale. However, considering the numbers of students at issue (see the 2^nd chart under Question 3 above), the district�s ability to cut significantly more costs under the current grade configuration is doubtful. Again, the fiscal impact on the Riverhead CSD will definitely be less than originally anticipated by the Board of Regents when it initially approved the school. The district also contends that the charter school should never have been approved because the district�s students have no educational need that the charter school could address. The charts under Questions 1 and 2 demonstrate that this argument is without merit.