July 6, 2010 MEMORANDUM To: Members, Board of Trustees� Charter Schools Committee: Pedro A. Noguera, Chair, Stephen J. Hunt, Carl Spielvogel From: Jonas S. Chartock, Charter Schools Institute Executive Director Subject: July 8, 2010 Committee Meeting Proposed Agenda / Materials ________________________________________________________________________ Enclosed please find materials for the meeting of the Charter Schools Committee scheduled for 1 p.m. on Thursday, July 8, 2010. Consideration of Approval of the June 15, 2010 Meeting Minutes Pursuant to SUNY Board of Trustee�s Resolution No. 2008-81 dated May 13, 2008, discussion of items for which the Charter Schools Committee may make the final determination: � Consideration of Approval of a Revision of the Charter of the Achievement First Brownsville Charter School (Brooklyn) - a proposed Resolution is attached. � Consideration of Approval of a Revision of the Charter of the Leadership Preparatory 3 Charter School (Brooklyn) - a proposed Resolution is attached. � Consideration of Approval of a Revision of the Charter of Harlem Success Academy Charter School 3 (Manhattan) - a proposed Resolution is attached. � General update on Institute activity including new application process It is anticipated that the Committee Chair will call for a motion to convene an Executive Session under provisions of Section 105 of Article 7 of the Public Officers Law: Proposed, pending or current litigation. Copy: The Board of Trustees, Observers, Nancy L. Zimpher, Chancellor, David Henahan, Chancellor�s Cabinet,NYC Office DRAFT State University of New York, Minutes of a Meeting of the Charter Schools Committee of the Board of Trustees held on June 15, 2010 Notice of a meeting of the Charter Schools Committee was duly given on June 10, 2010 (attached). Accordingly, a meeting was held on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 11 a.m. via videoconference from the following locations: 33 West 42nd Street, New York City (SUNY College of Optometry); 101 Broad Street, Plattsburgh (Feinburgh Library at SUNY Plattsburgh); and 353 Broadway, Albany (SUNY Plaza). The meeting was also webcast, accessible via http://www.suny.edu. Committee members present: Dr. Noguera, Chair; Ambassador Spielvogel; and Mr. Hunt. Staff members present: Mr. Chartock, Charter Schools Institute (the �Institute�); Mr. Rossi, the Institute; Ms. Proctor, the Institute; Dr. Sneed, the Institute; Mr. Hruby, the Institute; Mr. Franta, the Institute; and Ms. Slaughter, the Institute. A. CONVENING OF THE MEETING / APPROVAL OF MINUTES Dr. Noguera convened the meeting at 12:05 a.m. A quorum being present, he called for a motion to approve the minutes of the Committee�s meeting on May 3, 2010. Dr. Noguera called for a motion to approve the May 3, 2010 meeting minutes. Ambassador Speilvogel made the motion. Mr. Hunt provided the second. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Chartock informed the Committee that Institute staff was attending the meeting via videoconference from Albany as part of the Institute�s effort to reduce travel costs. B. COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS [Pursuant to Resolution No. 2008-81, dated May 13, 2008, �Committee Resolutions� detail proposed actions for which the Charter Schools Committee may make the final determination. All items discussed at the March 16th meeting were Committee Resolutions] The first agenda item was consideration of an extension to the charter of the Henry Johnson Charter School in Albany. Mr. Chartock provided the Committee with a brief overview of the proposal, summarized here for the record: Located in Albany, Henry Johnson currently serves 276 students in Kindergarten through 3rd grade. The school was chartered in October 2005 and did not begin instructing students until 2007, due to facility changes. The proposed charter extension would give the school back the two years of planning time that it took after first being chartered and before opening its doors to students. The extension would allow the school to accumulate the same amount of student achievement data as a similar school that did not take a planning year before it has to apply to renew its charter. The school administered state exams for the first time in May to its 3rd graders. Results are not yet available. Institute staff visited the school for the annual evaluation visit in March. Staff found that in its third year, the school has remained faithful to its mission and the key design elements included in its charter. Henry Johnson has made a number of improvements over the last two years, while making sufficient progress implementing its instructional program. Notably, high quality instruction was evident in all classrooms throughout the school at the time of the visit. If approved, the school would add the fourth grade in 2010-11 and increase enrollment from 275 students to 361 and then 387 students during the 2010-11 and 2011-12 school years, respectively. The Institute recommended that the committee approve the extension and that the charter also be revised to allow the enrollment variance of plus or minus 20 percent that is consistent with more recently awarded charters. Dr. Noguera commented that the resolution was straight-forward and asked whether there were any objections. Dr. Noguera then called for a motion to approve the extension to the charter of the Henry Johnson Charter School in Albany. Ambassador Spielvogel made the motion Mr. Hunt provided the second The motion passed unanimously The next agenda item was consideration of approval of a revision to the charter of the Bronx Charter School for Better Learning. Mr. Chartock provided the Committee with a brief overview of the proposal before them, summarized here for the record: The Bronx Charter School for Better Learning is requesting the enrollment variance of plus or minus 20 percent that is consistent with more recently awarded charters. The Bronx Charter School for Better Learning currently serves 355 students in Kindergarten through grade 5. Although the school does not have specific enrollment changes planned, it inquired whether it could receive such flexibility to which the Institute has no objection. The school received a full five-year renewal in 2008. The school�s renewal charter did not include the enrollment variance provision which the school now requests. Dr. Noguera called for a motion to approve the revision to the charter of the Bronx Charter School for Better Learning. Ambassador Spielvogel made the motion Mr. Hunt provided the second The motion passed unanimously The next agenda item was consideration of a revision to the charter of the Bronx Charter School for Excellence. Mr. Chartock provided the Committee with a brief overview of the proposal before them, which is summarized for the record here: The Bronx Charter School for Excellence currently serves 314 students in Kindergarten through grade 5. The school is requesting to add a middle school program, adding grades 6, 7, and 8 over the next three years. Adding the middle school program would increase enrollment, as detailed in the resolution presented to the Committee, ultimately to 496 students at the end of the current charter term. The SUNY Board of Trustees renewed the charter of the Bronx Charter School for Excellence for a term of five years without conditions in March 2009. The school has scored well on state assessments, with 98 percent of students testing at proficiency on last year�s mathematics exam and 91 percent of students testing at proficiency on last year�s English language arts exam. The Institute has reviewed the academic program elements and policies that would be affected by the school�s requested charter revision, including enrollment projections, curriculum, and staffing, and found them satisfactory. The school, which is currently housed in private space, is in the process of finalizing facility plans to accommodate the full anticipated enrollment. The school proposes to continue to serve students in Kindergarten through fourth grade in the existing space while leasing addition private space in the Bronx to accommodate grades 5 through 8. The additional space would likely be Catholic school space. The Institute will separately review and determine the suitability of any proposed additional facility prior to its use, in accordance with the school�s charter agreement. The Institute reviewed the proposed revision from legal and fiscal perspectives and finds it suitable under the Charter Schools Act (as amended) and applicable law. The Institute recommends that the Committee approve the proposed revision. Dr. Noguera called for a motion to approve the revision to the charter of the Bronx Charter School for Excellence. Ambassador Spielvogel made the motion. Mr. Hunt provided the second. The motion passed unanimously. The next agenda item was consideration of a revision to the charter of the Sisulu-Walker Charter School of Harlem. Mr. Chartock provided the Committee with a brief overview of the proposal before them, summarized here for the record: The Sisulu-Walker Charter School currently serves 272 students in Kindergarten through grade 5. Due to facility constraints, the school has had a rotating grade configuration to allow it to move cohorts of students through Kindergarten through grade 5 without having the space to operate all grades at once. In some years the school would not offer Kindergarten or first grade, but offer grades 2 through 5. Then they would start up offering Kindergarten again. It recently came to the Institute�s attention that the school�s charter was misaligned with the actual grades served. Pursuant to a resolution dated October 26, 2007, the SUNY Trustees authorized the Sisulu-Walker Charter School to change its grade structure during the 2008-09 school year to serve first through fifth grades and then to serve Kindergarten and second through fifth grades during the 2009-10 school year due to facility constraints. The resolution did not alter the projected enrollment of the school. Subsequent to that resolution, however, the school determined that it was capable of accommodating students in Kindergarten thorough fifth grade, and did so during the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years, though it did not seek a subsequent revision to its charter. The school indicated its understanding that the SUNY Board of Trustees had given it authority to reconfigure its grades if needed but that it still had the authority to teach its full complement of grades. This was an honest misunderstanding on the part of the school, and was something that the Institute did not pick up on. The resolution retroactively amends the schools� charter to accurately reflect grades served. The school has one more year in its current charter term, during which it will offer instruction in Kindergarten through grade 5. The Institute also recommends that the school be allowed the enrollment variance of plus or minus 20 percent that is consistent with more recently awarded charters. Dr. Noguera called for a motion to approve the revision to the charter of the Sisulu-Walker Charter School of Harlem. Ambassador Spielvogel made the motion. Mr. Hunt provided the second. The motion was passed unanimously. Mr. Chartock informed the Committee that several other resolutions for charter revisions were originally intended to be brought before them. These revisions involved schools that are sited in New York City Department of Education space, and the NYCDOE was not able to hold statutorily mandated hearings prior to the Committee meeting. The Institute will bring resolutions for those schools to the next Committee meeting so that the Committee may have the benefit of any comments that are made by the public or by the district at the hearings. After some discussion, Mr. Chartock explained that a July meeting of the Committee would avoid any charter violations. Mr. Chartock noted that changes to the Charter Schools Act regarding co-located space may help to lessen concerns about the use of New York City Department of Education facilities. He added that the Institute would impress upon schools that more time is needed to approve revisions so that NYCDOE hearings can be held prior to Committee meetings. C. BOARD RESOLUTIONS The only agenda item that would move forward to the Board of Trustees was consideration of a Federal Charter Schools Program grant award and a revision of a prior award. Mr. Chartock provided the Committee with a brief overview of the proposal before them, summarized here for the record: The first award is a dissemination grant to Our World Neighborhood Charter School in Queens. The grant provides $250,000 for dissemination activities over a 24-month program period. The grant allows OWN to disseminate best practices in the areas of school governance and leadership to other charter schools. OWN cannot use the money for its own school except to administer the dissemination program. The second award amends a previous award to the Icahn Charter School 5 to be located in the Bronx,. Some expenses that were deemed unallowable under the original request for proposal were misclassified expenses that could properly be allowable if included in a different budget line. The Institute recalculated the grant award and recommends that the Board of Trustees approve the higher allocation as described in the resolution. Dr. Noguera asked why the Committee�s action is needed if the grant money is going to the schools. Mr. Chartock replied that the SUNY administers the grants. Dr. Noguera then asked whether the Institute collected overhead from the grants. Mr. Chartock asked Institute Associate Vice President David Hruby to respond. Mr. Hruby explained that a small amount of overhead is collected and is used to pay a portion of the salary of one of the individuals who conducts this work. Dr. Noguera called for a motion to approve the grant award and revision. Ambassador Spielvogel made the motion. Mr. Hunt provided the second. The motion passed unanimously. D. GENERAL UPDATE Mr. Chartock then provided a brief general update. He noted that the Institute had recently held its annual Renewal Recognition Ceremony. He thanked the Ambassador and Chairman Noguera for attending, and also extended his thanks to Trustees Gondar and Lewin. He also thanked the Institute staff for their work and specifically thanked the Institute�s Director of Public Affairs, Cyndi Proctor, who organized the event. Mr. Chartock explained that the ceremony celebrated the fact that several schools authorized by the SUNY Trustees received the highest honor available, which is a full-term, five year renewal. Dr. Noguera commented that the ceremony was a great event. Ambassador Spielvogel asked who pays for the Renewal Recognition Ceremony. Mr. Chartock explained that the Institute paid for the event, but was able to keep the event�s budget lean with a small buffet and no cost for facility rental as the event was held at one of the schools being recognized. Ambassador Spielvogel also asked whether the event was publicized. Mr. Chartock explained that notification was sent to newspapers, to the district, and to all SUNY authorized charter schools. Mr. Chartock went on to discuss the changes to charter authorizing created by the recently-passed amendments to the state�s Charter Schools Act. The amendments increase the cap on the number of charter schools allowed in the state and give the SUNY Trustees permission to grant charters to 130 more schools. Simultaneously, the amendments increase the requirements for authorizers in making decisions about charter schools. He explained that the Institute is working to understand all of the new requirements and to create new processes to allow it to best complete its work. Additionally, Mr. Chartock explained that the Institute faced potential budget cuts of 70 percent, as indicated in resolutions being circulated in both the State Senate and the State Assembly. These cuts would be particularly debilitating in light of the Institute being tasked with overseeing an additional 130 schools. Mr. Hunt asked about the size of the Institute�s gross budget. Mr. Chartock indicated that the total budget is 2.6 and that the 1.7 that would be cut from the budget includes the Institute�s operating expenses that come out of the state�s Charter Stimulus Fund. The Assembly�s resolution eliminates the charter stimulus fund entirely, which includes some grant money that would go to charter schools. The Senate�s resolution makes cuts only to the SUNY Charter Schools Institute. Dr. Noguera asked whether the money to be cut is primarily staff money. Mr. Chartock responded that the money primarily pays for the Institute�s personnel. Dr. Noguera asked what the Institute is doing to educate legislators about the Institute�s work. Mr. Chartock explained that Senator Perkins� charter school hearings presented a great opportunity for the Institute to provide information about the extent and rigor of its work. The Institute has also communicated with Senate and Assembly staff, as well as with groups in the legislature and groups in communication with the legislature. Several legislators have specifically reached out for information, including Assemblymen Hoyt from Buffalo. Mr. Chartock explained that the Institute focuses on educating the public about its work. The Institute does not feel that it should lobby for specific legislation. Dr. Noguera asked about the status of the Institute�s funding in the Governor�s proposed budget. Mr. Chartock explained that the Governor�s budget made no cuts to the Institute. Mr. Hunt asked Mr. Chartock to verify that the amendments to the Charter Schools Act made no budgetary provisions. Mr. Chartock confirmed that this was true, and that the Institute has actually experienced a decrease in funding since the last time that the cap on charter schools was increased in 2007. Mr. Chartock then asked the Committee whether they would be available to meet in July to vote on the resolutions that the Institute was unable to bring to the June meeting. The Committee members agreed that they would be willing to explore potential dates in July. Mr. Chartock then initiated a discussion of the co-location of charter schools and district schools in New York City Department of Education facilities, as specified in the amendments to the State�s Charter School�s Act. He explained that based on discussions at the Committee�s last meeting, he had initiated conversations with NYCDOE regarding co-location. He noted that while these conversations were taking place, however, amendments to the State�s Charter Schools Act addressing co-location were passed requiring both the Institute and the NYCDOE to synthesize the impact of the new legislation. Mr. Chartock promised to bring updates on this process before the Committee during its next meeting. A review of the related amendments was provided by Mr. Rossi. A summary of his remarks appear below for the record: Amendments to the New York Charter Schools Act mandate procedures for the location or co-location of a charter school in New York City Department of Education space that are in addition to the procedures for a major change in utilization required by Article 52-A, or the �Mayoral Control Law,� which was amended in 2009. Prior to the passage of the Charter Schools Act amendments major changes in NYCDOE space utilization needed to be approved by a body know as the Panel for Educational Policy, which is the former New York City Board of Education, after the New York City Schools Chancellor prepared an educational impact statement and held a public hearing to solicit comments on the proposed change and after the PEP held a hearing on all utilization changes as well. The hearing and other procedures of the NYCDOE and the PEP were called into question by a decision in a lawsuit, which found the NYCDOE had not properly followed Article 52-A, and directed the NYC Schools Chancellor to do so. The case is now in State appellate court in Manhattan. The new restrictions are applicable to all charter schools in NYCDOE space whether or not their charters would be issued pursuant to the new Request For Proposal process created by the same amendments. Before a charter school may be located or co-located in NYCDOE space the NYC Schools Chancellor must: 1. Publicly identify the buildings that may be subject to charter school location or co-location; 2. Provide the rationale why a building is suitable for location or co-location of a charter school; 3. Make all such information publicly available including on the NYCDOE website; and 4. Provide �widespread� notice of such information including to the community superintendent, community district education council, and the school based management team (not defined in the Charter Schools Act amendments but typically the principals of all of the schools in the building). After the New York City Schools Chancellor has �selected� or �definitively identified� a NYCDOE building for location or co-location of a charter school, he must develop a building usage plan for each building that is identified for a proposed location or co-location. The plan must include, but is not limited to, the following information: 1. The actual allocation and sharing of classroom and administrative space between the charter and traditional school; 2. A proposal for the collaborative use of shared resources and spaces, i.e. cafeteria, library, gym/recreational space (playground) that ensures equitable access to such space in a similar manner and at reasonable times; 3. Justification of the feasibility of the proposed allocations and schedules of items 1 and 2 and how the proposed allocation and shared usage would result in an equitable and comparable use of the public school building; 4. Building safety and security; 5. Communication strategies to be used by the co-located schools; and 6. Collaborative decision-making strategies to be used by the co-located schools including the establishment of a shared space committee consisting of a principal, a teacher and a parent of each co-located school. A building usage plan must be included in the NYC Schools Chancellor�s educational impact statement, must be subject to that part of the Mayoral Control law, and then must be approved by the PEP. From SUNY�s perspective, any applicant, renewal school or school seeking to add enrollment or grades that proposes to be located in NYCDOE space should discuss in the application at what stage of the process the co-location approval is and provide proof of this. A building usage plan can be revised, but revision requires approval of the PEP. This means a revision to a building usage plan would require almost the same procedure as allocating space in a building to a new charter school. The final building usage plan must be made publicly available by the NYC Schools Chancellor (on the NYCDOE website, filed with the PEP, and provided to community education council, community boards, community superintendent and school based management team). The determination to locate a charter school in public school space and the implementation or compliance with a building usage plan may be appealed to the Commissioner of Education. A revision of a building usage plan may also be appealed on the grounds that it fails to meet the requirements of the Charter Schools Act. Such appeals must be responded to by the NYCDOE within 10 days and the Commissioner must decide the appeal within 10 days of receiving the NYCDOE�s response. The school shared space committee must meet regularly at least four times per year to review implementation of the building usage plan. Charter schools will have to develop a methodology for selecting the charter school teacher and parent who must serve on the committee. Significantly, no charter school co-located in NYCDOE space may spend more than $5,000 on �capital improvements� or �facility upgrades� regardless of the source of funding (including federal Charter School Program grants and state Charter School Stimulus Fund grants) without prior written approval of the New York City Schools Chancellor. If such upgrades are approved by the Chancellor, then each non-charter school in the building must receive the same dollar amount of facility upgrades or improvements within three months of the completion of the charter school upgrades. Mr. Rossi added that the Institute would have to have conversations with the New York City Department of Education regarding the timeline of the new process. He added that the new process for granting charters significantly shortens the time between a charter school�s approval and its opening, and that the Institute would explore whether this was feasible. Mr. Rossi also noted that the new requirements allow for increased public knowledge of co-location as well as public input into the co-location process. Additionally, he noted that the co-location process will be an ongoing process whereby interested parties will meet regularly to discuss co-location. He commented that the new requirements take significant steps toward addressing some of the concerns regarding collocation that have been raised by the Committee, as well as those concerns that have been raised by the public. Mr. Chartock added that the Institute views the changes as an opportunity to demonstrate the work that the Institute had already done regarding co-location. Ambassador Spielvogel asked who would represent the SUNY Trustees and the New York City Department of Education at the Institute�s meeting with the NYCDOE. Mr. Chartock explained that he and Dr. Noguera would attend the meeting and that all Committee members were welcome to attend the meeting as well. He speculated that either the Deputy Chancellor or the Chancellor would represent the New York City Department of Education. He added that he would provide the Committee with a report on the meeting. Mr. Noguera commented that it seemed as though the new process may exceed what the Trustees had intended. He stated that the SUNY Trustee�s objective is to ensure that collocation does not adversely impact another school and that space is adequate. The Trustees entrust the Institute to ensure that the NYCDOE�s recommendations regarding space are sound. Mr. Hunt asked how many charter schools are currently co-located. Ms. Proctor and Mr. Rossi explained that 31 out of the Trustees� 38 schools operating in New York City are collocated. No schools outside of New York City are collocated. The Tapestry Charter School in Buffalo leases space from the school district, but the City of Buffalo controls that space. However, the new regulations pertain only to New York City. Mr. Hunt then asked about the average class size in New York City in district schools compared with class size in charter schools. Dr. Sneed explained that class size varies depending on the model of the school and the details of the school�s charter. She estimated class size in charter schools to be between 18 and 28. Mr. Rossi added that he had attended hearings where charter school opponents claimed that collocation had caused class size to rise to as high as 32 students, but that this information was difficult to verify. Mr. Hunt then asked how class size for co-located SUNY authorized charter schools compares with the district schools with which they share space, and whether New York City Schools had reached their limits in terms of class size. Dr. Sneed explained that charter schools� class sizes tends to remain similar to what is specified in the school�s charter, regardless of whether the schools share space with other schools. She explained that class size varies depending on school and class features. Many district schools have class sizes comparable to charter schools, with 26 to 28 students per class. Some charter schools have very small classes, such as the Icahn schools which have 18 students per class. Other schools have larger classes; schools run by Uncommon Schools may have 28 students per class. Mr. Hunt next asked whether any situations exist where schools have combined classes or served multiple grade levels in one class, and whether this approach is effective. Ms. Sneed explained some schools use multi-grade classrooms, but when this situation occurs it is because the school is intentionally designed that way. She explained that this approach does work if it is structured properly. Mr. Rossi added that many schools use ability groupings rather than age groupings for reading, based on reading testing or on schools� placement exams. Mr. Noguera noted that the primary issues with co-located schools involve shared space, such as cafeterias and gymnasiums. He added that the relationship between the principals of the schools that share space is critical. He asked that the meeting between the Institute and the New York City Department of Education address the issue of ensuring that collocated principals are able to work together. E. ADJOURNMENT Dr. Noguera Adjourned the meeting at 12:38 p.m. Public Hearing Summaries Hearing # 1 Charter School: East New York Collegiate (pending name change to Brooklyn East Collegiate) Hearing Date: June 17, 2010 Hearing Location: K332 Campus, 51 Christopher Ave, Brooklyn, NY Start Time: 5:00 p.m. (sign-up began at 4:30) End Time: 6:00 p.m. Background: The hearing was to discuss the proposed co-location of Brooklyn East Collegiate in school building K332, located at 51 Christopher Avenue, Brooklyn (CSD 23). Brooklyn East Collegiate will serve grade 5 in 2010-11 with 78 students. At scale, the school will serve 250-270 students in 5-8. An Institute staff member toured the proposed location of the allocated space with a representative of the charter school and found that the space was adequate for the proposed co-location. P.S. 332 Charles H. Houston, a pre-K - 8 school is housed in school building K332 and had an enrollment of 500 students as of October 31, 2009. The building also houses an Alternative Learning Center (K992), but the actual enrollment is unknown.1 The 2008-09 utilization rate of the building was 60%, and its target capacity was 925. P.S. 332 Charles H. Houston was slated by the NYCDOE to be phased out of operation beginning in the 2010-11 school year; a decision that was subsequently overturned by the courts. However, the New York City Department of Education has concluded that the court decision did not impact the proposed co-location of Brooklyn East Collegiate in the K332 building. As a result, the K332 building will house P.S. 332, the K992 Alternative Learning Center, 23K747 (a new K-3 school with an enrollment of approximately 180 students at scale), and Brooklyn East Collegiate Charter School. Hearing Summary: A speaker sign-up sheet was placed at the entrance to the auditorium at 4:30 p.m. per the public notice. The hearing began promptly at 5:00 p.m. Five teachers from PS332 spoke at the hearing, as did one representative from the charter school; summaries of there testimony follow: The first teacher stated that she was against the charter school coming into the building because of fairness. She said it is not fair for two schools to compete for space when one school can choose who is eligible. She said that charter schools have tests before students come in, but traditional public schools cannot select incoming students. Charter schools should be competing with other charter schools. It is unfair because underachieving students are displaced by charter schools to other community schools. She challenged the charter school to allow anyone to come in the door without assessments. The second teacher stated that she has been teaching for 20 years, and she has stayed in that community because she cares about her students. She stated that the neighborhood has a high transient population, and kids don�t need to be further stressed by a confined space. Students should not see other students get more than they have. Unlike charter schools, public schools are not permitted to get rid of at-risk or special education students. Charter schools should stop taking public space from public schools, and they should open their own schools. She stated that this particular charter school should not be calling itself �Brooklyn East Collegiate� because it is elitist as it stigmatizes the community and signals that they are unwilling to use the �East NY� name. SUNY must consider the welfare of the children in deciding this co-location. The next teacher stated that she had been teaching at PS 332 for 26 years. She said she had choices about where she wanted to teach, but came to PS 332 because teachers care about their students, students have no voice, and parents are overwhelmed. She stated that one-fifth of parents are in temporary housing, and they were not present at the hearing because they are overwhelmed by their needs, for concerns for food and clothing. Charter schools encourage segregation for certain communities, and it is unfair that some kids will reap the rewards of private investors to have that which the public schools cannot provide. The country has been segregated in the past based on color, and now the New York Times has stated that Hispanics are underserved in charter schools because they do not speak English and because they are more difficult to teach. Hispanic students are marginalized, and they need opportunity to go to them. Another New York Times article stated that charter schools are not the success they are purported to be, as a majority of charters nationwide are no better based on standardized tests. A Stanford study stated that more than 37 percent of charters have done worse for kids nationally. The kids at PS332 have no home, no room, and now their school is treating them the same way. Children come to PS332 because it is their home. Charter schools need to find another space and leave public schools in tact. The Director of Operations for Brooklyn East Collegiate spoke next. She stated that she hears the concerns about the students, and that she appreciated the comments. She said she shares the same goal of academic success, and that they admit all students � they do have diagnostic tests but they are not used for admission. She said the school sent mail to all students in the surrounding area, and they admitted students from all over neighborhood. Twenty percent of their incoming class is special education, and the building was selected because space was available. She said she believed that they can work together with the public school and are excited to be in neighborhood. Finally, she stated that the school�s name change was to eliminate confusion with another charter school already having a similar name. Another teacher from PS332 stated that she does not see any reason why a charter school should be in the building. She has been at the school for 10 years, and the school is very important to the neighborhood. She said the system is not addressing the needs of students, as kids are merely moving from shelter to shelter. The concern shouldn�t be about a new school because the societal needs of kids are not being addressed. There is no way to gauge the growth of kids because there is so much mobility. Competition is good at times, but having a charter school the in same building is not realistic, it is just political. A charter school is not good for the future of this community. Rather than a good high school, they have a nice juvenile jail. Government needs to think of how to help the community instead of fighting for dollars. What is the charter school going to do to help the community when kids in the community don�t know where they are going to sleep? Nothing has been to help them, and they need to be raised out of poverty. Charter schools will not solve the problem. There are no parents at the hearing because if they are hungry, school takes a back seat. The final speaker, a teacher from PS332, stated that her concern is the unlevel playing ground. There is no screening in public schools, and they take whoever comes in the door, even if they are in a shelter. There is no pre-screening, and they do not get to know about IEPs until school starts. It is not a level field because charter schools have testing before students are admitted. Public schools have no choice if the child is absent, or if they have bad behavior. They have to keep kids in school no matter what, and they try to keep parents involved in what is going on in school and what opportunities are available to them. In their community, they do not get the parent participation they would like to have, and they cannot mandate that parents participate like in charter schools. She stated she has a problem when public funds are used for private entities in a public school building. She said that church schools are fighting to survive, and they can�t turn to the city for support even though they have very good scores. Church schools don�t get the ability to go into public schools because they are religious in nature. If a school gets any private funds, they should be in private space. The science room at PS332 will now be used for the charter school and will have to be moved to another floor. Charter schools are being closed � they are supposed to be model schools, supposed to be an example to take what works and use it in the public schools, but people saw that it was a money-making business. The city is trying to push for more charter schools to get more federal money. They are not reforming public education, but just bringing in more charter schools. They are just making the tests easier so kids are approaching achievement in order to pass on to the next grade. The January 26 PEP vote was declared null and void by the court, but the city is still going ahead with placing a charter school in PS332. All decisions made on that day were declared void, and the co-location of this charter school was also decided on that day. Hearing #2 Charter School: Bronx Success Academy Charter School 1 Hearing Date: June 17, 2010 Hearing Location: PS 30, 510 East 141st Street, Bronx Start Time: 5:25 End Time: 6:30 Background: The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the co-location of the Bronx Success Academy 1 Charter School in building X030, located at 510 East 141st Street, Bronx (CSD 7). BSA 1 will open with approximately 180 kindergarten and grade 1 students in 2010-2011 and, pending renewal of its charter in 2015, will grow to its full grade K-8 scale with approximately 800-811 students in 2017-18. BSA 1�s grades K and 1 would be co-located with P.S. 30 Wilton (�P.S. 30�), which serves grades Pre-K-5. X030 has sufficient space for two grade levels of BSA 1 and P.S. 30 to operate at full organizational capacity. The 2008-09 target utilization rate of X030 was 72% and its target capacity is 710.1 The October 31, 2009 Audited Register at P.S. 30 was 494 students, which indicates that there are approximately 216 available seats in the X030 building. The projected building utilization in 2010-2011 with both BSA 1 and P.S. 30 in the X030 building is 94%. Hearing Summary: Carol Joseph, teacher leadership team co-chair, said the move will affect the facility as far as space. Clusters have no place to go. The extra furniture has no place to go. In the past extra students were put into extra space that will no longer exist. They will have to share the public areas and will have to juggle. She said we try to keep class size low but will have 35 kids per class now. Roxan Marks, principal stated that the school has started to re-organize based on incoming students. They will not have a cluster room even though they were promised two cluster rooms. The parent resource room will now be a classroom and there will be two new K grades. The charter school will have 9 rooms and 2 clusters. PS30 will have 26 classes and no cluster rooms, two resource and 2 clusters but there are not enough rooms for science or art or computer rooms. Tripled up speech teacher and has ESL and SETTS people in a room together. The school�s intervention room will stay. A 12 to 1 K class was added Friday and not taken into consideration. The Office of Portfolio Planning knows about the addition but didn�t take it into consideration.� She said there are other schools that have less enrollment and more space. She could have given 7 rooms but 11 is too much. The charter school should leave something for the district school.� Walton Phillips had a number of concerns. Even if the school has 2 cluster rooms he will have to walk around with his science materials for 5 classes a day. He was also concerned about the gym. Will the kids only get one or two gym classes a week? There is no space for kids to practice for track on the school property. There are 3 lunch sessions now, but there will be too short of a period between breakfast and lunch. Back in the day they shared the space and emphasis was placed on the other school. They want a civil relationship between the schools but enough space for both. Henry Pena, parent of a student in HSA3, said his son has been there two years and is very happy with the results of�the education he is receiving. He doesn't want to knock this school, as it�appears to be a nice school. Another parent said she came from a school that was overtaken by an HSA school and she wants to be sure that there is space for both. She does not understand where the city stands giving preference to the charter school. Lunch will be a problem; who will get the best lunch times? She did not see why the charter school gets their way all the time. This year may be fine but eventually she feels PS 30 won't exist. She doesn't think the charter school will take all their kids. Special needs kids will be pushed out in the short run. Where would they go? When does the district school get what they want? She said the city will favor Ms. Moskowitz. She added that it is not fair for kids or teachers and it is aggravating. There will no longer be a computer or science room. One woman spoke of kids being pushed out of the charter school. There is a parochial school nearby that the charter school should use.� A teacher expressed concern that services will be provided in a hallway. It should be private. Where will they get the services? M E M O R A N D U M July 8, 2010 TO: Members of the Charter Schools Committee FROM: Pedro A. Noguera, Chair, Charter Schools Committee SUBJECT: Revision of the Charter of the Leadership Preparatory 3 Charter School (Brooklyn) I recommend that the Charter Schools Committee adopt the following resolution: Whereas the Leadership Preparatory 3 Charter School (the �School�), located in Brooklyn and pending a name change to Leadership Preparatory Ocean Hill Charter School, desires to increase its current charter enrollment to reflect the following: - in the 2010-2011 school year, an increase from 116 students in Kindergarten through first grade to 145 students in the same grades; - in the 2011-2012 school year, an increase from 171 students in Kindergarten through second grade to 232 students in the same grades; and - in the 2012-2013 school year, an increase from 223 students in Kindergarten through third grade to 313 students in the same grades; (collectively, the �Proposed Change in Program�); now, therefore, be it Resolved that the Charter Schools Committee finds: 1) the Proposed Change in Program meets the requirements of Article 56 of the Education Law (and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations); 2) approval of the Proposed Change in Program (together with the other terms of the School�s charter) would permit the School to operate in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and 3) approval of the Proposed Change in Program is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the objectives of the Charter Schools Act; and be it further Resolved that the Proposed Change in Program be, and hereby is, approved as a proposed revision to the School�s charter; and be it further Resolved that the Charter Schools Institute, be, and hereby is, directed to: 1) enter into a proposed revision to the School�s charter, such revision to incorporate the Proposed Change in Program and such assurances and terms as the Institute shall deem necessary and appropriate; and 2) thereafter to submit the revision to the Board of Regents for its review, comment and potential approval. BACKGROUND Pursuant to Resolution No. 2008-81 dated May 13, 2008, the Board of Trustees delegated authority to make charter revisions to the Charter Schools Committee. Pursuant to Education Law subdivision 2857(1), the Charter Schools Institute (the �Institute�) notified the school district of location of the charter school regarding the receipt of an application for charter revision (copy on file in the Albany Office of the Institute). As of July 2, 2010, the Board of Trustees did not receive any comments in response. The Institute has determined that the proposed enrollment changes require a revision of the school�s charter pursuant to subdivision 2852(7) of the Education Law, which must be approved by the Board of Trustees in its capacity as a �charter entity� under the Charter Schools Act. The Institute has reviewed the proposed staffing plan and budget that would be affected by the School�s requested charter revision and found them satisfactory. The School seeks this charter revision due to overwhelming demand for its Kindergarten class. The School, which is currently housed in public space, proposes to continue to serve students in Kindergarten through third grade in the existing public space for the remainder of its charter term. The School was to be located in IS271 for three years based on its original allocation of space. The revision will permit the School to stay in IS271 for only two years after which it will have to find another facility. The School is engaged in discussions to find such a space. The Institute has reviewed the proposed revision from the legal and fiscal perspectives and finds it suitable under the Charter Schools Act (as amended) and applicable law. Based on the foregoing, the Institute recommends that the Charter Schools Committee approve the proposed revision. M E M O R A N D U M July 8, 2010 TO: Members of the Charter Schools Committee FROM: Pedro A. Noguera, Chair, Charter Schools Committee SUBJECT: Revision of the Charter of Harlem Success Academy Charter School 3 (Manhattan) I recommend that the Charter Schools Committee adopt the following resolution: Whereas the Harlem Success Academy Charter School 3 (the �School�), located in Manhattan, desires to increase its current charter enrollment to reflect the following: - in the 2010-2011 school year, an increase from 363 students in Kindergarten through third grade to 468 students in the same grades; - in the 2011-2012 school year, an increase from 473 students in Kindergarten through fourth grades to 531 students in the same grades; - in the 2012-2013 school year, an increase from 575 students in grades Kindergarten through fifth grade to 606 students in the same grades; (collectively, the �Proposed Change in Program�); now, therefore, be it Resolved that the Charter Schools Committee finds: 1) the Proposed Change in Program meets the requirements of Article 56 of the Education Law (and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations); 2) approval of the Proposed Change in Program (together with the other terms of the School�s charter) would permit the School to operate in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and 3) approval of the Proposed Change in Program is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the objectives of the Charter Schools Act; and be it further Resolved that the Proposed Change in Program be, and hereby is, approved as a proposed revision to the School�s charter; and be it further Resolved that the Charter Schools Institute, be, and hereby is, directed to: 1) enter into a proposed revision to the School�s charter, such revision to incorporate the Proposed Change in Program and such assurances and terms as the Institute shall deem necessary and appropriate; and 2) thereafter to submit the revision to the Board of Regents for its review, comment and potential approval. BACKGROUND Pursuant to Resolution No. 2008-81 dated May 13, 2008, the Board of Trustees delegated authority to make charter revisions to the Charter Schools Committee. Pursuant to Education Law subdivision 2857(1), the Charter Schools Institute (the �Institute�) notified the school district of location of the charter school regarding the receipt of an application for charter revision (copy on file in the Albany Office of the Institute). As of July 2, 2010, the Board of Trustees did not receive any comments in response. The Institute has determined that the proposed enrollment changes require a revision of the school�s charter pursuant to subdivision 2852(7) of the Education Law, which must be approved by the Board of Trustees in its capacity as a �charter entity� under the Charter Schools Act. The Institute has reviewed the proposed staffing plan and budget that would be affected by Harlem Success Academy Charter School 3�s (the �School�s�) requested charter revision and found them satisfactory. The School, which is currently housed in public space at the M101 facility in Manhattan, proposes to increase its enrollment consistent with the terms of this resolution because it inadvertently admitted more students than permitted through its lottery process and then did not want to notify those parents that they could not attend the charter school. PS101 has left the facility as of June 2010, and neither of the other two schools located in the building (PS811 and PS375/Mosaic (which entered the building at the same time as the School)) have planned expansions. As such, the New York City Department of Education has demonstrated its willingness to accommodate the School�s expansion by allocating the vacated space in M101 to the School for the 2010-11 school year. The issue of whether this space utilization change was substantial enough to trigger the Panel for Educational Policy process under the Education Law was specifically raised with the New York City Department of Education, which has concluded that the change is not substantial. The Institute has reviewed the proposed revision from the legal and fiscal perspectives and finds it suitable under the Charter Schools Act (as amended) and applicable law. Based on the foregoing, the Institute recommends that the Charter Schools Committee approve the proposed revision. M E M O R A N D U M July 8, 2010 TO: Members of the Charter Schools Committee FROM: Pedro A. Noguera, Chair, Charter Schools Committee SUBJECT: Revision of the Charter of Achievement First Brownsville Charter School (Brooklyn) I recommend that the Charter Schools Committee adopt the following resolution: Whereas the Achievement First Brownsville Charter School (the �School�), located in Brooklyn, desires to decrease its current charter enrollment and grades served to reflect the following: - in the 2010-2011 school year, a decrease from 411 students in Kindergarten through third grade and grade five to 342 students in Kindergarten through third grade; - in the 2011-2012 school year, a decrease from 567 students in Kindergarten through sixth grade to 416 students in Kindergarten through fourth grade; and - in the 2012-2013 school year, a decrease from 645 students in Kindergarten through seventh grade to 501 students in Kindergarten through fifth grade; (collectively, the �Proposed Change in Program�); now, therefore, be it Resolved that the Charter Schools Committee finds: 1) the Proposed Change in Program meets the requirements of Article 56 of the Education Law (and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations); 2) approval of the Proposed Change in Program (together with the other terms of the School�s charter) would permit the School to operate in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and 3) approval of the Proposed Change in Program is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the objectives of the Charter Schools Act; and be it further Resolved that the Proposed Change in Program be, and hereby is, approved as a proposed revision to the School�s charter; and be it further Resolved that the Charter Schools Institute, be, and hereby is, directed to: 1) enter into a proposed revision to the School�s charter, such revision to incorporate the Proposed Change in Program and such assurances and terms as the Institute shall deem necessary and appropriate; and 2) thereafter to submit the revision to the Board of Regents for its review, comment and potential approval. BACKGROUND Pursuant to Resolution No. 2008-81 dated May 13, 2008, the Board of Trustees delegated authority to make charter revisions to the Charter Schools Committee. Pursuant to Education Law subdivision 2857(1), the Charter Schools Institute (the �Institute�) notified the school district of location of the charter school regarding the receipt of an application for charter revision (copy on file in the Albany Office of the Institute). As of July 2, 2010, the Board of Trustees did not receive any comments in response. The Institute has determined that the proposed enrollment changes require a revision of the school�s charter pursuant to subdivision 2852(7) of the Education Law, which must be approved by the Board of Trustees in its capacity as a �charter entity� under the Charter Schools Act. The Institute has reviewed the proposed staffing plan and budget that would be affected by Achievement First Brownsville�s (the �School�s�) requested charter revision and found them satisfactory. The School, which is currently housed in public space, proposes to continue to expand but only serve students in Kindergarten through fifth grade rather than through seventh grade, at full capacity. Therefore, the school will have reduced enrollment in the existing public space for the remainder of its charter term. Before opening, the School revised its charter to create an enrollment and growth plan where the School would begin and grow simultaneously both an elementary and middle school program. Under the revised enrollment and growth plan, the School will not begin its fifth grade until year five of the initial charter term. In year three, the School would serve students in Kindergarten through third grade; in year four, Kindergarten through fourth grade; and in year five, Kindergarten through fifth grade. The School decided to delay its middle school program to allow more time to find and retain an appropriate middle school leader. The Institute has reviewed the proposed revision from the legal and fiscal perspectives and finds it suitable under the Charter Schools Act (as amended) and applicable law. Based on the foregoing, the Institute recommends that the Charter Schools Committee approve the proposed revision.