M E M O R A N D U M June 25, 2012 To: Members of the Charter Schools Committee From: Joseph W. Belluck, Chair, Charter Schools Committee Subject: Approval of Proposals to Grant Harlem Success Academy Charter School 3 the Authority to Operate the following New Charter Schools: Success Academy Charter School - Manhattan 1; Success Academy Charter School - Manhattan 2; Success Academy Charter School - Manhattan 3; Success Academy Charter School - Brooklyn 5; Success Academy Charter School - Brooklyn 6; and Success Academy Charter School - Brooklyn 7 Action Requested The proposed resolution authorizes the granting of authority to operate six new charter schools to an existing education corporation authorized by the Board of Trustees, Harlem Success Academy Charter School 3, pursuant to New York Education Law subdivisions 2852(9-a) and 2853(1)(b-1). Resolution I recommend that the Charter Schools Committee adopt the following resolution: Whereas the Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”), acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees and in accordance with the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended, the “Act”), issued a request for proposals (“RFP”) on January 3, 2012 to establish new charter school education corporations and to permit existing education corporations to operate additional charter schools; and   Whereas Harlem Success Academy Charter School 3, an existing education corporation, submitted proposals seeking authority to operate six new schools to be located in Manhattan and Brooklyn, that the Institute reviewed, scored and ranked, and recommends for approval (the “Recommended Proposals”) as set forth in the Institute’s Summary of Findings and Recommendations report for the proposed new schools (the “Institute Report”) (copy on file in the Office of the Secretary of the University and in the Albany office of the Institute), which was made available to the Charter Schools Committee (the “Committee”); and Whereas the school district of location of the proposed new schools commented on the Recommended Proposals, which comments the Institute attached to or included in the Institute Report, and the Committee considered on behalf of the Board of Trustees; now, therefore, be it Resolved that each Recommended Proposal rigorously demonstrates that the Proposal has met the following criteria: (1) the proposed charter school would meet or exceed enrollment and retention targets, prescribed by the Institute on behalf of Board of Trustees, of students with disabilities, English language learners, and students who are eligible applicants for the federal free and reduced price lunch program; and (2) that the applicant education corporation has conducted public outreach, in conformity with a thorough and meaningful public review process prescribed by the Institute on behalf of the Board of Trustees, to solicit community input regarding the proposed charter school and to address comments received from the impacted community concerning the educational and programmatic needs of students; and, be it further Resolved that the Committee acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees has granted priority to each Recommended Proposal based on a scoring rubric that best demonstrates how proposed schools will achieve the objectives set forth in Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(c); and, be it further Resolved that each Recommended Proposal and the school described therein meet the requirements of the Act (as amended) and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations; and, be it further Resolved that the education corporation submitting the Recommended Proposals demonstrates the ability to operate each proposed school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and, be it further Resolved that approving each Recommended Proposal is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the purposes set out in Education Law subdivision 2850(2); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposals be, and hereby are, approved; and, be it further Resolved that the Institute be, and hereby is, directed to: (1) enter into a proposed amended charter with the applicant of the Recommended Proposals to reflect the authority to operate six new schools, which shall include such assurances and terms as the Institute shall deem necessary and appropriate; and (2) thereafter to submit such proposed charter no later than November 1, 2012 as required by the Act to the Board of Regents for issuance by the Board of Regents on or before December 31, 2012. Background Pursuant to a duly approved resolution dated June 12, 2012, the Board of Trustees delegated to the Charter Schools Committee the authority to approve or deny applications to establish new charter school education corporations, and applications for authority to operate additional schools or sites. Amendments to the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended, the “Act”), passed in 2010, increased the cap on the number of charter schools in New York by adding a new class of charters to be issued through requests for proposals (“RFPs”). Only the Board of Trustees and the Board of Regents may issue RFPs. Each entity may approve 130 new charters, only 57 of which may be located in New York City. Prior to approval of this resolution the Board of Trustees has approved 17 proposals for schools to be located in New York City; leaving 113 charters to be issued through the RFP process with no more than 40 to be located in New York City. RFPs may only commence on certain dates, each with a maximum number of charters set by statute. The RFP for the proposal to be approved by this resolution was posted on January 3, 2012 (the first business day after January 1st) and the maximum number of charters the Board of Trustees may still approve pursuant to the RFP is 80 (32 plus 48 remaining from prior RFPs). The Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”) released and broadly distributed a draft RFP for public comment on November 22, 2011, held a public meeting in three locations across the state to solicit verbal comments on December 7, 2011, carefully reviewed all comments amending the draft RFP as appropriate, and posted a document detailing its evaluation and response to public comments on January 3, 2012. The proposals to be approved by this resolution were received by the Institute on or about February 29, 2012, reviewed, scored in accordance with a rubric required to be developed by Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a), and ranked. Prior to recommending the proposed charter schools for approval, the Institute, acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees, conducted a rigorous review of the proposals and published its findings and recommendations in a Summary of Findings and Recommendations (“Institute Report”) (copy on file in the Office of the Secretary of the University and in the Albany office of the Institute, and available at: http://newyorkcharters.org/SUNYTrusteesCommitteeMaterials.htm), which was made available to the Charter Schools Committee. In addition to meeting all of the application requirements for non-RFP charters, the amended Act requires additional RFP findings that are reflected in the resolution. For the proposals listed above, the Institute, pursuant to Education Law subdivision 2857(1), notified the school district in which the charter schools are proposed to be located as well as public and non-public schools in the same geographic area of each school regarding the receipt of proposals to have an existing charter school education corporation operate six new schools (copy on file in the Albany Office of the Institute). On May 22, 2012, the New York City Schools Chancellor provided comments on the proposals, which were attached to or included in the Institute Report. Summary of Findings and Recommendations Proposals to authorize Harlem Success Academy Charter School 3 to operate Success Academy Charter Schools – Manhattan 1, 2 and 3; and Brooklyn 5, 6 and 7 June 15, 2012 Executive Summary The proposals to authorize Harlem Success Academy Charter School 3 (“Harlem Success 3”), an existing not-for-profit charter school education corporation, to operate the Success Academy Charter Schools – Manhattan 1, 2 and 3 (“Manhattan 1, 2 and 3”); and Brooklyn 5, 6 and 7 (“Brooklyn 5, 6 and 7”) were submitted to the Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”) on February 22, 2012 in response to the Institute’s Request for Proposals (“RFP”) that was released on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York (the “SUNY Trustees”) on January 3, 2012. Amendments to the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended, the “Act”) in 2010 permit an education corporation to operate more than one school. Harlem Success 3, which will be re-named Success Academies - NYC if the Board of Regents approves a pending merger (previously approved by SUNY) with Harlem Success Academy Charter Schools 2, 4 and 5 (authorized by the SUNY Trustees), and Harlem Success Academy Charter School (authorized by the Board of Regents), seeks authority to operate six proposed schools. For the limited purpose of analysis of the new proposals, the SUNY Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”) directed Harlem Success 3 to submit the application with the assumption that the merged governance and finances would be in place. Through a dual track merger review and application review process, all of the terms of operation of the existing and proposed schools were made uniform in terms of educational programming and policy. These proposals mark the first time SUNY would have approved an existing charter school education corporation to operate more than one school and the first time a merged education corporation would be granted authority to operate additional schools. In the event the merger is not approved by the Board of Regents and SUNY abandons the merger, Harlem Success 3 still seeks the authority to operate the six new schools, i.e., one action is not contingent on the other. Each proposed school intends to seek facility space provided by the New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE”) located in New York City Community School Districts (“CSDs”) 2 (Manhattan), 4 (Manhattan), 13 (Brooklyn) and 17 (Brooklyn). While each school provided a pro forma private space budget, Harlem Success 3 does not intend to open any school for which district school space is not available. Harlem Success 3 has adequate funds on hand to provide for renovation and start-up costs for each of the six schools in district school space. The schools would open in the fall of 2013 with 188 students in Kindergarten and 1st grade and would add one grade each year thereafter through the initial charter period. Each of the schools would reach their enrollment capacity of 689 students in Kindergarten through 5th grade in the final year of the proposed charter period and envision ultimately expanding through the 8th grade in a subsequent charter period, if granted. The schools would admit new students through the 3rd grade only if seats are available, otherwise known as “backfilling.” Manhattan 1, 2 and 3; and Brooklyn 5, 6 and 7 would replicate the successful model of the original Harlem Success Academy Charter School and the eleven schools authorized by the SUNY Trustees based on that model as set forth in the chart below. Student performance data for the original school, as well as the first three replicated schools (the only schools with available state assessment data), is provided below. The current board of trustees of Harlem Success 3, which was modified prior to SUNY’s approval of the merger, would remain constant and oversee all six schools, as well the five schools it currently has authority to operate. The education corporation board would contract with Success Academy Charter Schools, Inc. (the “Network”), formerly known as Success Charter Network, Inc., a Delaware non-profit corporation based in New York, for overall charter management services. The Network, currently manages the 12 charter schools listed in the chart below, nine of which are operating as of the date of this report and three of which are scheduled to open in the fall of 2012. As part of its due diligence review of new school proposals, the Institute requires submission of a five-year business plan from proposed charter management organizations. The Institute conducted a rigorous review of the ambitious business plan submitted by the Network and also engaged an independent consultant to conduct a fiscal and organizational review. Human resources, fiscal soundness, and fundraising capacity were examined in addition to the Network’s plans for, and ability to open, six schools at the same time in the fall of 2013. To date the largest number of school openings undertaken by the Network at one time has been three, which the Network has performed successfully twice. The Institute analyzed this plan, and the associated risks inherent in opening six schools while simultaneously expanding 12 existing schools. The Institute centered its risk analysis on the philanthropy needed to operate the Network at the proposed larger scale, enrollment risk for the new schools, the Network and school-level staffing required to open the new schools and maintain school quality throughout the network, and the risk of the limited data set generated by the educational model. The Institute requested additional information including the Network’s contingency plans and conducted a detailed interview with the education corporation board and employees of the Network. Upon analysis of all of the facts and circumstances involved in the plans of the Network, the student performance data to date, and the capacity of the Network as demonstrated in the six proposals as amended, the Institute concluded that the Network has or will have in place the human, financial and other resources to manage all of its current and future schools including the six new schools proposed to be operated by Harlem Success 3. Consistent with the May 2010 amendments to the Act, the Institute finds: 1) that the proposals for Manhattan 1, 2 and 3; and Brooklyn 5, 6 and 7 rigorously demonstrate the criteria detailed in the Institute’s RFP including the mandatory criteria set forth in Education Law subdivision 2852(9)(b)(i) (that the proposed charter school would meet the enrollment and retention targets for students with disabilities, English language learners and students who qualify for the federal Free and Reduced Price Lunch program); 2) that the proposed schools have conducted thorough and meaningful public review processes to solicit community input regarding the proposal in accordance with the requirements in the RFP, which are in conformity with Education Law subdivision 2852(9)(b)(ii); 3) the proposals are ones that best satisfy the objectives contained within the RFP based on the content of the proposals and their supporting documentation, and are therefore qualified within the meaning of Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(d); and 4) the Institute has scored each proposal pursuant to Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(c), and there are enough charters to be issued by the SUNY Trustees pursuant to the January 2011 RFP to accommodate the proposals and all other RFP applicants that the Institute is recommending for approval, or is likely to recommend pursuant to the current RFP. Based on the foregoing: The Institute recommends that the SUNY Trustees approve the charter proposals to grant Harlem Success Charter School 3 the authority to operate Success Academy Charter Schools – Manhattan 1, 2 and 3; and Brooklyn 5, 6 and 7. Background and Description While SUNY may still award a small number of charters pursuant to its traditional application process, amendments to the Act in 2010 made additional charters to create new education corporations available only through an RFP process. The Institute received 18 total proposals to create new charter schools in response to the RFP it issued on January 3, 2012. The current review cycle could legally result in a maximum of 80 new charters approved by the SUNY Trustees, a maximum of which 40 can be located in New York City, per Education Law subdivision 2852(9). Note that 48 of the 80 charters were available but not awarded in response to the August 2010 and January 2011 RFPs. For purposes of the count of charters the Act draws no distinction between establishing new education corporations and granting authority to operate new schools or sites – each action uses an available charter. The Institute conducted a rigorous evaluation of the proposals under consideration including academic, fiscal and legal soundness reviews. In addition, the Institute engaged an independent consultant to evaluate the fiscal and organizational soundness of the school proposal and associated business plan submitted on behalf of the Network. Pursuant to its protocols, the Institute conducted an interview with the applicant, the education corporation board of trustees which would oversee the new schools, other members of the founding team, and representatives of the Network. In addition, Ken O’Brien, Chair of the SUNY Trustees’ Education, College Readiness and Success Committee and Joseph Belluck, Chair of the SUNY Trustees’ Charter Schools Committee, had an opportunity to interview the founding team and members of the existing board that seek authority to operate the additional schools. The mission of the proposed schools would be to “provide children in New York City with an exceptionally high quality education that gives them the knowledge, skills, character, and disposition to meet and exceed New York State standards and the resources to lead and succeed in school, college, and a competitive global economy.” Key design elements of the academic program for Manhattan 1, 2 and 3; and Brooklyn 5, 6 and 7 follow: • relentless focus on student achievement; • research-based and results-driven curriculum; • 100 minutes of daily reading instruction, 30 minutes of daily writing instruction, 80 minutes of daily mathematics, and daily exploratory-based science instruction totaling four and a half hours each week for each student; • the effective use of student performance data to improve student learning; • a longer school day and year; • intensive intervention programs for struggling students and enrichment programs for high-performing students; • school leaders with the power to lead; • highly qualified, highly trained staff; • strong school culture; and • strong support for students with disabilities and English language learners. The schools would feature an extended school year and school day. The first day of the 2013-14 school year would be in mid-August and the last day will be mid-to-late June; subsequent years would follow a similar ten-month calendar. Breakfast would be served from 7:15 a.m. to 7:45a.m.; instruction would start promptly at 7:45 a.m. The school day would conclude at 4:00 p.m. for Kindergarten, 4:30 p.m. for 1st - 4th grades and 5:30 p.m. for 5th grade. As stated above, the education corporation’s board would continue to contract with the Network for the provision of a wide range of educational and administrative services to the proposed schools including: school start-up, financial, recruitment, and public relations services; curriculum development and monitoring; school leadership training; professional development; enrollment management; information technology; comprehensive school evaluation and external affairs. The Network would receive a fee from the education corporation based on a flat-rate per student enrolled in each of the new schools. A draft contract between the parties indicates that it will be approximately $2,029 per student, or 15% of the NYCDOE’s per pupil expenditure. The Institute has reviewed a sample contract as a part of its due diligence and will review the final contract pursuant to the charter agreement on behalf of the SUNY Trustees prior to the contract’s final approval. The chart below illustrates the operational stage of each of the school’s currently managed by the Network. School Name Authorizer Location Year Opened Grades Served 2010-11 Harlem Success Academy Charter School Board of Regents CSD 3 2007-08 K - 5 Harlem Success Academy Charter School 2 SUNY Trustees CSD 5 2008-09 K - 4 Harlem Success Academy Charter School 3 SUNY Trustees CSD 4 2008-09 K - 4 Harlem Success Academy Charter School 4 SUNY Trustees CSD 3 2008-09 K - 4 Harlem Success Academy Charter School 5 SUNY Trustees CSD 5 2010-11 K - 2 Bronx Success Academy Charter School 1 SUNY Trustees CSD 7 2010-11 K - 2 Bronx Success Academy Charter School 2 SUNY Trustees CSD 8 2010-11 K - 2 Upper West Success Academy Charter School SUNY Trustees CSD 2 2011-12 K - 1 Brooklyn Success Academy Charter School 1 SUNY Trustees CSD 14 2011-12 K - 1 Brooklyn Success Academy Charter School 2 SUNY Trustees CSD 14 Will Open in 2012-13 NA Brooklyn Success Academy Charter School 3 SUNY Trustees CSD 15 Will Open in 2012-13 NA Brooklyn Success Academy Charter School 4 SUNY Trustees CSD 14 Will Open in 2012-13 NA Of the schools listed above, state testing data is available for Harlem Success Academy Charter School for 2008-09 through 2010-11 and Harlem Success Charter Schools 2, 3, and 4 for 2010-11. The schools achieved very strong results on both the English language arts and mathematics exams as illustrated below. The other operating schools have either not yet served grade 3, the year in which state testing begins, or have administered the exams for the first time this year and results are not yet available. However, internal assessment results, based on the Fountas and Pinnell literacy assessment system, were presented by the Network for the remaining schools and reviewed by the Institute. Such data were strong and taken into consideration as part of the Institute’s review process. The data suggests a general trend of newer schools performing at higher levels than more established schools did at the same point in their charter term. This evidence suggests that the Network continues to improve upon already high levels of student achievement as it learns from opening additional schools. Coupling the capacity of the Network to open additional schools, which the Institute determined through the due diligence process, with the student performance data leas to the conclusion that the proposed schools will likely continue to improve student learning and achievement and further the purposes of the Act. In addition, all operating schools managed by the Network authorized by the SUNY Trustees are regularly visited and evaluated by the Institute using the SUNY Renewal Benchmarks as the criteria for such evaluation. All of these schools have received positive evaluations, demonstrating that effective systems were in place to support the educational program as presented in each school's original application. This qualitative evidence, taken together with information obtained during the Institute's review of the proposals that focused on the capacity of the Network to manage additional schools using the same educational program, suggests that the proposed schools should result in an effective programs for students thereby improving student learning. Harlem Success Academy Charter School: 2008-09 State Assessments Testing Grades School Percent Proficient District Percent Proficient Percent Free Lunch Effect Size ELA 3 95 71.8 49.2 1.91 Math 3 100 91.7 49.2 1.29 In 2008-09, 95 percent of Harlem Success Academy Charter School’s 3rd grade students were proficient on the state ELA exam, while all of its 3rd grade students were proficient in mathematics. The school outperformed the district of location by 23.2 percentage points in ELA and 8.3 percentage points in mathematics. Compared to similar schools statewide, controlling for the percentage of students that qualify for the federal free-lunch program, the school performed higher than expected statewide to a large degree in both ELA and math, demonstrating Effect Sizes of 1.91 and 1.29, respectively. Harlem Success Academy Charter School: 2009-10 State Assessments Testing Grades School Percent Proficient District Percent Proficient Percent Free Lunch Effect Size2 ELA 3-4 87.5 54.9 63.4 2.86 Math 3-4 95.0 59.6 63.4 2.5 In 2009-10, 87.5 percent of Harlem Success Academy Charter School’s 3rd and 4th grade students were proficient on the state ELA exam, while 95 percent were proficient in mathematics. Using the 2008-09 cut scores adjusting for the timing of the exams, 96.7 and 100 percent of the school’s 3rd and 4th grades were proficient on the ELA and math exams, respectively. The school outperformed the district of location by 32.6 percentage points in ELA and 35.4 percentage points in mathematics. Compared to similar schools statewide, controlling for the percentage of students that qualify for the federal free-lunch program, the school performed at a higher level than expected to a large degree in both ELA and math, demonstrating an Effect Size of 2.86 and 2.5, respectively. Harlem Success Academy Charter School, Harlem Success Academy Charter School 2 and Harlem Success Academy 3: 2010-11 State Assessments Testing Grades School Percent Proficient District Percent Proficient Percent Free Lunch Effect Size Harlem Success Academy Charter School ELA 3-5 85.5 66.1 64.2 2.39 Math 3-5 98.6 59.2 64.2 2.39 Harlem Success Academy Charter School 2 ELA 3 83.1 28.6 64.6 1.81 Math 3 100 34.9 64.6 1.93 Harlem Success Academy Charter School 3 ELA 3 79.7 40.9 68.1 1.71 Math 3 100 48.3 68.1 2.30 Harlem Success Academy Charter School 4 ELA 3 83.9 61.0 62.3 2.16 Math 3 100 64.0 62.3 2.14 In 2010-11, 85.5 percent of Harlem Success Academy Charter School’s 3rd - 5th grade students were proficient on the state ELA exam, while 98.6 percent were proficient in mathematics. The school outperformed the district of location by 19.4 percentage points in ELA and 39.4 percentage points in mathematics. Compared to similar schools statewide, controlling for the percentage of students that qualify for the federal free-lunch program, the school performed at a higher level than expected to a large degree in both ELA and math, demonstrating an Effect Size of 2.39 in each subject. Also in 2010-11, 83.1 percent of Harlem Success Academy Charter School 2’s students were proficient on the state ELA exam, while 100 percent were proficient in mathematics. The school outperformed the district of location by 54.5 percentage points in ELA and 65.1 percentage points in mathematics. Compared to similar schools statewide, controlling for the percentage of students that qualify for the federal free-lunch program, the school performed at a higher level than expected to a large degree in both ELA and math, demonstrating an Effect Size of 1.81 and 1.93, respectively. In the same year, 79.7 percent of Harlem Success Academy Charter School 3’s students were proficient on the state ELA exam, while 100 percent were proficient in mathematics. The school outperformed the district of location by 38.8 percentage points in ELA and 51.7 percentage points in mathematics. Compared to similar schools statewide, controlling for the percentage of students that qualify for the federal free-lunch program, the school performed at a higher level than expected to a large degree in both ELA and math, demonstrating an Effect Size of 1.71 and 2.30, respectively. Finally, 83.9 percent of Harlem Success Academy Charter School 4’s students were proficient on the state ELA exam in 2010-11, while 100 percent were proficient in mathematics. The school outperformed the district of location by 22.9 percentage points in ELA and 36 percentage points in mathematics. Compared to similar schools statewide, controlling for the percentage of students that qualify for the federal free-lunch program, the school performed at a higher level than expected to a large degree in both ELA and math, demonstrating an Effect Size of 2.16 and 2.14, respectively. In addition to the demonstrated track record of student performance, the Institute conducted extensive due diligence on the capacity of the Network and school board to open six additional schools in 2013-14. The existing schools operated by the Network have consistently demonstrated fiscal soundness, evidenced by balanced operations and healthy fund balance levels. The Network has provided the schools sound overall budget projections, sound contingency plans and a proven track record in securing external funding as needed. The Network leadership team has maintained its focus on teaching and learning, and has the staff, organizational plans and structure that support the likelihood of effectively managing the proposed schools, in addition to those already being managed or approved to open in 2012-13. The Network has also implemented an extensive and sophisticated leadership development program whereby leadership residents fulfill structured leadership experiences under the supervision of current school leaders for approximately two years. The Institute has met with a number of these leadership residents and has found that this program, and other strategies employed at the Network, are likely to allow the Network to staff the proposed schools with high quality leaders that are able to lead the schools at high levels. The proposed curriculum of Manhattan 1, 2 and 3; and Brooklyn 5, 6 and 7 would follow the Network’s program that embraces whole-child education and is in use at the other SUNY schools affiliated with the Network. Because of the extended school year and school day, the model is able to offer a variety of subjects including the Network developed THINK Literacy, TERC Investigations mathematics, discovery-based Science program, project based social studies and geography programs, fine arts, chess, sports, and a variety of other programs including music, yoga, ballroom dancing, and theater. Every eight weeks students would be formally assessed using the Fountas and Pinnell reading assessments. The results would be immediately reviewed and utilized by teachers to create action plans for all students. In addition to its academic curriculum, the schools intend to teach a set of core values to their students including Agency, Curiosity, Try and Try, Integrity, Others, and No Shortcuts (ACTION). The goal is to ensure that graduates are not only intellectual individuals but also good citizens. Using a modified Response to Intervention system, each school’s students’ learning needs would be assessed and students placed into or graduated out of Tier I (in-class differentiation), Tier II (pullout and push-ins with a Special Education teacher), or Tier III (special education services in accordance with federal law and the district CSD Committee on Special Education). Strategies and specific goals would be set for each of the eight weeks in the aforementioned assessment cycle. The school’s admissions policy would provide an at-risk school design factor and set aside to applicants that are deemed English Language Learners (“ELLs”). Each year, each school’s teachers would receive approximately 400 hours of quality professional development, beginning with an intensive four week program before school starts, which would continue every one day each week for three hours throughout the school year and include eight professional development days. In addition, teachers would be given opportunities to observe excellent teachers at other schools (both inside and outside of the Network), visit other high-performing schools, and attend workshops designed to master effective teaching techniques. Teachers and school leaders would also be sent to outside conferences, such as the Teachers’ College Conferences, the National Council of Math Conference, the National Science Teacher Association Conference, the DMI Math Conference, and the Understanding by Design Conference. Each school would have a principal focused solely on teaching and learning and a business manager focused on the operational and financial aspects of the school. A student achievement coordinator would assist the principal in special education and test administration, while an operations manager would focus on facilities and supply management. A community relations coordinator would focus on parent involvement and communication. In subsequent years, each school leadership team would expand to include an assistant principal, dean of students, and testing coordinator. The by-laws of Harlem Success Charter School 3, which seeks authority to operate the six proposed schools, indicate that the education corporation board would consist of not less than five voting members. The members that serve on the board of trustees are set forth below. 1. Samuel Cole – former Partner at BlueMountain Capital; former Executive Vice President and Deputy Head of State Street Bank’s eExhange business; M.B.A., Sloan School of Management, M.I.T. 2. Bryan Binder – Chief Executive Officer of CastleLine Holdings, L.L.C., which provides mortgage services to companies; J.D./M.B.A. New York University. 3. Jay Bryant – Managing Director, BlueMountain Capital Management; formerly with Deutchse Bank and Merrill Lynch; M.B.A. Columbia University; graduated with honors from Harvard University. 4. Sandeep Chainani – Managing Director, Morgan Stanley Investment Management; Chartered Financial Analyst. 5. Donna Kennedy – Executive Director and Head, Gillen Brewer School; 22 years of experience in special education; M.Ed, Educational Leadership, Bank Street College and M.S. Special Education, Hunter College. 6. Lance Rosen – Former Director of Research at Hilltop Park, a long/short equity fund; M.A. and M.Phil in Political science from Columbia University. 7. Gregory Sawyers – Former C.E.O. of Evercore Asset Management and Global Head of Research for Credit Suisse Asset Management; M.B.A., Harvard University. The applicant has worked closely with the NYCDOE to secure space in district buildings for each of the schools if approved. The Network has demonstrated an ability to successfully secure public facility space for each of the 12 schools previously approved although a few lawsuits related to co-located space are still pending. Any NYCDOE space would have to be approved through the provisions of the Education Law related to the co-location of charter schools. In addition, the Institute reserves the right to review and approve all facilities, and, pursuant to the Act, would have to hold a hearing on behalf of the SUNY Trustees prior to each school occupying district school space. The fiscal impact of the proposed schools collectively on the district of residence, the New York City School District, is summarized below. Expected Enrollment in the Six Proposed Schools Basic Per Pupil Aid Rate Assumed Per Pupil Aid Revenue of the Six Proposed Schools NYCDOE Operating Budget (in billions) % of NYCDOE Operating Budget 1,128* (2013-14 school year – year 1) $13,527 $15,258,456 $18.500 0.0825% 4,134**(2017-18 school year – year 5) $13,527 $55,920,618 $18.500 0.3023% * Sum of the 188 expected enrollment in each of the six schools, serving Kindergarten through 1st grade. ** Sum of the 689 expected enrollment in each of the six schools, serving Kindergarten through 5th grade. The calculations above assume the current basic per pupil aid will not increase during the term of the charter. The NYCDOE yearly budget figure was derived from the December 2010 Financial Status Report (FSR) published on the NYCDOE website. The proposed schools’ aggregate per pupil revenue (basic per pupil aid multiplied by expected enrollment), when compared to the operating budget of the NYCDOE illustrates that the potential fiscal impact of the proposed school on the district is minimal. The Institute notes that the NYCDOE estimate used in the Institute’s analysis is subject to unpredictable increases and decreases in the NYCDOE budget in any given year and in the charter school per pupil funding (as well as the actual enrollment in each of the six schools). For example, the operating budget of the NYCDOE proposed by Mayor Bloomberg in May 2012 was $19.6 billion. Using the aggregate per pupil revenues derived from the aggregate enrollment as a proportion of the proposed 2012 NYCDOE budget would yield even less impact to the district: 0.0778% and 0.2853% in 2013-14 and 2017-18 school years, respectively. While the applicant has included in the proposals estimated calculations accounting for special education revenue, federal Title I funds, other federal grants and/or funds provided by the district or otherwise and to be received by the schools, the Institute’s calculations and analysis do not account for these sources of potential revenue. The Institute finds that the fiscal impact of each of the proposed schools on the New York City School District, and public charter, public district and nonpublic schools in the same geographic area would be minimal. In the event that the schools open with the larger enrollments permitted by the charter agreement (up to 20% more than the projected enrollment), the Institute has determined that the fiscal impact of each of the proposed schools on the NYC School District, public charter, public district and nonpublic schools in the same geographic area would also be minimal. The Institute reviewed Harlem Success 3’s proposed fiscal and operating plans for each year of the proposed charter terms and supporting evidence as part of its due diligence process. The Institute also reviewed the Network’s business plans to determine whether it could fully support its existing and proposed new schools. The Institute finds the education corporation’s budgets and fiscal plans are sound and that sufficient education corporation start-up funds will be available to the charter schools. In addition, at the end of the charter term of the new schools, Harlem Success 3 is projected to have a cash surplus. The Institute has notified the school district as well as public and private schools in the same geographic area of each proposed school. The Institute received a letter from NYC Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott dated May 22, 2012 (attached as Appendix A) expressing positive comments regarding all six proposed schools: “These proposals are replications of existing high-performing charter schools. Chancellor Dennis Walcott recommends this charter application to support the children of New York City.” With respect to Success Academy Charter Schools – Manhattan 1, 2 and 3, the letter states that: “While there is a need for high quality elementary and middle school seats in Manhattan, there potentially is not sufficient space for all 3 schools to open as K-8s in CSD 2 and/or 4. We will work with the applicant to consider split siting schools, modifying enrollment to tailor space availability, and discuss the possibility of other contiguous districts.” Specific to Success Academy Charter Schools – Brooklyn 5, 6 and 7, the letter states: “There is a need for high quality elementary and middle school seats in Brooklyn and we will work with the applicant on space availability in their identified CSDs. There potentially is not sufficient space for all 3 schools to open as K-8s in CSD 13 and 17. We will work with the applicant to consider split siting schools and modifying enrollment to tailor to space availability.” The Institute notes that the Network relayed that it has utilized significant resources in identifying underutilized district school space in each of the identified CSDs. The Institute further notes that the proposed charter agreement for all of the schools would allow each school to change CSDs upon application to SUNY for a change in location. As the securing of district school space is never certain, if needed, the Institute, would review of all the facts and circumstances and determine if a change in location to a nearby CSD would meet the requirements of the Act. The Institute received a number of comments from various community members and stakeholders both in support and in opposition to the proposed schools, or a subset thereof. Comments in support of the schools cited the existing academic success of the currently operating schools affiliated with the Network; the desire for additional choice options in the community; and support for the rigorous academic environment proposed by the schools. The majority of the comments in opposition focused on the schools proposed for CSD 2, Success Academy Charter School - Manhattan 1 and Success Academy Charter School - Manhattan 2. An analysis of individual school performance in CSD 2 is attached as Appendix B. The Institute received 524 nearly identical e-mails expressing concern that: the academic program of the proposed charter schools would not be different from what is already offered by CSD 2 schools; the district schools perform well; co-location would exacerbate existing over-crowding in the district’s school buildings; over-crowding has already resulted in a negative impact on existing district schools. The e-mails also suggest that hundreds of children are on waiting lists for their zoned Kindergarten in CSD 2; the NYCDOE calculations regarding utilization do not take into consideration planned growth of existing schools, including start-up elementary schools; the community needs more school buildings for “public elementary and middle schools” as opposed to charter schools. The Institute also received letters and other e-mails from residents and elected officials representing CSD 2. Frequent reference was made to over-crowded conditions in many buildings in the district that purportedly led NYCDOE to close gifted and talented programs in the district and led school principals to have to schedule lunch periods in the morning and to give up special programs like art and music. Those commenting seemed to be evenly split in making one of two arguments: “the district needs more middle school seats, not elementary seats” or “the district needs more public elementary seats as there are waitlists for kindergarten in CSD 2.” Yet both positions were expressed in e-mails titled as being in opposition to the Success Schools which would start out K-1 and grow to K-8. The District 2 Community Education Council adopted a resolution in opposition to all charter school co-locations and another seeking a moratorium on charter schools in CSD2. Community Board 4 wrote in opposition to the school proposed for CSD 4, Success Academy Charter School - Manhattan 3. Others commented more broadly about the Success network of schools and opposed any growth of the Network or the addition of any additional charter schools. Commenters alleged that principals in schools managed by the Network are not being good neighbors in district buildings and of the schools expelling ELLs. The Institute thanks those commenting and has carefully considered all comments, particularly those related to the academic program of the proposed schools. The Institute notes that there is a separate process in the Education Law to seek community input anytime a charter school is proposed to locate in a NYCDOE operated building (for approved schools). In addition, SUNY must conduct a public hearing to engage community input on the proposed siting. SUNY takes this responsibility seriously, not only conducting the hearing in the proposed building but physically inspecting the facility space. Per the charter agreement with all approved schools, SUNY needs to approve the condition and safety of facilities in a particular site, be it public or private. Persons aggrieved by a charter school siting in district school space may appeal to the State Commissioner of Education. Pursuant to the Act, SUNY also would investigate any formal complaint made from a co-located district school about the conduct of a SUNY authorized charter school that violates the law or charter. The applicant has conducted public outreach, in conformity with a thorough and meaningful public review process prescribed in the RFP, to solicit community input regarding each of the proposed schools (Ed. Law §2852(9-a)(b)(ii)). The RFP also contained minimum eligibility and preference criteria to reflect the requirements of Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a). Each proposal met the eligibility requirements, as evidenced by the following: • Each met the following basic criteria: submitted by the appropriate deadline; was complete, i.e., include a Transmittal Sheet, Proposal Summary and responses to all RFP requests; individual responses adequately addressed each specific request; and the proposal was coherent. • Each proposal met the standard for describing a quality educational program and provided sufficient evidence that the proposed school is likely to operate in an educationally and fiscally sound manner, to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the purposes set out in Education Law subdivision 2850(2) as well as demonstrated a rigorous commitment to student achievement. • Each proposal included a viable plan to meet the enrollment and retention targets established by the SUNY Trustees for students with disabilities, students who are English language learners, and students who are eligible to participate in the federal free and reduced-price lunch program (as detailed in Request No. 24). For the purposes of responding to the RFP, SUNY directed applicants were required to address overall targets for the school district of location, and in the case of New York City, the CSD of location as identified by the Institute and available at: http://www.newyorkcharters.org/documents/DistrictLevelDataonSubpopulations.pdf. SUNY intends to assign more specific targets for each school during the first year of the charter, and finds that each school would meet such targets. • Each proposal provided evidence of public outreach in the letter of intent and RFP that conforms to the process prescribed by the SUNY Trustees for the purpose of soliciting and incorporating community input regarding the proposed charter school. As the proposals to establish Manhattan 1, 2 and 3; and Brooklyn 5, 6 and 7 each met the eligibility criteria, the Institute’s evaluation continued with a full review of each proposal, and interview with representatives of Success Charter Network, the founding team and proposed board of trustees, and requests for clarification and or amendments to each proposal. The review process then continued with an evaluation of each proposal in relation to the eleven Preference Criteria contained in the RFP for which proposals can earn credit as described in the RFP’s Scoring Rubric. The purpose of the Scoring Rubric was to prioritize proposals in the event that the number of proposals meeting the SUNY Trustees’ requirements exceeded the maximum number of charters to be issued in 2012. In the event of a tie for the last charter both proposals will be rejected unless one applicant agreed to withdraw his or her proposal for consideration in a subsequent RFP. The preference criteria, which in addition to eligibility criteria and the overall high standards established by the SUNY Trustees, included the demonstration of the following in compliance with Education Law subdivisions 2852(9-a)(c)(i)-(viii): • increasing student achievement and decreasing student achievement gaps in reading/language arts and mathematics; • increasing high school graduation rates and focusing on serving specific high school student populations including, but not limited to, students at risk of not obtaining a high school diploma, re-enrolled high school drop-outs, and students with academic skills below grade level; • focusing on the academic achievement of middle school students and preparing them for a successful transition to high school; • utilizing high-quality assessments designed to measure a student's knowledge, understanding of, and ability to apply, critical concepts through the use of a variety of item types and formats; • increasing the acquisition, adoption, and use of local instructional improvement systems that provide teachers, principals, and administrators with the information and resources they need to inform and improve their instructional practices, decision-making, and overall effectiveness; • partnering with low performing public schools in the area to share best educational practices and innovations; • demonstrating the management and leadership techniques necessary to overcome initial start-up problems to establish a thriving, financially viable charter school; and • demonstrating the support of the school district in which the proposed charter school will be located and the intent to establish an ongoing relationship with such school district. While the Institute received a total of 18 proposals in response to its January 2012 RFP, only nine have been recommended for approval. All of the nine proposals recommended for approval met the eligibility criteria and were therefore assigned a score using the rubric contained in the RFP. The proposals for Manhattan 1, 2 and 2; and Brooklyn 5, 6 and 7 were each assigned a score of 39 preference points out of a possible total of 64. Based on this score and the other information and findings set forth herein, the Institute is preliminarily recommending that the SUNY Trustees approve the proposal to establish the Manhattan 1, 2 and 2; and Brooklyn 5, 6 and 7, which would not exceed the statutory limit in Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(a). Findings Based on the comprehensive review of each proposal and interviews of the applicant and the education corporation’s board of trustees, the Institute makes the following findings. 1. The charter schools described meet the requirements of Article 56 of the Education Law (as amended) and other applicable laws, rules, and regulations as reflected in (among other things): • the inclusion of appropriate policies and procedures for the provision of services and programs for students with disabilities and English language learners; • the required policies for addressing the issues related to student discipline, complaints, personnel matters and health services; • an admissions policy that complies with the Act, federal law and the U.S. Constitution; • the inclusion of the proposed by-laws for the operation of the education corporation’s board of trustees; and • the inclusion of an analysis of the projected fiscal and programmatic impact on surrounding public and private schools. 2. The applicant has demonstrated the ability to operate each school in an educationally and fiscally sound matter as reflected in (among other things): • the provision of an educational program that meets or exceeds the State performance standards; • the articulation of a culture of self-evaluation and accountability at both the administrative and board level; • the student achievement goals articulated by the applicant; • an appropriate roster of educational personnel; • a sound mission statement; • a comprehensive assessment plan; • the provision of sound start-up, first-year, and five-year budget plans; • a plan to acquire comprehensive general liability insurance to include any vehicles, employees, and property; • evidence of adequate community support for, and interest in, the charter school sufficient to allow the school to reach its anticipated enrollment; • the inclusion of descriptions of programmatic and independent fiscal audits, with fiscal audits occurring at least, annually; • the inclusion of a school calendar and school day schedule that provide at least as much instruction time during a school year as required of other public schools; and • the inclusion of methods and strategies for serving students with disabilities in compliance with all federal laws and regulations. 3. Granting each proposal is likely to: 1) improve student learning and achievement; and 2) materially further the purposes of the Act. This finding is reflected by (among other things): • an educational program identical to that which has been implemented in the school’s that the Success Charter Network currently manages that has demonstrated the ability to improve student learning and achievement; • the inclusion of a curriculum framework document that specifies how the proposed curriculum will ensure that students will meet or exceed the performance standards of the Board of Regents reflecting the adoption of the Common Core State Standards; • a comprehensive plan to assess student achievement through the use of state tests, externally-verifiable standardized tests and other diagnostic assessments; • an extended school year and school day; • robust programs to meet the needs of students at risk of academic failure, students with disabilities, and English language learners; • an intensive focus on literacy and mathematics, with 100 minutes of daily reading instruction, 30 minutes of daily writing instruction, and 80 minutes of daily mathematics instruction for each student; • the inclusion of significant opportunities for professional development of the school’s instructional staff prior the start of each school year and throughout the year; • a commitment to providing an educational program focused on outcomes, not inputs; and • an organizational structure that supports the ability of the principal to focus exclusively on improving teaching and student learning. 4. Each proposed charter school would meet or exceed enrollment and retention targets, as prescribed by the SUNY Trustees, of students with disabilities, English language learners, and students who are eligible applicants for the federal free and reduced price lunch program as required by Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(b)(i). The data upon which to base the enrollment and retention targets mandated by the amendments to the Act was not available at the time the statute mandated the RFP be issued. As a result, the Institute developed internal evaluation criteria regarding the enrollment and retention of each class of student referenced in the amendments to the Act such that the Institute could make the determination that the applicant would meet or exceed the enrollment and retention targets when developed. The Institute also developed initial targets based on school district or CSD averages to use in making the determination required to approve the proposal. During the first year of the charter term, SUNY will develop such targets, and shall ensure: “(1) that such enrollment targets are comparable to the enrollment figures of such categories of students attending the public schools within the school district, or in a city school district in a city having a population of one million or more inhabitants, the community school district, in which the proposed charter school would be located; and (2) that such retention targets are comparable to the rate of retention of such categories of students attending the public schools within the school district, or in a city school district in a city having a population of one million or more inhabitants, the community school district, in which the proposed charter school would be located.” The Institute will conduct separate analyses for setting enrollment and retention targets, respectively. Based on the foregoing, the Institute finds that the proposal has rigorously demonstrated that the proposed charter schools would meet or exceed the enrollment and retention targets, set by the Institute to evaluate proposals and to be prescribed by SUNY during the first year of the charter in accordance with the Act. 5. The applicant has conducted public outreach for each school, in conformity with a thorough and meaningful public review process prescribed by the SUNY Trustees, to solicit community input regarding the proposed charter school and to address comments received from the impacted community concerning the educational and programmatic needs of students in conformity with Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(b)(ii). 6. The Institute has determined that each proposal rigorously demonstrates the criteria and best satisfies the objectives contained within the RFP, and, therefore, is a “qualified application” within the meaning of Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(d) that should be submitted to the Board of Regents for approval. Conclusion and Recommendations Based on its review and findings, the Institute recommends that the SUNY Trustees approve the proposals to permit Harlem Success Academy Charter School 3 to operate the Success Academy Charter Schools – Manhattan 1, 2 and 3; and Brooklyn 5, 6 and 7 to open in Manhattan and Brooklyn, respectively, in August of 2013. Success Academy Charter Schools – Manhattan 1, 2 and 3 Basic Identification Information Lead Applicant(s): Samuel A. Cole – Board Chair, Harlem Success Academy Charter School 3 Management Co.: Success Charter Network Other Partners: None Location (District): New York City Community School District 2 or 4 Student Pop./Grades: Opening with 190 students in K - 1st grade; growing to 675 students K -5th grade Opening Date: September 2013 New York City School District 2 Enrollment (2010-11): 59,844 Percent (2010-11): African-American: 19 Hispanic: 36 Asian, White, Other: 45 Percent Qualifying for Free or Reduced Priced Lunch (2010-11): 62 English Language Arts (2010-11) Mathematics (2010-11) Grade Percent Proficient Grade Percent Proficient 3 73 3 81 4 75 4 87 5 71 5 84 6 68 6 79 7 63 7 78 8 59 8 76 New York City School District 4 Enrollment (2010-11): 13,831 Percent (2010-11): African-American: 29 Hispanic: 62 Asian, White, Other: 9 Percent Qualifying for Free or Reduced Priced Lunch (2010-11): 83 English Language Arts (2010-11) Mathematics (2010-11) Grade Percent Proficient Grade Percent Proficient 3 41 3 48 4 51 4 58 5 43 5 55 6 39 6 48 7 29 7 47 8 26 8 45 New York City School District 13 Enrollment (2010-11): 22,114 Percent (2010-11): African-American: 59 Hispanic: 15 Asian, White, Other: 25 Percent Qualifying for Free or Reduced Priced Lunch (2010-11): 73 English Language Arts (2010-11) Mathematics (2010-11) Grade Percent Proficient Grade Percent Proficient 3 45 3 49 4 51 4 54 5 46 5 58 6 37 6 43 7 27 7 43 8 28 8 37 New York City School District 17 Enrollment (2010-11): 26,188 Percent (2010-11): African-American: 83 Hispanic: 13 Asian, White, Other: 4 Percent Qualifying for Free or Reduced Priced Lunch (2010-11): 86 English Language Arts (2010-11) Mathematics (2010-11) Grade Percent Proficient Grade Percent Proficient 3 43 3 49 4 44 4 50 5 40 5 51 6 39 6 47 7 30 7 46 8 28 8 42 Source: New York State Accountability and Overview Report 2010-11 Appendix A May 22, 2012 Susan Miller Barker Interim Executive Director Charter Schools Institute State University of New York 41 State Street, Suite 700 Albany New York 12207 Dear Ms. Barker, The New York City Department of Education Charter Schools Office (NYC DOE CSO) has reviewed seven (thirteen charters) charter school applications submitted to SUNY’s Charter School Institute’s 2012 round 1 process. The NYC DOE CSO has also participated in three (nine charters) applicant capacity interviews that have moved forward. I genuinely commend the passion and commitment of these founding groups for wanting to serve New York City’s school children and provide more high quality options. Attached are my recommendations for the charter schools I would like to see move forward at this time. During the last few months, the Charter Schools Office evaluated seven applications that were submitted. I appreciate the State University of New York for involving us in reviewing these applications as the District of New York City. After reviewing each application, participating in the interviews, and meeting with the Office of Portfolio Management, we have decided on the attached recommendations. For high quality applicants aligned to the needs of the community, we try to provide public school space when it is available. The identification of viable public school space is an ongoing and complex process. Support for an application does not guarantee the availability or viability of public school space and all applicants should have private facility plans in place. We plan to invite all of the recommended applicants who are approved by SUNY into our offices this summer to discuss their space needs. I thank you for inviting us to be reviewers in this process and look forward to many more collaborations between SUNY and the NYCDOE in the near future. Sincerely, [Dennis Walcott signature] 2012 SUNY New Charter Applications – NYC Chancellor Recommendations Citizens of the World New York Charter School 1 & 2 14 - The NYCDOE found this proposal to be well-designed and features a rigorous educational model. Chancellor Dennis Walcott recommends this charter application to support the children of New York City. While there is need for higher quality elementary school seats in Brooklyn, given competing siting priorities, there potentially is not sufficient space for both schools to open in CSD 14. We will work with the applicant to identify space in this district or contiguous districts, where available. Success Academy Charter Schools -Manhattan 1, 2 and 3 2, 4 These proposals are replications of existing high-performing charter schools. Chancellor Dennis Walcott recommends this charter application to support the children of New York City. While there is need for higher quality elementary and middle school seats in Manhattan, there potentially is not sufficient space for all 3 schools to open as K-8s in CSD 2 and/or 4. We will work with the applicant to consider split siting schools, modifying enrollment to tailor to space availability, and discuss the possibility of other contiguous districts. Success Academy Charter Schools – Brooklyn 5, 6 and 7 13, 17 These proposals are replications of existing high-performing charter schools. Chancellor Dennis Walcott recommends this charter application to support the children of New York City There is need for higher quality elementary and middle school seats in Brooklyn and we will work with the applicant on space availability in their identified CSD’s. There potentially is not sufficient space for all 3 schools to open as K-8s in CSD 13 and 17. We will work with the applicant to consider split siting schools and modifying enrollment to tailor to space availability. Explore Exceed Charter School 17,18 This application is proposing to offer students and families a high quality option within a building that also houses a school that is phasing out due to performance concerns. . It is a replication of an existing high-performing charter school. Chancellor Dennis Walcott recommends this charter application to support the children of New York City. The DOE has not made any decisions regarding potential phase­outs for the 2013-14 school year. However, we do see a need for higher quality elementary and middle school seats in the identified CSD’s and will work with the applicant to identify space, where available. Appendix B Test score data for schools in CSD 2. Please call 518-433-8277 for access.