Meeting of the Board of Regents | November 2003

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

TO:	The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents
FROM:	James A. Kadamus
COMMITTEE:	EMSC-VESID Committee
TITLE OF ITEM:	Draft Report to the Governor and the Legislature on the Educational Effectiveness of the Charter School Approach
DATE OF SUBMISSION:	November 7, 2003
PROPOSED HANDLING:	Discussion
RATIONALE FOR ITEM:	Compliance with State legislation
STRATEGIC GOAL:	Goals 1 and 2
AUTHORIZATION(S):

SUMMARY:

Under �2857(4) of the Education Law, the Board of Regents is required to submit no later than December 31, 2003 a five-year report to the Governor, the Temporary President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the Assembly on the Educational Effectiveness of the Charter School Approach. Attachment A The attached draft report provides a brief description of the components of the five-year report as well as a summary of preliminary findings indicated by the data. Attachment B includes the full draft text of the Background and Executive Summary section, a sample data item for one charter school, the full draft text for the Discussion and Conclusions section (which also includes draft recommendations for modification of the charter school legislation), Appendix A (data summaries) and a portion of Appendix B relating to the financial stability of charter schools. The Report is still a working draft. Preliminary draft recommendations in italics relating to special education are still under discussion by staff. Further details will be provided before the Report is submitted to the Board for Approval in December.




 

REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR, THE TEMPORARY PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, AND THE SPEAKER OF THE ASSEMBLY AND THE BOARD OF REGENTS ON   THE EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CHARTER SCHOOL APPROACH IN NEW YORK STATE   DECEMBER 2003

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK       THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

 

 

Table of Contents

 

Executive Summary

Charter School Data

Amber Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Ark Community Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Austin L. Carr Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Bedford-Stuyvesant Preparatory Charter School for Excellence

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Beginning with Children Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Brighter Choice Charter School for Boys

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Brighter Choice Charter School for Girls

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Bronx Charter School for Better Learning

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Bronx Charter School for the Arts

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Bronx Charter School for Children

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Bronx Charter School for Excellence

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Bronx Preparatory Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Buffalo United Charter School.

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Carl C. Icahn Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Central New York Charter School for Math and Science

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Charter School for Applied Technologies

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Charter School for Science and Technology

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Clearpool Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

COMMUNITY Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Community Partnership Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

East Harlem Village Academy Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

East New York Village Academy Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Enterprise Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Eugenio Maria de Hostos Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Explore Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Family Academy Charter School of New York

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Family Life Academy Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Genesee Community Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Global Concepts Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Harbor Science and Arts Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Harlem Day Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Harriet Tubman Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics, and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

International Charter High School at LaGuardia Community College

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

International Charter School of Schenectady

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

John A. Reisenbach Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

King Center Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

KIPP Academy Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

KIPP Sankofa Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

KIPP S.T.A.R. College Preparatory Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Merrick Academy � Queens Public Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Middle College Charter High School at LaGuardia Community College

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

New Covenant Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Our World Neighborhood Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Pinnacle Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

REACH Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

The ReadNet Bronx Charter School at Metropolitan College

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Renaissance Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Riverhead Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Roosevelt Children�s Academy Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Sisulu Children�s Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

South Buffalo Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Southside Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Stepping Stone Academy Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Sullivan Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Syracuse Academy of Science Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Tapestry Charter School

Mission Statement

Attendance, Dropout Statistics and Other Data

Student Enrollment Data

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

Fiscal Impact Data

 

Discussion and Conclusions

 

Recommendations

 

Appendices

 

Appendix A: Data Summaries

 

Table 1: Summary of Charter School Population by Gender and Ethnicity 1999-2003

 

Table 2: Longitudinal Disaggregated Enrollment by Charter School 1999-2003

 

Table 3: Students with Disabilities and Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch by Charter School 1999-2003

 

Table 4: ELA 4 Results by Charter School and District of Location 2000-03

 

Table 5: ELA 8 Results by Charter School and District of Location 2000-03

 

Table 6: Math 4 Results by Charter School and District of Location 2000-03

 

Table 7: Math 8 Results by Charter School and District of Location 2000-03

 

Table 8: Cumulative Financialscal Impact of Charter Schools 2002-03

 

Appendix B: Projections of Financial Stability

 

Appendix C: Charter Schools in New York State as of July 18, 2003

 

Appendix D: The New York Charter Schools Act of 1998


 

Attachments

Annual Reports for Each Charter School, 1999-2000 through 2002-03




 

Executive Summary

Components of the Report

This report is organized into several sections. First is the Executive Summary, followed by Charter School Data sections for each of the charter schools. These data include: each school�s mission statement;, attendance and dropout statistics;, the distribution of charter schools and enrollment of students by grade, gender, and ethnicity; , the number of reported English language learners;, student academic performance on all State, national, and local standardized assessments;, fiscal impact upon the sending districts; , and a comparison of assets and liabilities, total net assets or fund balance, and changes in unrestricted net assets or fund balance, as described in the yearly audits. A Discussion and Conclusions section follows, which provides detailed analyses of the data. A Recommendations section then follows, which includes a rationale for expanding, terminating or modifying the charter school approach. The appendices include data summaries for all charter schools, projections of financial stability, a list of all current approved charter schools, and the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998. The attachments include all annual reports for all charter schools for the school years 1999-2000 through 2002-03.

Background

The Board of Regents is required by �2857(4) of the Education Law to "review the educational effectiveness of the charter school approach authorized by this article and the effect of charter schools on the public and nonpublic school systems." This report contains data for each charter school that includes s its mission statement, attendance statistics and dropout rates, student performance on standardized tests, and fiscal impact data. Where appropriate, comparisons with other public schools are made. Recommendations are provided concerning the charter school approach in New York State.

Projections of financial stability, are also provided in the form of five-year projected revenues and expenses, and are included in Appendix B. It should be noted that such information is not available for all schools chartered by either the Trustees of the State University of New York or the Chancellor of the New York City Schools. Representatives from those charter entities have concluded that the Department has no authority to ask charter schools for any information other than that specifically referenced by the New York Charter Schools Act. Related correspondence may also be found in Appendix B.

Distribution and Enrollment

To date, a total of 60 charter schools have been created by the Board of Regents (16), the Chancellor of the New York City Public Schools (9), the Trustees of the State University of New York (34), and the Buffalo Board of Education (1). Of those, 55 continue to exist today. In the 2003-04 school year, 50 of them are are slated to be open for instruction. Three have surrendered their charters, and two have had their charters revoked. Most charter schools are located in urban areas and generally serve a mostly minority student population. The dispersal of approved charter schools in New York State as of July 18, 2003 is as follows:

The distribution of students overall by gender and ethnicity, for the 2002-03 school year, is as follows:

Based on these data, it is clear that charter schools attract a predominantly minority population. Two-thirds of the students are Black, which is a high percentage compared to the Black enrollment in the districts of location. The percent of Hispanic students is n charter schools is low (15.9 percent) compared to the enrollment of Hispanic students in the districts of location. The percent of White students in charter schools is generally less than that seen in the districts of location.

There are many students in poverty attending charter schools. The majority of charter school students are eligible for free or reduced lunch (74 percent in 2002-03). Many charter schools have over 50 percent of their students receiving public welfare. In 20032-03, 21 of 37 charter schools reported having more than 50 percent of their students coming from families who receive public welfare.

The percent of students with disabilities in charter school is smaller compared to the percent of students with disabilities in the districts of location. In 2002-03, the charter schools reported a total of 896 students with disabilities out of 10,577 students. In the district of location the percent generally ranged from 10.4 percent in Roosevelt to 16.9 percent in Syracuse (Wainscott reported only 4.1 percent).

 

Student Academic Performance

Student academic performance results for charter schools tend to be mixed. First-year test results on State assessments tend to be very low, which may be explained in part because the grade 4 State English Language Arts (ELA) exam is given only four months after students have enrolled in a charter school for the first time. Most charter schools fall below State standards on grade 4 ELA, grade 8 ELA, and grade 8 math. The majority of charter schools meet the State standard for grade 4 math. The performance of general education students in charter schools is below that of general education students in the districts of location for grade 4 ELA and math and grade 8 math. However, general education students in charter schools perform better than the general education students in the districts of location on grade 8 ELA. Students with disabilities in charter schools generally performed at comparable levels to students with disabilities in the districts of location on all State assessments in grades 4 and 8.

Most charter schools, even those which had very low student academic performance on the State assessments, have improved. The pattern of gains accelerated in 2002-03. The largest improvement was seen in the grade 4 math results, consistent with the statewide pattern of results for all public schools. In many cases, charter school gains exceeded the gains made by their districts of location (12 of 16 charter schools that had given the grade 4 math exam for two or more years). See also Tables 4 - 7 in Appendix A.

The number of years a charter school has been in operation does not predict student academic performance on State assessments. Some of the highest performing charter schools were only in their first year of operation when they demonstrated high levels of student performance (e.g., the South Buffalo Charter School and the Tapestry Charter School, both in Buffalo, for grade 4 ELA). Conversely, some of the lowest performing charter schools are in their third or fourth year of operation (e.g., the John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School in CSD #2 and the New Covenant Charter School in Albany, on grade 8 math).

In 2000-01, one charter school (the REACH Charter School) was considered to be furthest from State standards. In 2001-02, five charter schools (the Ark Community Charter School in Troy, the Charter School of Science and Technology in Rochester, the Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School in Rochester, the Sisulu Children�s Academy Charter School in CSD #5, and the Stepping Stone Academy Charter School in Buffalo) were considered to be furthest from State standards. In 2003-03, two charter schools (the John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School in CSD#2 and the New Covenant Charter School in Albany) were considered to be furthest from State standards.

Conversely, the KIPP Academy Charter School in CSD #7 has consistently been the highest performing charter schools on both the grade 8 ELA and math State assessments over the past three years. Student achievement has ranged from 61.5 percent of students scoring at or above Level 3 on both the grade ELA and math exams in 2001-02 to 78.9 percent of students scoring at or above Level 3 on the grade 8 math exam in 2002-03. The South Buffalo Charter School in Buffalo and the Beginning with Children Charter School in CSD #14 have been the highest performers in grade 4 ELA. The Renaissance Charter School in CSD #30 has consistently been the highest performing charter school on the grade 4 State assessment in math over the past three years. Student achievement has ranged from 60.0 percent of students scoring at or above Level 3 in 2000-01 to 95.6 percent of students so scoring in 2002-03. All of these high-performing charter schools exceed the State standards.

Fiscal Impact

In the 1999-2000 school year, the lowest adjusted expense per pupil (AEP) paid was $6,207 per student in New York City, and the highest was $8,104 per pupil paid by the Troy City School District. The average AEP was $6,523. Overall fiscal impact in New York City appeared to be negligible (0.01 � 0.03 percent impact on the district budget), while it was 2.76 percent of the Albany City School District budget.

In the 2000-01 school year, the lowest AEP paid was $6,029 per student in Syracuse, and the highest was $26,287 per pupil paid by the Wainscott Common School District. The average AEP was $6,663. Overall fiscal impact in New York City appeared to be negligible (0.002 � 0.03 percent impact on the district budget). In 2000-01, fiscal impact ranged from .01 percent of the school budget for several school districts with a small number of students attending charter schools to 3.05 percent of the Roosevelt Union Free School District budget.

In the 2001-02 school year, the lowest AEP paid was $5,902 per student in the Cleveland Hill Union Free School District, and the highest was $33,379 per pupil paid by the Bridgehampton Union Free School District. The mean AEP was $7,425. Overall fiscal impact in New York City appeared to be negligible (0.193 percent impact overall on the district budget). In 2001-02, fiscal impact ranged from .01 percent of the school budget for several school districts with a small number of students attending charter schools to 4.40 percent of the Albany City School District budget. Cumulative impact was 2.90 percent on the Rochester City School District budget and 2.66 percent on the Buffalo City School District budget.

For the 2002-03 school year, the lowest AEP paid was $6,177 per student in the Gananda Central School District, and the highest paid was $18,681 per pupil by the Shelter Island Union Free School District. The average AEP was $8,554. Overall fiscal impact in New York City appeared to be negligible (0.29 percent overall on the district budget). Fiscal impact ranged from 0.01 of the school budget for several school districts with a small number of students attending charter schools to 5.30 percent of the Lackawanna City School District Budget. The cumulative fiscal impact was 5.00 percent for the Albany City Schools, 3.75 percent for the West Irondequoit Central Schools, 3.33 percent for the Buffalo City Schools, 2.94 percent for the Rochester City Schools, 2.05 percent for the Schenectady City Schools, and 2.02 percent for the Syracuse City Schools.

Charter School Data

This section provides information for each charter school that has been created since the enactment of the New York Charter Schools Act. At a minimum, that information includes:

Note that most of the information is self-reported by the charter schools, and it is their responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the data. If the reader has questions regarding the accuracy of any data, s/he is encouraged to contact the charter school directly.

Additional data may also be included, as appropriate, to provide a more comprehensive picture of a particular charter school.

Summary data are also provided in Appendix A. The projections of financial stability, in the form of revenues and expenditures projected over five years, may be found in Appendix B.

 

Ark Community Charter School

2247 13^th Street

Troy, New York 12180-3017

Mission Statement

"We believe that all children have the right to quality education that addresses their academic and social needs. The Ark Community Charter School (ACCS) will challenge all students to increase their understanding, to develop their skills, critical judgment and intellectual curiosity, and to acquire knowledge. We seek to provide quality education and increase student learning and achievement for the children who traditionally have been labeled "at risk" because of limited English proficiency, poverty, race, geographic location, or economic disadvantage. It is our goal to nurture early success and leadership skills which will encourage the students to love learning, lead meaningful lives, earn a good living, and "do for others," in the hope of creating a better world for all.

We believe that treating children as if they were all the same is not the same as treating them equally, because all have different needs. We believe that it is necessary to acknowledge the differences in children's backgrounds, since some come to school privileged and others are disadvantaged. The Ark Community Charter School seeks to counteract this "dysconscious racism" by providing a curriculum that is
child-centered
and
multicultural
, where every class is different and every interaction is uniquely tailored to the children's needs.

We believe that there are
multiple learning styles
and many ways in which the children can demonstrate intelligence. We believe that children thrive in situations where their strengths are celebrated and their needs are appropriately addressed. We believe that when teachers expect excellence from all their students, the students respond with excellence. To this end we will provide multiage classes where children have an opportunity to stay with the same teacher for two years to help them build a longer-lasting relationship with their teachers while learning from a wider range of peers.

We believe that all children need opportunities to develop habits that lead to ethical behavior, responsible action and a strong sense of justice. To this end our curriculum will provide opportunities for the children to discuss and critically evaluate relevant ethical issues.

We believe that educated teachers are a critical component in the learning process. They need to acquire a careful balance between theory and practice. To this end the Ark Community Charter School is committed to providing their teachers with
educational opportunities
and
time for reflection and collaboration
in order to create an innovative curriculum and environment.

We believe that
parents are partners
in the education of their children. Parents and guardians are their children's first teachers and continue to be a vital influence in their education. Since we believe that the parents and guardians have valuable information to offer about their children, we will actively involve them as educational colleagues. We will be open and receptive to the wisdom of the local community and the community-at-large."

Revision of 1/11/01:

Amended Mission Statement (bold words have been newly added)

"The Ark Community Charter School's continuing mission is to create within the city of Troy a community that fosters the academic, social and spiritual growth of our members in an environment that is both supportive and challenging. In this community everyone is celebrated, respected and heard; all are intellectually engaged, socially concerned, ethically responsible, and culturally open-minded.

With the addition of the two new phrases, we hope that our mission statement now makes it evident that student learning and achievement in the Troy community is of paramount importance to the Ark Community Charter School. By fostering the academic growth of our students we will strive to enhance their learning and academic achievement. They will be continually challenged to learn more about themselves and the world around them, to become thinking beings who will greatly benefit their local communities and society at large. "

 

Ark Community Charter School

Attendance and Dropout Statistics

Other Data

 

School Year: 2001-02

Maximum enrollment: 96 students K-5

Percentage of Attendance: not reported

Dropouts: None

Number of special education students: 12

Number LEP students: 11

Number students receiving free/reduced lunch: 92

Poverty Data: 51-60% pupils on public welfare

Number of students suspended: not reported

 

School	Assets 2001-02	Liabilities 2001-02	Total Net Assets or Fund Balance 2001-02	Change in Unrestricted Net Assets or Fund Balance 2001-02
Ark Community CS	$675,884	$109,292	$566,592	$421,442

School Year: 2002-03

Maximum enrollment: 96 students K-5

Percentage of Attendance: 93.1%

Number of special education students: 13

Number LEP students: 13

Number students receiving free/reduced lunch: 89

Poverty Data: 51-60% pupils on public welfare

Number of students suspended: 5

 

School	Assets 2002-03	Liabilities 2002-03	Total Net Assets or Fund Balance 2002-03	Change in Unrestricted Net Assets or Fund Balance 2002-03
Ark Community CS	*	*	*	*

*Information not yet available.

 

School Year: 2003-04

 

Maximum enrollment: 96 students K-5

Other information not yet available.




 

Ark Community Charter School

 

Student Enrollment Data

 

2001-02 Enrollment Disaggregated

 

Grade	American Ind./Alaskan Native		Black		Asian/Pacific Islander		Hispanic		White		Totals
	M	F	M	F	M	F	M	F	M	F	M	F
Kdg.			6	5			1	2		2	7	9
1st			5	4			4	3			9	7
2nd			4	3			3	4	2		9	7
3rd			3	3			4	4	1	1	8	8
4th			5	3			6	1	1		12	4
5th			2	6			4	2	2		8	8
6th
Ungraded Elem.
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
12th
Ungraded Secondary
Totals			25	24			22	16	6	3	53	43

2002-03 Enrollment Disaggregated

Grade	American Ind./Alaskan Native		Black		Asian/Pacific Islander		Hispanic		White		Totals
	M	F	M	F	M	F	M	F	M	F	M	F
Kdg.			6	4			3	3			9	7
1st			4	3			1	5	1	2	11	5
2nd			5	5			3	3			8	8
3rd			6	2			3	4	1		10	6
4th			4	4			2	4	1	1	7	9
5th			5	6			1	3	1		7	9
6th
Ungraded Elem.
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
12th
Ungraded Secondary
Totals			30	24			13	22	4	3	47	49

Ark Community Charter School

 

Student Performance on Standardized Assessments

 

New York State Assessments

 

	Percent of Students Performing at Level:
2001-02	1	2	3	4
Grade 4 ELA Troy City Schools	18.2 4.4	72.7 32.0	9.1 53.0	0.0 10.7
Grade 4 Math Troy City Schools	0.0 4.7	64.3 32.2	28.6 51.6	7.1 11.6
2002-03
Grade 4 ELA Troy City Schools	7.1 6.7	78.6 40.1	7.1 38.2	7.1 15.0
Grade 4 Math Troy City Schools	13.3 5.8	53.3 23.9	33.3 55.0	0.0 15.3

Stanford Achievement Test-9 Reading Battery

2002-03

 

Grade	Date of Test (DOT)	# Enrolled in Grade on DOT	# Exempted in Grade by IEP	# Absent in Grade on DOT	# Exempted in Grade by ELL Status	# Students Assessed in Grade	Score: Normal Curve Equivalent	Qualitative Level & Percent Attaining
2	5/03	16	0	0	0	16	33	NA
3	5/03	15	0	0	0	15	30	NA
5	5/03	16	1	0	0	15	43	NA

 

Comparison of SAT-9 Grade 3 Reading Battery and New York State Grade 4 ELA

2004 Cohort Group (N=9)

 

SAT-9 Reading Battery � Spring 2003 (grade 3)	Scaled Score: 570
NYS ELA � Spring 2003 (grade 4)	Scaled Score: 620

Stanford Achievement Test-9 Math Battery

2002-03

 

Grade	Date of Test (DOT)	# Enrolled in Grade on DOT	# Exempted in Grade by IEP	# Absent in Grade on DOT	# Exempted in Grade by ELL Status	# Students Assessed in Grade	Score: Normal Curve Equivalent	Qualitative Level & Percent Attaining
2	5/03	16	0	0	0	16	26	NA
3	5/03	16	0	1	0	15	24	NA
5	5/03	16	1	0	0	15	39	NA

Ark Community Charter School

 

Fiscal Impact Data

 

2001-02

Name	Sending District		Number of Students 2001-02		AEP Per Student 2001-02		Total AEP 2001-02		District�s 2001-02 Approved General Fund Budget		Percent of Impact on District Budget
Ark Community Charter School		Lansingburgh		6		$7,055		$42,330		$24,542,924		0.17
		Troy		90		$8,640		$777,600		$64,415,500		1.21

 

2002-03

Name	Sending District		Number of Students 2002-03		AEP Per Student 2002-03		Total AEP 2002-03		District�s 2002-03 Approved General Fund Budget		Percent of Impact on District Budget
Ark Community Charter School		Lansingburgh		9		$7,197		$64,773		$25,403,338		0.26
		Troy		86		$8,769		$754,134		$62,652,468		1.20
		Watervliet		1		$6,349		$6,349		$15,401,926		0.04

 

Discussion and Conclusions

Distribution and Enrollment

As can be seen from the information provided above, charter schools tend to be located in predominantly urban areas. The three exceptions are the Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School in Wainscott, the Roosevelt Children�s Academy Charter School in Roosevelt, and the Riverhead Charter School located in Riverhead. All three are communities on Long Island.

The charter schools also tend to attract a predominantly minority student population. For example, the Troy City School District reported that for the 2001-02 school year, 64.7 percent of its student population was White, 25.8 percent was Black, and 7.1 percent was Hispanic. In contrast, for the same year, the Ark Charter School reported that its student body was 9.3 percent White, 51.1 percent Black, and 39.6 percent Hispanic. For the same school year, the Albany City School District¹ reported that 27.1 percent of its student body was White, 62.1 percent was Black, and 7.8 percent was Hispanic, while the New Covenant Charter School reported that 1.0 percent of its student body was White, 94.9 percent was Black, and 3.1 percent was Hispanic. The Riverhead Central School District reported that 63.3 percent of its student body was White, 27.7 percent was Black, and 7.4 percent was Hispanic. In contrast, the Riverhead Charter School reported that 20.8 percent of its student body was White, 66.7 percent was Black, and 10.2 percent was Hispanic.

While the student population of charter schools in New York State has remained fairly evenly balanced between boys and girls, the ethnic distribution is about two-thirds Black and about one-sixth each Hispanic and White. The dominance of Black students in the charter school population has remained steady at two-thirds over the past three years, while the proportions of Hispanic and White students have become more similar during that period. The ethnic distribution of students in charter schools contrasts with the student population in public schools statewide. Statewide, White students represent a majority (55 percent for the most recent year information is available), with Black and Hispanic students representing 20 and 18 percent, respectively. Thus, the Hispanic population in charter schools is similar to the general population, while by that reckoning Blacks are over-represented in charter schools and Whites are under- represented.

If the ethnic representation of students in charter schools is compared to the distribution of students in public schools in New York City and the large city districts, Black students remain over- represented in charter schools (two-thirds in charter schools vs. 37 percent in the large cities). For the large cities, Hispanic students represent 36 percent of the public school population (vs. 16 percent for charter schools statewide). The population of White students in charter schools (15 percent) closely reflects the White student population in the large cities (16 percent).

___________________________

1All district data are taken from New York State of Learning.  A report to the Governor and the Legislature on the Educational Status of the State's Schools.  Statistical Profiles of Public School Districts.  June 2002

 

Of 20 charter schools operating in their third or fourth year, 10 show increases in the percent of enrollment of female students, 3 show increases in the percent of enrollment of male students, 7 show increases in the percent of enrollment of Black students, and 5 show increases in the percent of enrollment of Hispanic students.

Of 13 charter schools operating in their second year and submitting enrollment data, 7 show increases in the percent of enrollment of female students, 1 shows an increase in the percent of enrollment of male students, 4 show increases in the percent of enrollment of Black students, 2 show increases in the percent of enrollment of Hispanic students, and 3 show increases in the percent of enrollment of White students.

Overall, 17 of 34 charter schools show increases in the percent of enrollment of female students, 4 show increases in the percent of enrollment of male students, 11 show increases in the percent of enrollment of Black students, 7 show increases in the percent of enrollment of Hispanic students, and 3 show increases in the percent of enrollment of White students.

Only six charter schools currently operating report less than 50 percent of their student body as Black and/or Hispanic.

In the 2000-01 school year, the charter schools reported a total of 468 English language learners, with 78 being enrolled in grades K-6 and the remaining 390 students enrolled in grades 7-12. In 2001-02, they reported a total of 147 English language learners, with 108 enrolled in grades K-6 and the remaining 39 students enrolled in grades 7-12. In the 2002-03 school year, the charter schools reported a total of 207 English language learners, with 173 enrolled in grade K-6 and the remaining 34 students enrolled in grades 7-12. The decline in enrollment of English language learners is attributable primarily to International Charter High School at LaGuardia Community College, whose enrollment consisted exclusively of English language learners, surrendering its charter at the end of the 2000-01 school year.

When compared with their districts of location, the data also show that charter schools tend to attract more students who receive free or reduced lunch. For example, for the 2001-02 school year, the Troy City School District reported that 56.9 percent of the students were eligible for free or reduced lunch, while the Ark Charter School reported that 95.9 percent of its students were eligible. For the same year, the Albany City School District reported that 67.2 percent of its students were eligible for free or reduced lunch, while the New Covenant Charter School reported that 76.2 percent of its students were so eligible. The Riverhead Central School District reported that 41.9 percent of its student population was eligible for free or reduced lunch during the 2001-02 school year, while the Riverhead Charter School reported that 67.1 percent of its student population was so eligible. In the large cities, the distribution of students by free or reduced lunch is relatively comparable.

 

Table 1

Number of Charter Schools by

Percent of Pupils from Families on Public Welfare

Percent of Pupils from Families on Public Welfare	School Year
	1999-00	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03
0		1		1
1-10		1	2	1
11-20		2	5	4
21-30		2	1	2
31-40	1	3	2	5
41-50	1	1	1	3
51-60		1	5	4
61-70		5	5	9
71-80	3	4	3	1
81-90		2	7	7
91-100

The data reported in the Table 1 above indicate that for each year in which charter schools have been operating in New York State, more than 50 percent of the charter schools have served student populations in which over 50 percent of students were from families receiving welfare. The students who attend charter schools typically do not represent affluent families.

Table 2

Charter School Student Enrollment by

Students with Disabilities and Free/Reduced Lunch

School Year	1999-00	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03
Enrollment	1,698	5,699	8,093	10,577
Students with Disabilities	**	318	751	896
Percent Students with Disabilities	**	6.1*	9.4*	8.5
Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch	1,363	3,774	5,942	7,829
Percent Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch	80.2	72.9*	74.7*	74.0

*Enrollment adjusted for calculation because of incomplete data submissions.

**Charter schools operating in 1999-00 did not submit information on students with disabilities.

A second indicator of the economic backgrounds of students in New York�s charter schools is the percent of students receiving free or reduced lunch at their charter schools. Over four years, about three-fourths of the students in charter schools have received free or reduced lunch. See Table 2 above.

Regarding students with disabilities, statewide data for Fall 2000 show that over 11 percent of students received special education, a percentage that had been increasing over the past two decades but has leveled off. In charter schools, students with disabilities have represented a lower percentage, ranging from approximately six to nine percent over the last three years.

Thus, charter schools in New York State tend to attract minority and poverty-level students to a greater degree than is represented in the schools� districts of location. Though the percent of charter school students with disabilities has fluctuated over the three years for which there are data, it is still below that seen in the districts.

Student Academic Performance

In 1999-2000, the first year that charter schools began to operate in New York State, only one charter school had students in grade 4 or grade 8, grades in which required New York State assessments are administered. In each subsequent year, the number of operating charter schools with 4^th or 8^th grade students has increased, and the number of charter schools reporting results on State assessments in ELA and math has increased. When the grade 4 and 8 assessments were introduced, the Department established four levels of performance for each assessment. Level 1 represents very little proficiency in the State Learning Standards; Level 2 represents partial proficiency; Level 3 represents proficiency; and Level 4 represents advanced proficiency. Using these levels, a performance index is calculated for each school and for each district. The performance index is calculated by summing the percent of tested students scoring at Levels 2 through 4 and the percent scoring at Levels 3 and 4. Consequently, for each charter school that administers State assessments, a performance index is calculated. Each school�s performance index is expected to meet or exceed the State standard. The State standards established for the past four school years are as follows:shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3

Year	State Standard
1999-2000	140
2000-2001	140
2001-2002	145
2002-2003	150

During the 2002-03 school year, 38 charter schools were in operation. Of these, 28 had students in either grade 4 or grade 8 (or both), grades in which New York State assessments are administered. Of the 28 charter schools eligible to administer State assessments, all of them reported results for 2002-03 for either ELA or mathematics.

English Language Arts

Regarding performance on the State ELA assessments, the charter schools and the districts (including community school districts in New York City) in which they are located have not generally achieved levels of student academic success at or above the State standards established for the four years in which charter schools have been operating.

Table 4

Charter Schools and Districts of Location Meeting or Exceeding State Standards

Year	State Standard	ELA 4				ELA 8
		Charter Schools		Districts of Location		Charter Schools		Districts of Location
		Number	Number at or above Standard	Number	Number at or above Standard	Number	Number at or above Standard	Number	Number at or above Standard
1999-00	140	1	0	1	0	0	NA	0	NA
2000-01	140	7	1	6	0	4	1	3	0
2001-02	145	16	2	11	3	5	1	4	0
2002-03	150	22	8	14	5	10	2	9	1

As the Table 4 above reveals, in the first three years that charter schools were in operation, no more than two charter schools achieved the State standard. In the fourth year of charter schools, eight schools met or exceeded the State standard for 4^th grade four. That represents not only an increase in charter schools demonstrating academic success, but the increase occurred even though the State standard had been raised above the level required previously.

The academic performance of charter schools can also be compared to that of districts within respect to progress toward the State standard. While it is true that the majority of charter schools and the districts of their location have not yet demonstrated student achievement at the level of the State standard, in the 2002-2003 school year charter schools have made notable gains toward that standard. Of 15 charter schools for which grade 4 ELA data are available for both the 2001-02 and 2002-03 school years, 14 showed gains in their performance indices, with the average gain being over 30 points. For the 11 districts in which those charter schools are located, 9 showed gains in their performance index, with average gains of 8 points. In contrast, for the 7 charter schools that reported achievement data in 2000-01 and 2001-02, their average gain on the performance index was less than 2 points, with the districts showing an average gain of 7 points for the same period. Thus, the pattern of gains in the districts housing charter schools has remained steady over the past two years, while the results for the charter schools have improved substantially in 2002-03.

Results on the ELA 8 assessments show that of the 4 charter schools reporting data for 2001-02 and 2002-03, all made gains on the performance index, with the average gain being 15 points. For the 3 districts of location, all showed declines in performance, with the average loss being 5 points. The same 4 charter schools had reported data for 2000-01, with only 1 of the 4 registering a gain against the State standard (average gain 0.25 points) in 2001-02. For the 3 districts, all made gains from 2000-01 to 2001-02, averaging 8 points. The 2002-03 school year was a year in which the districts where charter schools are located showed performance declines in contrast to previous gains. It also seems worthy of note that the charter school gains on the ELA 8 assessment for 2002-03 run counter to a general pattern of decline in the districts.

Mathematics

Regarding performance on the State math assessments, prior to the 2002-03 school year, the charter schools and the districts (including community school districts in New York City) in which they are located have not generally achieved levels of student academic success at or above the established State standard. However, in the 2002-03 school year, that pattern changed for grade 4 math results in both the charter schools and the districts in which they are located.

Table 5

Charter Schools and Districts of Location Meeting or Exceeding State Standards

Year	State Standard	Math 4				Math 8
		Charter Schools		Districts of Location		Charter Schools		Districts of Location
		Number	Number at or Above State Standard	Number	Number at or Above State Standard	Number	Number at or Above State Standard	Number	Number at or Above State Standard
1999-00	140	1	0	1	0	0	NA	0	NA
2000-01	140	7	1	6	2	4	1	3	0
2001-02	145	16	4	15	6	5	1	4	0
2002-03	150	23	12	15	11	10	2	9	1

As Tthe table 5 above reveals, in the first three years that charter schools were in operation, no more than 4 charter schools achieved the State�s standard. In the fourth year of charter schools, 12 schools - more than half of the charter schools administering the State assessments - met or exceeded the State standard for 4^th grade mathematics. That represents not only an increase in charter schools demonstrating academic success, but the increase occurred even though the State standard had been raised above the level required previously. For the same school year, district results on the grade 4 mathematics assessment also improved, with 11 of 15 districts exceeding the State standard.

To pursue the comparison further, of 15 charter schools for which grade 4 math data are available for both the 2001-02 and 2002-03 school years, 13 showed gains in their performance indices, with the average gain over 33 points. For the 11 districts in which those charter schools are located, all showed gains in their performance index, with average gains of 16 points. In contrast, for the 6 charter schools that reported achievement data in 2000-01 and 2001-02, their average gain on the State performance index was slightly more than 3 points, with the 5 districts of location showing an average loss of 0.2 of a point for the same period. Thus, while the pattern of gains in both the charter schools and the districts housing them has improved during the past year, the rate of improvement for the charter schools has exceeded that of the districts.

Results on the grade 8 mathematics assessment shows that, of the 5 charter schools reporting data for 2001-02 and 2002-03, 4 made gains on the performance index, with an average gain of 26 points. Of the 4 districts of location, 2 showed gains in performance, with an average gain of 9 points. Four of those charter schools had reported data for 2000-01, with none of the 4 registering gains against the State performance index (average loss of 11 points) in 2001-02. For the 3 districts of location, all had made gains from 2000-01 to 2001-02, averaging 12 points. The 2002-03 school year was a year in which the performance of districts where charter schools are located was mixed.

Highest and Lowest Performing Charter Schools

In the 2000-01 school year, the highest and lowest performing schools relative to the State assessments were as follows (note that this was the first year of operation for each charter school):

During the 2000-01 school year, the REACH Charter School (New York City) was designated as being furthest from State standards.

In the 2001-02 school year, the highest and lowest performing schools relative to the State assessments were as follows:

In the 2001-02 school year, the Ark Community Charter School (Troy), the Charter School for Science and Technology (Rochester), the Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School (Rochester), the Sisulu Children�s Charter School (NYC CSD#5), and the Stepping Stone Academy Charter School (Buffalo) were designated as being furthest from State standards.

For the 2002-03 school year, the highest and lowest performing charter schools relative to the State assessments are as follows:

In 2002-03, the New Covenant Charter School (Albany) and the John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School (NYC CSD#2) were designated as being furthest from State standards.

Summary and Analysis of Charter School Performance on State Assessments

Charter schools can be divided into three groups according to their academic performance on the 2003 State assessments in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics: high-performing schools that exceeded the State standard in ELA and mathematics; adequately performingschools that exceeded the State standard in grade 4 mathematics and were within 20 points of the standard in grade 4 ELA; and low-performing schools that performed far (i.e., more than 20 points) from the State standard.

The high-performing schools include seven with grade 4 enrollment, one with grade 8 enrollment, and one with enrollment in both grades. These schools can be found in New York City and in districts across the State from Long Island to Buffalo. Some of the schools opened for the first time in the 2003-04 school year, while some had been operating for two or three years.

Adequately performing schools include four schools with grade 4 enrollment. One of these schools is in New York City. Two of these schools opened in 2002-03.

Low-performing schools include eight with grade 4 enrollment, six schools with grade 8 enrollment, and two schools with enrollment in grades 4 and 8. Two schools that were low- performing in grade 8 were high- performing in grade 4. Schools in this category had been open from one to four years.

While the performance of charter schools reporting data for both 2001-02 and 2002-03 improved during that time, the number of years that a school has been operating does not predict performance. Some schools which have been operating for three or four years continue to be low- performing, while other schools, newly opened in 2002-03, performed above the State standard.

When comparing charter school performance with that of the district of location, it is important to remember that the student population in the charter school may not be representative of the student population of the district. Some charter schools may draw from the lowest-performing district schools. On the other hand, data in a previous section showed that, on average, charter schools enroll a mostly minority and economically-disadvantaged population, and also generally enroll a smaller percentage of students with disabilities and limited English proficiency than do the districts of location. Further, the students with disabilities that charter schools enroll are unlikely to have severe disabilities.

The table below shows the performance of general-education students and students with disabilities in charter schools, in New York City, and in other districts where charter schools are located. The only assessment on which general-education students in charter schools outperformed those in districts of location was the grade 8 ELA. On that test, a larger percentage of general-education students in charter schools than in districts of location outside New York City were proficient (scored at Level 3 or 4). The performance of students with disabilities in charter schools and districts of location was more comparable, with charter schools frequently performing as well or better than districts of location. Students with disabilities, however, represented a smaller percentage of tested students in charter schools than districts of location. See Table 6 below.

Subject	Category	General Education			Students with Disabilities
		Number Tested	% Levels 2+3+4	% Levels 3+4	Number Tested	% Levels 2+3+4	% Levels 3+4
Grade 4 ELA	Charter Schools	970	90.0%	47.3%	92	70.7%	16.3%
	New York City	64,817	95.4	58.2	9,758	62.2	15.3
	Other Districts	8,547	93.7	51.7	1,815	66.1	17.1
Grade 4 Math	Charter Schools	967	90.3	58.9	90	81.1	34.4
	New York City	69,576	95.0	72.4	9,979	67.2	32.0
	Other Districts	8,906	95.2	69.3	1,952	80.1	42.8
Grade 8 ELA	Charter Schools	451	88.7	35.0	31	45.2	3.2
	New York City	61,156	91.2	37.3	10,212	48.0	3.5
	Other Districts	7,985	89.6	29.9	1,944	49.6	4.3
Grade 8 Math	Charter Schools	507	69.6	26.6	33	33.3	15.2
	New York City	65,979	78.3	39.0	10,093	30.8	5.0
	Other Districts	8,015	75.2	32.8	1,869	44.4	11.0

Note: "Other Districts" included in this analysis were Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, Schenectady, Troy, Roosevelt, Kenmore-Tonawanda, Wainscott and Riverhead.

The table 7 below compares the percent of tested students with disabilities in charter schools and districts of location. Several charter schools did not report any test scores for students with disabilities, including some of the highest performing schools: Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School, Genesee Community Charter School, Roosevelt Children's Academy Charter School, KIPP Academy Charter School, Bronx Preparatory Charter School, Harriet Tubman Charter School, and the International Charter School of Schenectady. Harbor Science and Arts Charter School and the Renaissance Charter School reported no 4^th grade 4 test results for students with disabilities.

 

Table 7

Comparison Among Charter Schools, the New York City Public Schools and Other Districts of Location on the Percentage of All Tested Students Who Were Disabled

Subject	Category	Percent
Grade 4 ELA	Charter Schools	8.7
	New York City	13.1
	Other Districts	17.5
Grade 4 Math	Charter Schools	8.5
	New York City	12.5
	Other Districts	18.0
Grade 8 ELA	Charter Schools	6.4
	New York City	14.3
	Other Districts	19.6
Grade 8 Math	Charter Schools	6.1
	New York City	13.3
	Other Districts	18.9

 

Caution

The 2002-03 math and ELA results on the State assessments show that students in charter schools increased their achievement compared to previous years. In addition to increased rates of gain, the numbers of charter schools showing gains also increased. Some of the charter schools achieved results that compared well to the districts in which they are located. Six of 24 charter schools with students in grade 4 and 7 of 10 charter schools with students in grade 8 achieved performance indices in math higher than those of their districts of location. In ELA, 9 out of 23 charter schools with 4^th graders and 6 out of 10 with eighth graders achieved performance indices higher than their districts of location.

While these results seem to be encouraging, they should be viewed with some caution. Most charter schools have not existed long enough to have sufficient data to support conclusions or predictions. The 2002-03 results may mark the beginning of a continuing trend of improvement and even success for charter schools, but they may also be an anomaly. It is too soon to tell. For example, some of the charter schools had very few tested students, and in such populations the performance of one or two students can completely alter the general pattern without providing a sure foundation for the prediction of future results. Likewise, just as the large gains in performance exhibited by some of the charter schools could not have been predicted on the basis of results from previous years, it is not possible to predict that similar leaps will continue. A few of the charter schools that made large gains in performance are still far below the State performance indices, and it is not possible to forecast either a continuation of improvement or the rate of improvement.

Whether improvements in charter school performance in 2002-03 may be explained by the increasing effectiveness over time of the charter schools� approaches to education cannot yet be known. Some of the schools had just opened, and others had exhibited inconsistency of results in previous years. What may have changed, or what may yet change, cannot be forecast. The first opportunity to consider explanations of charter school performance will occur when the first applications for renewal of charters are submitted. Then the schools will have to provide explanations to account for their results, and reviewers will be able to weigh alternative explanatory hypotheses.

Other Standardized Assessments

Not all charter schools serve grades in which State assessments are given. Those charter schools (as well as those that do give the State assessments) use a variety of other standardized assessments by which they purport to measure students� academic progress.

Of the 32 charter schools operating as of the 2001-02 school year, 15 submitted student performance data on standardized assessments. The data illustrate the difficulty of determining the educational effectiveness of charter schools, a frequently noted difficulty. The 15 schools reported using 13 different standardized assessments. This in itself would not necessarily represent a barrier to interpretation; for instance, if the schools reported results using the same metric (percentile, normal curve equivalent [NCE], grade equivalent, etc.), then patterns could be discovered. But the 15 schools employed no fewer than 8 distinct ways of expressing student results on the 13 different assessments. In addition, some of the schools change metrics from one year to the next, thus rendering interpretation dubious. Most vexing of all, 4 charter schools that all reported results in terms of a metric called "qualitative level and % attaining" use multiple forms of expression within the metric. One school expressed results in terms of decimals, then switched the next year to whole numbers. Another used percentages at 4 defined categories (advanced, proficient, etc.). One merely reported percent above and below grade level. The last used two sets of standards; one is not explained, and the other involved four ccategories not employed by any of the other 4 schools. Combining these difficulties with the fact that the 15 schools manifest eight8 different combinations of grades in their initial year of operation (with 6six subsequent changes in grade combinations) virtually dooms any attempt to derive helpful interpretations.

___________________________

1Sandra Vergari, ed., The Charter School Landscape (Pittsburgh:  U Pittsburgh Press, 2002, p. 269) provides a recent example.

These variations in type of assessment, metric, and expression within metric limit analysis to observing that of 15 charter schools submitting data on standardized assessments, 6 had data yielding possible interpretations. None of the data were comparative data between or among schools. No charter school claimed to have data on standardized assessments that could predict performance on State assessments.

One charter school reported Fall-Spring results in the 2000-01 school year as percentiles. Kindergarten students gained 1 percentile on the New York City English Language Assessment Battery, while students in 1^st grade gained 7.5 percentiles. Two issues make interpretation problematic. The first is that the number of students for whom data were reported was 6 for kindergarten and 4 for 1^st grade. Such a small sample does not support generalization. The second issue is that the percentiles in both grades were very low: 8 for kindergarten, increasing to 9, and 4 for 1^st grade, increasing to 11. Changes in the light of such initially low levels are of little significance.

In a second charter school, results for students in grades 1 through 3 showed declines, on the average of 5 NCEs, in both reading and math on the Stanford 9. These results represented one year of schooling.

A third charter school reported Fall to Spring results on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), showing an increase of 4.5 NCEs in reading and a decrease of 2.8 NCEs in math for kindergarten; for 1^st grade, results in reading showed a decrease of 0.9 NCEs, and results in math showed an increase of 0.7 NCEs. However, the accuracy of these results is questionable because the school�s report seems to miscalculate the results in reading.

In a fourth charter school, two problems confound interpretation of results. In the first place, though the school reported its results over three years, it changed the metric in which it expressed those results. Thus, the first year�s data cannot be used as a baseline for interpretation of the second year�s data. Between its second and third years, the school reported gains on the ITBS - Core Total in grades 2, 6, and 7 and a decline in grade 1. The other problem with interpretation of results is that for the 2000-01 school year, the number of students reported in grade 6 for a Fall testing was 61 fewer than for the corresponding Spring testing. This discrepancy undercuts the credibility of the other data reported by the school.

A fifth charter school is unique in reporting cohort data (data on the same group of students) over two years. Expressed in NCEs, for two grades there were modest increases and for two other grades slight decreases. Overall, the change is negligible.

Finally, one school reported results in Language and Math for three grades from Spring to Spring on the ITBS. Expressed in a very unusual metric (percent above the 50^th percentile), the results vary widely, with large gains in language for grade three offset by declines in math for grades one and two.

Overall, the student performance data from the administration of standardized assessments other than the State tests leave the question of charter schools� academic effectiveness unresolved. Indeed, the data can hardly be said even to address the question of academic effectiveness. Partly this is a result of charter schools not communicating, for example, about the standardized tests they elected to purchase and administer. Partly it is a result of a similar lack of communication about the metrics the charter schools selected and reported. But another aspect of the problem of deriving meaningful generalizations based on data from standardized tests is that the charter schools have not made an effective effort to organize and present their data to make the case for their academic effectiveness.

To date, inferences regarding the academic performance of charter schools depend on data collected from the administration of the grade 4 and 8 State ELA and math assessments. These are the only assessments that are comparable longitudinally.

Fiscal Impact

Overall impact upon a district�s budget depends upon the number of resident students attending a charter school, the total amount paid to the charter school, and the size of the district�s own budget. Although New York City hosts most of the charter schools, the overall impact upon its budget has been negligible. The Albany City School District seems to have consistently had one of the higher levels of impact. In 1999-2000 (the first year in which charter schools operated in New York State), the overall fiscal impact in Albany was 2.76 percent. In 2000-01, the Roosevelt Union Free School District showed the highest level of impact (3.05 percent), but the Albany City School District also had an impact of 2.53 percent. In the 2001-02 school year, the impact in Albany was 4.40 percent (once again the highest in the State), and was 5.00 percent in 2002-03 (the highest was 5.30 percent in the Lackawanna City School District).

Both State Education Law and Regulations of the Commissioner of Education describe the method by which charter schools are financed. In short, districts must make six substantially equal installments beginning on the first business day of July and every two months thereafter. The payments equal 100 percent of the AEP, which is calculated by the Department. The districts must also pay directly to the charter school any State or federal aid attributed to a resident student with a disability attending the charter school in proportion to the level of services for each such student that the charter school provides, directly or indirectly. If a district refuses to pay monies owed the charter school, the Department will certify the amount in arrears to the State Comptroller, who will then deduct the amount owed from the district�s State aid and send it instead to the charter school. To date, only two school districts (the Longwood Central School District and the Riverhead Central School District) have consistently refused to pay the amounts owed, although their superintendents have stated that they will begin paying starting with the 2003-04 school year. Other than the deduction of State aid, there is no penalty to a district for refusing to make payments to a charter school.

_______________________________

2 Section 2856 of the Education Law

3 Commissioner's Regulation 119.1

Most districts report little financial and/or programmatic impact from having students attend charter schools. Most of the concerns are raised in districts with the largest number of students per capita attending charter schools (e.g., Albany City School District, Buffalo City School District). Both the Albany and Buffalo school districts have consistently reported that teaching staff had to be terminated, and Buffalo has further reported that administrators and teacher aides have also been terminated. It should be noted, however, that an on going fiscal crisis within the Buffalo City School District not related to the establishment of charter schools has heavily contributed to the need to terminate staff and otherwise re-organize.

Other consistent issues that have arisen are the increased amount of time that administrators must spend on charter school-related matters, and the need to add clerical staff to handle charter school tasks. Since students from all over the district (as opposed to all of them coming from one school building) enroll in charter schools, the districts often find that they are unable to reasonably consolidate classes and/or programs, in order to compensate for the lost revenue. One district (Syracuse) did report that some overcrowding had been alleviated by children leaving the district to attend a charter school. In no instance did a district report that enrollment in any remedial programs or special education programs decreased as a result of children attending a charter school.

In conclusion, the following can be said about the charter school approach thus far in New York State:

Recommendations

Pursuant to �2857(4) of the Education Law, the Board of Regents shall include in this report "recommendations to modify, expand, or terminate [the charter school] approach." Those recommendations are described below.

Recommendations to Expand

With respect to expansion, by the submission date (December 31, 2003) for the five-year report, it is virtually certain that the number of charter schools approved will not have exceeded 60. Since 7seven of those 60 have been conversion charter schools, the total number of new charter schools created under the 1998 statute is 53. Indeed, even if all the charter schools that have been approved and are scheduled to open by Fall 2004 actually open, there would still be only 51 operational, new charter schools. These numbers and projections, considered along with the pattern of application submissions, do not support a recommendation to expand the charter schools approach to allow for raising the ceiling on the number of allowable new charter schools. The only proposed modification (see below) would be to allow district boards of education, acting in their capacity as charter entities, unlimited creation of new charter schools.

Recommendations to Terminate

There is no basis for recommending the termination of the charter schools approach. Cause for termination would have had to reside either in evidence of widespread fiscal irregularity, widespread academic failure, or substantial impact on the educational viability of school districts. While a few charter schools have struggled financially and some have not excelled academically, there is no evidence of widespread fiscal irregularity or academic failure. Regarding the effect of charter schools on school districts, there is no case to be made that the educational viability of any school district has been compromised solely because of the financial burden of a charter school.

Some charter schools have been less successful with their students than other charter schools. However, in general the charter schools have not been educational failures. The appropriate context for dealing with academically unsuccessful charter schools is the renewal process. The statute provides a remedy for educationally unsound charter schools: non-renewal or revocation of their charters. If some charter schools have fared poorly on the educational front, this should surface during the charter renewal process. No charter school that has failed educationally over the course of four to five years should be given an opportunity to experiment with children�s learning for five more years. The challenge for the renewal process will be the borderline charter schools, those that have shown modest improvement but have not inspired great confidence educationally. None of this addresses the case for recommending the termination of the charter schools approach.

Recommendations to Modify

It is recommended that the charter school approach be modified. The analysis of charter school fiscal data, charter school student academic performance data, and operational experience provide the bases for the recommendations below. Department staff are available to further discuss these recommendations and provide more detail on how they might be operationalized.

Application Process

2. �2852(1) of the Education Law should be amended to require the submission of applications by July 1 of a year for action by the charter entity on or before January 1 of the succeeding calendar year. This will allow the charter entities more time to interact meaningfully with the applicants to reach a decision regarding approval, and will also provide earlier notification to districts regarding the possible establishment of a charter school within their boundaries.
   

3. �2852(2)(c) of the Education Law should be clarified to describe under what circumstances preferences may be given to students who are at-risk of academic failure. This would help to better describe the characteristics of an "at-risk" student rather than relying solely or primarily upon poverty measures.
   

4. �2852(3) of the Education Law should be amended to allow for the administrative disapproval of unacceptable applications without formal action of the charter entity. This would allow for a more timely review and decision-making process, and would alleviate the need to take up meeting time with routine matters. The charter entity would be informed monthly of all such actions being taken.
   

5. �2852(5-a) of the Education Law should be amended to allow the Board of Regents 120 days to review and approve proposed charters submitted by other charter entities. This will allow for a more meaningful interaction between the charter entities as well as provide sufficient time for the review process itself.
   

6. �2852(7) of the Education Law should be amended to provide the Commissioner of Education with the discretionary authority to approve non-material changes to existing charters as recommended by any charter entity. This will allow for emergency action to be taken and will also alleviate the need to take up meeting time with non-material matters.
   

7. �2852(9) of the Education Law should be amended to allow local boards of education, and the chancellor of any school district in a city with a population of one million or more, to create unlimited numbers of new charter schools. This is in keeping with the spirit of the No Child Left Behind Act, with its emphasis on parental choice, and would expand the options available to local boards of education when schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress while in corrective action must make alternative governance arrangements as part of a restructuring plan.

Conversion Process

2. �2851(3)(c) of the Education Law should be amended to require that a Board of Education, when acting in its capacity of a charter entity, enter into a memorandum of agreement with the school before its conversion, to define the support and the services that will be provided by the Board to the charter school. It should also specify any agreements that have been reached regarding facilities, disposition of supplies and equipment, and personnel issues such as pension benefits. This will help to alleviate confusion after the fact and will more clearly describe ahead of time the roles and responsibilities of all parties.
   

3. �2851(3)(c) of the Education Law should be further amended to allow the Commissioner of Education to promulgate regulations describing the process by which the parents or guardians of a majority of the students then enrolled in the existing public school shall vote on the issue of conversion. This will help ensure that consistent processes are enacted to provide for a fair and meaningful vote.
   

4. �2856 of the Education Law should be amended to clarify the extent to which the district of location, in the case of a conversion charter school, can provide services to charter school students and claim State aid for those services, as if the students were enrolled in a district-operated program. This will help to clarify requirements and assist districts and charter schools to operate in a fiscally sound manner.

Renewal Process

2. �2851(4) of the Education Law sets forth the current process for the renewal of charters. Charters may be renewed for a term of up to five years. It is recommended that this portion of the law be amended to allow for charters to be renewed for up to ten (10) years. The discretion for the actual length of the renewed charter should remain with the charter entity. This will allow successful charter schools to more successfully negotiate leases, loans, and lines of credit when seeking to expand their facilities.

Financing of Charter Schools

2. �2853(1)(d)and �2853(3)(b) should be amended to allow charter schools access to financing of the construction or renovation of facilities through the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, including the ability to pledge or assign monies provided under �2856.
   

3. �2857(2)(c) and various other provisions of the Education Law should be amended to make charter schools eligible for certain State categorical aids, such as limited English proficiency aid and transportation aid, as they relate to services provided to students by the charter school, directly or by contract.
   

4. �2856(1) of the Education Law and Commissioner�s Regulation 119.1 set forth the current process for the financing of charter schools. This has been perhaps the most contentious area surrounding charter schools. While the Legislature correctly determined that public school districts were not entitled to keep certain State aid funds for students whom they were no longer educating, it appears that other measures should be taken to help initially offset the financial impact of charter schools on a district. It is recommended that the Legislature annually fully fund a Charter Schools Impact Fund to be administered by the Commissioner of Education. Regulations would be promulgated for this program. Criteria to determine the initial and on- going eligibility of each district would be set. One example would be to use the percent of district students attending charter schools as a threshold measure to determine eligibility for financial assistance. Each affected district would then be eligible to receive financial assistance on a sliding scale (relative to the projected impact; not a dollar-for-dollar reimbursement) for a maximum of three years, and on a decreasing basis for each of those three years. No funds would be provided to an affected district after the third year. Each district would thus have three years to plan for and adjust to the financial impact of having resident students attend charter schools. This would not be retroactive but would be intended for districts with charter schools commencing operation or significantly expanding in the 2004-05 school year. Any district that has had resident students attending an existing charter school for the 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003-04 school years would not be able to claim those students under this program, since they have already had three years to adjust their operations.
   

5. �2856(2) of the Education Law should be amended to allow the Commissioner of Education to impose a financial penalty or other sanction upon a school district for its persistent failure to pay monies owed to charter schools. Commissioner�s Regulation 119.1 would also be amended to reflect this proposed change in the law. This will help to ensure timely payments to the charter schools. If the districts dispute the enrollment figures, they must use the complaint procedure described in �2855(4) of the Education Law.

Charter School Operation

2. �2856 of the Education Law should be amended to provide Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) with the authority to provide the same services to charter schools, at cost, as they do for public school districts. This will allow charter schools to operate in a more efficient manner, and will also provide BOCES with the ability to provide services to new customers.
   

3. �2857(2)(c) should be amended to provide that the date for the receipt of financial statements and audits is October 1, in order to coincide with the due date for other public schools. This will help to streamline the audit review process.
   

4. Further review is needed to determine whether specific legislative changes are needed relative to charter schools� implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

 

APPENDIX A

 

Data Summaries

Table 1

 

Summary of Charter School Student Population Distribution

By Gender and Ethnicity 1999-2003

Year	N	Male		Female		Black		Hispanic		White		Other
		N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
1999-00	1,698*	584	46.6	668	53.4	787	46.3	524	30.9	247	14.5	140	8.2
2000-01	5,699**	2,407	50.9	2,318	49.1	3,458	66.8	919	17.8	612	11.8	185	3.6
2001-02	8,093***	3,990	50.2	3,958	49.8	5,384	67.7	1,269	16.0	1,101	13.9	194	2.4
2002-03	10,577	5,160	48.8	5,417	51.2	7,101	67.1	1,678	15.9	1,598	15.1	200	1.9

Note: Percents may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

*Incomplete data reported. Denominator reduced by 446 for computation of Male and Female percents.

**Incomplete data reported. Denominator reduced by 974 for computation of Male and Female percents; denominator reduced by 525 for computation of racial percents.

****Incomplete data reported. Denominator reduced by 145 for all computations of percents.

 

Table 2

Longitudinal Disaggregated Enrollment by Charter School 1999-2003

Amber CS NYC CSD 4		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	116		47	40.5		69	59.5		95	81.9		21	18.1
2001-02	127		65	51.2		62	48.8		107	84.3		19	14.9		1	0.8
2002-03	168		91	54.2		77	45.8		151	89.9		17	10.1

Ark Community CS Troy CSD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	96		53	55.2		43	44.8		49	51.1		38	39.6		9	9.3
2002-03	96		47	49.0		49	51.0		54	56.3		35	36.4		7	7.3

Beginning with Children CS NYC CSD 14		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	417		184	44.1		233	55.9		148	35.5		229	54.9		36	8.6		4	1.0
2002-03	435		188	43.2		247	56.8		156	35.9		245	56.3		28	6.4		6	1.4

Brighter Choice CS for Boys Albany CSD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03	43		43	100.0					38	88.4		4	9.3		1	2.3

Brighter Choice CS for Girls Albany CSD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03	45					45	100.0		40	88.9		1	2.2		3	6.7		1	2.2

Bronx Preparatory CS NYC CSD 9		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	100		48	48.0		52	52.0		56	56.0		44	44.0
2001-02	146		71	48.6		75	51.4		75	51.4		71	48.6
2002-03	192		83	43.2		109	56.8		100	52.1		92	47.9

Carl C Icahn CS NYC CSD 9		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	107		54	50.5		53	49.5		52	48.6		44	41.2		1	0.9		10	9.3
2002-03	145		70	48.3		75	51.7		78	53.8		66	45.5		1	0.7

Central NYCS Math Science Syracuse CSD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	449		230	51.2		219	48.8		334	74.4		8	1.8		107	23.8
2001-02	462		241	52.2		221	47.8		343	74.2		4	0.9		77	16.7		38	8.2
2002-03	505		254	50.3		251	49.3		454	89.9		2	0.4		45	8.9		4	0.8

CS for Applied Technologies Kenmore-Tonawanda CSD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	697		380	54.5		317	45.5		270	38.7		61	8.8		350	50.2		16	2.3
2002-03	813		416	51.2		397	48.8		328	40.3		59	7.3		408	50.2		18	2.2

CS of Science & Technology Rochester CSD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	805		448	55.7		357	44.3		688	85.5		56	6.9		54	6.7		7	0.9
2001-02	976		504	51.6		472	48.4		834	85.4		73	7.5		37	3.8		32	3.3
2002-03	952		484	50.8		468	49.2		868	91.1		51	5.4		33	3.5

Child Dev Ctr Hamptons CS Wainscott Common SD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	24		14	58.3		10	41.7					1	4.2		23	95.8
2001-02	47		30	63.8		17	36.2		2	4.3		6	12.7		38	80.9		1	2.1
2002-03	59		35	59.3		24	40.7		6	10.2		6	10.2		45	76.3		2	3.3

Clearpool CS NYC CSD 16		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	79		38	48.1		41	51.9		76	96.2		2	2.5					1	1.3
2001-02	127		54	42.5		73	57.5		125	98.4		2	1.6
2002-03	96		34	35.4		62	64.6		94	97.9		2	2.1

Community Partnership CS NYC CSD 13		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	92		50	54.3		42	45.7		83	90.2		9	9.8
2001-02	149		76	51.0		73	49.0		132	88.6		12	8.1		5	3.3
2002-03	200		103	51.5		97	48.5		174	87.0		20	10.0		5	2.5		1	0.5

Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS Rochester CSD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	120		64	53.3		56	46.7		86	71.7		28	23.3		6	5.0
2001-02	160		75	46.9		85	53.1		100	62.5		52	32.5		8	5.0
2002-03	200		104	52.0		96	48.0		115	57.5		80	40.0		5	2.5

Explore CS NYC CSD 13		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03	169		76	45.0		93	55.0		147	87.0		21	12.4					1	0.6

Family Life Academy CS NYC CSD 9		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	99		47	47.5		52	52.5		22	22.2		77	77.8
2002-03	145		69	47.6		76	52.4		35	24.1		109	75.2					1	0.7

Genesee Community CS Rochester CSD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	117		61	52.1		56	47.9		56	47.9		4	3.4		55	47.0		2	1.7
2002-03	155		66	42.6		89	57.4		60	38.7		8	5.2		81	52.2		6	3.9

Global Concepts CS Lackawanna CSD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03	170		81	47.6		89	52.4		50	29.4		8	4.7		112	65.9

Harbor Science & Arts CS NYC CSD 4		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	140		88	62.9		52	37.1		115	82.1		25	17.9
2001-02	151		90	59.6		61	40.4		121	80.1		30	19.9
2002-03	173		99	57.2		74	42.8		128	74.0		45	26.0

Harlem Day CS NYC CSD 4		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	50		26	52.0		24	48.0		42	84.0		8	16.0
2002-03	120		65	54.2		55	45.8		102	85.0		18	15.0

Harriet Tubman CS NYC CSD 9		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	117		59	50.4		58	49.6		109	93.2		8	6.8
2002-03	152		74	48.7		78	51.3		144	94.7		8	5.3

Intern�l CS LaGuardia CC NYC CSD 24*		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00	446								11	2.5		227	50.9		100	22.4		108	24.2
2000-01	449								8	1.8		245	54.6		91	20.3		105	23.3
2001-02
2002-03

Intern�l CS Schenectady Schenectady CSD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03	271		131	48.3		140	51.7		133	49.1		36	13.3		87	32.1		15	5.5

John A Reisenbach CS NYC CSD 5		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00	118		54	45.8		64	54.2		111	94.1		7	5.9
2000-01	269		128	47.6		141	52.4		244	90.7		25	9.3
2001-02	276		137	49.6		139	50.4		248	89.9		28	10.1
2002-03	285		142	49.8		143	50.2		253	88.8		32	11.2

J V Lindsay Wildcat Academy CS NYC CSD 2		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	151		84	55.6		67	44.4		93	61.6		52	34.4		4	2.7		2	1.3
2001-02	188		100	53.2		88	46.8		105	55.8		78	41.5		3	1.6		2	1.0
2002-03	411		211	51.3		200	48.7		204	49.6		193	47.0		13	3.2		1	0.2

King Center CS Buffalo CSD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	80		45	56.3		35	43.7		72	90.0					8	10.0
2001-02	101		60	59.4		41	40.6		97	96.0					4	4.0
2002-03	102		55	53.9		47	46.1		98	96.1					4	3.9

KIPP Academy CS NYC CSD 7		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	249		107	43.0		142	57.0		128	51.4		121	48.6
2001-02	239		101	42.3		138	57.7		127	53.1		112	46.9
2002-03	240		101	42.1		139	57.9		128	53.3		112	46.7

Merrick Academy - Queens Public CS NYC CSD 29		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	125		56	44.8		69	55.2		125	100.0
2001-02	169		83	49.1		86	50.9		161	95.3		7	4.1		1	0.6
2002-03	349		159	45.6		190	54.4		336	96.2		10	2.9		1	0.3		2	0.6

Middle College CS at LaGuardia CC NYC CSD 24**		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00	512		220	43.0		292	57.0		107	20.9		262	51.1		117	22.9		26	5.1
2000-01	525
2001-02
2002-03

New Covenant CS Albany CSD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00	377		178	47.2		199	52.8		328	87.0		13	3.4		30	8.0		6	1.6
2000-01	367		171	46.6		196	53.4		351	95.6		11	3.0					5	1.4
2001-02	712		344	48.3		368	51.7		676	94.9		22	3.1		7	1.0		7	1.0
2002-03	759		378	49.8		381	50.2		729	96.1		25	3.3		1	0.1		4	0.5

Our World Neighborhood CS NYC CSD 30		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03	368		211	57.3		157	42.7		107	29.1		86	23.3		135	36.7		40	10.9

REACH CS NYC CSD 4***		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	103		54	52.4		49	47.6		75	72.8		28	28.2
2001-02	145
2002-03

Renaissance CS NYC CSD 30		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	474		226	47.7		248	52.3		120	25.3		193	40.7		99	20.9		62	13.1
2001-02	476		223	46.8		253	53.2		126	26.5		193	40.5		92	19.3		65	13.7
2002-03	490		218	44.5		272	55.5		134	27.3		200	40.8		87	17.8		69	14.1

Riverhead CS Riverhead CSD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	216		111	51.4		105	48.6		144	66.7		22	10.2		45	20.8		5	2.3
2002-03	292		152	52.1		140	47.9		179	61.3		16	5.5		88	30.1		9	3.1

Rochester Ldrshp Aca CS Rochester CSD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	278		148	53.2		130	46.8		217	78.1		26	9.3		34	12.2		1	0.4
2001-02	343		172	50.1		171	49.9		297	86.6		24	7.0		21	6.1		1	0.3
2002-03	408		188	46.1		220	53.9		365	89.4		17	4.2		24	5.9		2	0.5

Roosevelt Children�s CS Roosevelt UFSD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	145		70	48.3		75	51.7		138	95.2		7	4.8
2001-02	191		92	48.2		99	51.8		179	93.7		10	5.3		2	1.0
2002-03	221		96	43.4		125	56.6		206	93.2		13	5.9		2	0.9

Sisulu Children�s C S NYC CSD 5		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00	245		132	53.9		113	46.1		230	93.9		15	6.1
2000-01	322		173	53.7		149	46.3		309	96.0		13	4.0
2001-02	297		139	46.8		158	53.2		281	94.6		16	5.4
2002-03	304		136	44.7		168	55.3		291	95.7		13	4.3

South Buffalo CS Buffalo CSD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	237		118	49.8		119	50.2		45	19.0		4	1.7		186	78.5		2	0.8
2001-02	294		146	49.7		148	50.3		47	16.0		11	3.7		230	78.3		6	2.0
2002-03	383		192	50.1		191	49.9		64	16.7		20	5.2		288	75.2		11	2.9

Southside Academy CS Syracuse CSD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03	147		72	49.0		75	51.0		141	95.9					6	4.1

Stepping Stone Academy CS Buffalo CSD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	297		163	54.9		134	45.1		295	99.4		1	0.3		1	0.3
2002-03	384		176	45.8		208	54.2		383	99.7					1	0.3

Tapestry CS Buffalo CSD		Male			Female			Black			Hispanic			White			Other
Year	N		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	104		49	47.1		55	52.9		14	13.5		7	6.7		78	75.0		5	4.8
2002-03	130		60	46.2		70	53.8		28	21.5		8	6.2		87	66.9		7	5.4

*International Charter High School at LaGuardia Community College surrendered its charter July 2001. The school did not submit complete annual reports for the 1999-00 and 2000-01 school years; student data were incomplete.

**Middle College Charter High School at LaGuardia Community College surrendered its charter July 2001. The school did not submit a complete annual report for the 2000-01 school year; student data were incomplete.

***The charter for the REACH Charter School was revoked July 2002. The school did not submit an annual report for the 2001-02 school year.

Table 3

Students with Disabilities and Students

Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch by Charter School

1999-2003

Amber CS NYC CSD 4		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	116		3	2.5		98	84.4
2001-02	127		1	0.7		96	75.5
2002-03	168		4	2.3		134	79.7

Ark Community CS Troy CSD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	96		12	12.5		92	95.9
2002-03	96		13	13.5		89	92.7

Beginning with Children CS NYC CSD 14		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	417		63	15.1		310	74.3
2002-03	435		68	15.6		290	66.7

Brighter Choice CS for Boys Albany CSD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03	43		2	4.6		43	100.0

Brighter Choice CS for Girls Albany CSD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03	45		4	8.9		45	100.0

Bronx Preparatory CS NYC CSD 9		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	100		6	6.0		91	91.0
2001-02	146		7	4.8		124	84.9
2002-03	192		7	3.6		173	90.1

Carl C Icahn CS NYC CSD 9		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	107		7	6.5		102	95.3
2002-03	145		5	3.4		130	89.6

Central NY CS for Math and Science Syracuse CSD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	449		36	8.0		246	54.8
2001-02	462		51	11.0		350	75.7
2002-03	505		63	12.4		345	68.3

CS for Applied Technologies Kenmore-Tonawanda CSD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	697		88	12.6		475	68.1
2002-03	813		85	10.4		529	65.0

CS of Science & Technology Rochester CSD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	805		82	10.2		499	61.9
2001-02	976		103	10.6		815	83.5
2002-03	952		79	8.3		788	82.7

Child Dev Ctr Hamptons CS Wainscott Common SD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	24					0	0.0
2001-02	47		25	53.2		0	0.0
2002-03	59		36	61.0		0	0.0

Clearpool CS NYC CSD 16		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	79					67	84.8
2001-02	127		7	5.5		92	72.4
2002-03	96		7	7.3		92	95.8

Community Partnership CS NYC CSD 13		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	92		8	8.7		72	78.2
2001-02	149		14	9.3		104	69.8
2002-03	200		17	8.5		163	81.5

Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS Rochester CSD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	120		5	4.2		109	90.8
2001-02	160		5	3.1		146	91.2
2002-03	200		12	6.0		178	89.0

Explore CS NYC CSD 13		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03	169		0	0.0		136	80.4

Family Life Academy CS NYC CSD 9		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	99		7	6.8		87	87.8
2002-03	145		10	6.9		137	94.5

Genesee Community CS Rochester CSD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	117		8	6.8		54	46.2
2002-03	155		10	6.4		40	25.8

Global Concepts CS Lackawanna CSD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03	170		17	10.0		136	80.0

Harbor Science & Arts CS NYC CSD 4		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	140		4	2.8		111	79.3
2001-02	151		12	7.9		120	79.4
2002-03	173		15	8.7		151	87.2

Harlem Day CS NYC CSD 4		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	50		4	8.0		44	88.0
2002-03	120		13	10.8		97	80.8

Harriet Tubman CS NYC CSD 9		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	117		5	4.3		65	55.5
2002-03	152		7	4.6		98	64.4

Intern�l CS LaGuardia CC NYC CSD 24		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00	446					411	92.2
2000-01	449		0			393	87.5
2001-02
2002-03

Intern�l CS Schenectady Schenectady CSD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03	271		10	3.7		203	74.9

John A Reisenbach CS NYC CSD 5		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00	118					118
2000-01	269					118	43.9
2001-02	276		15	5.4		228	82.6
2002-03	285		13	4.6		231	81.0

J V Lindsay Wildcat Academy CS NYC CSD 2		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	151		17	11.3		134	88.7
2001-02	188		19	10.1		164	87.2
2002-03	411		53	12.9		380	92.4

King Center CS Buffalo CSD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	80					65	81.2
2001-02	101		12	11.9		86	85.1
2002-03	102		9	8.8		86	84.3

KIPP Academy CS NYC CSD 7		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	249		2	0.8		225	90.4
2001-02	239		1	0.4		225	94.1
2002-03	240		7	2.9		240	100.0

Merrick Academy � Queens Public CS NYC CSD 29		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	125		7	5.6		94	75.2
2001-02	169		6	3.6		112	66.3
2002-03	349		18	5.2		246	70.4

Mid Coll CS LaGuardia CC NYC CSD 29		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00	512					423	82.6
2000-01	525*
2001-02
2002-03

New Covenant CS Albany CSD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00	377					210	55.7
2000-01	367		24	6.5		266	72.4
2001-02	712		59	8.3		543	76.2
2002-03	759		65	8.6		443	58.3

Our World Neighborhood CS NYC CSD 30		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03	368		11	2.9		290	78.8

REACH CS NYC CSD 4		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	103					97	94.2
2001-02	145**
2002-03

Renaissance CS NYC CSD 30		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	474		47	9.9		366	77.2
2001-02	476		45	9.4		292	61.3
2002-03	490		48	9.7		285	58.2

Riverhead CS Riverhead CSD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	216		12	5.5		145	67.1
2002-03	292		22	7.5		169	57.9

Rochester Ldrshp Aca CS Rochester CSD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	278		23	8.3		172	61.9
2001-02	343		30	8.7		214	62.4
2002-03	408		30	7.4		334	81.9

Roosevelt Children�s CS Roosevelt UFSD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	145		4	2.8		98	67.6
2001-02	191		5	2.6		115	60.2
2002-03	221		2	0.9		120	54.2

Sisulu Children�s C S NYC CSD 5		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00	245					201
2000-01	322		19	5.9		297	92.2
2001-02	297		17	5.7		267	89.9
2002-03	304		21	6.9		267	87.8

South Buffalo CS Buffalo CSD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01	237		31	13.1		156	65.8
2001-02	294		24	8.2		213	72.4
2002-03	383		58	15.1		268	70.0

Southside Academy CS Syracuse CSD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03	147		13	8.8		125	85.0

Stepping Stone Academy CS Buffalo CSD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	297		36	12.1		245	82.5
2002-03	384		37	9.6		314	81.8

Tapestry CS Buffalo CSD		Students with Disabilities			Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch
Year	N		N	%		N	%
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02	104		4	3.8		17	16.3
2002-03	130		6	4.6		34	26.2

*Middle College Charter High School at LaGuardia Community College surrendered its charter July 2001. The school did not submit a complete annual report for the 2000-01 school year; student data were incomplete.

**The charter for REACH Charter School was revoked July 2002. The school did not submit an annual report for the 2001-02 school year.

Table 4

ELA 4 Results by Charter School and District of Location 2000-03

Charter School District of Location	2000		2001		Difference 00-01		2002		Difference 01-02		2003		Difference 02-03
	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.
The Ark Community Charter SchoolS							9.1	91			14.2	107	5.1	16
Troy City SD							63.7	159			53.2	147	-10.5	-12
Beginning with Children Charter SchoolS							52.0	146			85.8	186	33.8	40
NYC CSD 14							42.7	126			62.0	156	19.3	30
Central NY C S for Math & and Science.			26.0	96			19.7	89	-6.3	-7	34.8	120	15.1	31
Syracuse City SD			37.8	117			36.1	116	-1.7	-1	48.5	139	12.4	23
CS harter School for Applied Technologies							30.7	110			38.8	130	8.1	20
Kenmore-Tonawanda CSD							72.4	171			75.1	173	2.7	2
Buffalo City SD*							33.9	115			33.9	117	0.0	2
CS Charter School of Science and Technology			27.6	109			16.0	80	-11.6	-29	35.7	124	21.1	44
Rochester City SD			41.9	127			46.5	136	4.6	9	42.9	131	-3.6	-5
Child Development Ctr. of the Hamptons Charter School							25.0	113			0.0	75
Wainscott Common SD
Eugenio Maria de Hostos CSharter School											34.3	112
Rochester City SD											42.9	131
Genesee Community CSharter School											64.6	161
Rochester City SD											42.9	131
Harbor Science and Arts Charter School			16.7	104			27.3	118	10.6	14	56.5	157	29.2	39
NYC CSD 4			31.3	108			36.2	121	4.9	13	38.8	128	2.6	7
Harriet Tubman Charter School											30.0	105
NYC CSD 9											37.3	124
International C S of Sch�dy.enectady											46.7	130
Schenectady City SD											47.4	139
King Center Charter School							11.1	83			22.2	111	11.1	28
Buffalo City SD							33.9	115			33.9	117	0.0	2
Merrick Acad. emy Queens Public C S											67.4	163
NYC CSD 29											54.2	149
New Covenant Charter School	9	58	22.2	80	13.2	22	15.1	75	-7.1	-5	39.6	121	25.1	46
Albany City SD	43	128	41.5	125	-1.5	-3	48.4	136	6.9	11	46.7	137	-1.7	1

Charter School District of Location	2000		2001		Difference 00-01		2002		Difference 01-02		2003		Difference 02-03
	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.
Our World Neighborhood C S											44.4	133
NYC CSD 30											57.9	152
Renaissance Charter School			40.9	136			47.8	143	6.9	7	82.6	178	34.8	35
NYC CSD 30			46.1	132			52.1	141	6.0	9	57.9	152	5.8	11
Riverhead Charter School							35.7	107			54.6	142	18.9	35
Riverhead CSD							60.8	155			69.8	165	9.0	10
Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School			19.5	95			27.3	107	7.8	12	36.2	130	8.9	23
Rochester City SD			41.9	127			46.5	136	4.6	9	42.9	131	-3.6	-5
Roosevelt Children�s Academy Charter School											60.0	156
Roosevelt UFSD											69.3	165
Sisulu Children�s Academy Charter School							21.7	104			36.8	118	15.1	14
NYC CSD 5							29.0	107			41.0	130	12.0	23
South Buffalo Charter School			56.5	143			64.0	162	7.5	19	51.9	150	-12.1	-12
Buffalo City SD			35.7	113			33.9	115	-1.8	2	33.9	117	0.0	2
Southside Academy Charter School											0.0	80
Syracuse City SD											48.5	139
Stepping Stone Academy Charter School							16.7	83			29.1	122	12.4	39
Buffalo City SD							33.9	115			33.9	117	0.0	2
Tapestry Charter School							50.0	125			90.0	190	40.0	65
Buffalo City SD							33.9	115			33.9	117	0.0	2

*For both 2001-02 and 2002-03, over 85 percent of the students in the Charter School for Applied Technologies resided in the Buffalo CSD.

 

Table 5

ELA 8 Results by Charter School and District of Location 2000-03

Charter School District	2000		2001		Difference 00-01		2002		Difference 01-02		2003		Difference 02-03
	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.
Beginning with Children Charter School							40.4	128			68.2	168		40
NYC CSD 14							21.0	102			39.0	130		28
Bronx Preparatory Charter School											31.7	127
NYC CSD 9											16.0	93
Charter School of Science and Technology			12.5	84			6.7	88	-5.8	4	22.6	112	15.9	24
Rochester City S D			25.1	102			18.5	106	-6.6	4	17.7	97	-0.8	-9
Harbor Science and Arts Charter School											16.7	100
NYC CSD 4											23.6	105
John A Reisenbach Charter School											14.3	98
NYC CSD 5											22.6	104
John V Lindsay Wildcat Academy CS											0.0	47
NYC CSD 2											59.2	155
KIPP Charter School			64.2	164			61.5	163	-2.7	-1	71.9	172	10.4	9
NYC CSD 7			16.6	82			13.9	94	-2.7	12	15.7	89	1.8	-5
New Covenant Charter School											20.8	94
Albany City S D											26.6	110
Renaissance Charter School			51.1	134			36.8	132	-14.3	-2	46.0	144	9.2	12
NYC CSD 30			33.2	111			28.8	119	-4.4	8	32.3	118	3.5	-1
Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School			12.5	88			4.2	88	-8.3	0	21.7	104	17.5	16
Rochester City S D			25.1	102			18.5	106	-6.6	4	17.7	97	-0.8	-9

Table 6

Math 4 Results by Charter School and District of Location 2000-03

Charter School District of Location	2000		2001		Difference 00-01		2002		Difference 01-02		2003		Difference 02-03
	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.
The Ark Community Charter SchoolCS							35.7	136			33.3	120	-2.4	-16
Troy City SD							63.2	159			70.3	165	7.1	6
Beginning with Children CS Charter School							64.0	160			93.9	194	29.9	34
NYC CSD 14							56.5	146			74.2	169	17.7	23
Central NY C S for Math & and Sci. ence			35.6	105			26.9	97	-8.7	-8	58.5	143	31.6	46
Syracuse City SD			48.8	133			45.0	128	-3.8	-5	68.5	161	23.5	33
CS harter School for Applied Technologies							33.0	115			61.5	159	28.5	44
Kenmore-Tonawanda CSD							87.1	185			91.7	190	4.6	5
Buffalo City SD*							45.3	132			57.6	148	12.3	16
CSharter School of Science and Technology			44.8	125			13.7	74	-31.1	-51	43.7	135	30.0	61
Rochester City SD			47.5	132			44.9	132	-2.6	0	57.4	148	12.5	16
Child Dev. Ctr. of the Hamptons C S							62.5	163			60.0	160	-2.5	-3
Wainscott Common SD
Eugenio Maria de Hostos CSharter School											42.5	135
Rochester City SD											57.4	148
Genesee Community CSharter School											67.7	168
Rochester City SD											57.4	148
Harbor Science and Arts CSharter School							40.0	110			56.5	152	16.5	42
NYC CSD 4							47.3	135			62.1	154	14.8	19
Harriet Tubman Charter School											57.1	143
NYC CSD 9											58.0	146
International C S of Sch�dy.enectady											72.4	155
Schenectady City SD											69.6	164
King Center Charter School							5.6	56			26.3	105	20.7	49
Buffalo City SD							45.3	132			57.6	148	12.3	16
Merrick Acad. demy Queens Public CS S											56.3	152
NYC CSD 29											66.3	159
New Covenant Charter School	3	42	21.7	89	18.7	47	32.1	105	13.4	16	58.5	148	26.4	43
Albany City SD	53	141	53.4	141	0.4	0	57.0	148	3.6	7	64.7	157	7.7	9

Charter School District of Location	2000		2001		Difference 00-01		2002		Difference 01-02		2003		Difference 02-03
	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.
Our World Neighborhood C S											72.0	162
NYC CSD 30											73.8	167
Renaissance Charter School			60.0	156			82.6	174	22.6	18	95.6	196	13.0	22
NYC CSD 30			64.4	155			64.8	157	0.4	2	73.8	167	9.0	10
Riverhead Charter School							30.8	108			59.4	150	28.6	42
Riverhead CSD							70.3	166			90.1	177	19.8	11
Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School			27.3	102			35.0	120	7.7	18	35.4	121	0.4	1
Rochester City SD			47.5	132			44.9	132	-2.6	0	57.4	148	12.5	16
Roosevelt Children�s Academy Charter School											68.0	164
Roosevelt UFSD											79.0	177
Sisulu Children�s Academy Charter School							4.5	55			40.5	122	36.0	67
NYC CSD 5							34.1	117			54.9	143	20.8	26
South Buffalo Charter School			45.4	132			60.0	158	14.6	26	52.0	154	-8.0	-4
Buffalo City SD			50.2	137			45.3	132	-4.9	-5	57.6	148	12.3	16
Southside Academy Charter School											50.0	120
Syracuse City SD											68.5	161
Stepping Stone Academy Charter School							10.0	68			27.5	92	17.5	24
Buffalo City SD							45.3	132			57.6	148	12.3	16
Tapestry Charter School							53.3	147			94.8	190	41.5	43
Buffalo City SD							45.3	132			57.6	148	12.3	16

*For both 2001-02 and 2002-03, over 85 percent of the students in the Charter School for Applied Technologies resided in the Buffalo CSD.

 

Table 7

Math 8 Results by Charter School and District of Location 2000-03

Charter School District	2000		2001		Difference 00-01		2002		Difference 01-02		2003		Difference 02-03
	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.	% Pass	P.I.
Beginning with Children CSCharter School							25.0	120			56.8	157	31.8	37
NYC CSD 14							25.5	89			39.4	115	13.9	26
Bronx Preparatory CSCharter School											38.1	136
NYC CSD 9											24.9	90
Charter School of Science and Technology			10.5	52			7.4	43	-3.1	-9	18.5	84	11.1	41
Rochester City S D			10.7	53			12.0	59	1.3	6	9.5	58	-2.5	-1
Harbor Science and Arts CSCharter School											25.0	108
NYC CSD 4											22.6	87
John A Reisenbach CSCharter School											7.2	55
NYC CSD 5											21.5	83
John V Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School											0.0	20
NYC CSD 2											65.8	157
KIPPCharter School			72.7	171			61.5	160	-11.2	-11	78.9	179	17.4	19
NYC CSD 7			6.8	43			11.7	57	4.9	14	10.3	57	-1.4	0
New Covenant Charter School											1.4	48
Albany City S D											27.1	100
Renaissance Charter School			45.8	119			43.6	136	-2.2	17	38.8	125	-4.8	-11
NYC CSD 30			23.6	85			31.2	101	7.6	16	36.3	111	5.1	10
Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School			33.3	89			4.4	39	-28.9	-50	19.2	85	14.8	46
Rochester City S D			10.7	53			12.0	59	1.3	6	9.5	58	-2.5	-1

 

Table 8

Cumulative Financial Impact of Charter Schools

2002-03

District	2002-03 Budget	Charter School	% Fiscal Impact
Albany City Schools	$128,956,981	Brighter Choice CS for Boys	0.26
		Brighter Choice CS for Girls	0.28
		International CS of Schenectady	0.01
		New Covenant Charter School	4.45
Cumulative Impact			5.00
Buffalo City Schools	$ 444,644,182	CS for Applied Technologies	1.39
		Global Concepts Charter School	0.02
		King Center Charter School	0.20
		South Buffalo Charter School	0.72
		Stepping Stone Academy CS	0.75
		Tapestry Charter School	0.25
Cumulative Impact			3.33
Cheektowaga CSD	$ 26,386,921	CS for Applied Technologies	0.05
		Stepping Stone Academy CS	0.03
Cumulative Impact			0.08
Cheektowaga-Maryvale UFSD	$ 29,475,285	Charter School for Applied Technologies	0.03
		Stepping Stone Academy CS	0.03
Cumulative Impact			0.06
Cheektowaga-Sloan UFSD	$ 20,645,398	Charter School for Applied Technologies	0.09
		Stepping Stone Academy CS	0.05
		Tapestry Charter School	0.05
Cumulative Impact			0.19
East Irondequoit CSD	$ 43,483,082	Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS	0.02
		Genesee Community CS	0.02
Cumulative Impact			0.04
Hamburg CSD	$ 42,832,728	CS for Applied Technologies	0.02
		Global Concepts Charter School	0.02
Cumulative Impact			0.04
Hampton Bays UFSD	$ 23,145,167	Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School	0.07
		Riverhead Charter School	0.03
Cumulative Impact			0.10

District	2002-03 Budget	Charter School	% Fiscal Impact
Lackawanna City SD	$ 29,360,000	Charter School for Applied Technologies	0.50
		Global Concepts Charter School	4.44
		South Buffalo Charter School	0.36
Cumulative Impact			5.30
Liverpool CSD	$ 95,114,606	Central New York Charter School for Math and Science	0.05
		Southside Academy CS	0.03
Cumulative Impact			0.08
New York City	$12,360,782,961	Amber Charter School	0.01
		Beginning with Children CS	0.03
		Bronx Preparatory CS	0.01
		Carl C. Icahn Charter School	0.01
		Clearpool Charter School	0.01
		Community Partnership CS	0.01
		Explore Charter School	0.01
		Family Life Academy CS	0.01
		Harbor Science and Arts CS	0.01
		Harlem Day Charter School	0.01
		Harriet Tubman Charter School	0.01
		John A. Reisenbach CS	0.02
		John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School	0.03
		KIPP Academy Charter School	0.02
		Merrick Academy � Queens Public Charter School	0.02
		Our World Neighborhood CS	0.02
		Renaissance Charter School	0.03
		Roosevelt Children�s Academy Charter School	NA
		Sisulu Children�s Charter School	0.02
Cumulative Impact			0.29

District	2002-03 Budget	Charter School	% Fiscal Impact
Rochester City SD	$ 422,042,816	Charter School of Science and Technology	1.44
		Eugenio Maria de Hostos CS	0.40
		Genesee Community CS	0.28
		Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School	0.82
Cumulative Impact			2.94
Rush-Henrietta CSD		Charter School of Science and Technology	0.03
		Genesee Community CS	0.01
Cumulative Impact			0.04
Schenectady City SD	$ 93,467,189	International CS of Schenectady	2.00
		New Covenant Charter School	0.05
Cumulative Impact			2.05
Syracuse City Schools	$ 208,800,000	Central New York Charter School for Math and Science	1.56
		Southside Academy CS	0.46
Cumulative Impact			2.02
Tonawanda City SD	$ 26,089,442	CS for Applied Technologies	0.35
		Stepping Stone Academy CS	0.03
Cumulative Impact			0.38
Troy City Schools	$ 62,652,468	Ark Community Charter School	1.20
		New Covenant Charter School	0.27
Cumulative Impact			1.47
Watervliet City SD	$ 15,401,926	Ark Community Charter School	0.04
		New Covenant Charter School	0.25
Cumulative Impact			0.29
Webster CSD	$ 98,088,413	CS of Science and Technology	0.01
		Genesee Community CS	0.01
Cumulative Impact			0.02
West Seneca CSD	$ 79,076,297	South Buffalo Charter School	0.05
		Tapestry Charter School	0.01
Cumulative Impact			0.06
W. Irondequoit CSD	$ 43,312,359	CS of Science and Technology	3.71
		Genesee Community CS	0.04
Cumulative Impact			3.75

 

APPENDIX B

 

Projections of Financial Stability

 

 

Projections of Financial Stability

In order to be able to meaningfully make projections of financial stability for each charter school, the Department determined that the best way to do so was to ask each charter school to prepare a five-year budget showing projected revenues and expenses. A copy of the letter that was sent to each charter school is included in this Appendix.

Also included are two letters the Department received from the Charter Schools Institute, alleging that the Department had overstepped its authority by requesting such information. Both letters further state that the Institute was informing its charter schools that they were under no obligation to comply with the Department�s request. The Department�s response to the initial letter from the Institute is also included in this Appendix.

The responses received from each charter school (including all Board of Regents authorized charter schools) are included in this Appendix. Thus, we are only able to make projections of future financial stability for those charter schools that responded to the Department�s request. For the remainder, such an interpretation is questionable, at best.

Also included in this section are two tables from the 2001-02 Annual Report to the Governor, the Temporary President of the Senate, the Speaker of the Assembly and the Board of Regents on the Status of Charter Schools in New York State. These tables show the financial position and change in net assets for each charter school in operation during that year, as well as the revenues, expenses, and changes in unrestricted net assets for these charter schools.

 

 

June 20, 2003

Inside Address

Dear :

As you know, the Department is required to submit a report to the Governor and the legislature on the educational effectiveness of the charter school approach by December 31, 2003. One of the required data elements is to provide "projections of financial stability" for each charter school. In order to do so, we are asking you to provide us with updated financial information.

By the close of business Monday, July 14, 2003, please provide me with an updated proposed five-year financial plan, including all projected revenues and expenditures and balance sheet information. Provide an explanation for revenue/expenditure increases greater than ten percent from any given year, along with assumptions considered in developing these projections. Examples of assumptions considered are:

Using the enclosed form, and using 2001-02 school year as the base year, project out revenues, expenses, and net assets to the 2006-07 school year. Describe any long-term debt that you anticipate incurring, such as the purchase or construction of a building, and describe the terms and conditions for financing and re-payment of any loans.

Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please call the Charter Schools Unit at 518-474-1762.

Sincerely,

Darlene M. Mengel, Ph.D.

Supervisor

Enclosure

cc: James R. Butterworth



 

 

Table 8

Charter Schools Data Related to Financial Position and Change in Net Assets 2001-02

School Name	Assets	Liabilities		Total Net Assets or Fund Balance	Change in Unrestricted Net Assets or Fund Balance (see Table 9)
Ark Community Charter School	$675,884	$109,292		$566,592	$421,442
Amber Charter School	461,168	85,521		375,647	-31,751
Beginning with Children Charter School	1,191,468	784,515		406,953	389,308
Bronx Preparatory Charter School	1,148,242	379,046		769,196	337,152
Carl C. Icahn Charter School	547,671	403,983		143,688	39,962
Central New York CS for Math and Science	7,284,216	7,679,734		-395,518	-86,570
Charter School for Applied Technologies	8,071,597	7,693,891		377,706	377,706
Charter School of Science and Technology	2,578,883	2,456,531		122,352	-7,413
Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School	316,842	387,737		-70,895	-78,056
Clearpool Charter School	25,524	154,985		-129,461	79,281
Community Partnership Charter School	766,544	521,789		244,755	43,689
Eugenio Maria de Hostos Charter School	484,593	200,627		283,966	40,778
Family Life Academy Charter School	535,684	141,170		394,514	394,514
Genesee Community Charter School	709,022	175,225		533,797	338,989
Harbor Science and Arts Charter School	232,499	320,202		-87,703	-192,794
Harlem Day Charter School	3,098,417	368,123		2,730,294	2,180,294
Harriet Tubman Charter School	1,017,478	838,050		179,428	-28,683
John A. Reisenbach Charter School	2,585,454	2,333,267		252,187	-645,374
John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School	1,092,872	331,389		761,483	509,327
King Center Charter School	340,533	109,778		230,755	259,648
KIPP Academy Charter School	1,615,026		460,263	1,154,763		-24,958
Merrick Academy-Queens Public Charter School	1,526,992	1,283,617		243,375	268,713
New Covenant Charter School	14,025,547	14,131,031		-105,484	-30,165
School Name	Assets	Liabilities		Total Net Assets or Fund Balance	Change in Unrestricted Net Assets or Fund Balance (see Table 9)
REACH Charter School	Financial statements not received.
Renaissance Charter School	1,804,604	0		1,804,604	131,820
Riverhead Charter School	3,377,102		3,397,931	-20,829		-2,528
Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School	121,147	86,095		35,052			4,874
Roosevelt Children's Academy Charter School	1,751,534	1,927,086		-175,552	-159,366
Sisulu Children's Charter School	642,398	2,521,109		-1,878,711	-667,205
South Buffalo Charter School	1,544,427	686,713		857,714	690,495
Stepping Stone Academy Charter School	4,020,475	3,947,115		73,360	73,360
Tapestry Charter School	477,797	254,142		223,655	185,314
Totals	$64,071,640	$54,169,957		$9,901,683	$4,811,803

Source: Audited Financial Statements July 1, 2001 � June 30, 2002.

 

Table 9

Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Unrestricted Net Assets for Charter Schools 2001-02

	Revenues						Expenses
School Name	Government Contracts and Grants	Private Grants, Contributions and Other Revenue		Net Assets Released from Restrictions or Proceeds From Long-Term Debt	Total Revenue & Support		Program			Mgmt. & General			Total Expenses		Change in Unrestricted Net Assets or Fund Balance
Ark Community Charter School	$1,147,815	$272,719		$0	$1,420,534		$881,379			$117,713			$999,092		$421,442
Amber Charter School	1,191,434	120,590		10,000	1,322,024		1,187,908			165,867			1,353,775		-31,751
Beginning with Children Charter School	3,743,299	351,175		0	4,094,474		3,216,281			488,885			3,705,166		389,308
Bronx Preparatory Charter School	1,289,095	742,474		0	2,031,569		1,291,381			403,036			1,694,417		337,152
Carl C. Icahn Charter School	614,222	20		275,644	889,886		710,156	139,768					849,924		39,962
Central New York CS for Math and Science	3,847,312	91,973		0	3,939,285		2,936,530	1,089,325					4,025,855		-86,570
Charter School for Applied Technologies	6,473,547	1,878		0	6,475,425		4,353,569			1,744,150			6,097,719		377,706
Charter School of Science and Technology	8,381,686	116,662		0	8,498,348		6,548,475			1,957,286			8,505,761		-7,413
Child Development Center of the Hamptons CS	775,005	112,924		297,550	1,185,479		1,086,678			176,857			1,263,535		-78,056
Clearpool Charter School	805,345	412,934		0	1,218,279		799,487			339,511			1,138,998		79,281
Community Partnership Charter School	1,598,884	210,102		0	1,808,986		1,503,459			261,838			1,765,297		43,689
Eugenio Maria de Hostos Charter School	1,508,743	88,132		30,653	1,627,528		1,253,772			332,978			1,586,750		40,778
Family Life Academy Charter School	713,986	17,050		563,254	1,294,290		683,186			216,590			899,776		394,514
Genesee Community Charter School	911,982	421,909		93,830	1,427,721		872,136			216,596			1,088,732		338,989
Harbor Science and Arts Charter School	1,318,205	123,586		0	1,441,791		1,577,465			57,120			1,634,585		-192,794
Harlem Day Charter School	833,670	2,429,219		0	3,262,889		625,215			457,380			1,082,595		2,180,294
Harriet Tubman Charter School	1,095,985	157,285			1,253,270		572,037			709,916			1,281,953		-28,683
John A. Reisenbach Charter School	2,063,664	327,650		0	2,391,314		2,257,087			779,601			3,036,688		-645,374
John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy CS	1,939,574	67,819		0	2,007,393		1,429,554			68,512			1,498,066		509,327
King Center Charter School	826,800	8,438		367,300	1,202,538		570,186			372,704			942,890		259,648
KIPP Academy Charter School	2,214,603	721,860	40,798			2,977,261	2,548,404		465,285			3,013,689		-36,428
Merrick Academy-Queens Public CS	2,036,184	43,154		0	2,079,338		797,083	1,013,542					1,810,625		268,713
New Covenant Charter School	6,308,709	223,924		91,420	6,624,053		4,867,819	1,794,714					6,662,533		-30,165
REACH Charter School	Financial statements not received.
Renaissance Charter School	3,749,351	1,245		0	3,750,596		2,737,410			869,618			3,607,028		131,820
Riverhead Charter School	1,755,493	0	0			1,755,493	1,367,690		390,331			1,758,021		-2,528
Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School	2,769,844	2,735		0	2,772,579		1,099,399			1,668,306			2,767,705		4,874
Roosevelt Children's Academy Charter School	1,933,495	46,165		0	1,979,660		1,172,075				966,951		2,139,026		-159,366
Sisulu Children's Charter School	2,769,125	68,920		0	2,838,045		1,899,228				1,606,022		3,505,250		-667,205
South Buffalo Charter School	2,878,360	19,051		0	2,897,411		1,735,669			471,247			2,206,916		690,495
Stepping Stone Academy Charter School	2,521,857	197,561		280,318	2,999,736		1,153,171			1,773,205			2,926,376		73,360
Tapestry Charter School	842,255	24,095		554,640	1,420,990		793,213			442,463			1,235,676		185,314
Totals	$70,859,529	$7,423,249		$2,605,407	$80,888,185		$54,527,102			$21,557,317			$76,084,419		$4,800,333

Source: Audited Financial Statements July 1, 2001 � June 30, 2002.