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

TO:	EMSC-VESID Committee
FROM:	James A. Kadamus
SUBJECT:	Renewal of Charter School Charters
DATE:	May 11, 2005
STRATEGIC GOAL:	Goals 1 and 2
AUTHORIZATION(S):

Executive Summary

Issue for Decision

Should the Regents accept the staff recommendations on the renewal of 13 charter school charters?

Reason for Consideration

Required by State statute, Education Law 2851(4).

Proposed Handling

This question will come before the EMSC-VESID Committee on May 16, 2005 for action. It will then come before the full Board for final action on May 17, 2007.

Procedural History

These charters were initially issued in 2000 and have been re-evaluated by their authorizer, the Trustees of the State University of New York (“the Trustees”) or the New York City Chancellor (“the Chancellor”). They are now before you for re-authorization and the renewal of their charters.

Background Information

Two of the charter schools are located in Buffalo, seven are located in New York City, and one each is in Rochester, Schenectady, Wainscott, and Roosevelt. Evaluative reports received from the authorizing entity have provided a comprehensive and detailed picture of each charter school’s operation, successes, and remaining concerns. Department staff have reviewed the reports as well as information that they have collected independently and present their recommendations to you.

The recommendation regarding the charter school in Schenectady is a resubmission. At your March meeting, you voted to return the proposed renewal charter of the International Charter School of Schenectady because of your concerns over projected increased enrollment, inadequacy of space in the present facility, and lack of data demonstrating academic success. The resubmission revises the proposed renewal charter by including the relocation of the school to another district and the modification of its admissions policy. Your options under the statute are to approve the resubmitted proposed renewal or take no action. If you take no action, the renewal will become effective by operation of law on May 20.

Recommendation

VOTED: That the Board of Regents take the following actions:

Approve the recommendation to renew the charter of the Amber Charter School, New York City, for a period of five years;
Approve the recommendation to renew the charter of the Bronx Preparatory Charter School, New York City, for a period of five years;
Return the recommendation to renew the charter of the Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School, Wainscott, for a period of five years, with a suggestion that the renewal be revised to extend for no more than three years;
Approve the recommendation to renew the charter of the Community Partnership Charter School, New York City, for a period of two years, and that instruction be limited to grades kindergarten through five with a maximum enrollment of 570 students;
Return the recommendation to renew the charter of the Eugenio Maria de Hostos Charter School, Rochester, for a period of five years, with a suggestion that the renewal be revised to extend for no more than three years;
Approve the recommendation to renew the charter of the Harbor Science and Arts Charter School, New York City, for a period of two years;
Take no action on the resubmitted recommendation to renew the charter of the International Charter School of Schenectady, for a period of two years;
Approve the recommendation to renew the charter of the King Center Charter school, Buffalo, for a period of two years;
Approve the recommendation to renew the charter of the KIPP Academy Charter School, New York City, for a period of five years;
Approve the recommendation to renew the charter of the Merrick Academy-Queens Public Charter School, New York City, for a period of five years, limiting the School's authority to provide instruction to grades kindergarten through five, with a maximum attendance of 570;
Approve the recommendation to renew the charter of The Renaissance Charter School, New York City, for a period of five years;
Return the recommendation to renew the charter of the Roosevelt Children’s Academy Charter School, Roosevelt, for a period of five years, recommending that the Trustees of the State University of New York abandon the renewal application; and
Approve the recommendation to renew the charter of the South Buffalo Charter School, Buffalo, for a period of five years.

Timetable for Implementation

Charters will be deemed issued upon approval by the full Board of Regents, on May 17, 2005.

Attachments

New York State Education Department

Summary of Charter School Renewal Information

Summary of Applicant Information

Name of Proposed Renewed Charter School: Amber Charter School (ACS)

Address: 220 East 106^th Street, New York, NY 10029

Board of Trustees President: Luis A. Miranda, Jr.

Renewal Period: March 31, 2005 – March 31, 2010

District of Location: New York City Community School District 4/ Region 9

Charter Entity: SUNY Board of Trustees

Institutional Partner(s): Success for All and Community Association of Progressive Dominicans

Management Partner(s): N/A

Grades Served per Year: K-5 (K-6)

Projected Enrollment per Year: 300, 350, (620)

Renewal Application Highlights

Evidence of Educational Soundness/Attainment of Educational Objectives

· For the performance of the Amber Charter School (“ACS” or “the School”) on State assessments, see Attachment 1.

· Academic performance of students at Amber has been mixed. Positive results include the following: According to the school’s New York State Report Card, the school had a Performance Index of 135.3 in English language arts (ELA) and 164.7 in math. These results compare favorably with those of schools in Community School District 5. However, only 17 students were tested last year. (Note: Although ACS is located in Community School District 4, SUNY permits the school to compare itself to Community School District 5, since the majority of the school’s enrollment resides in that district.)

· Information provided shows a positive relationship between the number of years a student has been enrolled at Amber and improved student performance. The longer students have been at the school, the better they performed on the standardized assessments administered by Amber last year.

· Less positive results include the following: Scores on the New York City Grade 3 ELA and math were characterized as “very disappointing,” with the school’s mean scale scores on these tests being just slightly higher than those of Community School District 5, one of the lowest performing districts in the State.

· A comparison of scores between students in Grade 3 in 2002-2003 and students in Grade 4 in 2003-2004 shows that 6% (1 student) moved to a higher level; 59% (10) students remained in the same performance level and 35% (6 students) regressed to a lower level.

· According to the State University of New York’s renewal report, the rigor and academic demand of ACS’s instructional program increased notably during the final two years of its charter as staff worked to implement and refine the curriculum.

Evidence of Fiscal Soundness/Projected Fiscal Impact

· The School has maintained consistent positive fund balances and adequate cash flow; it has met all bills on time.

· The Board obtained funding necessary to finance the purchasing of its current facility. The School has received conditional designation from the New York City Economic Development Corporation to purchase two City-owned lots on the corner of 172^nd and Amsterdam. A facility to house the expanded enrollment could be ready in the 2007-08 school year.

· Each financial statement audit report received an unqualified opinion.

· The School completed its latest fiscal year in strong financial condition; the School had an increase in net assets of $529,167 and finished with unrestricted and total net assets of $735,368 and $1,507,389 respectively.

· Over the first four years of its charter, the School received $940,775 in private grants and contributions.

· The potential fiscal impact upon the District is represented below. 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 everyday 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.

Projected Fiscal Impact of the Renewal of the Charter

for the

Amber Charter School

School Year	Number of Students	Projected Payment*	Projected Impact
2005-06	300	$2,575,800	.018%
2006-07**	350	$3,140,330	.022%
2007-08	620	$5,813,199	.040%
2008-09	620	$6,074,792	.041%
2009-10	620	$6,348,158	.041%

*Assumes a 3 percent annual increase in the District’s budget from a 2002-2003 base of $12.9 billion and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense per pupil, per year from the 2004-2005 final average expense per pupil of $8,586.

Evidence of Parent and Student Satisfaction and Community Support

· 211 out of 228 parents completed the parent survey in spring 2004; the survey found that 97 percent said they were pleased their child attends ACS, 91 percent reported that they were satisfied with their child’s progress at ACS, 97 percent reported that their child was motivated to come to school, and 99 percent said their child was interested in learning.

· The School reports that 90.9 percent of students who had been enrolled for the entire year 2002-2003 returned the following year.

· The renewal application states that 241 students were on the waiting list for admission in the winter of 2005.

Summary of Charter Entity’s Findings and Recommendations

· Amber Charter School is currently serving approximately 291 K-5^th graders in Central Harlem (Washington Heights). Physically located in District 4, the School’s charter permits it to compare itself with District 5, given the school serves a population that is more similar demographically. (See Attachment 1 for comparison of ACS performance to Districts 4 and 5.)

· ACS met some, though not all, of the measures of student academic performance it set for itself in its Accountability Plan.

· The School is in good standing under the No Child Left Behind Act.

· At the time of the renewal visit, the School generally had effective systems and programs in place that provided the chartering entity with a basis for concluding (together with outcome data) that the School would, if approved for renewal, likely continue to improve student learning and achievement.

· The School has reasonable plans for expansion in facility; there is no guarantee that the School can overcome necessary and logistical hurdles.

· The Charter Schools Institute recommends, and the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York have agreed, the School’s charter be renewed for a period of five years to serve students in kindergarten through grade six to allow the school to amass additional evidence of success and to demonstrate its effectiveness as it grows to serve students in the upper grades.

Recommendation

Approve the recommendation.

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

Amber Charter School

Performance on State Assessments

		Percent of Students
Assessment	Year	% Level 1	% Level 2	% Level 3	% Level 4	Performance Index
Grade 4 ELA	2002	0	0	0	0
Grade 4 ELA	2003	0	0	0	0
Grade 4 ELA	2004	.06	.53	.41	0	135.3

Grade 4 Math	2002	0	0	0	0
Grade 4 Math	2003	0	0	0	0
Grade 4 Math	2004	.06	.23	.59	.12	164.7

Amber Charter School

Performance on City Assessments

		Percent of Students
Assessment	Year	% Level 1	% Level 2	% Level 3	% Level 4	Performance Index
Grade 3 ELA (Metropolitan)	2003	.08	.48	.44	0	134.8
Grade 3 ELA (Harcourt)	2004	.26	.43	.26	.04	104.3

Grade 3 Math (CTB)	2003	.26	.30	.35	.09	117.4
Grade 3 Math (CTB)	2004	.28	.37	.29	.06	107.1

Amber Charter School

Performance on City and State Assessments

In Comparison to Districts 4 and 5

		PERFORMANCE INDEX
		Amber CS	CSD 4	CSD 5
Grade 3 ELA	2003	134.8	121.2	88.9
Grade 3 ELA	2004	104.3	126.5	100.3
Grade 4 ELA	2003	N/A	137.3	136.5
Grade 4 ELA	2004	135.3	139.1	126.4

Grade 3 Math	2003	117.4	128.2	108.3
Grade 3 Math	2004	107.1	134.8	111.8
Grade 4 Math	2003	N/A	154.2	150.0
Grade 4 Math	2004	164.7 (17 students)	160.3	144.9

Attachment 2

Amber Charter School

Change in Net Assets 2000-01 Through 2003-04*

Year	Change in Net Assets
2000-01	$98,980
2001-02	- $37,751
2002-03	$155,554
2003-04	$529,167

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

New York State Education Department

Summary of Charter School Renewal Information

Summary of Applicant Information

Name of Proposed Renewed Charter School: Bronx Preparatory Charter School (“BPCS” or “School”)

Address: 3872 Third Avenue, Bronx, NY 10457

Board of Trustees President: Margaret Yates Thorne

Renewal Period: May 17, 2005 – May 17, 2010

District of Location: New York City Community School District 9/Region 1

Charter Entity: SUNY Board of Trustees

Institutional Partner(s): None

Management Partner(s): None

Grades Served per Year: 5-10 (5-12)

Projected Enrollment per Year: 370 (700)

Renewal Application Highlights

Evidence of Educational Soundness/Attainment of Educational Objectives

· For the performance of the Bronx Preparatory Charter School (BPCS) on State assessments, see Attachment 1.

· The School has exceeded the criterion of success set in its outcome measures as it pertains to State exams and it has consistently outperformed CSD 9.

· BPCS ninth grade students surpassed the School’s outcome measure for passing the Math A Regents Examination.

· To address lower results with 5^th and 6^th grade students, the School has adjusted instructional practices and programs to support those students.

· The School has begun to offer PSAT verbal and math courses.

· The School has had relatively consistent leadership. In the summer of 2004, the School finalized its transition to a new principal, the second since the school opened.

· The School has been able to make Adequate Yearly Progress as required by NCLB.

· As a whole, the student achievement data the school has amassed during its first four years of operation indicates that the school has significantly improved student learning and achievement.

· The School has struggled with teacher certification. The current staff is 65 percent NYS certified and thus they are currently out of compliance. The School has described a plan that includes an individualized certification plan that all returning staff must follow in order to remain employed at the Bronx Preparatory Charter School.

Evidence of Fiscal Soundness/Projected Fiscal Impact

· Audits of all previous years have shown an operating surplus. See Attachment 2.

· Projected fiscal impact for the years 2005-06 through 2009-10 is shown below.

· The annual percent impact of the School upon the District is estimated to be between 0.0274 and 0.0451 percent.

· The School has not had cash flow difficulties during the first charter term. BPCS served the number of students as per the original plan with an extended-day and extended-year program.

· Operating cost per student has gone from $12,400 in the first year to $11,800 in the fourth year. The School has reduced private fundraising as a percentage of overall expenses from 42% to 28%.

· Over the last three years, Friends of Bronx Preparatory Charter School has raised $14.1 million in philanthropic funds and has secured a $4 million loan for its capital fund. The School is just $1.3 million short of the $19.1 million needed to complete the facility.

· Sufficient moneys had been raised by December 2003 to construct the first 60% of the campus, which enabled the School to move at the beginning of the 2004-05.

Projected Fiscal Impact of the Renewal of the

Bronx Preparatory Charter School

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

2005-06 Through 2009-10

School Year	Number of Students	Projected Payment*	Projected Impact
2005-06	450	$3,863,700	.0274%
2006-07	550	$4,934,804	.0339%
2007-08	600	$5,625,676	.0376%
2008-09	650	$6,368,734	.0413%
2009-10	700	$7,167,275	.0451%

Evidence of Parent and Student Satisfaction and Community Support

· The School believes that high parent satisfaction is reflected in the fact that the School allocates limited funds for advertising; instead, it relies on word of mouth and parents referring other parents.

· BPCS’s retention rate has been between 92 and 95 percent. The four-year average annual attrition is 6.6 percent.

· An annual anonymous parent survey, created by the Yale Child Study Center, indicated that parents felt the School was strong in academics (99 percent); that their child feels he/she can learn in school (98 percent); and the School is helping their child develop into a well-adjusted person (97 percent). Eighty-five percent of the parents responded to the survey given in June 2004.

· The School reports that each year it receives two applications for every available seat.

· The vast majority of applicants are from the School’s immediate neighborhood in the Bronx.

Summary of Charter Entity’s Findings and Recommendations

· The School has effective systems and programs in place that provide a basis for concluding (together with the outcome data) that, if approved, the School would likely continue to improve student learning and achievement, including a rigorous curriculum and comprehensive set of structures for faculty development.

· The School has benefited from consistent leadership at the Executive Director, Principal and Board levels.

· The Charter Schools Institute has recommended, and the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York have agreed, to renew the charter for the Bronx Preparatory Charter School for a period of five years consistent with the terms of the renewal application. The School shall have authority to provide instruction to such grades and such numbers of students as it is authorized in such school year to serve pursuant to its present charter.

Recommendation

Approve the recommendation.

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

Bronx Preparatory Charter School

		Percent of Students
Assessment	Year	% Level 1	% Level 2	% Level 3	% Level 4	Performance Index
Grade 8 ELA	2001	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	-
Grade 8 ELA	2002	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	-
Grade 8 ELA	2003	5.0	63.0	27.0	5.0	127
Grade 8 ELA	2004	0.0	40.0	50.0	10.0	160

Grade 8 Math	2001	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	-
Grade 8 Math	2002	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	-
Grade 8 Math	2003	2.0	60.0	31.0	7.0	136
Grade 8 Math	2004	0.0	29.0	54.0	17.0	171

Performance on State Assessments

Attachment 2

Bronx Preparatory Charter School

Change in Net Assets 2000-01 Through 2003-04*

Year	Change in Net Assets
2000-01	$255,971
2001-02	$337,152
2002-03	$792,575
2003-04	$6,711,756

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

New York State Education Department

Summary of Charter School Renewal Information

Summary of Applicant Information

Name of Proposed Renewed Charter School: Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School

Address: 110 Stephen Hands Path, P.O. Box 404, Wainscott, NY 11975-0404

Board of Trustees President: Eugenia Au Kim

Renewal Period: May 17, 2005 - May 17, 2010

District of Location: Wainscott Common School District

Charter Entity: SUNY Board of Trustees

Institutional Partner(s): None

Management Partner(s): None

Grades Served per Year: K-8

Projected Enrollment per Year: 110, 125, 135, 135, 135

Renewal Application Highlights

Evidence of Educational Soundness/ Attainment of Educational Objectives

· In the current school year, the Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School (CDCH) has occupied a newly constructed facility that will permit the ready accommodation of projected enrollment expansion.

· For the performance of CDCH on State assessments, see Attachment 1.

· CDCH has outperformed the Eastern Suffolk BOCES on both the Grade 4 ELA and math assessments for 2003-04.

· CDCH has had mixed results in enabling students to achieve gains on the TerraNova.

· CDCH has grown from 24 students in 2000-01 to 93 students in 2004-05.

· CDCH serves students from many districts, with 13 districts sending students in the current school year.

· Over 50 percent of the students have disabilities, and data on State assessments are based on very small numbers, with five students tested in each of the last two years for which data are available. Projections are for the percent of disabled students at the School to increase.

· Each classroom is staffed with two certified teachers as well as other support personnel, as needed. Such personnel include aides who accompany some of the disabled students.

· The School has been able to make Adequate Yearly Progress as required by NCLB.

· The report of the Charter Schools Institute (CSI) notes that upper school teachers do not have access to the same level of special education support as lower school teachers; that informal assessment portfolios use unreliable information that does not permit teachers to predict student performance; that teachers need more detailed, classroom-based instructional guidance; and that teachers report not receiving professional development regarding the best practices of “co-teaching.”

· There are insufficient assessment data to make a determination of how well the students with disabilities at CDCH are performing academically.

· The curriculum outline provided in the renewal application omits some required subjects and is not aligned with the New York State Learning Standards.

· Though the current principal is CDCH’s third, the CSI report notes that CDCH has had strong leadership.

Evidence of Fiscal Soundness/Projected Fiscal Impact

· The financial condition of CDCH has been generally weak but stable. While CDCH has not always operated on a balanced budget, it has never experienced an operating cash shortfall. The financial stability of CDCH has benefited from the support of the CDCH Foundation for Special Children, though CDCH does not identify the Foundation as a partner organization.

· As of the end of the 2003-04 school year, CDCH had a net asset deficiency of over $42,000, which is two percent of the School’s annual budget (see Attachment 2).

· The CSI report notes that the CDCH Board of Trustees does not receive regular fiscal reports; it recommends that the CDCH Board of Trustees establish an audit committee and establish a formal budget policy to strengthen the Board’s fiscal oversight.

· The potential fiscal impact upon sending districts is represented below. Please note that these projections are based upon several assumptions, which may or may not occur: that the charter school will be able to meet its projected maximum enrollment; that the distribution of students across sending districts will remain stable; that all students will attend everyday for a 1.0 FTE; that the districts’ budgets will increase at the projected rate; that the per pupil payments will increase (and not decrease); and that the per pupil payments will increase at the projected rate.

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact on Sending Districts

Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School

2005-06

District	Projected Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact (percent)*
Amagansett	2	$22,918	0.4
Bridgehampton	2	84,314	0.9
East Hampton	35	552,720	1.3
Hampton Bays	10	103,310	0.3
Montauk	8	92,016	0.8
Riverhead	1	11,031	0.01
Sag Harbor	11	173,250	0.7
Sagaponack	1	42,637	3.5
Shelter Island	18	387,684	4.9
Southampton	2	40,416	0.09
Springs	14	160,426	1.0
Wainscott	1	45,489	2.2
William Floyd	4	45,752	0.03

*Assumes a 3 percent annual increase in each District’s budget from a 2004-05 base and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense per pupil per year from the 2005-06 rate.

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact on Sending Districts

Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School

2006-07

District	Projected Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact (percent)*
Amagansett	2	23,950	0.4
Bridgehampton	2	84,314	1.0
East Hampton	40	660,120	1.5
Hampton Bays	11	118,756	0.4
Montauk	10	120,190	0.9
Riverhead	1	11,527	0.01
Sag Harbor	12	197,508	0.7
Sagaponack	1	44,555	4.0
Shelter Island	21	452,647	5.7
Southampton	2	42,234	0.1
Springs	16	191,160	1.2
Wainscott	1	47,536	2.5
William Floyd	5	59,765	0.03

*Assumes a 3 percent annual increase in each District’s budget from a 2004-05 base and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense per pupil per year from the 2005-06 rate.

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact on Sending Districts

Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School

2007-08

District	Projected Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact (percent)*
Amagansett	3	$37,542	0.4
Bridgehampton	3	138,108	1.1
East Hampton	43	741,535	1.6
Hampton Bays	12	135,384	0.4
Montauk	10	125,590	1.0
Riverhead	1	12,045	0.01
Sag Harbor	13	223,587	0.8
Sagaponack	1	46,559	4.4
Shelter Island	22	517,418	6.2
Southampton	3	66,201	0.1
Springs	17	212,738	1.3
Wainscott	1	49,675	2.8
William Floyd	5	62,455	0.04

*Assumes a 3 percent annual increase in each District’s budget from a 2004-05 base and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense per pupil per year from the 2005-06 rate.

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact on Sending Districts

Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School

2008-09

District	Projected Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact (percent)*
Amagansett	3	39,231	0.4
Bridgehampton	3	144,321	1.1
East Hampton	43	774,903	1.6
Hampton Bays	12	141,468	0.4
Montauk	10	131,240	1.0
Riverhead	1	12,588	0.01
Sag Harbor	13	233,649	0.8
Sagaponack	1	48,654	4.4
Shelter Island	22	540,694	6.2
Southampton	3	69,180	0.1
Springs	17	222,309	1.3
Wainscott	1	51,910	2.8
William Floyd	5	65,265	0.04

*Assumes a 3 percent annual increase in each District’s budget from a 2004-05 base and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense per pupil per year from the 2005-06 rate.

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact on Sending Districts

Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School

2009-10

District	Projected Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact (percent)*
Amagansett	3	$40,995	0.4
Bridgehampton	3	150,816	1.1
East Hampton	43	809,776	1.6
Hampton Bays	12	147,828	0.4
Montauk	10	137,150	1.0
Riverhead	1	13,154	0.01
Sag Harbor	13	244,166	0.8
Sagaponack	1	50,843	4.4
Shelter Island	22	565,026	6.2
Southampton	3	72,294	0.1
Springs	17	232,305	1.3
Wainscott	1	54,245	2.8
William Floyd	5	68,200	0.04

*Assumes a 3 percent annual increase in each District’s budget from a 2004-05 base and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense per pupil per year from the 2005-06 rate.

Evidence of Parent and Student Satisfaction and Community Support

· CDCH has strong support from School parents, as indicated by various avenues of communication, an active PTO, and annual parent surveys.

· CDCH has met or exceeded its goals for enrollment, attendance, and student retention (i.e., students returning to the School in subsequent years).

Summary of Charter Entity’s Findings and Recommendations

· Based on limited data, CDCH has met most of its academic outcome goals.

· Overall, the data indicate that the School has improved student learning and achievement.

· CDCH generally has effective systems and programs in place, together with consistent leadership at the Executive Director and Board levels, that make it likely to continue to improve student learning and achievement.

· The Charter Schools Institute has recommended, and the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York has agreed, to renew the charter of the Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School for a term of five years, through May 17, 2010, limited to grades K-8 with a maximum yearly enrollment of 110 students in the 2005-06 school year, 125 students in the 2006-07 school year, and 135 students yearly thereafter.

Recommendation

Return the recommendation to renew the charter school for a period of five years and suggest that the Trustees of the State University of New York revise the renewal to extend for no more than three years.

Reason for Recommendation

The school needs to develop a longer history of student achievement data, including data on the academic performance of students with disabilities, in order to determine its educational effectiveness.

Attachment 1

Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School

Performance on State Assessments

		Percent of Students
Assessment	Year	% Level 1	% Level 2	% Level 3	% Level 4	Performance Index
Grade 4 ELA	2002	12.5	62.5	25.0	0.0	112.5
Grade 4 ELA	2003
Grade 4 ELA	2004	0.0	20.0	60.0	20.0	180.0

Grade 4 Math	2002	0.0	37.5	62.5	0.0	162.5
Grade 4 Math	2003	0.0	40.0	60.0	0.0	160.0
Grade 4 Math	2004	0.0	20.0	80.0	0.0	180.0

Blank cells represent too few students to report.

Attachment 2

Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School

Change in Net Assets 2000-01 Through 2003-04*

Year	Change in Net Assets
2000-01	7,161
2001-02	(78,056)
2002-03	(78,056)
2003-04	2,134

*Source: Audited Financial Statements provided as a part of each Annual Report.
New York State Education Department

Summary of Charter School Renewal Information

Summary of Applicant Information

Name of Proposed Renewed Charter School: Community Partnership Charter School (CPCS)

Address: 171 Clermont Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11205

Board of Trustees President: Barry Ford

Renewal Period: May 17, 2005 – July 31, 2007

District of Location: New York City Community School District 13/Region 8

Charter Entity: SUNY Board of Trustees

Institutional Partner(s): Beginning with Children Foundation

Management Partner(s): None

Grades Served per Year: K-5

Projected Enrollment per Year: 300, 350, 400, 450, 500

Renewal Application Highlights

Evidence of Educational Soundness/Attainment of Educational Objectives

· For the Community Partnership Charter School (“CPCS” or “the School”) performance on State assessments (see Attachment 1).

· The School has outperformed New York City district schools on New York City third grade ELA and Math tests.

· The School has failed to achieve equal success on New York State fourth grade assessments.

· The School is continuing to develop the use of portfolios as an indicator of writing instruction.

· The strength of the instructional program is in the early grades, K-3. The School has not crafted detailed instruction and assessment plans nor identified the personnel, programs and capacity suggestive of success in grades six through eight.

· Student engagement, in some classes, is low due to a lack of compelling instruction and relatively low standards for attention to academic task.

· Over the course of the charter, the School made insufficient use of student proficiency assessments to evaluate teacher quality and instructional effectiveness.

· CPCS is in good standing under the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act.

· The School benefits from consistent leadership on the Board of Trustees. The School is a viable and effective organization.

Evidence of Fiscal Soundness/Projected Fiscal Impact

· Through the term of the charter, the School has been a fiscally sound educational institution. The School has maintained positive fund balances and managed cash flow for each year of operation.

· The School does not carry any long-term debt (see Attachment 2).

Potential Fiscal Impact of the Renewal of the Charter for

Community Partnership Charter School

School Year	Number of Students**	Projected Payment*	Projected Impact
2005-2006	300	$2,575,800	.0139%
2006-2007	350	$3,140,330	.0164%
2007-2008	400	$3,750,451	.0190%
2008-2009	450	$4,409,124	.0217%
2009-2010	500	$5,119,481	.0245%

* Assumes a 3 percent annual increase in the District’s budget from the base of $17 billion in 2004-2005 and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense per pupil per year from the 2004-2005 rate of $8,586.

Evidence of Parental and Student Satisfaction and Community Support

· Parent satisfaction surveys have been administered annually. In 2002-2003, 24 surveys were completed. In 2003-2004, 151 parents (73% of the total) returned surveys.

· On a 5-point scale, the mean parent rating on overall satisfaction with the School was 4.5. The School received a 3.7 for “services” and a 3.8 for “discipline and respect.”

Summary of Charter Entity’s Findings and Recommendations

· CPCS has had mixed success academically. The strength of the academic program has centered on instruction in Grades K-3. The School has not demonstrated clear, effective instructional practices in the middle school grades.

· The School is a viable organization from a financial perspective.

· The School has “a remarkable climate of safety, welcome, belonging, cohesion, predictability and order which is palpable across the school.”

· The School has not consistently demonstrated the capacity to utilize data to drive instruction and provide additional support for improved student achievement.

Recommendation

Approve the charter school for a two-year period through July 2007. Instruction should be limited to Grades kindergarten through five with a maximum enrollment of 500 students.

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, under these conditions, is likely to improve student learning 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

Community Partnership Charter School

Performance on New York State Assessments*

Assessment	Year	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4	Performance Index
4^th Grade ELA	2003-2004	11	56	31	2	122
4^th Grade Math	2003-2004	2	51	42	4	144

*Source: (1) Report to the Board of Trustees: Findings and Recommendations of the Charter Schools Institute as to the application for Charter Renewal of the Community Partnership Charter School, February 16, 2005. (2) NYCDOE School Report Card

Attachment 2

Community Partnership Charter School

Change in Net Assets 2001-2002 Through 2003-2004*

Year	Change in Net Assets
2000-01	-
2001-02	$781,346
2002-03	$227,180
2003-04	$345,276

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

New York State Education Department

Summary of Charter School Renewal Information

Summary of Applicant Information

Name of Proposed Renewed Charter School: Eugenio Maria de Hostos Charter School (EMHCS)

Address: 938 Clifford Avenue, Rochester, NY 14621-4808

Board of Trustees President: Julio Vazquez Sr.

Renewal Period: May 17, 2005 – May 17, 2010

District of Location: Rochester City School District

Charter Entity: SUNY Board of Trustees

Institutional Partner(s): Ibero American Action League

Management Partner(s): None

Grades Served per Year: K-6

Projected Enrollment per Year: 320, 410, 410, 410, 410

Renewal Application Highlights

Evidence of Educational Soundness/Attainment of Educational Objectives

· For Eugenio Maria de Hostos Charter School’s (“EMHCS” or “the School”) performance on State assessments, see Attachment 1. The School has made substantial progress in math, but its ELA results showed only a slight increase and remain far from the School’s goal as stated in its original charter.

· The School has outperformed the Rochester City School District (“the District”) on both the Grade 4 ELA and math assessments for 2003-04.

· There is a low level of expectation for student writing across the School. Teachers fail to provide substantive and concrete feedback on student work, thus missing important opportunities to teach children the level of quality and effort demanded for academic success.

· The quality and rigor of instruction at the School varied widely across classrooms and diminished in strength at the upper grades.

· The School has been able to make Adequate Yearly Progress as required by NCLB.

· The School has received a Reading First grant.

· Instruction is planned in a six-day cycle, with students receiving instruction in English for three days and then in Spanish for three days. For students who score below proficiency in meeting ELA standards, all English and reading instruction is provided in English.

· The School utilizes the America’s Choice workshop model. Teachers plan and execute instruction around the following outline: Lesson Focus, Mini-Lesson, Group Work Period, and Closure.

· The School has enjoyed stable leadership, having one Director throughout the term of its charter.

Evidence of Fiscal Soundness/Projected Fiscal Impact

· The School has been able to maintain positive net assets for each year except for its most recent year of operation (see Attachment 2). In FY 2004, it finished with total net assets of $379,447.

· The School has no long-term debt.

· The potential fiscal impact upon the District is represented below. 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 Rochester and no other districts; that all students will attend everyday 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.

Potential Fiscal Impact of the Renewal of the Charter

for the

Eugenio Maria de Hostos Charter School

School Year	Number of Students	Projected Payment*	Projected Impact
2005-06	320	$2,735,860	0.62
2006-07	410	$3,662,940	0.80
2007-08	410	$3,827,760	0.81
2008-09	410	$3,999,960	0.83
2009-10	410	$4,179,950	0.84

*Assumes a 3 percent annual increase in the District’s budget from the base of $430,376,036 in 2003-04 and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense per pupil per year from the 2003-04 rate of $8,181.

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*

2005-06

Charter School	Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact
Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS	320	$2,735,860	0.62
Genesee Community CS	200	$1,709,800	0.39
Urban Choice Charter School	220	$1,880,780	0.42
Total	740	$6,326,260	1.42

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*

2006-07

Charter School	Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact
Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS	410	$3,662,940	0.80
Genesee Community CS	200	$1,786,800	0.39
Urban Choice Charter School	266	$2,376,444	0.52
Total	876	$7,826,184	1.71

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*

2007-08

Charter School	Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact
Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS	410	$3,827,760	0.81
Genesee Community CS	200	$1,867,200	0.40
Urban Choice Charter School	312	$2,912,832	0.62
Total	922	$8,607,792	1.83

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*

2008-09

Charter School	Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact
Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS	410	$3,999,960	0.83
Genesee Community CS	200	$1,951,200	0.40
Urban Choice Charter School	358	$3,492,648	0.72
Total	968	$9,443,808	1.95

*Assumes a 3 percent annual increase in each District’s budget from the base of $430,376,036 in 2003-04 and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense per pupil per year from the 2003-04 rate of $8,181.

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*

2009-10

Charter School	Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact
Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS	410	$4,179,950	0.84
Genesee Community CS	200	$2,039,000	0.41
Urban Choice Charter School	404	$4,118,780	0.82
Total	1,014	$10,337,730	2.07

Evidence of Parent and Student Satisfaction and Community Support

· Parent satisfaction surveys have been administered annually. Parent satisfaction responses indicate some dissatisfaction with communication between themselves and the School, but most (81.6 percent) indicated that they were pleased with EMHCS as their school of choice.

· EMHCS has been fully or near-fully enrolled over the term of its charter. The School’s enrollment rate in 2003-04 was 99.5 percent.

Summary of Charter Entity’s Findings and Recommendations

· EMHCS has met some, though not all, of the measures of student academic performance as set forth in its initial charter.

· Overall, the data indicate that the School has improved student learning and achievement.

· The School is a viable and effective organization, and will likely continue to improve student learning and achievement.

· The Charter Schools Institute has recommended, and the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York have agreed, to renew the charter of the Eugenio Maria de Hostos Charter School for a term of five years, through May 17, 2010, limited to grades K-6 with a maximum yearly enrollment of 320 students in the 2005- 06 school year and 410 students yearly thereafter.

Recommendation

Reason for Recommendation

The School needs to develop a longer history of student achievement data in order to determine its educational effectiveness.

Attachment 1

Eugenio Maria de Hostos Charter School

Performance on State Assessments

Assessment	Year	% Level 1	% Level 2	% Level 3	% Level 4	Performance Index
Grade 4 ELA	2003	22.9	42.9	22.9	11.4	111.5
Grade 4 ELA	2004	2.6	55.3	39.5	2.6	139.5

Grade 4 Math	2003	7.5	50.0	37.5	5.0	135.0
Grade 4 Math	2004	2.5	17.5	75.0	5.0	177.5

Attachment 2

Eugenio Maria de Hostos Charter School

Change in Net Assets 2000-01 Through 2003-04*

Year	Change in Net Assets
2000-01	$168,798
2001-02	$40,778
2002-03	$144,496
2003-04	($49,015)

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

New York State Education Department

Summary of Charter School Renewal Information

Summary of Applicant Information

Name of Proposed Renewed Charter School: Harbor Science and Arts Charter School (HSACS)

Address: 1 East 104^th Street, Suite 603, New York, NY 10029

Board of Trustees President: Richard M. Asche, Esq.

Renewal Period: May 17, 2005 – July 31, 2007

District of Location: NYC Community School District 4/Region 9

Charter Entity: SUNY Board of Trustees

Institutional Partner(s): None

Management Partner(s): Boys and Girls Harbor Incorporated

Grades Served per Year: 1-8 (1-8)

Projected Enrollment per Year: 208 (212)

Renewal Application Highlights

Evidence of Educational Soundness/Attainment of Educational Objectives

· For the performance of the Harbor Science and Arts Charter School (HSACS) on State assessments, see Attachment 1. The School has a mixed record of educational achievement as measured by student assessment outcomes.

· HSACS outperformed Community School District (CSD) 4 only in 2002-03. On the fourth grade State math exam, the School has consistently under-performed CSD 4. While the School’s eighth grade performance was about the same as CSD 4, both performed low. HSACS performed about the same as the district on the 2002-03 math exam and outperformed the district in 2003-04.

· The School has been able to make Adequate Yearly Progress as required by NCLB.

· The academic goals that the School set for itself have not been reached and progress toward the goals has been inconsistent.

· In contrast to the early years of the School’s life in which the curriculum was ill defined, the school now has in place a curriculum that is demonstrably aligned to the State standards and grade level expectations.

· The School has had three different principals during the term of its charter. During the first two years, the instructional leadership lacked focus and attention to rigor. In the third year, the School focused on redirecting and encouraging staff to establish high academic and behavioral expectations for students under the direction of the second principal hired. The fourth year brought an expanded leadership team, which includes a new principal and 3 vice principals. Supervisory roles were divided and instructional leadership has been somewhat strengthened.

Evidence of Fiscal Soundness/Projected Fiscal Impact

· Audits of all previous years, with the exception of Year 1, have shown an operating deficit. See Attachment 2.

· Projected fiscal impact for the years 2005-06 through 2006-07 is shown below.

· The annual percent impact of the School upon the District is estimated to be between 0.0129 and 0.0131 percent.

· The School completed the most recent school year in weak but improved financial condition.

· The support of the Boys and Girls Harbor, Incorporated, adds to the fiscal stability of the school.

· “The School has not always operated on a balanced budget and as a result has accumulated net asset deficiency (see Attachment 2). Poor fiscal results in fiscal year 2002 were the overriding cause of the deficiency.

· It was not until June 2003 that the School had provided a clear cost allocation plan for transactions between the activities of the School and Boys and Girl Harbor (BGH) and updated its Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual.

Projected Fiscal Impact of the Renewal of the

Harbor Science and Arts Charter School

(New York City CSD 4/Region 9 – Manhattan)

2005-06 Through 2006-07

School Year	Number of Students	Projected Payment*	Projected Impact
2005-06	212	$1,820,232	.0129%
2006-07	212	$1,902,142	.0131%

· Assumes a 3 percent annual increase in the District’s budget from the base of $17 billion in 2004-2005 and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense per pupil per year from the 2004-2005 rate of $8,586.

Evidence of Parent and Student Satisfaction and Community Support

· Parent satisfaction with the School is high. Responses to parent surveys indicated substantial increases in positive attitudes toward school safety, the functioning of the P.T.A., and the accessibility and responsiveness of the School’s Board and administration under the leadership of the current principal.

· The School’s average daily attendance rate for both 2002-03 and 2003-04 was 94 percent.

· The School operated at 99 percent of capacity during the 2002-03 and 2003-04 school years.

Summary of Charter Entity’s Findings and Recommendations

· Important elements of a culture for learning have been put in place at the school: behavior management is effective, classes are orderly and students come to school ready to learn.

· Qualitative evidence gathered during the renewal visit conducted by the charter entity provided a basis for concluding that the School is likely to increase student achievement significantly if it were granted additional time under a new charter.

· The Charter Schools Institute has recommended, and the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York have agreed, to renew the charter of the Harbor Science and Arts Charter School for a short-term period of two years, through July 31, 2007, with authority to provide instruction in grade one through eight to 210 students and consistent with the other terms of operation set forth in its application for renewal.

Recommendation

Approve the recommendation.

Reason for Recommendation

Attachment 1

Harbor Science and Arts Charter School

Performance on State Assessments

		Percent of Students
Assessment	Year	% Level 1	% Level 2	% Level 3	% Level 4	Performance Index
Grade 4 ELA	2001	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	-
Grade 4 ELA	2002	9.0	64.0	27.0	0.0	118
Grade 4 ELA	2003	0.0	43.0	52.0	4.0	147
Grade 4 ELA	2004	0.0	62.5	37.5	0.0	137.5

Grade 4 Math	2001	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	-
Grade 4 Math	2002	30.0	30.0	40.0	0.0	110
Grade 4 Math	2003	4.0	39.0	57.0	0.0	153
Grade 4 Math	2004	4.0	52.0	40.0	4.0	140

Grade 8 ELA	2001	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	-
Grade 8 ELA	2002	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	-
Grade 8 ELA	2003	17.0	67.0	17.0	0.0	101
Grade 8 ELA	2004	8.0	69.0	19.0	4.0	107

Grade 8 Math	2001	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	-
Grade 8 Math	2002	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	-
Grade 8 Math	2003	16.0	58.0	25.0	0.0	108
Grade 8 Math	2004	4.0	60.0	36.0	0.0	132

Attachment 2

Harbor Science and Arts Charter School

Change in Net Assets 2000-01 Through 2003-04*

Year	Change in Net Assets
2000-01	$105,091
2001-02	($192,794)
2002-03	($1,181)
2003-04	$62,184

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

New York State Education Department

Summary of Charter School Renewal Information

Summary of Applicant Information

Name of Proposed Renewed Charter School: International Charter School of Schenectady

Address: 901 Draper Avenue, Schenectady, NY 12303

Board of Trustees President: Doris Belton

Renewal Period: April 2005-March 2007

District of Location: Rotterdam-Mohonasen Central School District

Charter Entity: SUNY Board of Trustees

Institutional Partner(s): None

Management Partner(s): SABIS Educational Systems, Inc.

Grades Served Per Year: K-7 (K-8)

Projected Enrollment Per Year: 610 (724)

Renewal Application Highlights

Evidence of Educational Soundness/Attainment of Educational Objectives

Even though its charter was issued in 2000, the school opened in 2002, two years later than initially anticipated. As a consequence, it had accumulated less than two years of data on the achievement of its students at the time of submission of its renewal application to the SUNY Board of Trustees. Those data were inconsistent. With respect to results on the State’s grade 4 assessments in ELA and math, the School outperformed some comparable district schools but not others. Additionally, while the School improved its achievement in grade 4 math in its second year, its performance in grade 4 ELA declined. Results on the norm-referenced test the school uses for grades 3-5 indicated uneven success in reaching its performance goals; the School met its goals in both reading and math for grade 3, but not for grades 4 and 5. The SUNY Board of Trustees found that the School’s delivery of its academic program is consistent with its charter, the school implements high academic standards, and it has taken steps to improve its instructional program based on student performance data.

The resubmission of the proposed renewal charter includes two major changes. First, the school proposes to relocate to a site in the Rotterdam-Mohonasen CSD, which is contiguous to the Schenectady City School District and within a few blocks of the present site. The new site would allow the School to accommodate its projected enrollment increases. Secondly, the School will maintain an admissions policy that provides for enrollment preferences in the following order:

First preference to pupils returning to the School in the second or any subsequent year of operation, unless expelled for cause; and
Second preference to siblings of pupils enrolled in the school; and
Third preference to students at-risk of academic failure, identified as those eligible for free- or reduced-lunch under federal guidelines; and
Fourth preference to pupils residing in the school district where the school is located.

Evidence of Fiscal Soundness/Projected Fiscal Impact

The SUNY Board of Trustees has found the school to be fiscally sound. The school’s Board of Trustees has provided effective financial oversight through mechanisms that allow it to monitor the school’s finances. Appropriate internal controls have generally been in place, with one exception that has been appropriately addressed. The School has also been in compliance with financial reporting requirements, including annual budgets, audit reports, and quarterly financial reports. One auditor’s finding has also been corrected.

Projected fiscal impact on Rotterdam-Mohonasen is presented in the table below. Please note that the projections are unlikely to be realized because the majority of students will be presently enrolled students returning to the school and residing in the Schenectady City School District.

As the district of location, Rotterdam-Mohonasen would incur costs for computer aid, library materials, and health and welfare services, as prescribed under § 2853(4)(a).

Potential Fiscal Impact of the Renewal of the Charter

for the

International Charter School of Schenectady

School Year	Students (Projected)	Projected Payment*	Projected Impact
2004-05	490	$3,235,470	9.4%
2005-06	610	$4,235,230	12.0%
2006-07	724	$5,212,800	14.3%

*Assumes a 3.0 percent annual increase in the District’s budget from the base of $34,246,829 in 2004-05 and a 3.7 percent annual increase in the adjusted expense per pupil per year as computed starting with the 2000-01 amount.

Projected fiscal impact on the Schenectady City School District is indicated in the table below. The projections assume that the enrollment will comprise students residing in Schenectady only.

Potential Fiscal Impact of the Renewal of the Charter

for the

International Charter School of Schenectady

School Year	Students (Projected)	Projected Payment*	Projected Impact
2004-05	490	$4,048,380	3.9%
2005-06	610	$5,246,610	4.9%
2006-07	724	$6,482,696	5.7%

*Assumes a 5.5 percent annual increase in the District’s budget from the base of $96,908,149 in 2003-04 and a 4.1 percent annual increase in the adjusted expense per pupil per year as computed starting with the 2001-02 amount.

Evidence of Parent and Student Satisfaction and Community Support

Although there was a low parental response rate to a survey distributed by the School, over 80 percent of the parents who did respond indicated satisfaction with the School in respect to its environment, academic program, students’ opportunities for personal development, and the progress of their children. Relatively stable enrollment and an over 90 percent retention rate are cited as evidence of student satisfaction.

The Schenectady City School District opposes the renewal of the School on grounds that it has not attained its academic targets and is a financial burden to the district.

Both Rotterdam-Mohonasen and Schenectady responded to notice they received from the SUNY Board of Trustees of the resubmission. Rotterdam-Mohonasen did not comment on the charter school’s merit or potential fiscal impact. Schenectady elected not to provide comments because of the short notice.

Summary of Charter Entity’s Findings and Recommendations

Although the Board of Regents issued the charter for the International Charter School of Schenectady in April 2000, the School was not able to open until September 2002, because of difficulties securing a facility. Consequently, the School’s renewal application contained data only for two school years, 2002-03 and 2003-04. The SUNY Board of Trustees has accepted the recommendation of the Charter Schools Institute that the School’s charter be extended for two years to allow it to accumulate more longitudinal data on student performance. Such additional data would be the basis for a more reliable assessment of the school’s educational success.

Recommendation

Take no action on the resubmitted proposed renewal charter.

Reason for Recommendation

· Relocating a charter school to a new school district of location should have been pursued through the normal revision process to allow more time for consideration;

· We have concerns regarding the revised admissions policy and the lack of adequate preference for students residing in the school district in which the charter school is located under Education Law §2854(2)(b); and

· Possible insufficiency of notice to the school districts impacted by the resubmitted proposed renewal charter.

Attachment 1

International Charter School of Schenectady

Performance on State Assessments vs. Schenectady City School District

	Assessment	Year	Number Tested	% Level 1	% Level 2	% Level 3	% Level 4	Performance Index
International CSS	ELA 4	2003	30	16.7	36.7	40.0	6.7	130.0
Schenectady CSD	ELA 4	2003	672	7.9	44.6	37.9	9.5	139.4
International CSS	ELA 4	2004	29	6.9	62.1	27.6	3.4	124.1
Schenectady CSD	ELA 4	2004	652	4.7	24.9	51.4	19.0	165.7
International CSS	Math 4	2003	29	17.2	10.3	51.7	20.7	155.1
Schenectady CSD	Math 4	2003	650	5.6	24.9	52.1	17.5	164.1
International CSS	Math 4	2004	30	3.3	26.7	50.0	20.0	166.7
Schenectady CSD	Math 4	2004	641	7.8	47.4	40.9	3.9	137.0

New York State Education Department

Summary of Charter School Renewal Information

Summary of Applicant Information

Name of Proposed Renewed Charter School: King Center Charter School

Address: 938 Genesee Street, Buffalo, NY 14211

Board of Trustees President: Lois Johnson

Renewal Period: May 17, 2005 – July 31, 2007

District of Location: Buffalo City School District

Charter Entity: SUNY Board of Trustees

Institutional Partner(s): None

Management Partner(s): None

Grades Served per Year: K-4

Projected Enrollment per Year: 105 each year

Renewal Application Highlights

Evidence of Educational Soundness/ Attainment of Educational Objectives

· For King Center Charter School’s (“KCCS” or “the School”) performance on State assessments, see Attachment 1. KCCS has shown consistent progress in meeting its academic goals for math as the percent of students performing at or above Level 3 on the grade 4 State assessments has increased. It has not met its goals with respect to ELA.

· The Buffalo City School District (“the District”) has consistently outperformed the School on the grade 4 ELA and math State assessments (as measured by the average mean score) with one exception (2003-04 grade 4 math).

· While the District has also consistently outperformed the School on the State science assessment, the School has made progress towards achieving its goal in that area.

· Overall, the School has had limited success in improving student learning and achievement.

· The School has been able to make Adequate Yearly Progress as required by NCLB.

· In its fifth year, the School has been able to develop a clearly defined, improved ELA curriculum. It has received a Reading First grant. Classroom practice reflected competent teaching and instructional strategies.

· The School has a 185-day calendar and provides 7.5 hours of instructional daily.

· The School bases its educational philosophy upon Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences.

· Teaching assistants are present in each classroom to provide for immediate intervention and small-group and individualized instruction.

· The School has enjoyed stable leadership, having one Director throughout the term of its charter.

Evidence of Fiscal Soundness/Projected Fiscal Impact

· The School has been able to maintain positive net assets for each year except its first year of operation (see Attachment 2).

· A Reading First grant in the amount of $606,552 (spread out over three years) will provide significant support to the School’s reading program in grades K-3.

· The potential fiscal impact upon the District is represented below. 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 Buffalo and no other districts; that all students will attend everyday 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.

Potential Fiscal Impact of the Renewal of the Charter

for the

King Center Charter School

School Year	Number of Students	Projected Payment*	Projected Impact
2005-06	100	$829,100	0.16
2006-07**	100	$866,400	0.16
2007-08	100	$905,400	0.16
2008-09	100	$946,100	0.17
2009-10	100	$988,700	0.17

*Assumes a 3 percent annual increase in the District’s budget from the base of $507,507,167 in 2003-04 and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense per pupil per year from the 2003-04 rate of $7,934.

**Not renewed past 7/31/07

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*

2005-06

Charter School	Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact
Buffalo Academy of Science CS	300	$2,487,300	0.48
Buffalo United Charter School	405	$3,357,855	0.64
CS of Applied Technology	880	$7,296,080	1.40
COMMUNITY Charter School	496	$4,112,336	0.79
Enterprise Charter School	460	$3,813,860	0.73
King Center Charter School	100	$829,100	0.16
KIPP Sankofa Charter School	270	$2,238,570	0.43
Oracle Charter School	180	$1,492,380	0.29
Pinnacle Charter School	360	$2,984,760	0.57
South Buffalo Charter School	582	$4,825,362	0.92
Stepping Stone Charter School	556	$4,609,796	0.88
Tapestry Charter School	216	$1,790,856	0.34
Western New York Maritime CS	300	$2,487,300	0.48
Westminster Community CS	525	$4,352,775	0.83
Total	5,630	$4,667,330	8.92

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*

2006-07

Charter School	Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact
Buffalo Academy of Science CS	375	$3,249,000	0.60
Buffalo United Charter School	480	$4,158,720	0.77
CS of Applied Technology	960	$8,317,440	1.54
COMMUNITY Charter School	500	$4,332,000	0.80
Enterprise Charter School	460	$3,985,440	0.74
King Center Charter School**	100	$866,400	0.16
KIPP Sankofa Charter School	360	$3,119,040	0.58
Oracle Charter School	240	$2,079,360	0.39
Pinnacle Charter School	360	$3,119,040	0.58
South Buffalo Charter School	607	$5,259,048	0.98
Stepping Stone Charter School	556	$4,817,184	0.89
Tapestry Charter School	216	$1,871,424	0.35
Western New York Maritime CS	450	$3,898,800	0.72
Westminster Community CS	535	$4,635,240	0.86
Total	6,199	$53,708,136	9.98

**Not renewed past 7/31/07

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*

2007-08

Charter School	Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact
Buffalo Academy of Science CS	450	$4,074,300	0.73
Buffalo United Charter School	555	$5,024,970	0.91
CS of Applied Technology	1,040	$9,416,160	1.70
COMMUNITY Charter School	500	$4,527,000	0.82
Enterprise Charter School	460	$4,164,840	0.75
King Center Charter School**	100	$905,400	0.16
KIPP Sankofa Charter School	360	$3,259,440	0.59
Oracle Charter School	300	$2,176,200	0.49
Pinnacle Charter School	540	$4,889,160	0.88
South Buffalo Charter School	632	$5,722,128	1.03
Stepping Stone Charter School	556	$5,034,024	0.91
Tapestry Charter School	216	$1,955,664	0.35
Western New York Maritime CS	600	$5,432,400	0.98
Westminster Community CS	550	$4,979,700	0.90
Total	6,859	$62,101,386	11.20

**Not renewed past 7/31/07.

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*

2008-09

Charter School	Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact
Buffalo Academy of Science CS	450	$4,257,450	0.75
Buffalo United Charter School	555	$5,250,855	0.92
CS of Applied Technology	1,040	$9,839,440	1.72
COMMUNITY Charter School	500	$4,730,500	0.83
Enterprise Charter School	460	$4,352,060	0.76
King Center Charter School**	100	$946,100	0.17
KIPP Sankofa Charter School	360	$3,405,960	0.60
Oracle Charter School	360	$3,405,960	.060
Pinnacle Charter School	540	$5,108,940	0.89
South Buffalo Charter School	657	$6,215,877	1.09
Stepping Stone Charter School	556	$5,260,316	0.92
Tapestry Charter School	216	$2,043,576	0.36
Western New York Maritime CS	600	$5,676,600	0.99
Westminster Community CS	550	$5,203,550	0.91
Total	6,944	$65,697,184	11.50

*Assumes a 3 percent annual increase in each District’s budget from the base of $507,507,167 in 2003-04 and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense per pupil per year from the 2003-04 rate of $7,934.

**Not renewed past 7/31/07.

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*

2009-10

Charter School	Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact
Buffalo Academy of Science CS	450	$4,449,150	0.76
Buffalo United Charter School	555	$5487,285	0.93
CS of Applied Technology	1,040	$10,282,480	1.75
COMMUNITY Charter School	500	$4,943,500	0.84
Enterprise Charter School	460	$4,548,020	0.77
King Center Charter School**	100	$988,700	0.17
KIPP Sankofa Charter School	360	$3,559,320	0.60
Oracle Charter School	360	$3,559,320	0.60
Pinnacle Charter School	540	$5,338,980	0.91
South Buffalo Charter School	657	$6,495,759	1.10
Stepping Stone Charter School	556	$5,497,172	0.93
Tapestry Charter School	216	$2,135,592	0.36
Western New York Maritime CS	600	$5,932,200	1.01
Westminster Community CS	550	$5,437,850	0.92
Total	6,944	$68,655,328	11.67

**Not renewed past 7/31/07.

Evidence of Parent and Student Satisfaction and Community Support

· Parent satisfaction surveys have been administered annually. Parent satisfaction responses were consistently high over the term of the charter.

· In Spring 2004, no negative responses to the surveys were noted. All (a 90 percent return rate) rated the School as excellent, good, or satisfactory.

· Parents have a great deal of communication with the School and with the children’s teachers.

· KCCS has been fully enrolled over the term of its charter. More than 85 percent of the students return each year.

· The School has had a waiting list for each year of its operation.

Summary of Charter Entity’s Findings and Recommendations

· The School has a mixed record of student achievement. The students’ progress in reading has been poor, while achievement in math has been meaningful and consistently upward.

· The School has revamped its ELA curriculum and its overall assessment system and now has a clearly defined quality curriculum in ELA.

· The Charter Schools Institute has recommended, and the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York have agreed, to renew the charter of the South Buffalo Charter School for a term of two years, through July 31, 2007, limited to Grades K-4 with a maximum yearly enrollment of 105 students.

Recommendation

Approve the recommendation.

Reason for Recommendation

Attachment 1

King Center Charter School

Performance on State Assessments

Assessment	Year	% Level 1	% Level 2	% Level 3	% Level 4	Performance Index
Grade 4 ELA	2002	27.8	61.1	11.1	0.0	83.3
Grade 4 ELA	2003	11.1	66.7	22.2	0.0	111.1
Grade 4 ELA	2004	19.0	61.9	19.0	0.0	99.9

Grade 4 Math	2002	50.0	44.4	5.6	0.0	55.6
Grade 4 Math	2003	21.1	52.6	26.3	0.0	105.2
Grade 4 Math	2004	9.5	19.0	47.6	23.8	161.8

Attachment 2

King Center Charter School

Change in Net Assets 2000-01 Through 2003-04*

Year	Change in Net Assets
2000-01	($28,892)
2001-02	$259,648
2002-03	$39,859
2003-04	$9,571

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

New York State Education Department

Summary of Charter School Renewal Information

Summary of Applicant Information

Name of Proposed Renewed Charter School: KIPP Academy Charter School (KIPP)

Address: 250 East 156^th Street, Room 418, Bronx, NY 10451

Board of Trustees President: David B. Massey

Renewal Period: May 17, 2005 – May 17, 2010

District of Location: New York City Community School District 7/Region 9

Charter Entity: Chancellor, New York City Department of Education

Institutional Partner(s): None

Management Partner(s): None

Grades Served per Year: 5-8 (5-8)

Projected Enrollment per Year: 257 (257)

Renewal Application Highlights

Evidence of Educational Soundness/Attainment of Educational Objectives

· For the performance of the KIPP Academy Charter School on State assessments, see Attachment 1.

· For the seventh straight year (prior to charter school conversion), the KIPP Academy was the highest performing public middle school in the Bronx in terms of math scores, reading scores and attendance.

· Since 2003, KIPP has ranked in the top 10 percent of all NYC public elementary and middle schools.

· KIPP 8^th graders have earned acceptances into some of the most prestigious public, private and parochial high schools in NYC and throughout the nation. In total, KIPP’s alumni have earned over $11 million in high school scholarships. Additionally, an impressive majority of students who began KIPP Academy in 2000 have been accepted to 4-year colleges and universities.

· KIPP students attend school daily from 7:25 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., for 4 hours on Saturdays, and for 3 weeks during the summer. In addition, KIPP students complete between 1.5 to 2 hours of homework a day.

· All KIPP 8^th graders complete a 2-year, high school Algebra I course.

· During the 2004-05 school term, over 80% of the 8^th grade students passed the New York State Regents exam and will enroll in 10^th grade level math courses as 9^th graders.

· All KIPP students learn how to play an instrument and read music before going on to high school. The school has a 180-piece orchestra that has performed at many places including Carnegie Hall, The Apollo Theatre and the Javitt’s Center.

· In 2004, KIPP was one of 20 schools nationwide to earn a 21^st Century Schools of Distinction Award from Scholastic, Inc., Intel Corporation and the Blue Ribbon Foundation.

· KIPP Academy has met many of the academic goals listed in its charter and has achieved significant academic success.

· The School has been able to make Adequate Yearly Progress as required by NCLB.

· The School has had consistent leadership throughout its original charter. The founding principal is currently the superintendent. The principal who replaced him was promoted from a KIPP classroom teacher to school leader.

· The School has struggled with teacher certification. The current staff is 67 percent NYS certified and thus they are currently out of compliance. The School has provided documentation showing that 2-3 certified teachers have been hired to begin instruction in September 2005. Therefore, the school will be in compliance in the upcoming school year.

· The School has not been in compliance with serving its special education population. The shortcoming has been acknowledged and various measures to ensure rapid identification of students that are mandated to receive special education services have been put in place.

Evidence of Fiscal Soundness/Projected Fiscal Impact

· For the year that documentation was provided, the school has a substantial operating surplus. See Attachment 2.

· Projected fiscal impact for the years 2005-06 through 2009-10 is shown below.

· The annual percent impact of the School upon the District is estimated to be between 0.0156 and .0166 percent.

· KIPP Academy has built a foundation of support including, but not limited to, active fundraising that has resulted in nearly $2,000 per student. The Board has also created a conservative budget that has afforded the School fiscal solvency and growth during its charter.

Projected Fiscal Impact of the Renewal of the

KIPP Academy Charter School

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

2005-06 Through 2006-07

School Year	Number of Students	Projected Payment*	Projected Impact
2005-06	257	$2,206,602	.0156%
2006-07	257	$2,305,899	.0159%
2007-08	257	$2,409,665	.0161%
2008-09	257	$2,518,099	.0163%
2009-10	257	$2,631,414	.0166%

Evidence of Parent and Student Satisfaction and Community Support

· Parent satisfaction with the School is high. Responses to parent surveys indicated that parents are very satisfied with their child’s academic progress (86 percent); quality of instruction (91 percent); effectiveness of administration (83 percent); and resources and opportunities (94 percent).

· The School’s average daily attendance rate is 96 percent.

· Over 90 percent of students who entered the charter school have remained there for all four years, from 5^th to 8^th grade.

· KIPP Academy is one of the most in-demand charter schools in NYC, with a wait list of approximately 325 in 2004.

Summary of Charter Entity’s Findings and Recommendations

· Based on the charter entity's findings, the School is an educationally and fiscally sound organization and is likely to improve student learning and achievement.

· On behalf of the NYC Chancellor, the New York City Department of Education’s Office of New Schools recommends that the State Board of Regents approve the application for renewal of KIPP Academy Charter School for a period of five years consistent with the terms of the renewal application.

Recommendation

Approve the recommendation.

Reason for Recommendation

Attachment 1

KIPP Academy Charter School

Performance on State Assessments

		Percent of Students
Assessment	Year	% Level 1	% Level 2	% Level 3	% Level 4	Performance Index
Grade 8 ELA	2001	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	-
Grade 8 ELA	2002	0.0	38.0	44.0	17.0	160
Grade 8 ELA	2003	0.0	28.0	58.0	14.0	172
Grade 8 ELA	2004	0.0	21.0	71.0	7.0	177

Grade 8 Math	2001	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	-
Grade 8 Math	2002	2.0	21.0	44.0	17.0	160
Grade 8 Math	2003	0.0	21.0	72.0	7.0	179
Grade 8 Math	2004	0.0	14.0	61.0	25.0	186

Attachment 2

KIPP Academy Charter School

Change in Net Assets 2000-01 Through 2003-04*

Year	Change in Net Assets
2000-01	-
2001-02	Financial Statements Not Received
2002-03	$1,322,096
2003-04	$897,354

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

New York State Education Department

Summary of Charter School Renewal Information

Summary of Applicant Information

Name of Proposed Renewed Charter School: Merrick Academy Queens Public Charter School (MAQPCS)

Address: 207-01 Jamaica Avenue, Queens Village, New York 11428-1549

Board of Trustees President: Juanita Watkins

Renewal Period: May 17, 2005 – July 31, 2010

District of Location: New York City Community School District 29/Region 3

Charter Entity: SUNY Board of Trustees

Institutional Partner(s): None

Management Partner(s): Victory Schools, Inc.

Grades Served per Year: K-5

Projected Enrollment per Year: 500 (525)

Renewal Application Highlights

Evidence of Educational Soundness/Attainment of Educational Objectives

· For the Merrick Academy Queens Public Charter School (“MAQPCS” or “the School”) performance on State assessments, see Attachment 1. Attachment 3 provides information on performance on ELA and math State assessments by all charter schools in New York State managed by Victory Schools, Inc.

· The School has met many of the academic goals established under the initial charter. Student data indicates the School has significantly improved student learning and achievement.

· The School has posted mixed results in increasing student performance over grade level as called for in its value-added accountability goal.

· The School has modified and augmented the curriculum over the course of the charter.

· The strength of the instructional program is in the early grades, K-4.

· Instruction and support for the fifth and sixth grades is not suggestive of future success.

· The MAQPCS fine arts program provides strong enrichment and augmentation of academics. The program serves as a focal point of the school and community.

· MAQPCS is in good standing under the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act.

· The School benefits from consistent leadership on the Board of Trustees. The School is a viable and effective organization.

· The educational program of Victory Schools, Inc. employs Direct Instruction, Scott Foresman Reading, Core Knowledge, Everyday Mathematics, and an extended day schedule featuring an enrichment component based on thematic curricula.

Evidence of Fiscal Soundness/Projected Fiscal Impact

· Through the term of the charter, the School has been a fiscally sound educational institution. The School has maintained positive fund balances and managed cash flow for each year of operation.

· The School carries a long-term debt of $560,680

· CSI, in meetings with Victory, Inc. and the Board of Trustees, determined that the fiscal position of the School was related to the enrollment number and that the position was likely "to stabilize and strengthen" over the term of the next charter.

Potential Fiscal Impact of the Renewal of the Charter for

Merrick Academy Queens Public Charter School

School Year	Number of Students**	Projected Payment*	Projected Impact
2005-2006	500	$4,293,000	.0231%
2006-2007	525	$4,710,494	.0246%
2007-2008	525	$4,922,466	.0250%
2008-2009	525	$5,143,977	.0253%
2009-2010	525	$5,375,456	.0257%

Evidence of Parental and Student Satisfaction and Community Support

· According to the findings of the most recent parent survey, 97% of respondents were “very satisfied” with the School’s program. Sixty-one percent of parents completed the surveys.

· Classroom and school-wide newsletters are distributed regularly. The School provides weekly and/or monthly reports on student behavior and academic progress.

· The School is at full enrollment and had a waiting list of 510 students at the end of the 2003-2004 school year.

Summary of Charter Entity’s Findings and Recommendations

· Merrick Academy has had mixed success academically. The strength of the academic program has centered on instruction in grades K-4. The School has not demonstrated clear, effective instructional practices in the middle school grades.

· The School is a viable organization from a financial perspective.

· The School has developed effective educational programs that lead to improved academic performance in the early grades.

· The School has not consistently demonstrated the capacity to utilize data to drive instruction and provide additional support for improved student achievement.

Recommendation

Approve the application for renewal. Renew the charter for a term of five years, limiting the school’s authority to provide instruction to grades Kindergarten through five, with a maximum attendance of 570.

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 under these conditions is likely to improve student learning 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

Merrick Academy Queens Public Charter School

Performance on New York State Assessments

		Percent of Students
Assessment	Year	% Level 1	% Level 2	% Level 3	% Level 4	Performance Index
4^th Grade ELA	2002-2003*	6	28	57	9	163
4^th Grade ELA	2003-2004	6	38	47	9	143
4^th Grade Math	2002-2003*	4	40	52	4	156
4^th Grade Math	2003-2004	5	29	51	15	153

* Indicates first year for which State Assessment results were available. 2002-2003 was the first year in which the school provided instruction to the fourth grade.

Attachment 2

Merrick Academy Queens Public Charter School

Change in Net Assets 2001-2002 Through 2003-2004*

Year	Change in Net Assets
2000-01	-
2001-02	($25,337)
2002-03	$268,713
2003-04	($95,782)

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

Attachment 3

Performance on ELA and Math State Assessments by all Charter Schools

in New York State Managed by Victory Schools, Inc.

Percent of Students Scoring At or Above Level 3 on State Grade 4 Exams

Charter School and District of Location

2001-2002

2002-2003

2003-2004

Gr. 4

ELA

Gr. 4

MATH

Gr. 4

ELA

Gr. 4

MATH

Gr. 4

ELA

Gr. 4

MATH

Roosevelt Children’s Academy

(Roosevelt)

(71)

(78)

(69)

(79)

(69)

(79)

Sisulu

Children’s Academy

(NYC)

(47)

(52)

(53)

(68)

(50)

(68)

Merrick Academy

(NYC)

(47)

(52)

(53)

(68)

(50)

(68)

New York State Education Department

Summary of Charter School Renewal Information

Summary of Applicant Information

Name of Proposed Renewed Charter School: The Renaissance Charter School (RCS)

Address: 35-59 81^st Street, Jackson Heights, New York 11372

Board of Trustees President: Gwen Clinkscales

Renewal Period: May 17, 2005 – May 17, 2010

District of Location: New York City Community School District 30/Region 4

Charter Entity: Chancellor, New York City Department of Education

Institutional Partner(s): None

Management Partner(s): None

Grades Served per Year: K-12

Projected Enrollment per Year: 525, 525, 525, 525, 525

Renewal Application Highlights

Evidence of Educational Soundness/Attainment of Educational Objectives

· For The Renaissance Charter School (“TRCS” or “the School”) performance on State assessments see Attachment 1.

· The School has outperformed district elementary, middle and high schools in ELA, Math and graduation rates over the term of the charter.

· The School has outperformed New York City schools on City and State Math Exams for grades 3 through 8 over the term of the charter.

· The School has outperformed New York City schools on City and State ELA Exams for grades 3 through 8 over the term of the charter.

· The School has been able to make Adequate Yearly Progress as required by NCLB.

· The School devotes resources to support at-risk students that include “Instructional Student Support” led by a co-director and staffed by a full-time consultant managing The Learning Center, special education teachers, an ELL teacher, a certified social worker, related service providers, and paraprofessionals.

· In the early childhood grades, the school implements a whole language approach centered on the Bookshelf curriculum published by Mondo Publishers.

· Elementary level mathematics centers on the Everyday Mathematics curriculum. Middle schools use Connected Mathematics.

· The science curriculum is based on the FOSS research-based approach developed at the University of California, Berkeley.

· The leadership of the School has been stable over the term of the charter. The School was created by a team of instructional leaders who have remained at the School and continue to serve on the Board of Trustees.

Evidence of Fiscal Soundness/Projected Fiscal Impact

· The School has been able to maintain positive net assets for each year of operation.

· The School has no long-term debt.

Potential Fiscal Impact of the Renewal of the Charter for

The Renaissance Charter School

School Year	Number of Students	Projected Payment*	Projected Impact
2005-2006	525	$4,710,300	.0253%
2006-2007	525	$4,922,400	.0269%
2007-2008	525	$5,143,950	.0277%
2008-2009	525	$5,375,475	.0281%

Evidence of Parent and Student Satisfaction and Community Support

· Parent satisfaction surveys have been administered annually. Parent satisfaction responses indicate satisfaction with the School. 93.7 percent of respondents indicated that they were pleased with TRCS as their School of choice.

· Attendance at the School has grown from 130 students (1993) to 490 at present.

· TRCS has been fully or near-fully enrolled over the term of its charter. For Grades K-6, attendance over the course of the charter has been above 95 percent. For Grades 7-12, the attendance has been 92.5 percent. The goal for student attendance is 90 percent.

Summary of Charter Entity’s Findings and Recommendations

· TRCS has met most of the academic measures of student academic performance as set forth in the initial charter.

· The fourth grade scores place the School second among all charter schools in New York City and seventh in New York State. The eighth grade scores place the School third in New York City and third in New York State.

· Overall, the data indicate that the School has improved student learning and achievement.

· The School has demonstrated the capacity to utilize data to drive instruction and provide additional support for improved student achievement.

· The New York City Department of Education Office of the Auditor General, in conjunction with Ernst & Young, performed a desk review of the audited financial statements of TRCS for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2004, 2003, 2002, and 2001 and the projected budget for the 2005 fiscal year.

· Cash balances and unrestricted net assets have remained stable for the past three years and the balance sheets present a good financial position.

· The Department of Education Office of New Schools has recommended to renew the charter of The Renaissance Charter School for a term of five years, through May 2010, serving grades K-12.

Recommendation

Approve the recommendation.

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 materially further the purposes set out in subdivision two of section twenty-eight hundred fifty of Article 56 of the Education Law.

Attachment 1

The Renaissance Charter School

Performance on State Assessments

Assessment	Year	% Level 1	% Level 2	% Level 3	% Level 4	Performance Index
Grade 4 ELA	2003	4	13	65	17	178
Grade 4 ELA	2004	4	30	48	17	161

Grade 4 Math	2003	0	4	39	57	196
Grade 4 Math	2004	0	0	65	35	200

Grade 8 ELA	2003	2	52	40	6	144
Grade 8 ELA	2004	4	45	47	4	147

Grade 8 Math	2003	14	47	39	0	124
Grade 8 Math	2004	4	29	59	8	159
	Cohort
HS Grad Rate	1998	52%
HS Grad Rate	1999	45%
HS Grad Rate	2000	85%

Attachment 2

The Renaissance Charter School

Change in Net Assets 2001-2002 Through 2003-2004*

Year	Change in Net Assets
2000-01	$1,672,784
2001-02	$131,820
2002-03	$905
2003-04	($83,252)

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

New York State Education Department

Summary of Charter School Renewal Information

Summary of Applicant Information

Name of Proposed Renewed Charter School: Roosevelt Children’s Academy Charter School (RCACS)

Address: 105 Pleasant Avenue, Roosevelt, NY 11575-2126

Board of Trustees President: Robert Francis

Renewal Period: May 17, 2005 - May 17, 2010

District of Location: Roosevelt Union Free School District

Charter Entity: SUNY Board of Trustees

Institutional Partner(s): None

Management Partner(s): Victory Schools, Inc.

Grades Served per Year: K-7 (2005-06), K-8 (2006-07 to 2009-10)

Projected Enrollment per Year: 459, 540, 594, 621, 621

Renewal Application Highlights

Evidence of Educational Soundness/Attainment of Educational Objectives

· For the performance of the Roosevelt Children’s Academy Charter School (“the School”) on State assessments, see Attachment 1. The School’s results on the State tests for 2003-04 place it among the highest performing charter schools in the State in Grade 4 in both ELA and math.

· The School has outperformed the Roosevelt UFSD on both the Grade 4 ELA and math assessments for 2003-04.

· The School has been able to make Adequate Yearly Progress as required by NCLB.

· According to the report of the Charter Schools Institute (CSI), the School currently serves students in Grades K-6 and would expand to K-7 in 2005-06 and then to K-8 for the next four years of its charter.

· Expansion to Grades 7 and 8 is contingent upon the School’s provision to CSI of a comprehensive facility plan and a staffing plan for middle school grades.

· Though the School’s principal is its fourth, the Board of Trustees believes that the leadership the present principal provides is excellent.

· The CSI report describes the School as using internal assessments to improve instruction, using instructional time efficiently, and safe and orderly.

· The School has found inadequacies in its original curriculum and has made modifications to strengthen it.

· The CSI report points out inconsistencies in the level of expectations for student work, inconsistencies in teachers’ use of internal assessments, and student work samples with uncorrected errors.

· Curricula proposed for Grades 7 and 8 are incomplete and not aligned with the New York State Learning Standards.

· The CSI report describes the School’s Board of Trustees as effective and as working successfully with its management company, Victory Schools Inc.

Evidence of Fiscal Soundness/Projected Fiscal Impact

· The School has maintained positive net assets for each of the last two years of operation (see Attachment 2). In FY 2004, it finished with total net assets of $296,722.

· Though the School has not always operated on a balanced budget, it has never experienced an operating cash shortfall.

· The Regents returned the original proposed charter for the School to the Trustees of the State University of New York because of anticipated fiscal impact on the district.

· Under its current charter, the School has never attained its enrollment projections. In fact, it has come close to its projected enrollment only in its first year, when it enrolled 147 students against a projection of 152. In subsequent years, the School’s actual enrollment has declined steadily as a percent of projected enrollment, ranging from 78 percent of projection to 46 percent of projection. These rates of enrollment against projections should be noted in contrast to the projections in the table below.

· Suppressed enrollments have been largely the result of inadequate space. The School has a modular facility that is very crowded, and it rents additional space in a church basement that is acoustically challenging.

· The School’s fiscal impact on the Roosevelt UFSD for the 2004-05 school year is projected to be five percent. This projection is based on an enrollment of 300 students and an AEP of $8,476 as against a district budget of $50,797,670. Historically, the School’s fiscal impact on the Roosevelt UFSD has ranged from 2.84 to 3.84 percent.

· While the Trustees of the State University of New York have approved the School’s expansion to grades 7 and 8, they have done so conditionally. The School must satisfy the SUNY Trustees that it can resolve its facility and enrollment issues and present a staffing plan articulating subject area expertise and experience at the middle grades.

· The potential fiscal impact upon the District is represented below. Please note that these projections are based upon several assumptions, which may or may not occur: that the charter school will be able to meet its projected maximum enrollment; that all students will come from Roosevelt and no other districts; that all students will attend everyday 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.

Potential Fiscal Impact on the Roosevelt UFSD

of the Renewal of the Charter for the

Roosevelt Children’s Academy Charter School

School Year	Students (Projected)	Projected Payment*	Projected Impact
2005-06	459	$5,894,478	11.2
2006-07	540	$7,246,800	13.4
2007-08	594	$8,330,256	15.0
2008-09	621	$9,100,755	15.9
2009-10	621	$9,404,424	15.9

*Assumes a 3 percent annual increase in the District’s budget from the base of $50,797,670 in 2004-05 and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense per pupil per year from the 2004-05 rate of $12,289.

Evidence of Parent and Student Satisfaction and Community Support

· Parents and students report large measures of satisfaction with the School, as indicated by surveys.

· The School has a substantial waiting list of students.

· The average daily attendance rate has surpassed the School’s target of 90 percent.

Summary of Charter Entity’s Findings and Recommendations

· The School has met most of the measures of student performance it set for itself and has significantly improved student learning.

· The current principal is a strong leader.

· The School has put in place a comprehensive professional development program that has increased the proficiency of the faculty.

· The School has in place appropriate financial controls and sound financial practices.

· The School is a viable and effective organization, and will likely continue to improve student learning and achievement.

· The Charter Schools Institute has recommended, and the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York have agreed, to renew the charter of the Roosevelt Children’s Academy Charter School for a term of five years, through May 17, 2010, limited to grades K-7 in 2005-06 and to grades K-8 thereafter with a maximum enrollment of 621 in the fourth and fifth years of the charter.

Recommendation

Return the recommendation to renew the charter for five years and recommend that the Trustees of the State University of New York abandon the renewal application.

Reason for Recommendation

The school would have a heavy fiscal impact on the district of location.

Attachment 1

Roosevelt Children’s Academy Charter School

Performance on State Assessments

Assessment	Year	% Level 1	% Level 2	% Level 3	% Level 4	Performance Index
Grade 4 ELA	2003	4.0	36.0	32.0	28.0	156.0
Grade 4 ELA	2004	0.0	12.8	68.1	19.1	187.2

Grade 4 Math	2003	4.0	28.0	68.0	0.0	164.0
Grade 4 Math	2004	0.0	18.0	70.0	12.0	182.0

Attachment 2

Roosevelt Children’s Academy Charter School

Change in Net Assets 2000-01 Through 2003-04*

Year	Change in Net Assets
2000-01	(16,186)
2001-02	(159,366)
2002-03	22,586
2003-04	296,722

*Source: Audited Financial Statements provided as a part of each Annual Report.
New York State Education Department

Summary of Charter School Renewal Information

Summary of Applicant Information

Name of Proposed Renewed Charter School: South Buffalo Charter School

Address: 2219 South Park Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14220

Board of Trustees President: Christopher Jacobs

Renewal Period: May 2005-April 2010

District of Location: Buffalo City School District

Charter Entity: SUNY Board of Trustees

Institutional Partner(s): None

Management Partner(s): None (had previously been with Chancellor Beacon Academies, which then merged with Imagine Schools, Inc.)

Grades Served per Year: K-8

Projected Enrollment per Year: 582, 607, 632, 657, and 657

Renewal Application Highlights

Evidence of Educational Soundness/Attainment of Educational Objectives

· For South Buffalo Charter School’s (“SBCS” or “the School”) performance on State assessments, see Attachment 1. SBCS has shown consistent progress in meeting its academic goals as the percent of students performing at or above Level 3 on applicable State assessments has increased.

· SBCS has consistently outperformed the district of location (Buffalo City School District) on applicable State assessments with one exception (2000-01 grade 4 math).

· In 2003-04, 98 percent of the students attending SBCS for two or more years scored at the proficient level or above on the State grade 4 science assessment.

· Instruction is of sufficient rigor, especially in grades K-4, to enable students to meet performance standards.

· Instructional rigor has improved in grades 5 and 6, while it is lacking in grades 7 and 8. The School is committed to improving its instructional program in these grades, and has implemented a mentor teacher program.

· The School has been able to make Adequate Yearly Progress as required by NCLB.

Evidence of Fiscal Soundness/Projected Fiscal Impact

· The School has been able to maintain positive net assets for each year (see Attachment 2).

· The potential fiscal impact upon the District is represented below. 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 Buffalo and no other districts; that all students will attend everyday 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.

Potential Fiscal Impact of the Renewal of the Charter

for the

South Buffalo Charter School

School Year	Number of Students	Projected Payment*	Projected Impact
2005-06	582	$4,825,362	0.92
2006-07	607	$5,259,048	0.98
2007-08	632	$5,722,128	1.03
2008-09	657	$6,215,877	1.09
2009-10	657	$6,495,759	1.10

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*

2005-06

Charter School	Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact
Buffalo Academy of Science CS	300	$2,487,300	0.48
Buffalo United Charter School	405	$3,357,855	0.64
CS of Applied Technology	880	$7,296,080	1.40
COMMUNITY Charter School	496	$4,112,336	0.79
Enterprise Charter School	460	$3,813,860	0.73
King Center Charter School	100	$829,100	0.16
KIPP Sankofa Charter School	270	$2,238,570	0.43
Oracle Charter School	180	$1,492,380	0.29
Pinnacle Charter School	360	$2,984,760	0.57
South Buffalo Charter School	582	$4,825,362	0.92
Stepping Stone Charter School	556	$4,609,796	0.88
Tapestry Charter School	216	$1,790,856	0.34
Western New York Maritime CS	300	$2,487,300	0.48
Westminster Community CS	525	$4,352,775	0.83
Total	5,630	$4,667,330	8.92

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*

2006-07

Charter School	Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact
Buffalo Academy of Science CS	375	$3,249,000	0.60
Buffalo United Charter School	480	$4,158,720	0.77
CS of Applied Technology	960	$8,317,440	1.54
COMMUNITY Charter School	500	$4,332,000	0.80
Enterprise Charter School	460	$3,985,440	0.74
King Center Charter School	100	$866,400	0.16
KIPP Sankofa Charter School	360	$3,119,040	0.58
Oracle Charter School	240	$2,079,360	0.39
Pinnacle Charter School	360	$3,119,040	0.58
South Buffalo Charter School	607	$5,259,048	0.98
Stepping Stone Charter School	556	$4,817,184	0.89
Tapestry Charter School	216	$1,871,424	0.35
Western New York Maritime CS	450	$3,898,800	0.72
Westminster Community CS	535	$4,635,240	0.86
Total	6,199	$53,708,136	9.98

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*

2007-08

Charter School	Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact
Buffalo Academy of Science CS	450	$4,074,300	0.73
Buffalo United Charter School	555	$5,024,970	0.91
CS of Applied Technology	1,040	$9,416,160	1.70
COMMUNITY Charter School	500	$4,527,000	0.82
Enterprise Charter School	460	$4,164,840	0.75
King Center Charter School	100	$905,400	0.16
KIPP Sankofa Charter School	360	$3,259,440	0.59
Oracle Charter School	300	$2,176,200	0.49
Pinnacle Charter School	540	$4,889,160	0.88
South Buffalo Charter School	632	$5,722,128	1.03
Stepping Stone Charter School	556	$5,034,024	0.91
Tapestry Charter School	216	$1,955,664	0.35
Western New York Maritime CS	600	$5,432,400	0.98
Westminster Community CS	550	$4,979,700	0.90
Total	6,859	$62,101,386	11.20

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*

2008-09

Charter School	Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact
Buffalo Academy of Science CS	450	$4,257,450	0.75
Buffalo United Charter School	555	$5,250,855	0.92
CS of Applied Technology	1,040	$9,839,440	1.72
COMMUNITY Charter School	500	$4,730,500	0.83
Enterprise Charter School	460	$4,352,060	0.76
King Center Charter School	100	$946,100	0.17
KIPP Sankofa Charter School	360	$3,405,960	0.60
Oracle Charter School	360	$3,405,960	.060
Pinnacle Charter School	540	$5,108,940	0.89
South Buffalo Charter School	657	$6,215,877	1.09
Stepping Stone Charter School	556	$5,260,316	0.92
Tapestry Charter School	216	$2,043,576	0.36
Western New York Maritime CS	600	$5,676,600	0.99
Westminster Community CS	550	$5,203,550	0.91
Total	6,944	$65,697,184	11.50

Potential Cumulative Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*

2009-10

Charter School	Number of Students	Projected Payment	Projected Impact
Buffalo Academy of Science CS	450	$4,449,150	0.76
Buffalo United Charter School	555	$5487,285	0.93
CS of Applied Technology	1,040	$10,282,480	1.75
COMMUNITY Charter School	500	$4,943,500	0.84
Enterprise Charter School	460	$4,548,020	0.77
King Center Charter School	100	$988,700	0.17
KIPP Sankofa Charter School	360	$3,559,320	0.60
Oracle Charter School	360	$3,559,320	0.60
Pinnacle Charter School	540	$5,338,980	0.91
South Buffalo Charter School	657	$6,495,759	1.10
Stepping Stone Charter School	556	$5,497,172	0.93
Tapestry Charter School	216	$2,135,592	0.36
Western New York Maritime CS	600	$5,932,200	1.01
Westminster Community CS	550	$5,437,850	0.92
Total	6,944	$68,655,328	11.67

Evidence of Parent and Student Satisfaction and Community Support

· Parent satisfaction surveys have been administered annually. Parent satisfaction responses were consistently high over the term of the charter.

· SBCS has been fully enrolled over the term of its charter with a current waiting list (at the time of renewal application) of 337 children.

· Students reported a greater feeling of safety at SBCS, and that it is easier to learn there because there are fewer student disruptions than at their previous schools.

Summary of Charter Entity’s Findings and Recommendations

· The School has met or exceeded most of its goals on key academic measures.

· The School has significantly improved student learning and achievement, and it is in good standing under the No Child Left Behind Act.

· The School has maintained overall financial health and is a viable and effective organization.

Recommendation

Approve the recommendation.

Reason for Recommendation

Attachment 1

South Buffalo Charter School

Performance on State Assessments

Assessment	Year	% Level 1	% Level 2	% Level 3	% Level 4	Performance Index
Grade 4 ELA	2001	13.0	30.4	43.5	13.0	143.4
Grade 4 ELA	2002	2.0	34.0	50.0	14.0	162.0
Grade 4 ELA	2003	1.9	46.2	36.5	15.4	150.0
Grade 4 ELA	2004	2.0	29.4	52.9	15.7	166.6

Grade 4 Math	2001	13.6	40.9	31.8	13.6	131.7
Grade 4 Math	2002	2.0	38.0	54.0	6.0	158.0
Grade 4 Math	2003	4.0	38.0	52.0	6.0	154.0
Grade 4 Math	2004	0.0	16.3	51.0	32.7	183.7

Performance on State Assessments by all Charter Schools

In New York State

Managed by Chancellor Beacon Academies/Imagine Schools, Inc.

*Charter School and District of Location*	*Percent of Students Scoring at or Above Level 3 on State Grade 4 Exams*
*Charter School and District of Location*	2000-2001		2001-02		2002-03		2003-04
	Gr. 4 ELA	Gr. 4 Math	Gr. 4 ELA	Gr. 4 Math	Gr. 4 ELA	Gr. 4 Math	Gr. 4 ELA	Gr. 4 Math
Central New York Charter School of Math & Science Syracuse City Schools	26.0 37.8	35.6 48.8	19.7 36.1	26.9 45.0	34.8 48.5	58.5 68.5	19.5 39.1	40.8 63.1
COMMUNITY Charter School Buffalo Public Schools	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	6.7 34.3	12.5 62.5
South Buffalo Charter School Buffalo Public Schools	56.5 35.7	45.4 50.2	64.0 33.9	60.0 45.3	51.9 33.9	58.0 57.6	68.6 34.3	83.7 62.5

Attachment 2

South Buffalo Charter School

Change in Net Assets 2000-01 Through 2003-04*

Year	Change in Net Assets
2000-01	$167,219
2001-02	$690,495
2002-03	$814,955
2003-04	$528,571

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