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

TITLE OF ITEM:

Renewal of Charter School Charter

DATE OF SUBMISSION:

August 24, 2004

PROPOSED HANDLING:

Approval

RATIONALE FOR ITEM:

Legislative Authority to Act on Charter Schools

STRATEGIC GOAL:

Goals 1 and 2

AUTHORIZATION(S):

 

 

SUMMARY:

 

On July 21, 2004, the Board of Regents voted to return the proposed renewal to the charter for the New Covenant Charter School to the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York ("the Board of Trustees") for reconsideration because the applicant has not demonstrated the ability to operate the school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner, or that granting the renewal is likely to improve student learning and achievement. On August 16, 2004, the Board of Trustees resubmitted the proposed renewal to the charter without modifications. A complete copy of the proposed renewal charter is available for your review by contacting James R. Butterworth at 518-474-4817. The Board of Regents may either approve the resubmitted proposed renewal to the charter or take no action. There is no statutory provision for the denial of the proposed renewal to the charter. The concerns about the charter school remain. If the Board of Regents takes no action with respect to the resubmitted proposed charter, this will have the effect of the proposed renewal to the charter being deemed approved by operation of law on September 15, 2004.

 

VOTED:  That the Board of Regents take no action regarding the proposed renewal to the charter of the following 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 first grade teacher has taught more than one year at first grade; nine first grade teachers have taught only one year at first grade; 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 seventh and eighth grade 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 2003-03 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 parents out of a possible 576 responded.  (In 2002, 92 of 499 parents 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

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

Take no action.

 

Reason for Recommendation

 

The Trustees of the State University of New York have re-submitted the proposed charter renewal with no modifications.  §2852(5-a) of the Education Law provides that a proposed charter shall become effective by operation of law if the Board of Regents fails to act on such re-submitted proposed charter within thirty days of the re-submission.  Since the applicant has not demonstrated the ability to operate the school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner, or that granting the renewal is likely to improve student learning and achievement, it is recommended that the Board of Regents take no action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.