State University of New York Minutes of a Meeting of the Education, College Readiness and Success Committee of the Board of Trustees held on March 22, 2011 Notice of a meeting of the Education, College Readiness and Success Committee was duly given on March 14, 2011 (attached). Accordingly, a meeting was held on Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. via videoconference in the following locations: Binghamton University, University Union Building, 4400 Vestal Parkway East; SUNY College of Optometry, 33 West 42nd Street, New York City; and New York University, Steinhardt School, 82 Washington Square East, New York City. The meeting was also webcast, accessible via http://www.suny.edu. Committee Members present: Trustee Noguera, Chair Trustee Hunt; Trustee Lewin; Trustee O’Brien; and Ambassador Spielvogel. Committee Members not present: Trustee Gondar 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 Thomas Franta, Esq., the Institute; Cynthia Proctor, the Institute; Ralph Rossi, Esq., the Institute; and Jason Sarsfield, the Institute. Others present: Seth Andrew, Democracy Prep Public Schools; Katie Duffy, Democracy Prep Public Schools; Eric Tucker, Democracy Prep Public Schools; Jaime White, Democracy Prep Public Schools; Tara Marlovits, Uncommon Schools; and Russ Graney, Leadership Preparatory Charter School of Bedford Stuyvesant. A. CONVENING OF THE MEETING / APPROVAL OF MINUTES Trustee Noguera convened the meeting at 8:30 a.m. asking that a roll-call be taken. Mr. Rossi confirmed that a quorum of the Committee was present with Trustees Hunt and Lewin. Trustee Noguera then called for a motion to approve the minutes of the Committee’s meeting on January 10, 2010. Trustee Hunt made the motion. Trustee Lewin provided the second. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Miller Barker extended the regrets of Ms. Duncan-Poitier for not being able to participate in the meeting. She explained that the Chancellor’s Deputy and Vice Chancellor was actually in Indiana at the Lumina Foundation for the first meeting of the awardees of the million dollar grant application for SUNY Works, the co-op education initiative to improve college completion. Ms. Duncan-Poitier wanted to be sure the Committee knew that she was very much looking forward to updating them on this and other important initiatives at its next meeting. B. BOARD RESOLUTIONS * The first agenda item was consideration of the application to renew and restructure the charter of Harlem Day Charter School as Harlem Prep Charter School in Manhattan. Ms. Miller Barker provided the Committee with a brief overview of the previous actions of both the Institute and Committee on this matter as well as of the proposed resolution, summarized here for the record: In response to a request from the Harlem Day Charter School board of trustees and as part of the Institute’s efforts to address Trustee concerns about the impact of closure on families, the Institute issued a Request for Applications to Restructure a SUNY Authorized Charter School (RFA), that, if successful, would allow: 1) the SUNY Trustees to maintain their commitment to accountability by closing a school that had failed to meet SUNY’s renewal standards; and 2) minimize the disruption of traditional charter school closure on students and their families. SUNY received only one application in response to its RFA, from Seth Andrew of Democracy Prep Charter Schools. At the Committee’s last meeting in January, the Institute reported that unfortunately, the application—which was developed under a tight timeline—did not meet SUNY’s high standards. In response, given the abbreviated nature of the process, the Committee voted to give Democracy Prep additional time to strengthen its application. As a result, over the past several months, the Institute worked to ensure that Harlem Day parents were informed about the possible outcomes of this process as well as all of their school options for next year and, at the same time, worked with Democracy Prep to address concerns with the initial application they submitted. The Institute is pleased to report that it was able to deem Democracy Prep’s revised application to restructure Harlem Day into Harlem Prep Charter School satisfactory, and then continue with its review, which included interviewing the proposed board of trustees and advancing the proposed board to a second interview with members of the Committee. Trustees Noguera, Lewin and O’Brien all participated in that interview. As outlined in the materials before the Committee, the new Harlem Prep Charter School is designed “to educate responsible citizen-scholars in grades K-5 for success in the college of their choice and a life of active citizenship.” The school will embrace Democracy Prep’s ‘no excuses’ motto to “Word Hard. Go to College. Change the World.” The proposed program has a strong focus on remediation and features: two full-time teachers in each lower grade classroom; one and a half teachers in each upper grade classroom; a longer school day plus 75 minutes of remediation and tutoring on Monday through Thursday; regular Saturday instruction for students at risk of academic failure; a longer school year, including a three week summer program; an Academic Collaboration Team to support at-risk students, students with disabilities, and English language learners; a sustained professional development program for teachers; data-driven instruction, including sophisticated feedback loops to ensure that teachers are aware of the learning needs of their students; and an appreciation for human talent, including base salaries for teachers that exceed those of the district. The school board would contract with Democracy Prep for overall management services for a fee of 15% of the school’s total revenue. Management services provided to the school by Democracy Prep would include staff recruitment, academic program support, professional development, curricular systems, back-office and finance management, and assessment systems. To overcome restructuring challenges, the school would use the remainder of the current school year to intensively assess current school leaders and teachers to determine who if any would be rehired as Harlem Prep staff. Ms. Miller Barker said that based on its review and feedback from the Trustees who participated in the board interviews, the Institute was recommending that the Committee approve the application to restructure and renew Harlem Day Charter School as Harlem Prep Charter School for a period of five years with authority to provide instruction in Kindergarten through fifth grade. She said that the restructured school would be treated as a new school for the purposes of renewal with an accountability plan that begins with the 2011-12 academic year. Also, the Institute’s recommendation and any Trustee action would be contingent upon all of the conditions in the November 2010 Request for Applications to Restructure a SUNY Authorized Charter School being fulfilled. Trustee Lewin remarked that she was very pleased that Democracy Prep has a staff at Harlem Day working with the teachers, which she thought would ease the transition. Trustee O’Brien noted that he was impressed by the way that the new board and the new staff had taken their responsibility to get into the school and to begin the work so that there would be no problem during the transition to open the school next year. He added that this effort was worthy of support. Trustee Noguera added that the restructuring was a new territory for the Trustees, because they had never been actively involved in school turnaround. He noted that Democracy Prep had an excellent track record. He then noted that one serious unknown about the restructuring was the Democracy Prep did not have a track record in the elementary grades. However, he said that Democracy Prep had hired a number of knowledgeable people to lead the elementary school. He said recommended that the Committee approve the restructuring. Trustee Lewin stated that she was concerned about the fifth graders at the school and their transition to sixth grade. Ms. Miller Barker explained that Democracy Prep ran a middle school in Harlem. The organization was working to ensure that any of the Harlem Day students should be able to make that transition. She added that the Institute, in collaboration with the staff of Harlem Day and Democracy Prep, had worked to ensure that the parents of fifth grade students at Harlem Day understood their options for schools. She added that there had been discussions regarding whether the fifth grade students at Harlem Day would have extra instruction over the summer. Ms. Miller Barker noted for the benefit of any Harlem Day parents watching the webcast that if the Committee did vote to approve the restructuring, the proposal would still need to move onto the agenda of the full Board of Trustees later that afternoon. [Ambassador Spielvogel joined from the Optometry location at 8:50 a.m.]. Trustee Noguera then called for a motion to approve the renewal and restructuring of Harlem Day Charter School. Trustee Noguera made the motion. Trustee Lewin provided the second. The motion passed unanimously. Trustee Noguera then noted that he would not participate in the full Board of Trustees meeting, and asked whether another Committee member would be able to speak on behalf of the Committee regarding the renewal and restructuring of Harlem Day Charter School as Harlem Prep Charter School. Mr. Rossi noted that the item would likely be brought up only as part of the consent agenda. Trustee Lewin agreed to speak on behalf of the Committee at the full Board of Trustees meeting if needed. * The next agenda item for consideration was the approval of the ROADS Charter School I in Brooklyn and the ROADS Charter School II in the Bronx. Ms. Miller Barker provided the Committee with a brief overview of the proposed resolution, summarized here for the record: The ROADS founding team -- ROADS is an acronym for Reinventing Options for Adolescents who Deserve Success – consider ROADS I and II to be critically needed “second chance” schools. Specifically, the schools are designed to ensure that disconnected NYC youth -- 15 – 17 year olds, who are deemed to be over-age and under-credited in earning their high school diploma -- actually do graduate from high school thoroughly prepared to excel academically, professionally, and personally. ROADS I plans to open in the fall of 2011, while ROADS II plans to open in the fall of 2012, both with a cohort of 150 over-aged and under-credited students that meet the proposed school’s criteria for entrance into the 9th grade. All ROADS I and II students would: * Pass at least five core content Regents examinations, and receive a Regents diploma; * Demonstrate at least two years of academic progress in literacy and numeracy for each year enrolled in the school; * Design, complete, and defend a capstone project; * Participate in a mentorship, job shadowing, and internships; * Visit colleges, and submit college applications; and * Develop and maintain Individual Life Plans (ILPs). This planning team has created a structure where students don’t advance based on traditional seat time, but based on demonstrating specific skills and competencies in three phases: 1) building core skills, a literacy and numeracy “boot camp;” 2) approaching competency, passing three Regents examinations; and 3) ready for college, higher level courses, additional Regents examinations and submitting college applications. The goal here is not only high school graduation but demonstrated progress in applying to and succeeding in college. The schools would use trained AmeriCorps members to provide one-on-one tutoring and academic support and staggered teacher schedules to ensure maximum common planning time and flexibility based on individual student needs. Ms. Miller Barker stressed that this was a really innovative program design has earned broad New York City School District support. The schools would partner with the New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE”) District 79, which is comprised of the City’s [alternative schools and programs] for: student referrals, sharing of promising practices, and to assist in measuring results through comparative student populations. She noted that both of the proposals to establish these schools came through SUNY’s RFP process and that the Institute found that the proposals for both schools to be consistent with the criteria of the May 2010 amendments to the New York Charter Schools Act. She said that he Institute recommended that the Committee approve the charter proposals for the ROADS Charter School I and ROADS Charter School II. Trustee Noguera commented that he was impressed with the ROADS schools’ board of trustees, which made the proposal strong. He added that approving the ROADS schools was also new territory for the Trustees, as they had not approved such a school before. He noted that he supported the proposal. Trustee Lewin stated that the population to be served by the schools is one that has historically been neglected. She added that she is very pleased to see that someone is taking on the challenging task of opening these schools. Mr. Rossi noted that while the Trustees had received no comment from the school district regarding the proposals, the Summary of Findings document references a letter of support from [then] New York City Schools Chancellor Cathleen Black. Trustee Noguera added that one of the things that was unusual about the proposals was that one of the main contributors to the development of the schools was a district employee, Cami Anderson. He noted that there was a high degree of district collaboration with the ROADS schools. Trustee Hunt asked whether there was a specific set and number of Regents tests that students at the ROADS schools would have to pass. Ms. Miller Barker responded that the requirements to receive a Regents diploma at the ROADS school would be the same as the requirements at any other high school. Trustee Hunt stated that he was in favor of the proposals. Trustee Noguera then called for a motion to approve the proposals to establish the ROADS Charter School I and the ROADS Charter School II. Trustee Noguera made the motion. Ambassador Spielvogel provided the second. The motion passed unanimously. 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.] * The next agenda item for consideration was the approval of the charter renewal application of Leadership Preparatory Charter School of Bedford Stuyvesant in Brooklyn. Ms. Miller Barker provided the Committee with a brief overview of the proposed resolution, summarized here for the record: Leadership Preparatory Charter School of Bedford Stuyvesant in Brooklyn is in its fifth year of operation, applying to the Trustees to renew its charter for the first time. The school serves 409 students in Kindergarten through 5th grade. Leadership Prep meets the standard for a Full-Term Renewal to the extent that it has accumulated a record of educational achievement including meeting its mathematics and science goals and has a mixed record in meeting its English language arts goals. Leadership Prep has consistently met its Accountability Plan mathematics goal with 100% of students scoring at or above proficiency on the state exam in both years the test was administered. In comparison to demographically similar schools state-wide, the school met its target and performed better than expected to a large degree each year. However, the school has a mixed record in English language arts. After meeting its goal in 2008-09, the school just missed meeting it in the current year with 72% of students at proficiency and the 4th grade cohort registering a marked decline from the previous year. At its current performance level, the school is achieving slightly lower in English language arts than predicted in comparison to similar schools state-wide based on free lunch eligibility. According to the state’s No Child Left Behind (“NCLB”) accountability system, the school is deemed to be in good standing. The school has put systems in place that should allow it to continue to meet its mathematics goal and to meet its English language arts goal in the near future. Further, the school’s governing board has demonstrated the capacity to meet the school’s academic goals and to operate the school in an educationally and fiscally sound fashion. After careful consideration of the school’s academic performance the Institute is recommending full-term renewal. Given the level of the school’s academic performance in ELA, however, the Institute is recommending that the renewal be limited to allow instruction in Kindergarten through 8th grade only, and that the school not be permitted to expand into high school grades. When more positive achievement data is available and the plans for the high school are more definite, the school board may seek a revision of its charter to add the high school program. Trustee O’Brien asked what a short-term renewal would encompass. Ms. Miller Barker explained that a short-term renewal would be for a period of three years. Trustee O’Brien commented that English language skills are essential to functioning at every level including and beyond high school. He added that it was not the school’s raw scores, but the arc of the scores that gave him pause when considering the Summary of Findings document prepared by the Institute. He noted that he would be more comfortable making a decision for a short-term renewal. He asked the Institute staff to explain why they had chosen otherwise. Ms. Miller Barker explained that originally, the Institute had incorrect numbers for the school’s free and reduced lunch populations. Receiving the new numbers changed the Institute’s analysis. With the correct numbers, the school fell within the range of other schools that had received full-term renewals. However, the school’s English Language Arts scores were at the bottom of that range. The school had done very well in Mathematics. Institute staff visited the school and felt that there was sufficient evidence that the school was on the right trajectory for the coming years. The school is interested in receiving a full-term renewal for a variety of reasons. Full-term renewal would provide more stability for the school’s management organization, Uncommon Schools, Inc. Uncommon Schools has a track record of high performance, as well as of being able to overcome obstacles such as the decline in Leadership Prep’s test scores. Ms. Miller Barker added that Brett Peiser, who was responsible for Leadership Prep’s network of schools, has a track record of success in charter schools both in Massachusetts and in New York. Trustee Lewin asked Ms. Miller Barker to confirm that this was the school’s first renewal. Ms. Miller Barker confirmed that this was true. Trustee O’Brien commented that he would be more comfortable with the decision if it were for a short-term renewal. Ms. Miller Barker responded that the school’s mathematics performance was quite strong. She added that the school has the correct programs and processes in place to improve English performance. Mr. Rossi added that the school outperformed the local Community School District. Trustee Lewin asked whether the school had a strong leadership team. Ms. Miller Barker responded that the school had a very strong team. Trustee Noguera stated that he supported the Institute’s recommendation. Trustee Noguera then called for a motion to approve the renewal for five years of the charter of Leadership Preparatory Charter School of Bedford Stuyvesant. Trustee Lewin made the motion. Trustee Hunt provided the second. The motion passed unanimously. * The next agenda item for consideration was the approval of a revision to the charter of the Kings Collegiate Charter School in Brooklyn. Ms. Miller Barker provided the Committee with a brief overview of the proposed resolution, summarized here for the record: Kings Collegiate Charter School currently serves 277 students in grades 5 through 8. The school has made a request to add a high school program, which would be co-located with the Williamsburg Collegiate Charter School in a space that is leased from a private foundation. Williamsburg Collegiate is authorized by the New York City Schools Chancellor. Both schools share the same mission, use the same curriculum and assessments, and have similar school cultures as they both partner with Uncommon Schools. The network believes that by having both schools collocated in the same space, they will be able to provide a broader range of educational and extracurricular opportunities for the students. Each school would operate under its own accountability plan and be separately renewed by each authorizer. The Institute has reviewed the proposed revision from an academic, legal and fiscal perspective and finds it suitable under the Charter Schools Act and applicable law. Mr. Rossi explained that the co-location is unlike other co-locations where schools share space but otherwise remain separate. In this case, students from King Collegiate Charter School and Williamsburg Collegiate Charter School would sit together in the same classrooms. One teacher would be paid for by both of the schools. The schools would have a common governance structure. The school would be called Uncommon High. The students attending the school would feel as if there were no distinction between the two schools. The Committee and the Board of Regents previously approved this co-location model for KIPP S.T.A.R. Charter School. KIPP has four collocated high schools going into one building, acting as one school. Ms. Miller Barker added that each school would have its own accountability plan and be separately renewed by each authorizer. Students would be separated out between the two schools so that each could be evaluated. Trustee Noguera then called for a motion to approve the revision to the charter of the Kings Collegiate Charter School. Trustee Hunt made the motion. Trustee Lewin provided the second. The motion passed unanimously. * The next agenda item for consideration was the approval of a revision to the charter of the Explore Excel Charter School in Brooklyn. Ms. Miller Barker provided the Committee with a brief overview of the proposed resolution, summarized here for the record: Explore Excel Charter School will open in the fall of 2011. The school is requesting to add a third grade to the grades plans to serve in the fall. The school originally planned to offer instruction in kindergarten through grade 2. The school will also ask for an at-risk admissions designation for students who come from a low performing school. Explore Excel Charter School was originally intended to be a turnaround school that would replace a failing school in New York City. Because no district school was being closed at the time, the Trustees granted a charter based on a stand-alone design recognizing the original intent was that this particular school was to go in and turn around a failing New York City school. The school worked closely with the New York City Department of Education to determine whether or not there would be a failing school with students that Explore Excel could serve. NYCDOE announced that Explore Excel would go in to PS 114, which received a D grade on the NYCDOE Progress Report and would be closed. However, the district’s plans changed, and it was determined that PS 114 would remain open. Now Explore Excel will not replace PS 114, but will co-locate with the school and offer an alternative to students currently attending PS 114. Mr. Rossi added that the school requested a waiver from the mandatory collective bargaining requirement in the Charter Schools Act. Enrolling grades K-3 rather than K-2 would require the school to exceed the maximum of 250 students required for a charter school to be exempt from collective bargaining requirements. He noted that when a charter school enrolls 250 or more students during the first two years of operation, this triggers an automatic collective bargaining provision whereby everyone in the school would have the same terms of the collective bargaining agreement of the district; which in this case would be the UFT contract. The Trustees received 10 waivers to grant to schools, and had previously used six of these waivers. Mr. Rossi added that some of the waivers were used on schools that opened with large cohorts and were subsequently closed. A few schools that received waivers survived. Explore Excel has requested the waiver because it feels, given the money they want to put into the program, it would not be possible if it had to support the contract wages and the teachers’ retirement system provisions. Mr. Rossi then added that the waiver would only be used if it was needed. If the school did not enroll 250 or more students in the first two years, then the waiver would not be used. Trustee Hunt asked whether the Committee could pass the resolution without the waiver, or whether it could pass two separate resolutions. Ms. Miller Barker explained that the resolution could be modified. Trustee Hunt then asked whether the waiver would expire at some point in the future. Mr. Rossi explained that the waivers do not expire. Ms. Miller Barker added that if the staff of the school chose to collectively bargain, the waiver would not preclude this from happening. Trustee O’Brien explained that going forward he would like to see the numbers representing the economic hardship that would be created if a collective bargaining agreement were in place. He added that even though those numbers were not available at this time, he would still support the resolution. Trustee Hunt stated that he agreed with this. Ms. Miller Barker said that the Institute would work with schools to provide those numbers. Trustee Hunt asked whether the waiver would automatically be granted once the resolution was passed. Mr. Rossi explained that the right to use the waiver would be approved when the resolution was approved. Then when the school needed the waiver, the Trustees would send the waiver request to the Regents for their action. Trustee Noguera then called for a motion to approve the revision to the charter of the Explore Excel Charter School. Trustee Hunt made the motion. Trustee Lewin provided the second. The motion passed unanimously. D. GENERAL UPDATE Ms. Miller Barker then referred the Committee to a memo from her to the Trustees in their meeting binders summarizing six actions taken by the Institute on the Board’s behalf by way of the formal delegation of responsibility from the Board of Trustees. She noted that these memos would be a regular occurrence going forward as although there is no further action required by the Trustees on any of these matters, the Institute will always make the Committee and Board aware of them before finalizing as, per the delegation resolution, the Committee or Board always have the option of reviewing them and/or taking action. Ms. Miller Barker explained that the actions noted in the memo were minor in nature, all having to do with name changes or minor charter revisions. Ms. Miller Barker then announced that the Institute had received 23 new charter proposals in response to the Trustees’ January 2011 RFP to Establish New York State Charter Schools. The majority of the proposals that the Trustees received were for New York City; four were for Manhattan, six for the Bronx, six for Brooklyn, three for Queens and one for Staten Island. Proposals were received for two schools in Mt. Vernon and one in Niagara Falls. She said that recommendations regarding any of these proposals would likely be brought to the Committee in June and September. Ms. Miller Barker then updated the committee on a grant application that the Institute submitted to receive assistance in planning replication and multi-site policies and procedures that the Trustees would need to institute under the revisions to the charter law. The grant application was submitted to the National Association of Charter School Authorizers. Mr. Rossi briefed the committee on the outcome of litigation related to the closure of New Covenant Charter School. At the previously meeting, the Institute had reported that the case had been won, but that there was still the possibility of appeal. Mr. Rossi explained that in fact, no appeal had been filed and the Attorney General’s office had now closed the file. Trustee Hunt asked whether the bondholders of the New Covenant building were silent. Mr. Rossi stated that this was the case. He added that there had been some discussions of trying to rent or lease the building, but none of those options had come to fruition. Trustee Noguera commented that he wished to encourage Institute staff to continue to consider turnaround and approval of schools like the ROADS schools. He noted that he believed the Trustees were living up to the spirit of the charter school law by approving schools that could lead to research and development in education. Trustee O’Brien noted that the Institute has asked the University Faculty Senate to work with them in exploring such research opportunities. Trustee Noguera added that there were many other populations of students that he believed the Trustees and the Institute should consider going forward. Ms. Miller Barker commented that the Institute had a few exciting proposals in the pipeline. She added that the Institute was interested in tracking the turnaround process for Harlem Day Charter School, and possibly hiring a fellow to do this. E. ADJOURNMENT Trustee Noguera adjourned the meeting at 9:20 a.m. ______________________ Ralph A. Rossi II - Page 1 of 11 -