THE CHARTER SCHOOL DEBATE FULL OF SOUND AND FURY, BUT WHAT DOES IT SIGNIFY?

1. THE CHARTER SCHOOL DEBATEFULL OF SOUND AND FURY, BUT WHAT DOES IT SIGNIFY? Consensus Fall, 2006

2. WHY CONDUCT A CONSENSUS ON CHARTER SCHOOLS? • League has no position on charter schools. • League opposed S7877, which as amended became the Charter School Act of 1998. • Without an independent finance mechanism for charters, it would mean less money available for all public school students. • Inadequate separation of church and state. • Inadequate provision for disabled students. • Objections were largely resolved in final bill, leaving the League without a position.

3. WHAT ARE CHARTER SCHOOLS? • Public schools • Self governing • Freedom from certain rules in return for greater accountability • No virtual charter schools • No private school conversions • Secular • Comply with Open Meetings Law and Freedom of Information Law

4. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS? • To improve learning and achievement. • To increase learning opportunities particularly for at-risk students. • To encourage innovation. • To offer school choice. • To provide schools with opportunity to change from rule-based accountability to performance-based accountability.

5. HOW ARE CHARTER SCHOOLS CREATED? • Application of organization or group (other than private school or for-profit corporation. • Apply to SUNY (50), Board of Regents or local board of education or Chancellor (50) • Granted if comply with CSA and likelihood can meet or exceed NYS student performance standards. • Traditional public school may convert upon vote of Board of Education and majority of parents of students attending. (No cap on conversions.)

6. WHO MAY ATTEND A CHARTER SCHOOL? • Anyone may apply. • Lottery are if the number of applicants is greater than spaces available. • A charter school must be nonsectarian, non-discriminatory and cannot charge tuition. • Enrolled students may withdraw at any time and return to district schools.

7. WHO MAY TEACH AT A CHARTER SCHOOL? • Generally, teachers must be certified. • Lesser of 5 teachers or 30% need not be certified, provided they have at least three years of teaching experience, are members of a college faculty, or have other specialized experience.

8. ARE TEACHERS MEMBERS OF UNIONS AND SUBJECT TO CONTRACTS? • Generally not unionized and no contract. • May unionize. • Public school conversions and certain larger charter schools remain members of collective bargaining units and subject to collective bargaining agreements.

9. HOW ARE CHARTER SCHOOLS FUNDED? • The district of residence pays the per pupil approved operating expense. • Students attending charters are also eligible for the same aids that private school students receive, including textbooks, library materials, computer software, and health services from the school district of residence. • If charter provides services to disabled student, the district of residence transfers the state and federal special education funds attributable to that student to the charter. • Charter schools are eligible to receive both state and federal grants for planning and facilities planning and creation. • Private grants and donations. • Some charters spend more per student than others.

10. SUPERVISION AND OVERSIGHT • By chartering agency. • Charters file annual reports and audits. • Chartering agency conducts site visits, to gauge contractual compliance (the school’s compliance with the terms of its charter). • SED is responsible for regulatory compliance (compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations, such as laws for provision of services to students with disabilities).

11. Revocation for Academic Failure If the school’s outcome on student assessment measures adopted by the Board of Regents falls below the level that would allow the commissioner to revoke the registration of another public school, and student achievement on such measures has not shown improvement over the preceding three school years

12. Failure to Renew forAcademic Reasons • No clear standards. • Both SUNY and the Regents purport to apply achievement standards in the decision to renew a charter. These standards are not written and have been overruled by political considerations.

13. Challenges for Charters • Limited grants for start-up and facilities. Otherwise, must pay out of operating costs • Limited time between grant of charter and opening • For-profit EMOs take a portion of operating expenses

14. Challenges for Traditional Public Schools • Transfer of funds to charters without ability to reduce costs proportionately • Educators of last resort

15. Conflicting Public Policies • Charters function as independent school districts • SED encourages amalgamation of small districts by making consolidation monies available

16. CHARTERS IN NEW YORK • New York State has approximately 4,000 public schools, serving 2.8 million students. Over 1,000 schools and 1 million students are in New York City. • Anticipate 100 charter schools will account for approximately 2.5% of the statewide public school student body, or 70,000 students.

17. 2004-2005 School Year • 61 charters with 18, 408 students. • 16 chartered by Board of Regents, 32 were chartered by the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York (SUNY), 11 were chartered by the Chancellor of the New York City Public Schools and 2 were chartered by the Buffalo City School District. • Size: 88 to 1105 students. • 21, or approximately one-third, were operated by EMOs.

18. 2004-2005 School YearWho Attended Charters? • 5/6 of charter students in elementary schools • Over 2/3 charter students black; approximately 1/6 were Hispanic; under 1/6 were white • 358 students (1.9%) with limited English proficiency • 1,502 students with disabilities, representing 9% of the children enrolled in charter schools. 63% of the students at charters received Free or Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL) • During the 2004-05 school year 1,445 or 7.8% of charter students, transferred out of charter schools

19. Where are Charter Schools • Home District Number of Charters % of District Budget • 6/26/2005 2004 - 2005 • Buffalo 14 7.77 • Lackawanna 1 8.25 • Niagara-Wheatfield 1 • Rochester 4 4.06 • Syracuse 2 3.18 • Albany 8 10.15 • Schenectady 1 3.64 • Troy 1 2.07 • Yonkers 1 • NYC 57 0.30 • Wainscott 1 3.03 • Riverhead 1 • Roosevelt 1 4.52 • Shelter Island 0 3.27 • Sagaponack 0 3.17

20. Racial Mix • The 2003 Regents Five Year Report to the Governor and Legislature on charter schools indicated that 85% of students in charter schools were minorities, compared to 45.5% in all New York State public schools • In New York City 96% of students in charters were minorities, compared to 87.1% in all New York City public schools.

21. Economically Disadvantaged Students • The 2003 Regents Five Year Report to the Governor and Legislature on charter schools indicated that 74% of students in charter schools qualified for free or reduced price lunch, compared to 50.6% in all New York State public schools • In New York City, 82% of both charter and public school students qualified • The 2004-05 Annual Report indicated 63% of students in charter schools qualified for free or reduced price lunch

22. Disabled Students • A 2003 report on charter schools indicates that New York charters educate a smaller percentage of disabled students than traditional public schools • More severely disabled students are returned to their home schools

23. Teacher Innovation and Autonomy • Charter school theory touts freedom of teachers from educational bureaucracies as giving talented teachers autonomy to engage in innovative educational practices • No New York State data • Nationally, studies indicate that teacher satisfaction varies tremendously from school to school. Factors that increase satisfaction include small school size, school-based decision making, clear administrative vision without micromanaging, professional development opportunities tied to the school’s mission, a core of experienced teachers at the school, job security for teachers and staff, and absence of high teacher turnover. • California study indicated charter teachers valued membership in larger professional organizations such as unions and missed this in charter schools.

24. Teacher Quality • No New York State data • Nationally • More likely to have attended selective colleges • Less likely to be certified • Math teachers are less likely than public school teachers to have subject matter training or knowledge, as measured by a college major or minor in math or passage of a math subject matter test • Twice as likely as traditional public school teachers to have five years or less teaching experience, with one-half to two-thirds of charter teachers having five years or less experience

25. Achievement in Charters • Nationally, there is no consensus about whether charters do a better job • Hoxby – charters do a significantly better job • AFT and 2003 NAEP data – when student data is disaggregated by race, ethnicity and special needs, public schools do at least as good a job of educating students as charters and private schools

26. Achievement in Charters • New York State • Hoxby found no significant difference in achievement in New York State • No other New York studies found • Some charters very successful • Some terrible failures • Too early because many charters have no history of standardized tests • New York State has not collected data required by Charter School Act

27. Does Achievement Matter • Advocates argue that annual achievement in charters is less important than in public schools because • charters are responsive to parents, who may remove their children, and • Charters are responsive to chartering agencies, which may revoke or fail to renew charters.

28. How to Assess Academic Success • Disaggregate data by race/ethnicity and special need • Longitudinal collection of data • Compare value added in a charter to that added in the home school

29. Top Charters – 4th Grade ELA • Harlem Day Charter School, New York City: 100.0% • Renaissance Charter School, New York City: 95.7% • Roosevelt Children’s Academy Charter School, Roosevelt: 87.3% • Carl C. Icahn Charter School, New York City: 86.2% • Genesee Community Charter School, Rochester: 83.8%.

30. Worst Charters – 4th Grade ELA • Pinnacle Charter School, Buffalo (baseline year): 18.4% • Stepping Stone Academy Charter School, Buffalo: 20.4% • Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School, New York City: 29.9% • COMMUNITY Charter School, Buffalo: 32.5% • Charter School of Science and Technology, Rochester: 33.9%.

31. Top Charters – 4th Grade Math • Carl C. Icahn Charter School, New York City: 100.0% • International Charter School of Schenectady, Schenectady, 100.0% • Tapestry Charter School, Buffalo: 100.0% • Our World Neighborhood Charter School, New York City: 95.8% • Harlem Day Charter School, New York City: 94.4% • Renaissance Charter School, New York City: 92.0% • Roosevelt Children’s Academy Charter School, Roosevelt: 91.8% • Genesee Community Charter School, Rochester, 90.7%.

32. Worst Charters 4th Grade Math • Stepping Stone Academy Charter School, Buffalo: 33.9%.

33. Top Charters 8th Grade ELA • KIPP Academy Charter School, New York City: 71.5%.

34. Worst Charters – 8th Grade ELA • John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School, New York City: 8.3% • Buffalo Academy of Science Charter School, Buffalo: 13.6% • Enterprise Charter School, Buffalo: 16.3% • Stepping Stone Academy Charter School, Buffalo: 20.0% • Charter School for Applied Technologies, Kenmore-Tonawanda: 27.3%.

35. Other Measures of Achievement • Performance on student outcome indicators such as attendance, discipline, graduation • Student and parental satisfaction • Post-school outcomes • Teacher satisfaction and development of teacher expertise • The effect of charters on equity across demographic groups.

36. THE HEALTH OF CHARTER SCHOOLS • Nationally, Amy Stuart Wells indicates the movement slowing • New York. • Demand still strong. CSA relatively new and market not yet mature or saturated • Per capita funding for charter education makes New York relatively attractive for proprietary EMOs. • One-quarter fail

37. THE INTERACTION BETWEEN CHARTERS AND TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS • National studies indicate traditional public schools have not changed operations in response to competition • Split in New York State between New York City and up-state in how school districts view and relate to charter schools, with the City being more receptive to charters

38. WHITHER GOEST THE EXPERIMENT - A DISCUSSION OF CHARTERS IN THE LARGER CONTEXT OF EDUCATION THEORYFor every important social problem there is a simple answer that is wrong.Henry Menken In Questions You Should Ask About Charter Schools and Vouchers, Seymour Sarason, professor emeritus of Yale’s Department of Psychology, and education doyen, places the charter debate in the larger context of what is wrong with education in America. The book is valuable for its discussion of the extent to which the charter movement does and does not address these shortcomings.

39. Sarason Suggestions • Experiment with a limited number of pilots; • Increase the time between charter approval and opening. Amend funding mechanisms so that traditional public schools do not lose money when charters open; • Amend funding mechanisms so that funds available to charters mirror funding available to traditional public schools; • Adopt and fund adequate measures of evaluation; • Create mechanisms to share successes and failures of the charter movement with other charters and traditional public schools.

40. II.A SHOULD AUTHORITY OF AGENCIES (other than the home school district) TO GRANT, TO OVERSEE, TO RENEW, AND TO REVOKE CHARTERS BE LIMITED TO A SINGLE ENTITY? • The authority to grant, oversee operations, renew and revoke charters is vested in both the Board of Regents (SED) and SUNY. • They employ different standards in the grant, oversight, renewal, and revocation of charters. They also have different reporting requirements.

41. PRO • To the extent one wishes to evaluate the success of charter schools, enable both charters and public schools to benefit from successful models, and require that unsuccessful models are closed or do not receive charters in the future, one agency should perform the chartering and oversight function. • Expense of maintaining two bureaucracies performing the same function. • With the new governor, the political considerations that resulted in bifurcated authority may no longer exist or may be removed over time.

42. CON • Bifurcated authority was the result of a political negotiation. The Regents tend to be more Democratic and anti-charter and SUNY more Republican and pro-charter. With the Republicans in control of the Senate, the political considerations are unlikely to change in the near future.

43. II.B SHOULD THE LEAGUE ADVOCATE FOR MORE STRINGENT OVERSIGHT OF CHARTER COMPLIANCE IN THE RENEWAL / REVOCATION OF CHARTERS? The charter constitutes a five-year contract between the school and chartering agency, in which the school describes its educational program and outcomes for which it will be held responsible. Nationally, few charter schools have been closed for academic reasons. Most have been closed for financial problems.

44. PRO • Because charters are relieved of certain regulatory requirements in return for the promises of academic achievement, innovation, and increased job satisfaction, they should be held strictly accountable for achievement of their missions, and the CSA should be amended to hold charters strictly accountable. • Because charter schools operate without elected Boards of Education they ought to have very strong objective compliance requirements. • Because charter schools represent experimental innovations in education, directly opposed to SED’s policy of district consolidation, only those charters that achieve their stated missions should enjoy a continued existence.

45. CON • The CSA provides for adequate oversight with annual visits and reports. • Some authors are critical of the level of oversight to which charters are subjected in New York State, arguing that charters receive greater oversight than underperforming traditional public schools, although this oversight appears to be flexible and designed to avert failure. • Enhanced oversight costs money, and the CSA has never contained sufficient funds for adequate oversight. • The market will close unsuccessful charters as parents withdraw their children from failing charters. • Parents and students have the right to choice, even without increased achievement.

46. II.C SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT GREATER EMPHASIS ON POSITIVE EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES IN THE RENEWAL OF CHARTERS?

47. PRO • One purpose of charter schools is to grant autonomy in return for increased academic performance. If charters are not held to increased standards of educational performance, one rational for their existence no longer exists. • Another rationale for the creation of charter schools is to give educators freedom to explore innovative and locally developed education strategies. Without meaningful evaluation, there is no way to know whether an innovation is successful and to weed out bad experiments. • Another rationale of charters is to discover new ways to educate at-risk students, with the idea of sharing successful strategies with traditional public schools. If one never determines the success of a strategy, no cross-fertilization can occur. • There is a cost to the creation of charters, both in terms of money lost by the home district and disruption to children’s educations. If the cost is not justified by increased student performance, then a major rationale for charters ceases to exist. • The market is an imperfect vehicle with which to drive school choice. Parents and students are unable to gauge the success of charters by reviewing school report cards because the charter may not have a demographically similar district school for comparison purposes.

48. CON • The market of student and parental choice is sufficient to close unsuccessful charters. If a charter is unsuccessful, students will not attend. • Proponents of charter schools say that a school may be positive and yet be short of high test results. • Four years (the time at which charters seek renewal) is an insufficient period of time in which to create a school, iron out bugs and fine-tune academic performance. • Many enrichment qualities, such as creativity, attitude, motivation, conflict resolution, cannot be measured.

49. II.D SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN THOSE OF COMPARABLE DISTRICT SCHOOLS AS A PRECONDITION FOR CHARTER RENEWAL PRO Charter schools, in return for the promise to provide a quality education, have been given freedom from many restrictions existing in other public schools, allowing them to use innovative methods to improve learning. Therefore test results should equal or surpass those in district schools.

50. CON Cost of compliance. Meaningful comparison between charters and comparable district schools is an expensive process, which requires sophisticated data analysis by trained specialists. The CSA does not contain funding for this type of analysis.