|
|
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: |
Full Board |
|
TITLE OF
ITEM: |
Renewals of Charter School Charters |
|
DATE OF
SUBMISSION: |
July 7, 2004 |
|
PROPOSED
HANDLING: |
Approval |
|
RATIONALE FOR
ITEM: |
Legislative Authority to Act on Charter Schools |
|
STRATEGIC
GOAL: |
Goals 1 and 2 |
|
AUTHORIZATION(S): |
|
SUMMARY:
The Board of Regents is authorized to approve proposed renewals of existing charter school charters. The Board of Trustees of the State University of New York has submitted to the Board of Regents proposed renewals of the charters for two charter schools. Complete copies of the proposed renewal charters are available for your review by contacting James R. Butterworth at 518-474-4817 or Shelia Evans-Tranumn at 718-722-2796.
VOTED: That
the Board of Regents approve return the proposed renewal to the charter of
the following charter school
to the Trustees of the State University of New York for reconsideration:, and extend its charter and
provisional charter for five years, based upon the information contained in the
attachments and upon a finding by the Board of Regents that: (1) charter school meets the
requirements set out in Article 56 of the Education Law and all other applicable
laws, rules, and regulations; (2) the charter school has operated in an
educationally and fiscally sound manner; and (3) granting the extension is
likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the
purposes set out in subdivision two of section twenty-eight hundred fifty of
Article 56 of the Education Law:
· New Covenant Charter School, Albany
VOTED: That the Board of Regents approve the proposed renewal to the charter of the following charter school, and extend its charter and provisional charter for two years, based upon the information contained in the attachments and upon a finding by the Board of Regents that: (1) the charter school meets the requirements set out in Article 56 of the Education Law and all other applicable laws, rules, and regulations; (2) the charter school has operated in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and (3) granting the extension is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the purposes set out in subdivision two of section twenty-eight hundred fifty of Article 56 of the Education Law:
· Sisulu Children’s Academy - Harlem Public Charter School
New York State Education
Department
Summary of Charter School Renewal
Information
Summary of Applicant
Information
Name of Proposed Renewed Charter
School: New Covenant Charter School
Address: 50 Lark Street, Albany, NY
12210
Board of Trustees President: Eleanor Bartlett
Renewal Period: September 2004-August 2009
District of Location: City School District of Albany
Charter Entity: SUNY
Board of Trustees
Institutional
Partner(s):
None
Management Partner(s): Edison Schools, Inc.
Grades Served Per Year: K-8
Projected Enrollment Per Year: 911 (930)
Renewal Application
Highlights
Evidence of Educational
Soundness/ Attainment of Educational Objectives
·
For
New Covenant Charter School’s (“NCCS” or “the School”) performance on State assessments, see Attachment 1.
The School was farthest
from State standards based upon its 1999-2000 grade 4 ELA and math results, its 2001-02 grade 4
ELA results, and based upon
its 2002-03 grade 8
math results.
·
The
district of location (the Albany City School District) had a greater percentage
of students scoring at or above Level 3 on the grades 4 and 8 State assessments in ELA
and math than did the School for each year that the School participated in such
assessments.
·
The
Application for Renewal states that “the percentage of students meeting
standards was less than promised” and that the inconsistent implementation of
assessment instruments, the loss of data, and switching school-wide assessments
contribute to an incomplete picture.
Additionally, the Charter Schools Institute (CSI) notes that the
norm-referenced tests that NCCS uses are not related in any clear way to the
State assessments or learning standards.
·
The
CSI further notes, in its own Findings and Recommendations, that the other assessments used
at NCCS have had little informational or instructional
value.
·
Regarding the progress of a student cohort, CSI noted
that “Due largely to a lack of consistent data, the school is not able to
demonstrate increases in the same students’ progress over time.” The School does not have its data for 2000 and 2001,
so it cannot present cohort information beyond two years. CSI references the
School’s academic gains, but it does not place that finding in the context of
the low baseline to which the gains need to be compared.
·
Regarding the attainment of the goals described in its
charter, the School
does not use the assessment information it has to inform instructional
decisions.
·
The
School’s proposed new curriculum is not aligned with the New York State Learning
Standards. Neither the Standards,
the Key Ideas, nor the Performance Indicators are included in the proposed NCCS
curriculum.
·
There
has been a high degree of both teacher and administrator turnover at the School.
There have been nine school directors thus far. Only one
teacher has taught more than one year in grade 1; nine teachers have taught only one year in grade 1; in grades 3 and 7, no teachers
have taught more than one year in grade.
In grades 3, 5, 6, and 7, an average of four teachers have taught once
only at the grade level.
·
The
CSI acknowledges in its Findings and Recommendations the high degree of turnover
and inexperience of the Board of Trustees (BOT). It also acknowledges that the BOT is not
focused on the academic improvement of students. Also, the BOT’s failure to keep track of
academic data, sometimes an entire year’s worth and sometimes a test
administration’s worth, points to the ineffectiveness of the School’s governance. The CSI notes in its Findings and Recommendations
that the new Board
members are unfamiliar with the design and mission of the School. The BOT has apparently not
worked effectively with Edison Schools, the educational management company hired
to provide the instructional program and other services. This is a Board that states that it had its
charter “revoked” even though it did not.
Neither the Charter Schools Institute nor the Board of Regents has ever
acted to revoke the existing charter for NCCS.
·
The
CSI has pointed out the academic ineffectiveness of the School’s grades
7-8 instructional program and
has required the School to eliminate the two grades. By the same logic, there is scant reason
to recommend that the School continue to operate its grades 5 and 6 program,
since the poor achievement results on the grade 8 State assessments are arguably
the consequence of an ineffective grades 5-8 instructional program.
Evidence of Fiscal
Soundness/Projected Fiscal Impact
·
For
the past two years, the School has shown a deficit (see Attachment 2). The most recent audit report for the
2003-04 school year was
late, and the CSI put the School under corrective action as a
result.
·
The
BOT does not monitor the School’s budget consistently. In the CSI Findings and Recommendations, it
is stated that “the Board did not request or receive [from Edison] regular
financial reports.” Its audits have been submitted late every year. A substantial loan is coming due in
September, and how it will be financed is unknown.
·
Several findings in CSI’s Findings and Recommendations
seriously question past and continued operation of the School, including the
fiscal stability of the School. In
addition, management letters that were prepared by the auditing firm indicate
several issues relative to internal controls that have had and will continue to
have an effect on budget operations.
·
Budget expenditures and revenues need to be revised to
reflect that the School
is to operate as K-6. It is not
clear how the School
will be able to increase its enrollment while eliminating grades 7 and
8.
·
There
are several vague entries in the proposed budget, such as a lack of a definition
of “interest income,”
the difference between actual and paid student enrollment, the entry for a bonus
for principal ($10,000 vs. a salary of over $100,000), and a lack of an
explanation of what is included in renovations/repair
expenditures.
·
The
Application for Renewal does not address how the School will utilize the
facility with the elimination of grades 7 and 8.
·
The
Application for Renewal does not provide a narrative that clearly describes the
School’s anticipated fiscal policies and/or anticipated expenses for all areas
of the budget.
·
The
Application for Renewal does not provide evidence demonstrating that adequate
controls exist for the protection of school assets.
·
The
Application for Renewal does not address the School’s plan for refinancing the
construction debt. It also does not address what the School will do if it is
unable to secure a financial arrangement from a lending institution by the
deadline as stated in the Application for Renewal.
Potential Fiscal Impact
of the Renewal of the Charter
for
the
New Covenant Charter School
|
School Year |
Number of
Students |
Projected
Payment* |
Projected
Impact |
|
2004-05 |
911 |
$7,990,381 |
5.7% |
|
2005-06 |
925 |
$8,477,625 |
5.8% |
|
2006-07 |
931 |
$8,916,187 |
5.9% |
|
2007-08 |
930 |
$9,307,440 |
6.0% |
|
2008-09 |
930 |
$9,725,940 |
6.1% |
*Assumes
a 3 percent annual increase in the District’s budget from the base of
$137,306,652 in 2003-04 and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense
per pupil per year from the 2003-04 rate of $8,393.
Potential Cumulative
Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*
2004-05
|
Charter
School |
Number of
Students |
Projected
Payment |
Projected
Impact |
|
Achievement Academy
CS |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
Brighter Choice CS for
Boys |
145 |
$1,271,795 |
0.9% |
|
Brighter Choice CS for
Girls |
145 |
$1,271,795 |
0.9% |
|
KIPP Tech Valley |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
New Covenant
CS |
911 |
$7,990,381 |
5.7% |
|
Total |
1,201 |
$10,533,971 |
7.5% |
*Assumes
a 3 percent annual increase in the District’s budget from the base of
$137,306,652 in 2003-04 and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense
per pupil per year from the 2003-04 rate of $8,393.
Potential Cumulative
Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*
2005-06
|
Charter
School |
Number of
Students |
Projected
Payment |
Projected
Impact |
|
Achievement Academy
CS |
75 |
$687,375 |
0.5% |
|
Brighter Choice CS for
Boys |
170 |
$1,558,050 |
1.1% |
|
Brighter Choice CS for
Girls |
170 |
$1,558,050 |
1.1% |
|
KIPP Tech Valley |
90 |
$824,850 |
0.6% |
|
New Covenant
CS |
925 |
$8,477,625 |
5.8% |
|
Total |
1,430 |
$13,105,950 |
9.1% |
*Assumes
a 3 percent annual increase in the District’s budget from the base of
$137,306,652 in 2003-04 and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense
per pupil per year from the 2003-04 rate of $8,393.
Potential Cumulative
Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*
2006-07
|
Charter
School |
Number of
Students |
Projected
Payment |
Projected
Impact |
|
Achievement Academy
CS |
150 |
$1,436,550 |
1.0% |
|
Brighter Choice CS for
Boys |
195 |
$1,867,515 |
1.2% |
|
Brighter Choice CS for
Girls |
195 |
$1,867,515 |
1.2% |
|
KIPP Tech Valley |
180 |
$1,723,860 |
1.2% |
|
New Covenant
CS |
931 |
$8,916,187 |
5.9% |
|
Total |
1,651 |
$15,811,627 |
10.5% |
*Assumes
a 3 percent annual increase in the District’s budget from the base of
$137,306,652 in 2003-04 and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense
per pupil per year from the 2003-04 rate of $8,393.
Potential Cumulative
Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*
2007-08
|
Charter
School |
Number of
Students |
Projected
Payment |
Projected
Impact |
|
Achievement Academy
CS |
225 |
$2,251,800 |
1.5% |
|
Brighter Choice CS for
Boys |
220 |
$2,201,760 |
1.4% |
|
Brighter Choice CS for
Girls |
220 |
$2,201,760 |
1.4% |
|
KIPP Tech Valley |
270 |
$2,702,160 |
1.8% |
|
New Covenant
CS |
930 |
$9,307,440 |
6.0% |
|
Total |
1,865 |
$18,664,920 |
12.1% |
*Assumes
a 3 percent annual increase in the District’s budget from the base of
$137,306,652 in 2003-04 and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense
per pupil per year from the 2003-04 rate of $8,393.
Potential Cumulative
Fiscal Impact of All Charter Schools*
2008-09
|
Charter
School |
Number of
Students |
Projected
Payment |
Projected
Impact |
|
Achievement Academy
CS |
300 |
$3,137,400 |
2.0% |
|
Brighter Choice CS for
Boys |
245 |
$2,562,210 |
1.6% |
|
Brighter Choice CS for
Girls |
245 |
$2,562,210 |
1.6% |
|
KIPP Tech Valley |
360 |
$3,764,160 |
2.4% |
|
New Covenant
CS |
930 |
$9,725,940 |
6.1% |
|
Total |
2,080 |
$21,751,920 |
13.7% |
*Assumes
a 3 percent annual increase in each District’s budget from the base of $137,306,652 in 2003-04 and a 4.5
percent annual increase in the average expense per pupil per year from the
2003-04 rate of $8,393.
Evidence of Parent and Student
Satisfaction and Community Support
· Parent support has declined from the first two years below the goal of 7.5 on a 1-10 scale. Downward trends are seen in each of the four areas surveyed: feedback on child’s performance, communication and involvement, satisfaction with the curriculum and training, and overall satisfaction.
· Few parents responded to the survey. In 2003, 99 out of a possible 576 responded. (In 2002, 92 of 499 responded, and, in 2001, 41 of 257 responded.)
·
The
School surveyed students in grades 3-5 on four indicators; the target was 7.5 on
a 1-10 scale. In the most recent
year, only one indicator was over 7.5.
Additionally, in the most recent year the School administered the survey
on-line (to students
who are receiving computer instruction and who take computerized benchmark
tests). The students had difficulty
completing the survey, and the number of respondents was less than half of the
eligible students, which represents a decline in the percentage of
students responding from the previous two years.
· The Albany City School District has submitted a severe critique of NCCS. There is nothing in the critique that is inconsistent with the facts. Points the District makes include the following:
1. NCCS achievement results do not meet State standards;
2. the School seeks to expand enrollment while conceding that such high enrollment is not beneficial to students and the enrollment targets are established for financial value rather than educational merit;
3. the School has not met the majority of its academic goals;
4. the School targeted a 75 percent passing rate in ELA and math, but its rate is less than 60 percent;
5. comparable District schools scored higher than the NCCS eighth grade; and
6. the School’s
targets for science and social studies (60 percent) have not been met, with
actual performance in the 30’s and 40’s.
Summary of Charter Entity’s
Findings and Recommendations
- Renew the charter of the New
Covenant Charter School for a term of five years, subject to the following
conditions:
- Maximum total enrollment of
the School will be
930
students.
- Eliminate grades 7 and 8 and
provide instruction only to students in grades K-6.
- Enrollment in grades 5 and 6
will be limited only to students previously enrolled in the school in grades
4 and 5. The School’s admission
and enrollment policies will be amended accordingly.
- The School agrees to submit its
required annual audit report by December 1 and agrees that failure to do so
will constitute a material and significant violation of its charter
sufficient to warrant placing the School on probation or terminating its
charter.
- Maximum total enrollment of
the School will be
930
students.
Recommendation
Return the proposed renewal charter to the charter
entity for reconsideration.
Reason for Recommendation
The applicant has cannot
demonstrated the ability to operate the school in an educationally
and fiscally sound manner, or thatand
granting the renewal is not
likely to improve student learning and
achievement.
Attachment 1
New Covenant Charter
School
Performance on State
Assessments
|
Assessment |
Year |
Number
Tested |
% Level
1 |
% Level
2 |
% Level
3 |
% Level
4 |
Performance
Index |
|
Grade 4 ELA |
2000 |
68 |
51 |
40 |
9 |
0 |
58 |
|
Grade 4 ELA |
2001 |
45 |
42.2 |
35.6 |
22.2 |
0.0 |
80 |
|
Grade 4 ELA |
2002 |
80 |
40.0 |
45.0 |
13.8 |
1.3 |
75 |
|
Grade 4 ELA |
2003 |
92 |
19.6 |
40.2 |
32.6 |
7.6 |
121 |
|
Grade 4
ELA |
2004 |
89 |
22.5 |
48.3 |
28.1 |
1.1 |
107 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade 4 Math |
2000 |
59 |
61 |
36 |
3 |
0 |
42 |
|
Grade 4 Math |
2001 |
46 |
32.6 |
45.7 |
17.4 |
4.3 |
89 |
|
Grade 4 Math |
2002 |
78 |
26.9 |
41.0 |
29.5 |
2.6 |
105 |
|
Grade 4 Math |
2003 |
90 |
10.6 |
30.9 |
46.8 |
11.7 |
148 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade 8 ELA |
2003 |
72 |
26.4 |
52.8 |
19.4 |
1.4 |
94 |
|
Grade 8
ELA |
2004 |
76 |
32.9 |
57.8 |
9.2 |
0.0 |
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade 8 Math |
2003 |
56 |
53.6 |
44.9 |
1.4 |
0.0 |
48 |
Performance on
Grade 4 State
Assessments by all Charter Schools
in New York State Managed by Edison
Schools
|
Charter School and District
of Location |
Percent of Students Scoring
at or Above Level 3 on State Grade 4
Exams | ||||||||
|
1999-2000 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
2003-04 | |||||
|
Gr. 4
ELA |
Gr. 4
Math |
Gr. 4
ELA |
Gr. 4
Math |
Gr. 4
ELA |
Gr. 4
Math |
Gr. 4
ELA |
Gr. 4
Math |
Gr. 4
ELA | |
|
Charter School for Applied
Technologies Buffalo Public
Schools* |
|
|
|
|
30.7 33.9 |
33.0 45.3 |
38.8 33.9 |
61.5 57.6 |
37.9 34.3 |
|
Charter School
of Science
& Technology Rochester City
Schools |
|
|
27.6 41.9 |
44.8 47.5 |
16.0 46.5 |
13.7 44.9 |
37.1 42.9 |
43.7 57.4 |
17.3 42.4 |
|
Harriet Tubman Charter
School NYC CSD#9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
30.0 37.3 |
57.1 58.0 |
31.0 30.5 |
|
New Covenant
Charter School Albany City
Schools |
9 43 |
3 53 |
22.2 41.5 |
21.7 53.4 |
15.1 48.4 |
32.1 57.0 |
40.2 46.7 |
58.5 64.7 |
29.2 44.4 |
|
Riverhead Charter
School Riverhead CSD |
|
|
|
|
35.7 60.8 |
30.8 70.3 |
54.6 69.8 |
59.4 80.1 |
45.9 66.6 |
|
Stepping Stone Academy
Charter School Buffalo Public
Schools |
|
|
|
|
16.7 33.9 |
10.0 45.3 |
29.1 33.9 |
27.5 57.6 |
1.9 34.3 |
*The School draws 85% of its students from Buffalo and
not its district of location (Kenmore-Tonawanda
UFSD), so achievement comparisons are more meaningful
with Buffalo.
Performance on
Grade 8 State
Assessments by all Charter Schools
in New York State Managed by Edison
Schools
|
Charter School and District
of Location |
Percent of Students Scoring
at or Above Level 3 on State Grade 8
Exams | ||||||||
|
1999-2000 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
2003-04 | |||||
|
|
Gr. 8
ELA |
Gr. 8
Math |
Gr. 8
ELA |
Gr. 8
Math |
Gr. 8
ELA |
Gr. 8
Math |
Gr. 8
ELA |
Gr. 8
Math |
Gr. 8
ELA |
|
Charter School for Applied
Technologies Buffalo Public
Schools* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33.6 25.9 |
|
Charter School of Science
& Technology Rochester City
Schools |
|
|
12.5 24.1 |
10.5 10.7 |
6.7 18.5 |
7.4 12.0 |
22.6 17.7 |
18.5 9.5 |
17.7 18.5 |
|
Harriet Tubman Charter
School NYC CSD#9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Covenant Charter
School Albany City
Schools |
|
|
|
|
|
|
20.8 26.6 |
1.4 27.1 |
9.2 24.4 |
|
Riverhead Charter
School Riverhead CSD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stepping Stone Academy
Charter School Buffalo Public
Schools |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*The
School draws 85% of its students from Buffalo and not its district of location
(Kenmore-Tonawanda UFSD), so achievement comparisons are more meaningful with
Buffalo.
Attachment 2
New Covenant Charter
School
Change in Net Assets 2000-01 Through
2002-03*
|
Year |
Change in Net
Assets |
|
2000-01 |
$8,971 |
|
2001-02 |
($30,165) |
|
2002-03 |
($94,594) |
*Source: Audited Financial
Statements provided as a part of each Annual Report.
New York State Education
Department
Summary of Charter School Renewal
Information
Summary of Applicant
Information
Name of Proposed Renewed Charter
School: Sisulu Children’s
Academy -
Harlem Public Charter School
Address: 125 West 115th Street,
New York, NY 10026
Board of Trustees President:
William A.
Allen
Renewal Period: Two years (2004 – 2006)
District of Location: Community School District 5/Region
10
Charter Entity: SUNY Board of Trustees
Institutional
Partner(s):
None
Management Partner(s): Victory Schools Inc.
Grades Served per Year: Grades 1, 4-5 (K-2, 5)
Projected Enrollment per Year: 300
Renewal Application
Highlights
§
The student performance of all New
York State charter schools managed by Victory Schools, Inc. can be seen in
Attachment 3. For
Sisulu Children’s Academy - Harlem Public Charter School’s performance on State assessments see Attachment
4.
§
Sisulu struggled to post academic
gains as measured by standardized tests in the early years of its charter. While data from the New York State 4th
grade English Language Arts and mathematics assessments show academic gains from
2002 to 2003, standardized test scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills show
variation in Sisulu’s ability to ensure its students made academic gains across
four years of scores. Preliminary
data from the grade 4
ELA assessment show that the School improved performance over 2003 and achieved the
State standard in 2004.
§
Sisulu improved performance from
having 4 percent of students in 4th grade pass the 2002 New York State
mathematics assessment to 41 percent of students in 4th grade passing the
assessment in 2003.
§
Results from New York State’s 4th
grade mathematics assessment in 2002 and 2003 indicate that the School’s absolute scores fell below
both similar schools and
District
5. However, Sisulu’s gain in improving
achievement as measured on that test outpaced the District.
§
Based on available data, the
School has not fully
attained all academic goals set forth in its Accountability Plan (developed in
conjunction with SUNY during year 1).
However, the School’s Board of Trustees has instituted an internal review protocol
resulting in an academic program that shows promise for increasing the academic
achievement of students.
§
Sisulu’s Board of Trustees led a
curriculum analysis that revealed that the School’s use of Direct Instruction for reading and
mathematics was not a viable or productive curriculum choice and was not
resulting in student achievement that would help the School meet its academic
goals.
§
The Scott-Foresman Reading Program
will be used to supplement the Direct Instruction program for students who are
struggling to acquire basic reading and decoding skills.
§
The School will also use the University
of Chicago’s Everyday Mathematics Program instead of the Direct Instruction
Mathematics.
§
Sisulu has had three different
principals during the term of its charter.
The current principal has demonstrated previous success in a New York
City Public School.
Evidence of Fiscal
Soundness/Projected Fiscal Impact
§
For each of the school years
1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03, the School’s audit has not indicated any material finding
and no management letters were issued.
In each of those years, the audit report contained the auditor’s
unqualified opinion that the financial statements were in conformance with
generally accepted accounting principles.
§
Victory Schools, Inc., the School’s management company, will
provide pro bono services through 2005.
§
The School’s future fiscal stability will
depend on its ability to negotiate a more favorable lease at its facility or to
reach an agreement with the New York City Department of Education to provide
space within a public school.
§
Chart of fiscal health from each
applicable annual report showing assets and liabilities is attached. (Attachment
5)
Potential Fiscal Impact of Renewal of the
Charter
for the
Sisulu Charter School
|
School Year |
Number of Students |
Projected
Payment* |
Projected Impact |
|
2004-05 |
300 |
$2,460,348 |
0.018% |
|
2005-06 |
300 |
$2,571,064 |
0.018% |
*Assumes a
3 percent annual increase in the district’s budget from a 2001-2002 base of
$12.5 billion and a 4.5 percent annual increase in the average expense per pupil
per year from the 2003-2004 final average expense per pupil of
$7,848.
Evidence of Parent and Student
Satisfaction and Community Support
§
The renewal application includes
21 letters from parents and approximately 250 signatures on a petition in
support of renewing the School.
§
The 2002-2003 parent survey had a
response rate of five
percent (14 of 281 surveys were returned).
§
Forty-three percent of the 14
responding parents
stated that they were very satisfied with the School’s academic program.
§
Fifty percent of the 14
responding parents
stated that they were very satisfied with communication between the School and
home.
§
Sixty-four percent of the 14
responding parents stated that they were very satisfied with their child’s
achievement/academic progress.
§
Eleven 4th grade students wrote
letters in support of the School.
§
In a student survey summary, it
was reported that 92 percent of students indicated that their teacher helps them when they are in need;
70.5 percent of students stated that they have improved in reading; and, 50.5 percent
stated that they like
the School.
§
The New York City Chancellor is in
support of charter schools and has not opposed the two-year renewal proposed by
SUNY.
§
Sisulu’s average daily attendance
rate of all students during the 2002-2003 school year was 90.44 percent. In previous years, the average daily
attendance rate was 91.5 percent (1999-2000), 90.2 percent (2000-2001), and 90.4
percent (2001-2002).
§
The School has 229 students on its
waiting list for the school year 2004-2005. The
School reports that the
number of students on the waiting list has increased without advertising or
marketing.
Summary of Charter Entity’s
Findings and Recommendations
· The Charter Schools Institute found that the School’s record of educational achievement during the term of its first charter was mixed.
· The level and rigor of classroom instruction and student work observed by the Charter Schools Institute and State Education Department varied over the term of the School’s charter. Some visit reports cited promising student work, while other reports noted low levels of rigor in instruction and student work.
· The School has implemented concrete steps in its leadership structure and in classrooms. SUNY expects that the School will stabilize its teaching staff, instructional delivery, and gather and report additional evidence that demonstrates that the School is continuing to build a record of improving student learning and achievement.
·
The
findings justify an abbreviated renewal period of two years.
Recommendation
Approve the renewal
application.
Reasons for
Recommendation
(1) The charter school meets the requirements set out
in Article 56 of the Education Law and all other applicable laws, rules, and
regulations; (2) the charter school has operated in an educationally and
fiscally sound manner; and (3) granting the extension is likely to improve
student learning and achievement and materially further the purposes set out in
subdivision two of section twenty-eight hundred fifty of Article 56 of the
Education Law.
Performance on State Assessments for Schools for
Which
Victory
Schools Inc. is
the Educational Management Organization
Sisulu Children’s Academy Charter
School
Performance on State Assessments
|
Assessment |
Year |
Number
Tested |
% Level
1 |
% Level
2 |
% Level
3 |
% Level
4 |
Performance Index |
|
Grade 4
ELA |
2002 |
23 |
17.4% |
60.9% |
21.7% |
0 |
104.3 |
|
Grade 4
ELA |
2003 |
70 |
21.4% |
42.9% |
31.4% |
4.3% |
114.3 |
|
Grade 4
ELA |
2004 |
86 |
4.7% |
40.7% |
43.0% |
11.6% |
150.0 |
|
Grade 4
Math |
2002 |
22 |
50% |
45.4% |
4.5% |
0 |
54.5 |
|
Grade 4
Math |
2003 |
69 |
18.9% |
40.6% |
36.2% |
4.3% |
121.7 |
Merrick Children’s Academy Charter
School
Performance on State
Assessments
|
Assessment |
Year |
Number
Tested |
% Level
1 |
% Level
2 |
% Level
3 |
% Level
4 |
Performance
Index |
|
Grade 4
ELA |
2003 |
42 |
7.1% |
26.2% |
57.1% |
9.5% |
159.5 |
|
Grade 4
ELA |
2004 |
47 |
0 |
12.8% |
68.1 |
19.1% |
187.2 |
|
Grade 4
Math |
2003 |
42 |
2.3% |
40.5% |
52.4% |
4.8% |
154.8 |
Roosevelt Children’s Academy
Charter School
Performance on State
Assessments
|
Assessment |
Year |
Number
Tested |
% Level
1 |
% Level 2 |
% Level 3 |
% Level 4 |
Performance
Index |
|
Grade 4
ELA |
2003 |
25 |
4.0% |
36.0% |
32.0% |
28.0% |
156.0 |
|
Grade 4
ELA |
2004 |
75 |
8.0% |
41.3% |
42.7% |
8.0% |
142.7 |
|
Grade 4
Math |
2003 |
25 |
4.0% |
28.0% |
68.0% |
0.0% |
154.0 |
Scores for 2002 and 2003 test administrations are
based on students continuously enrolled. 2004 results are based on all students
tested. Grade 4 ELA results for
2004 for Sisulu have been revised from those issued earlier this year to reflect
correction of a scoring error in the previously released
results.
Analysis:
Sisulu Children’s Academy - Harlem Public
Charter School was farthest from State standards
in grade 4 math in 2002 but made substantial
gains in 2003. The School has preliminarily achieved
the State standard in grade 4 ELA in 2004.
Roosevelt Children’s Academy exceeded the State standards in
grade 4 ELA in 2003 and
2004 and math in 2003. The
School’s 2004
grade 4 ELA performance
places Roosevelt Children’s Academy among the higher performing schools in the
State.
Merrick Children’s Academy exceeded the State standards in
grade 4 ELA and
grade 4 math in
2003. Preliminary results on
grade 4 ELA for 2004
show the school may have performed slightly below the State
standard.
Sisulu Children’s Academy Harlem Public Charter
School
Performance on State
Assessments
|
Assessment |
Year |
Number
Tested |
% Level
1 |
% Level
2 |
% Level
3 |
% Level
4 |
Performance
Index |
|
Grade 4
ELA |
2002 |
23 |
17.4% |
60.9% |
21.7% |
0 |
104.3 |
|
Grade 4
ELA |
2003 |
70 |
21.4% |
42.9% |
31.4% |
4.2% |
114.3 |
|
Grade 4
ELA |
2004 |
86 |
4.7% |
40.7% |
43.0% |
11.6% |
150.0 |
|
Grade 4
Math |
2002 |
22 |
50% |
45.4% |
4.5% |
0 |
54.5 |
|
Grade 4
Math |
2003 |
69 |
18.9% |
40.6% |
36.2% |
4.3% |
121.7 |
Sisulu Children’s Academy
Harlem Public Charter
School
Change in Net Assets 2000-01 Through
2002-03*
|
Year |
Change in Net
Assets |
|
2000-01 |
($953,339) |
|
2001-02 |
($667,205) |
|
2002-03 |
($691,450) |
*Source: Audited Financial
Statements provided as a part of each Annual Report.