State University of New York Minutes of a Meeting of the Education, College Readiness and Success Committee of the Board of Trustees held on January 10, 2011 Notice of a meeting of the Education, College Readiness and Success Committee was duly given on January 3, 2011 (attached). Accordingly, a meeting was held on Monday, January 10, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. in the following location: SUNY Global Center, 116 East 55th Street, New York, NY. The meeting was also webcast, accessible via http://www.suny.edu. Committee Members present: Trustee Noguera, Chair Trustee Gondar; Trustee Hunt; Trustee Lewin; Trustee O’Brien; and Ambassador Spielvogel. System Leadership present: Chancellor’s Deputy and Vice Chancellor Duncan-Poitier; and Provost LaVallee. Other SUNY Representatives Susan Miller Barker, SUNY Charter Schools Institute and Staff present: (the “Institute”); Aimee Bernstein, Office of the Senior Vice Chancellor and Secretary; Jill Lansing, Office of the Chancellor’s Deputy; Ron Miller, the Institute; Ralph Rossi, Esq., the Institute; Jason Sarsfield, the Institute; and Paul Wright, the Institute. Others present: Seth Andrew, Democracy Prep Public Schools; Paul O’Neil, Attorney for Harlem Day Charter School; Curtis Palmore, Harlem Day Charter School; Leslie Redwine, Achievement First, Inc.; and Dr. Deborah Shanley, Achievement First- Bushwick Charter School. A. CONVENING OF THE MEETING / APPROVAL OF MINUTES Trustee Noguera convened the meeting at 3:00 p.m. Trustee Noguera asked that a roll-call be taken. Mr. Rossi conducted the roll and confirmed that all Committee members were present, a full quorum. Trustee Noguera began by introducing Susan Miller Barker, the new Interim Executive Director of the SUNY Charter Schools Institute. He explained that Ms. Miller Barker would: 1) help the Committee define the parameters of the search for a permanent Executive Director; 2) work with Johanna Duncan Poitier to explore the Institute’s role in the P-16 education pipeline; 3) develop a framework for the research agenda of the Institute; and 4) streamline the charter school authorizing process for the Institute and the Trustees. Trustee Noguera explained that Ms. Miller Barker had served as the Institute’s Senior Vice President between 2001 and 2005 before moving on to serve as the Vice President for Research and Evaluation at the National Association of Charter School Authorizers. He said Ms. Miller Barker is a nationally sought-after education consultant who has continued to stay involved with the Institute over the years by acting as an external evaluator on new applications and an external team member for school and evaluation visits. He shared with the Committee that Ms. Miller Barker is a member of Harvard’s Urban Superintendent’s Program She holds an Ed.M. from Harvard University's Graduate School of Education, where she has completed all doctoral coursework in Administration, Planning and Social Policy and was awarded the 1999 Edward J. Meade, Jr. Fellowship.  Trustee Noguera then called for a motion to approve the minutes of the Committee’s meeting on November 17, 2010. Trustee Lewin made the motion. Trustee Hunt provided the second. Ms. Gondar asked whether she should abstain as she had not been present at the previous meeting. The motion passed with one abstention. B. REPORT OF THE CHANCELLOR’S DEPUTY FOR THE EDUCATION PIPELINE AND VICE CHANCELLOR FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES Vice Chancellor Duncan-Poitier shared an update with the committee on education pipeline activities. * Smart Scholars Early College High Schools – In 2009, a four-year, $6 million grant was awarded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to college and university/high school partnerships to establish the first cohort of 11 Smart Scholars Early College High Schools. SUNY and EdWorks received $500,000 to serve as the intermediary for the network. This year, an additional $6 million has been allocated by the State to establish a second cohort of Smart Scholars Early College High School partnerships. SUNY and EdWorks will continue to serve as intermediary for the network. * Cradle to Career Networks – SUNY is actively involved in launching three cradle to career networks New York - in Harlem with the Abyssinian Development Corporation and SUNY Old Westbury; in Buffalo with Buffalo State College, Empire State College, Erie Community College, and the University at Buffalo; and in Albany with the University at Albany, Hudson Valley Community College, and Empire State College. Chancellor Zimpher is leading the Albany network. The federal government is interested in supporting the development of a national network modeled after Strive in Cincinnati and the Harlem Children’s Zone. SUNY is creating a strong systemic replicable model that is not dependent on additional resources. SUNY leaders will be attending the Strive national cradle to career convening in February in Alexandria, VA. * Teaching – Chancellor Zimpher, along with U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and other national education leaders, announced the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning, convened by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, in November 2010. Eight states, including New York, have agreed to implement the panel's recommendations. To lead the charge, eight SUNY colleges and universities with teacher education programs applied for Race to the Top funding to create clinically-based graduate-level teacher education models with our most challenged schools. Trustee Noguera and Trustee Lewin suggested that the partnerships between SUNY colleges and universities and our lowest-performing schools could serve as a model for transforming teaching and learning across the State and the nation. Following the State Education Department’s release of the Request for Proposals (RFP) to establish graduate-level clinically-based programs, additional RFPs are expected for undergraduate teacher education and school leadership programs. Both colleges and universities and non-traditional preparation programs are eligible to apply. * Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) - On January 11th, SUNY is co-hosting a panel on the "Future of Science Education in New York" with the New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) in New York City. Chancellor Zimpher will be featured on the panel with Board of Regents Vice Chancellor Milton Cofield, State Education Department Commissioner David Steiner, and New York City Department of Education Deputy Chief Schools Officer for Academics Josh Thomases. * SUNYWORKS - The Lumina Foundation awarded SUNY $800,000 to launch the SUNY WORKS co-op initiative that is featured in the SUNY strategic plan. As a Lumina Foundation grantee, SUNY is part of a nationwide adult degree completion network, known as the Lumina 12, that is focused on increasing college degree completion rates. C. COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS [Pursuant to Resolution No. 2010-117, dated September 15, 2010, “Committee Resolutions” detail proposed actions for which the Education, College Readiness and Success Committee may make the final determination.] Before introducing the Institute’s proposed renewal recommendations, Ms. Miller Barker explained that she arrived at the Institute just as the staff was finalizing this work. She acknowledged Dr. Miller, Mr. Sarsfield, and the rest of the Institute staff members who had worked on the recommendations. Ms. Miller Barker said that the first three resolutions pertained to schools applying for subsequent renewal; schools that had previously undergone the renewal process. According to SUNY policy, she explained, because these schools have had more time to stabilize their operations and also tend to have a longer track record of test scores, subsequent renewals decisions rely heavily on evaluating whether or not a school has met its accountability plan goals. She said that for subsequent renewal, there are only two possible renewal outcomes: a full-term, five-year renewal or a non-renewal, which would result in the school’s closure. * Consideration of the application to renew the charter of Icahn Charter School 1 Ms. Miller Barker said that the Institute is recommended a full-term five year renewal for Icahn Charter School 1. She provided the Committee with a brief overview of the proposed resolution, summarized here for the record: Icahn Charter School 1 (“Icahn 1”) is located in the Bronx and is currently in its 10th year of operation. The school has 338 students in Kindergarten through grade 8. The school has consistently met its accountability plan goals in English language arts and mathematics. Of students who have attended the school for two or more years, 93 percent have achieved proficiency in English language arts and 99.5 percent have achieved proficiency in mathematics. The Institute recommends a full-term, five year renewal of the charter. Trustee Noguera asked whether the scores Ms. Miller Barker reported were from the new standards for New York State. Ms. Miller Barker replied that the figures were based on the old standards. Trustee Noguera then asked whether the scores had been recalculated. Dr. Miller responded that the scores had been recalculated, but that the Institute wanted to be consistent in measurement of the standards that it had put forth. The Institute considered both the old and the new scores. Trustee Noguera then said it would be helpful to know how the figures would look under the new standards, as other schools would be judged on the new standards going forward. Dr. Miller explained that the Renewal Recommendation Report included both figures. Trustee Lewin then noted that the school serves students in Kindergarten through grade 8 and has had graduated two classes of students from the 8th grade. She asked whether there was a specific high school that students from Icahn Charter School 1 fed into. Ms. Miller Barker explained that students can apply to any of the charter high schools, or any of the district-level high school programs in the city. Mr. Sarsfield added that the students go on to a variety of public schools, as well as private schools. He noted that some of the students have gone on to very prestigious private schools. Trustee Lewin commented that the school had achieved nice numbers. Ms. Miller Barker agreed. Trustee Noguera then called for a motion to approve the charter renewal of Icahn Charter School 1. Trustee Spielvogel made the motion. Trustee Gondar provided the second. The motion passed unanimously. * Consideration of the application to renew the charter of Sisulu-Walker Charter School of Harlem. Ms. Miller Barker said that the Institute is recommended a full-term, five-year renewal for Sisulu-Walker Charter School of Harlem. She provided the Committee with a brief overview of the proposed resolution, summarized here for the record: The Sisulu-Walker Charter School of Harlem (“Sisulu”) is in its 12th year of operation. The school serves 261 students in Kindergarten through grade 5. Sisulu contracts with a for-profit education management company Victory Schools. The school has consistently met its accountability plan goals in mathematics and met its English language arts goal in each all but the most recent year. Of students attending the school for two or more years, 91 percent have achieved proficiency in mathematics. Average ELA proficiency of students in the school for two or more years dropped from 89 percent to 68 percent in the last year. Even with this decline, the school did continue to perform its local Community School District and similar schools statewide with like percentages of students eligible for free lunch. Additionally, the school has worked aggressively to address deficiencies in ELA. Institute staff has found that the current principal, who is in her second year, is providing exceptionally strong instructional leadership and introducing a number of new systems, including a very systemic teacher evaluation system. Trustee Lewin asked whether there is any need to monitor the school, noting that the school had implemented new systems. Mr. Miller explained that in addition to onsite visits, the Institute continually monitors schools’ assessment results and looks at their annual progress reports using various mechanisms to keep track of their performance even after renewal. Trustee Noguera then called for a motion to approve the charter renewal of Sisulu-Walker Charter School of Harlem. Trustee Spielvogel made the motion. Trustee Hung provided the second. The motion passed unanimously. * Consideration of the application to renew the charter of Buffalo United Charter School. Ms. Miller Barker said that the Institute was recommended a full-term, five year renewal for the Buffalo United Charter School. She provided the Committee with a brief overview of the proposed resolution, summarized here for the record: The Buffalo United Charter School (“Buffalo United”) is in its 8th year of operation, currently serving 596 students in Kindergarten through grade 8. The school contracts with the for-profit education management company, National Heritage Academies. The school has consistently met its mathematics accountability plan goals and has met its overall ELA goal in two of the three years of its accountability period. Of students attending the school for two or more years, 81 percent scored at or above proficiency in math. In the most recent year average ELA proficiency of students in the school for two or more years dropped from a prior 73 percent to 60 percent. The school has not met its 75 percent proficiency target in ELA during this charter period. Even with the drop in ELA performance, Buffalo United outperforms the Buffalo City School District by more than 10 percentage points. With a large percentage of students eligible for free lunch, the school performed at a notably higher level than expected among all schools state-wide. Buffalo United has benefited from a proactive board that has been notably responsive to the recent decline in performance by requesting changes in the support received from the school’s management company and instituting new programs designed to enhance school culture and improve academic rigor in the 7th and 8th grades. Notably, Buffalo United has effectively provided a wrap around program through its partnership with the Boys and Girls Club of Buffalo that provides year-round and summer school activities. Trustee Noguera asked Ms. Miller Barker to elaborate on the school’s plan surrounding English language arts. Ms. Miller Barker asked Institute staff to respond. Mr. Miller explained that the school was able to pinpoint the specific shortcomings in the program, especially in the 8th grade, and instituted a set of interventions to that particular population of at-risk students. These actions gave the Institute confidence that the school’s program is moving in the right direction. Trustee Noguera asked Mr. Miller to clarify whether a new curriculum had been implemented. Mr. Sarsfield explained that the school had taken on an academic dean focused exclusively at grades 7 and 8, grades that have been which have historically been a challenge for this school. He said the school had not only increased its efforts with new material and analysis, but had also increased personnel supports for teachers in upper grades. Mr. Rossi noted that the school “backfills” its grades by taking on new students at every grade level as space become available. He noted that this has an influence on the school’s scores. Trustee Noguera then called for a motion to approve the charter renewal of Buffalo United Charter School. Trustee Lewin made the motion. Trustee Gondar provided the second. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Miller Barker then explained that the remaining three renewal decisions before the Committee were for initial renewal with each school is in its 5th year of operation and applying to the Trustees to renew its charter for the first time. According to the Trustees’ renewal practices, initial charter renewal considers: the effectiveness of a school’s academic program by the degree to which it has met its academic Accountability Plan goals; and the quality of the instructional program in place at the school during the charter period, as assessed using the SUNY’s Qualitative Education Benchmarks. She said that this policy takes in to consideration the growing pains associated with school start-up. For initial charter renewal, three possible outcomes are provided: a full-term renewal of five years; a short-term renewal, typically of three years; or a non-renewal. * Consideration of the application to renew the charter of True North Rochester Preparatory Charter School Ms. Miller Barker said that the Institute would be recommending a full-term, five-year renewal for True North Rochester Preparatory Charter School. She began by informing the Committee that she had been a founding board member of this school and until accepting the position of Interim Executive Director at the Institute, was the founding Board Chair of Rochester Prep’s sister school, True North Troy Preparatory Charter School in Troy, New York. She reminded the Committee that, as with all of the other renewal decisions discussed at the meeting she had not been involved with the development of the Institute’s renewal recommendations. Ms. Miller Barker provided the Committee with a brief overview of the proposed resolution, summarized here for the record: Rochester Prep serves a total of 453 students in Kindergarten and 1st grade, and 5th through 8th grade. Having originally opened as a middle school, the school requested and the Trustees approved, the addition of the elementary program last year. The school will grow one grade per year until it serves the entire continuum of grades in Kindergarten through grade 8. The school contracts with Uncommon Schools Inc., a not-for-profit charter management organization, to administer the school’s program. The Trustees have approved two replications of Rochester Prep, a second school in Rochester and the other in Troy. Rochester Prep has consistently met its key Accountability Plan goals in ELA and mathematics, essentially meeting all measures for both goals throughout the charter period. The school is in good standing under the state’s NCLB accountability system. Mr. Rossi added that the school had also entered into a partnership with the Rochester City School District, and Superintendent Brizard, who attended the previous Committee meeting. Trustee Noguera asked what areas were included in the partnership. Mr. Rossi responded that the compact was between Rochester area charter schools and the school district to increase collaboration and share best practices. Trustee Noguera then called for a motion to approve the charter renewal of True North Rochester Preparatory Charter School. Trustee Spielvogel made the motion. Trustee Lewin provided the second. The motion passed unanimously. * Consideration of the application to renew the charter of Albany Community Charter School. Ms. Miller Barker said the Institute was recommending a full-term, five-year renewal for Albany Community Charter School. She provided the Committee with a brief overview of the proposed resolution, summarized here for the record: Albany Community Charter School (“Albany Community”) serves 341 students in Kindergarten through grade 4. The school has met its key accountability plan goals in the English Language Arts and Mathematics. Of the students attending the school for two or more years, 100 percent scored at or above proficiency on their state exam in mathematics. On the English Language Arts exam, 87 percent of the students at the school for two or more years score at proficiency. The school is in good standing under No Child Left Behind. Trustee Noguera then called for a motion to approve the charter renewal of Albany Community Charter School. Trustee Hunt made the motion. Trustee Spielvogel provided the second. The motion passed unanimously. * Consideration of the application to renew the charter of Achievement First – Bushwick Charter School. Ms. Miller Barker informed the Committee that while this school had applied for a full-term renewal, the Institute was recommended a short-term renewal of three year only with a condition requiring immediate improvement of the school’s program for students who are English language learners. She provided the Committee with a brief overview of the proposed resolution, summarized here for the record: Achievement First-Bushwick Charter School (“AF Bushwick”) is located in Brooklyn and serves 664 students in Kindergarten through grade 8. The school is one of four SUNY authorized schools that contracts with the not-for-profit charter management organization Achievement First. As a part of its renewal request, the school has asked to add one additional grade in each year of the renewal charter term. If granted, 9th grade students will enter a co-located high school. AF Bushwick students would attend the high school with students from two other Achievement First affiliated schools, Achievement First Crown Heights and Achievement First Endeavor, both authorized by the New York City Schools Chancellor. The school has a compiled an ambiguous or mixed record of educational achievement in meeting its academic Accountability Plan goals. However, the school does have in place an academic program of sufficient strength and effectiveness that, with the condition imposed, will likely result in the school’s being able to meet or come close to meeting those goals with the additional three years that a Short-Term Renewal would permit. Trustee Noguera asked where specifically the school is located. Ms. Redwine responded that the school is located in Community School District 32 in Brooklyn. Mr. Rossi added that the has two sites: one at 31 Greene Avenue and the other at 125 Covert Street. Trustee Gondar asked for confirmation that the resolution was written so that, if approved, the school would add a grade in each year of the short-term renewal. Ms. Miller Barker confirmed that that was true. Mr. Rossi explained that at the school’s discretion it would entertain a high school program. This decision would be up to the school’s board, however they are not required to do so. There would be an understanding that those students currently in the 8th grade would be in the 11th grade and would therefore not yet have graduated by the end of the renewal term. It is possible that the school could not be renewed in that year. He added that it seemed that the school believed it would be able to achieve a full term renewal when it comes up for renewal next. Trustee Gondar then asked what would happen to the 11th grades at the school if it was not renewed after the coming charter term. Mr. Rossi explained that the 11th graders would have to go to another school at that point. He explained that the Committee may also choose to let the students finish out their final year, noting that nothing of that sort had been done previously. Mr. Rossi explained that the high school exists already, and consists of schools not authorized by the SUNY Trustees. He added that there is no provision in the Charter Schools Act to let the students simply enter the high school by means other than a lottery if AF Bushwick is closed. Trustee Noguera asked what factors contributed to the school’s struggles in the area of English language arts and turned to representatives from the school who were present. Ms. Esthers Redwine said that the Achievement First schools were facing what she believed to be an “ELA crisis,” noting that other schools in the network faced similar challenges. She referred to the work currently underway to address this problem on ELA as remarkable, explaining that representatives of Achievement First had visit an Uncommon school, as well as other high-performing schools. Ms. Redwine noted that the school backfills its grades, accepting new students into all grades when seats are open. Trustee Noguera commented that there was unevenness in the school’s scores. He noted that the school seemed to have a problem in its 5th grade, and asked Ms. Redwine whether she was looking into this. Ms. Redwine responded that she absolutely was. Ms. Miller Barker asked the Institute staff to comment on the program on the ground at the school. Mr. Miller said that the Chairman in the past had asked the Institute to make sure that the scores and the program validate each other. He noted that this was the case for AF Bushwick. The Institute saw that there were issues about the implementation of the ELA program on the ground that supported the kind of scoring that they got. Now the school was beginning to put mechanisms in place that would give the Institute confidence for the future. In keeping with the three year short-term renewal policy, the school would hopefully realize student achievement at the levels expected by the end of the renewal charter term. Ms. Duncan-Poitier noted that Ms. Redwine had mentioned that some of Achievement First’s efforts were remarkable, and asked Ms. Redwine to elaborate on this. Ms. Redwine explained that Achievement First manages a number of schools both in New York and in Connecticut. She noted that Achievement First had approached this same issue with one of its Connecticut schools, which it subsequently turned around. She added that another thing Achievement First has done is to ensure that the school has excellent teachers in every classroom by providing professional development at the elementary level and ensuring that teachers at the middle school level have a strong track record. She noted that Achievement First had created a system to track how well our students are doing and using a platform that would report out to the school’s board on a regular basis. This has helped the school to be more proactive in responding to areas of deficiency. She expressed her belief that the school would be able to attain a five-year renewal the next time that it applied for renewal. She noted also that all of the students graduating from the Connecticut Achievement First school in the previous year attended college in the following fall. Trustee Lewin asked whether the school was on an extended day or an extended year schedule. Ms. Redwine responded that the school has a long school day, extending from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. with some time for tutoring on Saturdays and after school. She said that the school also extends a little bit longer into the summer than district schools. Mr. Sarsfield added that one of the responses that the Achievement First network has made as a result of some of their challenges has been to postpone the opening of a brand new school that has been approved to open in the fall. The school will be taking an additional planning year so that the network can focus on those schools that are currently operating. To Trustee Noguera's point about the 5th grade scores, Mr. Sarsfield responded that all of these students were brand new students as the school was growing its elementary and middle school simultaneously. This year was the first time that students matriculated from one to the other. He noted that students appear to be performing better for the longer time that they stay in the school. Trustee Gondar stated that she was concerned due to the negative regression or .82 to .53, and the part of the resolution that is offering them the ability to add on more grades. She explained that she did not have confidence that the school would achieve better results for the grades that it planned to add. Mr. Rossi explained that the high school was already in existence for two Achievement First schools not authorized by the SUNY Trustees. If this had been a situation where this school currently served Kindergarten through grade 8 and would be developing a new curriculum for high school as well as a staffing plan, finding a building, and developing all the different leadership structures surrounding the new grades, then the Institute would be much more concerned as this situation could be a strain on both the governance and capacity of this school and the network. However, he said that because the high school is pre-existing, the situation is much more like one where the students are being sent to another high school. The high school would not be drawing on all those resources out of this school that would help raise their achievement in the Kindergarten to grade 8 levels. Dr. Miller noted that the Institute was also encouraged by the larger strategy of back-mapping the high school curriculum, based on the question of what it really takes to get into college. Mr. Rossi added that Institute staff had gone to the high school to observe the instruction in the classrooms, to look at the layout, to observe discipline, and to look at various elements of the school. Trustee Noguera asked how well the existing high school was doing. Dr. Miller explained that the high school served only 9th at 10th grades. The Institute knew that a number of kids were taking and passing the Regents exam, but the ultimate indicator would be graduation of high school in four years. It was too early to make that determination. Trustee Lewin asked what the Trustees’ and the Institute’s role would be in the three years. Specifically, she asked what steps would be taken to ensure the school did not end up being closed after the three-year renewal period. Ms. Miller Barker explained that the Institute would go into the school to look at qualitative development of the program. There will also be analysis of the actual scores being made. She noted that there is always a tough balance between being the authorizer and the monitor and not being Achievement First or having the ability to actually tell Achievement First what steps to take. The Institute and the Trustees would give the school three years, and the school would have to hit the benchmarks by those three years. At the end of the three years the policies for subsequent stipulate that the school would either get renewed or not get renewed. Dr. Miller noted that the Trustees could make a special determination that the students that are in the high school continue their high school career and graduate from that school to the extent that it is a separate physical facility which is operating outside of AF Bushwick itself as part of the larger network. Mr. Rossi added that this situation would look like a renewal limited to grades 9 and up. No more students would enter that school and the governance board and the corporation would stay in existence. When those students graduate the charter would end. Trustee O’Brien noted that although he was not able to vote he did have a voice. He commented that he was impressed by the care of the Institute staff in taking a look at the data and going behind the data, coming from that to a determination that seems to make great sense. He indicated that if he could vote, he would follow the recommendation of the staff. Trustee Noguera noted that he was inclined to do the same. He emphasized that the concerns expressed by Trustee Gondar were important. He said that he hoped that the network and the school were really doing all they could to address the school’s problems. Dr. Shanley said that the school’s Board has come together and really tried to get deeper into the data. Female: Thank you for those comments. Trustee Gondar asked whether there was any way that the Trustees could add a protection clause for those students to guarantee they could finish high school with Achievement First. Mr. Rossi explained that because those grades did not yet exist, this would be a decision better left for the Trustees at a later point in time. Trustee Noguera added that the Trustees may want to do so in the future, but did not want to box themselves in just yet. Mr. Rossi explained that the Trustees could restrict the renewal to grades K through 8, but then there would be students who would not go on to the high school, they would be sent into whatever charters are available. Trustee Noguera pointed out that the reputation of the entire Achievement First network is on the line, noting that the Trustees would take that into account. Ms. Redwine assured the Committee that Achievement First would pull the high school program if they believed there was a problem. Ms. Miller Barker agreed to report in the future on how the existing high school is doing on the Regents exams. Trustee Noguera then called for a motion to approve the charter renewal of Achievement First-Bushwick Charter School. Trustee Lewin made the motion. Trustee Hunt provided the second. The motion passed unanimously. D. GENERAL UPDATE Ms. Miller Barker then introduced the newest member of the SUNY Charter Schools Institute Staff. Paul Wright had joined the Institute as Director of School Evaluation. Ms. Miller Barker then updated the Committee on the Institute’s release of the January 2011 RFP to Establish New York State Charter Schools on January 3. The Institute also released a response to public comments on the draft of the RFP on the same day. She stated that the Institute anticipated bringing recommendations regarding proposals received in response to the RFP to the Committee in June. Mr. Rossi then explained that when the Trustees had previously authorized two Brighter Choice charter middle schools in Albany, there was concern about where the students where students in these schools would come from. The Institute checked the enrollment records of the school to see what percentage came from the Brighter Choice elementary schools, which are authorized by the Board of Regents. He noted that the Brighter Choice Middle schools are slightly under-enrolled. In the boys’ school 62.5 percent of students remained from the elementary school. In the girls’ school, about 52 percent of student remained from the elementary school. Trustee O’Brien asked whether there was any way of knowing the achievement of the students who returned to the Albany Public School System. Ms. Miller Barker clarified that not all of the Brighter Choice elementary students who did not go on to the Brighter Choice middle school returned to the Albany Public School System. Trustee O’Brien explained that he was interested in analyzing the performance of those students that did return to the Albany Public School System. He noted that the Committee and others present had expressed great concern for the students themselves. Ms. Miller Barker added that the Trustees and the Institute might speak with their colleagues at the State Education Department to overcome the problem of unique student identifiers. She mentioned that this would be a great question for the State Education Department’s research fellows. Trustee Lewin said that she had asked this question and was told that it was not part of the role of the Charter School Institute. Trustee Noguera explained that while this task would go beyond the Trustees’ purview, it is relevant to the question of what happens to the students when a charter school closes. Ms. Miller Barker explained that this fell into her role as Interim Executive Director. One of her tasks is to come forth to the Chancellor and the Committee to talk about what the Trustees and the Institute thinks the right structure is going forward regarding the research role of the Institute. Ms. Duncan Poitier added that while she no longer spoke for the State Education Department she was familiar with the dilemma described. She explained that it was often difficult to answer some data questions. She expressed hope that the changes to education data that would be made with Race to the Top funding would help answer some of these questions. Mr. Rossi then provided an update on the law suit involving the closure of New Covenant Charter School in Albany. There had been a decision by the lower level Supreme Court dismissing the New Covenant petition that challenged the Trustees’ ability to close the school. He added that the Trustees and the Institute received everything they sought in the lawsuit. One was that the decision by the Trustees not to renew the school was not a reviewable decision in the court based on the Charter Schools Act. There were also a number of federal and state constitutional claims including due process claims that were dismissed. Mr. Rossi explained that Institute Staff Attorney Thomas Franta deserved credit for his work, as well as the Attorney General’s office. He added that the decision had not yet been appealed. Trustee Hunt asked about the bondholders for the New Covenant Charter School. Mr. Rossi stated that the bondholders were probably not happy about the decision, although they had already retaken the building, according to the school’s attorney. Trustee Hunt then asked whether there could still be litigation. Mr. Rossi responded that although there could still be litigation, New Covenant had very few assets. He noted that the Institute had received some claims by transportation companies, which were directed to the school. Ms. Miller Barker then provided an update on the Request for Applications to Restructure a SUNY Authorized Charter School. After the Committee voted to move forward with the RFA process at its last meeting, the Institute received only one application in response. The Institute conducted an internal review and also had the application reviewed by two external evaluators. The Institute got to an interview phase with the applicant and asked for additional information about the proposed governance structure, board, and curriculum. The initial thinking was that if the applicant’s response to the request for amendments was positive, the Institute would ask the Committee to give it more time to fully review the application and would continue to engage in the request for amendment process, which is a process used for new applications. She added that she believed the timing was difficult because it was over the holidays, so the applicant provided the Institute information on the 29th of December and there was an analysis done of those materials. In addition to those two pieces that the Institute asked for, there were a number of other concerns the Institute has about the application. She stated that because of the timeframe and because of those concerns, the Institute was not bringing a recommendation to the committee to restructure and renew the Harlem Dar Charter School at that time. Trustee Noguera asked whether it was possible to give the applicant more time. Ms. Miller Barker explained that the Institute had discussed this internally. The Institute wanted to make sure that the Trustees understood that there were some concerns about the application as written as well as about the capacity of the organization tied to the application. She stated that the applicant had explained to the Institute that it had continued to build some capacity and address the issues. The challenge in regard to giving the applicant more time is that the parents of students in the school need to know what will happen to that school earlier rather than later. April 1st is the date when they need to have submitted for any lottery to any charter school and/or any school of choice that is a district school in New York City. Trustee Noguera stated that because the Institute had not brought a resolution calling for the school’s closure, this seemed to indicate that the Institute wished to leave the possibility of continuing to review the application open. Mr. Rossi explained that prior to going through this process to seek the restructuring renewal of any type the Institute had a letter agreement with the school where the school stated that rather than go through a renewal process, which was likely to end in the school’s closure, the school agreed to undergo a restructuring renewal process. If no action takes place the school would close. Trustee Noguera asked whether there was a reason why they could not state who the applicant was. Ms. Miller Barker said no, the applicant was Democracy Prep Public Schools (“Democracy Prep”). Trustee Noguera asked Seth Andrew of Democracy Prep how much time he had to prepare his application. Mr. Andrew responded that before his group sent their letter of intent they had about six days. Trustee Noguera commented that this did not seem like enough time to create a solid application. He noted that the Committee would meet in March and that this could be decided then. He asked that parents be informed about the situation and be notified that a decision would be made in March. Trustee Lewin asked to confirm that the charter school would first have to close and then the new application would take over the charter. Ms Miller Barker and Mr. Rossi explained that this was not the case. Mr. Rossi said that the education corporation, the lease, and the school building would all remain. The school’s governance team would resign and the applicants for the restructured school would become the school’s board. This new board would take over the governance of the school. It would implement the educational program put forth in the application as opposed to the program that is in place currently at the school. The students would all stay the same. The students would all have the returning student preference. They would not have to reapply to the school and they could also apply to any other charter school of their choosing. Trustee Lewin then asked how much of the information about the restructuring process had been shared with the parents. The school’s principal, Curtis Palmore, explained that the parents have been informed about most everything. He added that about 7 percent of Harlem Day students eventually go on to Democracy Prep, so parents know about the success that the Democracy Prep school has had. Paul O’Neil, the attorney for Harlem Day, stated that Harlem Day Board Chair Ben Lambert could not attend the meeting due to being in the Middle East. He stated that the school community supported the concept having the opportunity to have an organization like Democracy Prep restructure the school. He added that if the restructuring did not ultimate take place, the school would take all necessary steps to work with the Institute. Trustee O’Brien asked what the process would be for moving forward. Ms. Miller Barker explained that one definite part of the process would be to keep the parents at the school informed about the two options that are available. One is that the school would not continue and the other is that Democracy Prep would be given more time to put together a good application. She added that the role of an authorizer is to not create a school but it is to grant a charter and to monitor the success of that school. The Institute was concerned that if the process were to move forward that the standards that the Institute uses remain and that the role of the Institute not change. Specifically, the Institute did not want to be put in the position of fixing or generating an application. She added that the staff did not cross that line. Trustee O’Brien asked whether the Request for Applications would need to be amended. Mr. Rossi responded that the Request for Applications would not be re-opened. Instead, they would allow more time for the Institute to ask for amendments to the existing application that came in and maybe even some materials in response to the first set of amendments, to get a complete application. Trustee O’Brien asked what the problem would be with giving the applicant more time. Ms. Miller Barker stated that the Institute staff was concerned that Democracy Prep might not be successful with an elementary program. Democracy Prep’s track record was not the track record that the Institute would ideally like to see. Another concern was that the initial submission of the application did not include a curriculum. There were a number of other issues for which the Institute was concerned. The Institute found that the materials that they did received did not meet its standards. Mr. Rossi explained that by the Institute staff not bringing a recommendation that day, which was the day they said they would bring the recommendation, they are in essence recommending that the school close. Trustee Lewin asked whether Democracy Prep was the only applicant group. Ms. Miller Barker affirmed that it was. Trustee Noguera then asked how long the application was open for. Mr. Sarsfield replied that it was formally open for three weeks. Trustee Lewin asked whether the process was open. Ms. Miller Barker replied that it absolutely was. Trustee Gondar asked about the nature of the charter if Democracy Prep would be brought in. Ms. Miller Barker responded that it would be a new kind of renewal, but it would be a five year renewal. Mr. Rossi added that after that period of five years the school would be treated as though it were facing initial renewal (under the SUNY Renewal Practices). Trustee Noguera then asked Mr. Andrew if he cared to comment. Mr. Andrew explained that he understood that the process had been difficult for everyone involved. He thanked the Institute staff for being unbelievably diligent and hardworking. He added that the Democracy Prep team shared some of the Institute’s concerns, as they did not have enough time to prepare the application. He added that the current board of Harlem Day had offered Democracy Prep the opportunity to start working with them as a consultant in January to bring the academic programs to the school no matter what happened with the restructuring. He added that with the additional time he hoped to be able to address every question that the Institute had. Mr. Rossi noted that because the Committee’s inaction would mean the closure of the school, a motion would have to be taken up to approve the process’ moving forward to March. Trustee Noguera then called for a motion to approve the continued review of the Harlem Prep restructuring application and for the Institute to provide a recommendation at the next Committee meeting (resolution attached). Trustee Lewin made the motion. Trustee Spielvogel provided the second. The motion passed unanimously. Trustee Noguera thanked Ms. Miller Barker for stepping into the position of Interim Executive Director. Trustee O’Brien commented that the Committee should find a way to communicate the sense of commitment to education of children that was expressed by all who were in the room during all of the Committee meetings where he had been present. Trustee Noguera noted that this was a good point. He added that he had recently had a conversation with Chancellor Tisch during which he explained to how rigorous the Trustees’ process was in comparison to other processes. He noted that this was not widely known and that he believed there should be a way to get the word out about how closely the Institute staff examines the schools. E. ADJOURNMENT Trustee Noguera adjourned the meeting at 4:27 p.m. ______________________ Ralph A. Rossi II - Page 1 of 16 -