M E M O R A N D U M October 2, 2012 To: Members of the Charter Schools Committee From: Joseph W. Belluck, Chair, Charter Schools Committee Subject: Approval of Proposal to Grant True North Rochester Preparatory Charter School the Authority to Operate an Additional Charter School, Rochester Prep Charter School 3 (Rochester) Action Requested The proposed resolution authorizes the granting of authority to operate one new charter school to an existing education corporation authorized by the Board of Trustees, True North Rochester Preparatory Charter School, 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 SUNY 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 True North Rochester Preparatory Charter School, an existing education corporation, submitted a proposal seeking authority to operate one new school to be located in Rochester that the Institute reviewed, scored and ranked, and recommends for approval (the “Recommended Proposal”) as set forth in the Institute’s Summary of Findings and Recommendations for the proposed new school (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”); now, therefore, be it Resolved that the 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, 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 the 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 the 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 Proposal demonstrates the ability to operate the proposed school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner; and, be it further Resolved that approving the 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 granting the application contained in the Recommended Proposal would have a significant educational benefit to the students expected to attend the proposed charter school within the meaning of Education Law subdivision 2852(2)(d); and, be it further Resolved that the Recommended Proposal be, and hereby is, 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 Proposal to reflect the authority to operate one new school, 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 Resolution No. 2012-038 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 26 proposals for schools to be located in New York City; leaving 104 charters to be issued through the RFP process with no more than 31 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 71 (32 plus 48 remaining from prior RFPs minus 9 issued in June 2012). 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 Institute received the proposal to be approved by this resolution on or about July 3, 2012, and then reviewed, scored (in accordance with a rubric required developed in accordance with Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)), and ranked it. Prior to recommending the proposed charter school for approval, the Institute, acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees, conducted a rigorous review of the proposal 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 proposal listed above, the Institute, pursuant to Education Law subdivision 2857(1), notified the school district in which the charter school proposes to be located as well as public and non-public schools in the same geographic area of the school regarding the receipt of a proposal to have an existing charter school education corporation operate one new school (copy on file in the Albany Office of the Institute). Through September 21, 2012, no comments were received by the Institute. Summary of Findings and Recommendations Proposal to Authorize True North Rochester Preparatory Charter School to Operate the Proposed Rochester Prep Charter School 3 September21, 2012 Executive Summary The proposal to allow the existing SUNY authorized True North Rochester Preparatory Charter School (“Rochester Prep”) education corporation to operate the proposed Rochester Prep Charter School 3 (“Rochester Prep 3”) was submitted to the SUNY Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”) on July 2, 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. The board of trustees of Rochester Prep, which currently operates one school, seeks to add the authority to operate an additional school with the result being one education corporation with the authority to operate two schools. The 2010 amendments to the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended, the “Act”) permit such an expansion so long as a charter is issued for each new school. As this legal structure is relatively novel, if the Board of Regents do not permit Rochester Prep to directly add the new school, then Rochester Prep seeks to merge with the newly formed education corporation for Rochester Prep 3 shortly after approval by the Board of Regents or operation of law such that Rochester Prep would survive and have the authority to operate two schools. Rochester Prep 3 would open in August 2013 with 87 students in 5th grade. In its second year, the school would add a 6th grade, and in the third would add Kindergarten and 7th grade. The school would add 1st and 8th grade in year four and 2nd grade in year 5 when it would reach its enrollment capacity of 576 students in Kindergarten through 2nd grade and 5th – 8th grade. The school would admit new students to fill available open seats only in Kindergarten through 5th grade. In the next charter term the school would fulfill its intended K-8 design. Rochester Prep 3 would replicate the successful model of the original Rochester Prep authorized by the SUNY Trustees. In 2011-12, Rochester Prep significantly outperformed students enrolled in the same tested grades of the Rochester City School District in both English language arts (“ELA”) and mathematics. In ELA, 49 percent of Rochester Prep’s students achieved proficiency on state assessments as opposed to 20 percent of district students enrolled in the same tested grades. In mathematics, 78 percent of Rochester Prep’s students achieved proficiency while only 27 percent of district students met that bar. The SUNY Trustees also authorize two other replications of this model - True North Troy Preparatory Charter School currently in its fourth year of operation, and Rochester Prep Charter School – West Campus, currently in its second year of operation. Both schools far outperformed their districts of residence as outlined below. The current board of trustees of Rochester Prep would remain constant and oversee both schools. The same individuals comprise the board of Rochester Prep Charter School – West Campus, which may merge into the Rochester Prep education corporation at a later time. As with both Rochester Prep and Rochester Prep – West Campus, Rochester Prep 3 would contract with the not-for-profit charter management organization Uncommon Schools, Inc. (“USI”), which would provide program design and development; teacher recruitment; training for teachers, school leaders, and other staff; facility acquisition and financing; financial management; fund development; technology; legal counsel (for day-to-day school issues but not for the education corporation board); and marketing and advocacy. In addition to the Institute’s rigorous review of the Rochester Prep 3 proposal, an external expert on charter school and charter school management organization capacity reviewed a business plan submitted by USI in conjunction with the Rochester Prep 3 proposal and found that USI is in a good position to support the proposed school. Consistent with the May 2010 amendments to the Act, the Institute finds: 1) that the proposal to allow Rochester Prep to operate Rochester Prep 3 rigorously demonstrates 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 (“ELLs”) and students who qualify for the federal Free and Reduced Price Lunch (“FRPL”) program); 2) that the proposed school has conducted a thorough and meaningful public review processes to solicit community input regarding the proposal in accordance with the requirements in the RFP, which conform with Education Law subdivision 2852(9)(b)(ii); 3) the proposal is one that best satisfies the objectives contained within the RFP based on the content of the proposal and its supporting documentation, and is therefore qualified within the meaning of Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(d); and 4) the Institute has scored the 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 2012 RFP to accommodate the proposal and all other RFP applicants the Institute is recommending for approval. Based on the foregoing: The Institute recommends that the SUNY Trustees approve the proposal to allow True North Rochester Preparatory Charter School the authority to operate Rochester Prep Charter School 3 as one education corporation. 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 19 total proposals to create new charter schools in response to the Summer Cycle of the RFP it issued on January 3, 2012. The current review cycle could legally result in a maximum of 71 new charters approved by the SUNY Trustees, 31 of which could be located in New York City, per Education Law subdivision 2852(9). Note that 48 of the 71 charters were available but not awarded in response to the August 2010 and January 2011 RFPs. The 71 remaining charters reflect nine that were approved in June in response to the Spring Cycle of the RFP issued on January 3, 2012. The Institute conducted a rigorous evaluation of the Rochester Prep 3 proposal including academic, fiscal and legal soundness reviews, as well as the aforementioned external expert review of the capacity of USI. Pursuant to its protocols, the Institute met with the board of trustees that will oversee the proposed school, other members of the founding team and representatives of USI. In addition, one or more members of the SUNY Trustees’ Charter Schools Committee had an opportunity to interview the members of the education corporation’s board and representatives from USI. The mission of Rochester Prep 3 would be, “to prepare all students to enter and succeed in college through effort, achievement and the content of their character. All Rochester Prep students will demonstrate excellence in Reading, Writing, Math, Science, and History, while consistently exemplifying the virtues of diligence, integrity, responsibility, duty and perseverance.” Key design elements of Rochester Prep 3 include: * Intentional standards-driven teaching and the systemic use of objective student performance data to continually inform decision-making; * Developing and supporting teachers through consistent, deliberate and frequent training within the school; * Strategic allocation of resources, especially instructional time, to maximize learning; * A program leading to comprehensive knowledge and thorough, reliable facility with basic skills to prepare students for college and instill higher order thinking; * Effective implementation of a structured and rigorous system of behavioral standards and the development of a school culture which inspires students to seek excellence to increase student achievement; * Teachers who embrace their responsibility for authority over the classroom; * Teachers and administrators who develop close and meaningful relationships with students and understand the barriers and obstacles their students must overcome, but who do not excuse students because of them; * Educators who expect and demand excellence from all students, from the school, and from one another. They steadfastly refuse to make excuses for themselves, their students or their organizations; and * A school environment that communicates, teaches, and promotes values that build integrity, leadership, character, and the habits that drive success. The school would offer 190 days of instruction with the first day of the 2013-14 school year in late August 2013 and the last day in late June 2014; subsequent years would follow a similar calendar. The school day would begin at 7:40 a.m. and conclude at 4:40 p.m., except on Fridays when students would be dismissed at 1:40 p.m. to allow for teacher professional development. The proposed curriculum of Rochester Prep 3 is aligned to New York State and Common Core State Standards and focuses on developing mastery of core skills. Students will participate in two blocks of ELA each day with access to accelerated reading and developing sound foundational writing and mechanic skills. Students take two hours of math, with one hour devoted to math procedures and the other devoted to math problem solving. Science and social studies are taught with a heavy emphasis on non-fiction literacy skills. Teachers will utilize a variety of teaching methods based on a taxonomy of effective teaching skills developed by USI. The school will implement a “no excuses” culture. At full capacity, Rochester Prep 3’s daily operations would be managed by an elementary principal and a middle school principal, each of whom who would lead an administrative team consisting of: an operations manager who would manage facility and administrative operations; a dean of curriculum and instruction who would be charged with implementing the USI curriculum; a dean of students who would help promote and manage school culture, student discipline, and family outreach; and a special education coordinator who would oversee all special education issues. The principal would also be an instructional leader and oversee all teachers. As indicated above, the Rochester Prep education corporation would continue to contract with USI, a non-profit charter management organization originally established in 1996 to provide support for North Star Academy Charter School in Newark, New Jersey, to manage Rochester Prep 3. USI starts and manages urban college preparatory charter schools. As of the start of the 2012-13 school year, USI manages 33 schools in New York City, upstate New York, Newark, New Jersey and Boston, Massachusetts, 14 of which have been authorized by the SUNY Trustees (the earliest in 2003). USI would continue to provide the education corporation with essential services that will allow the proposed school leader to focus on instructional leadership. USI would manage program design and development; teacher recruitment; training for teachers, school leaders, and other staff; facility acquisition and financing; financial management; fund development; technology; legal counsel (for day-to-day school issues but not for the education corporation board); and marketing and advocacy. USI appears at the present time and for the near future to be fiscally sound. USI would provide services to Rochester Prep 3 in return for per pupil fees and other revenues equal to ten percent of per pupil funding and all other revenue during the school’s first three years of operation, decreasing to 9.5 percent in the fourth year and 9 percent in the fifth year. (While a draft contract was included as part of the application, as with all management agreements, the Institute reviews the final contract on behalf of the SUNY Trustees and pursuant to the charter agreement). Similar to other divisions of USI, the managing director of the USI Rochester and USI Troy divisions, Josh Phillips, will serve Rochester Prep 3 in a superintendency capacity, managing the school - but ultimately responsible to the education corporation's board for his performance. In keeping with that structure, the school's principal will serve as the school leader and report to the education corporation’s board of trustees and also be monitored by Mr. Phillips (who is also a board member of the education corporation). This dual reporting structure will ensure that the education corporation’s board of trustees is fully attuned to the school’s performance. At the same it will also allow USI Rochester and Troy divisions to implement the model that the education corporation’s board of trustees has retained it to implement. Day-to-day, the school’s principals, together with the oversight, mentoring and input of USI, will implement the mission and the policies set by the education corporation’s board of trustees, hire and supervise all school-based staff, and observe, evaluate, and provide professional development to teachers as the instructional leader of the school. Rochester Prep 3’s principal and director of operations would be selected from among the leadership teams at existing schools managed by USI. This model of internal promotion to leadership ensures continuity and effective practices and reduces the risk of a poor leadership hire. Once selected, the founding principal and director of operations would participate in USIs’ year-long fellowship for instructional leaders that includes professional development and advanced hands-on experience at a successful school to ensure an excellent start to each school. The education corporation’s board of trustees can refuse to hire these individuals with a super-majority vote of the trustees who are not affiliated with USI. In the same way, the board can vote to fire the principal or director operations over the objections of USI. A simple majority of non-affiliated board members can vote to not renew the contract with USI upon its expiration or sooner terminate the contract for cause. If the contract is terminated other than for cause prior to the end of the contract period, the education corporation would pay financial penalties on a sliding scale representing USI’s investment in the start-up of the school. Again, this strikes a balance between maintaining the education corporation board’s ultimate authority while also allowing USI to implement the program it was retained to implement. 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 table below illustrates the operational stage of each of the school’s currently managed by USI in upstate New York State: School Name Authorizer Location Year Opened Grades Served 2012-13 True North Rochester Prep SUNY Trustees Rochester, NY 2006 K-3, 5-8 True North Troy Prep SUNY Trustees Troy, NY 2009 K-1, 5-8 True North Rochester Prep – West Campus SUNY Trustees Rochester, NY 2011 5-6 Of the schools listed above, state testing data is available for Rochester Prep from 2008-09 through 2011-12, for True North Troy Prep from 2009-10 to 2011-12, and for True North Rochester – West Campus for 2011-12. The schools achieved very strong results on both the ELA and mathematics exams as illustrated below. True North Rochester Prep Charter School: 2008-09 State Assessments Testing Grades School Percent Proficient District Percent Proficient School Percent Free Lunch Effect Size1 ELA 5-7 93.0 61.6 58.0 1.51 Math 5-7 96.7 61.6 58.0 1.25 In 2008-09, 93 percent of Rochester Prep’s tested students were proficient in ELA, while 96.7 percent of the school’s tested students were proficient in mathematics. The school outperformed its district of location by 31.4 percentage points in ELA and by 35.1 percentage points in mathematics. Compared to demographically similar schools throughout New York State, the school performed better than expected to a large degree in both ELA and mathematics, demonstrating effect sizes of 1.51 and 1.25 respectively. True North Rochester Prep Charter School and True North Troy Prep Charter School: 2009-10 State Assessments Testing Grades School Percent Proficient District Percent Proficient School Percent Free Lunch Effect Size True North Rochester Prep Charter School ELA 5-8 64.6 24.6 60.4 1.39 Math 5-8 76.0 26.9 60.4 1.12 True North Troy Prep Charter School ELA 5 40.0 35.6 85.0 0.41 Math 5 70.9 49.4 85.0 1.30 In 2009-10, 64.6 percent of Rochester Prep’s students were proficient on the state’s ELA exam and 76 percent of the school’s students were proficient in mathematics. Using the state’s 2008-09 time-adjusted cut scores to adjust for changes n the timing of the administration of the exams, the school’s students were 85.8 percent proficient in ELA and 98 percent proficient in mathematics. The school outperformed the local district by 40 percentage points in ELA and by 55.1 percentage points in mathematics. Compared to demographically similar schools throughout New York State, the school performed better than expected in both ELA and mathematics to a large degree, demonstrating effect sizes of 1.39 and 1.12 respectively. Also in 2009-10, 40 percent of True North Troy Prep’s students were proficient in ELA and 70.9 percent of the school’s students were percent proficient in mathematics. Using the state’s time adjusted cut scores, 76.4 percent of students were proficient in ELA and 92.7 percent of the school’s students were proficient n mathematics. The school outperformed its local district by 4.4 percentage points in ELA and by 21.5 percentage points in mathematics. Compared to demographically similar schools throughout New York State, the school performed better than expected to a medium degree in ELA posting an effect size of 0.41. In mathematics, the school performed better than expected to a large degree demonstrating an effect size of 1.30. True North Rochester Prep Charter School and True North Troy Prep Charter School: 2010-11 State Assessments Testing Grades School Percent Proficient District Percent Proficient School Percent Free Lunch Effect Size True North Rochester Prep Charter School ELA 5-8 55.6 22.2 69.6 0.75 Math 5-8 78.2 27.7 69.6 1.26 True North Troy Prep Charter School ELA 5-6 53.0 28.8 95.7 1.58 Math 5-6 87.1 41.5 95.7 2.64 In 2010-11, 55.6 percent of Rochester Prep’s students were proficient on the state’s ELA exam and 78.2 percent of the school’s students were proficient in mathematics. The school outperformed the local district by 33.4 percentage points in ELA and by 50.5 percentage points in mathematics. Compared to demographically similar schools throughout New York State, the school performed better than expected to a medium degree in ELA and higher than expected to a large degree in mathematics, demonstrating effect sizes of 0.75 and 1.26 respectively. Also in 2010-11, 53 percent of True North Troy Prep’s students were proficient in ELA and 87.1 percent of the school’s students were percent proficient in mathematics. The school outperformed its local district by 24.2 percentage points in ELA and by 45.6 percentage points in mathematics. Compared to demographically similar schools throughout New York State, the school performed better than expected to a large degree in both ELA and mathematics, posting effect sizes of 1.58 and 2.64, respectively. True North Rochester Prep Charter School, True North Troy Prep Charter School, and True North Rochester West Campus Charter School: 2011-12 State Assessments Testing Grades School Percent Proficient District Percent Proficient School Percent Free Lunch Effect Size True North Rochester Prep Charter School ELA 5-8 48.6 19.8 NA NA Math 5-8 76.9 26.5 NA NA True North Troy Prep Charter School ELA 5-7 45.7 33.6 NA NA Math 5-7 85.6 40.1 NA NA True North Rochester Prep Charter School – West Campus ELA 5 35.3 21.8 NA NA Math 5 63.5 32.3 NA NA In 2011-12, 48.6 percent of Rochester Prep’s students were proficient on the state’s English language arts exam and 76.9 percent of the school’s students were proficient in mathematics. The school outperformed the local district by 28.8 percentage points in ELA and by 50.4 percentage points in mathematics. Effect Sizes for the 2011-12 school year are not yet available because the data about students eligible for the federal Free Lunch Program are not yet available. Also in 2011-12, 45.7 percent of True North Troy Prep’s students were proficient in ELA and 85.6 percent of the school’s students were percent proficient in mathematics. The school outperformed its local district by 12.1 percentage points in ELA and by 45.5 percentage points in mathematics. Effect sizes for the 2011-12 school year are not yet available because the data about students eligible for the FRPL Program are not yet available. In the same school year, 35.3 percent of True Rochester Prep Charter School – West Campus’s students were proficient in ELA and 63.5 percent of the school’s students were percent proficient in mathematics. The school outperformed its local district by 13.5 percentage points in ELA and by 31.2 percentage points in mathematics. Effect sizes for the 2011-12 school year are not yet available because the data about students eligible for the FRPL Program are not yet available. The by-laws of Rochester Prep indicate that the board would consist of not less than seven and no more than 11 trustees. The current members of the board of trustees of the education corporation are set forth below. 1. Geoffrey Rosenberger – Managing Member of Lily Pond Ventures, LLC., retired Co-founder and Managing Director of Clover Capital Management, Inc. Chair of Rochester Preparatory board of trustees and Chair of the True North Rochester Preparatory Charter School - West Campus board of trustees. M.B.A., University of Kentucky and is a CFA. 2. James Gleason - Chairman of Gleason Corporation and Chairman of Gleason Foundation. M.B.A., Simon School of the University of Rochester. 3. G. Jean Howard – Former Chief of Staff for the Office of Mayor Robert Duffy in the City of Rochester. M.S. in Education, Indiana University. 4. Jim Ryan – President of Ryco Management, LLC. M.B.A., Harvard Business School. 5. Rebecca Sumner - Executive Director of the Cancer Wellness Spa. Ph.D. in English, University of Rochester. 6. Doug Lemov - Managing Director of the Uncommon Schools Taxonomy of Effective Teaching Practices. Founding Managing Director for Rochester and Troy Uncommon schools, former Vice President of Accountability for SUNY Charter Schools Institute. M.B.A., Harvard University. 7. Josh Phillips - Managing Director of Uncommon Schools Rochester and Troy and the former Chief Operating Officer of Uncommon Schools. Mr. Phillips was previously Co-Director of Roxbury Preparatory Charter School in Boston. Ed.M. in Teaching and Curriculum, Harvard University. The USI Real Estate/Facilities Team is working to identify a facility to house Rochester Prep 3. The Facilities Team has visited, vetted, and identified three potential sites to meet the facilities needs of the school. All of the potential sites are within the boundaries of the Rochester City School District. The Institute reserves the right to review and approve all facilities in accordance with the charter agreement, and, pursuant to the Act, would have to hold a hearing on behalf of the SUNY Trustees prior to any school occupying district school space. The fiscal impact of Rochester Prep 3 on the district of residence, the Rochester City School District (the “District”), is summarized below. Expected Number of Students (A) Basic Charter School Per Pupil Aid (B) Projected Charter Per Pupil Revenue (C = A x B) Rochester City School District Budget* (D) Projected Impact to District (E = C / D) 87 (2013-14 school year – Year 1) $12,090 $1,051,830 $705,589,269 0.15% 576 (2017-18 school year – Year 5) $12,090 $6,963,840 $705,589,269 0.99% *The Rochester SD yearly budget figure was derived from the Rochester City School District: Budget Book and District Profile 2012-2013. The Rochester City School District’s budget documents can be found on the District’s website at: http://www.rcsdk12.org/cms/lib04/NY01001156/Centricity/Domain/20/2012-13_Final_Budget.pdf. The calculations above assume the current basic per pupil aid will not increase during the term of the charter. While it is likely that the District’s budget will grow over time, the Institute is also being conservative by leaving it unchanged in five years. Based on these assumptions, and projections that the charter school will have full enrollment, Rochester Prep 3 will have minimal fiscal impact on public schools in the Rochester City School District: 0.15% in 2013-14 school year and 0.99% in 2017-18 school year. The estimates used by the Institute to conduct its analysis are subject to unpredictable changes in the District’s budget in any given year, changes in the charter school per-pupil funding, and the actual enrollment in the charter school. For example, in the event that the budget of the District increases 5% in five years (equal to a 1% increase each year) to $740,868,732 and the basic per pupil aid to charter schools remains unchanged, the impact to the District would be even less: 0.94% in 2017-18 school year. While the education corporation has included in its proposal estimated calculations accounting for special education revenue, federal Title I funds, other federal grants and/or funds provided by the District and to be received by the charter school, the Institute’s calculations and analysis do not account for these sources of potential revenue. The Institute finds that the fiscal impact of the proposed school on the District, and public charter, public District and nonpublic schools in the same geographic area would be minimal. In the event that the school opens with a slightly larger enrollment, the Institute has determined that the fiscal impact of the proposed school on the District, public charter, public District and nonpublic schools in the same geographic area would also be minimal. The Institute reviewed the charter school’s proposed operating plans for each year of the proposed charter term and supporting evidence. The Institute also reviewed USI’s business plans to determine whether it could fully support its existing and new school proposed in this application. The Institute finds the education corporation’s budgets and fiscal plans are sound and that sufficient start-up funds will be available to the proposed charter school. The Institute notified the school district as well as public and private schools in the same geographic area of the proposed school about the receipt of the proposal. A public hearing was duly held by the Rochester City School District (the “District”) on July 26, 2012 following notice from the Institute on behalf of the SUNY Trustees. After notification by the Institute and through September 21, 2012, no comments were received from the District. However, the District provided two letters of support for the proposed school that the applicant included in the proposal. (Appendix A). The proposal was posted on the Institute’s website for public review. The Institute received no public comments regarding the proposed school (Appendix B). 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 the proposed school (Educ. 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). The proposal met the eligibility requirements, as evidenced by the following: * The proposal 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. * The 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. * The proposal included a viable plan to meet the enrollment and retention targets established by the SUNY Trustees for students with disabilities, ELLs, and students who are eligible to participate in the FRPL program (as detailed in Request No. 17 of the proposal). For the purposes of responding to the RFP, SUNY directed applicants to address overall targets for the school district of location, and in the case of New York City, the Community School District of location as identified by the Institute and available at: http://www.newyorkcharters.org/documents/ DistrictLevelDataonSubpopulations.pdf. As set forth in the proposed charter agreement, SUNY intends to revise such targets with more specific targets during the first year of the charter. * The proposal provided evidence of public outreach that conforms to the process prescribed by the SUNY Trustees in the letter of intent and RFP for the purpose of soliciting and incorporating community input regarding the proposed charter school. As the Rochester Prep 3 proposal met the eligibility criteria, the Institute’s evaluation continued with a full review of the proposal, an interview of the founding team and education corporation board of trustees and the partner organization, and requests for clarification and or amendments to the proposal. The review process then continued with an evaluation of the 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 19 proposals in response to its January 2012 RFP Summer Cycle, only six have been recommended for approval. All of the six proposals recommended for approval met the eligibility criteria and were therefore assigned a score using the rubric contained in the RFP. The proposal for Rochester Prep 3 earned a score of 51 preference points out of a possible total of 64. Based on this score and the other information and findings set forth herein, the Institute recommends that the SUNY Trustees approve the proposal to allow Rochester Prep Charter School to operate Rochester Prep Charter School 3, which would not exceed the statutory limit in Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(a). Findings Based on the comprehensive review of the proposal and interviews of the applicant and the education corporation board of trustees, the Institute makes the following findings. 1. The charter school described in the proposal meets 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 ELLs; * 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 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 of the proposed school on surrounding public and private schools. 2. The applicant has demonstrated the ability to operate the school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner as reflected in (among other things): * the provision of an educational program that meets or exceeds 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 cover 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: a) improve student learning and achievement; and b) materially further the purposes of the Act. This finding is reflected by (among other things): * 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; * the articulation of strategies to amend and differentiate instruction where assessment data indicates such need; * the staffing of classes with high-quality teachers; * the school’s principals participating in Uncommon Schools, Inc.’s year-long fellowship for instructional leaders that includes professional development and advanced hands-on experience at a successful school to ensure an excellence start to the middle and elementary divisions of the school; * the inclusion of significant opportunities for professional development of the school’s instructional staff throughout the year; * an academic program that focuses on the core subjects of ELA, mathematics, history/social studies and science; * the inclusion of regularly scheduled time for teachers to provide one-on-one and/or small group instruction to students; * a commitment to providing an educational program focused on outcomes, not inputs; * the conscious modeling of the school on some of the most successful middle schools in inner-cities across the United States; and * the oversight and support of a cadre of respected school professionals, who have successfully led and demonstrated achievement in inner-city charter schools. 4. The proposed charter school would meet or exceed enrollment and retention targets, as prescribed by the SUNY Trustees, of students with disabilities, ELLs and students who are eligible applicants for the FRPL program as required by Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a)(b)(i). The data upon which to base specific enrollment and retention targets mandated by the amendments to the Act was not fully 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. Before the first year of the charter term, SUNY will develop final 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 school 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 the proposed 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 the 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. 7. While the Act is not clear with respect to whether RFA applications are subject to the mandatory findings set forth in Education Law 2852(2), because more than five percent of the students residing in the Rochester City School District attend charter schools, the Institute finds, in accordance with subdivision 2852(2)(d), that granting the application for Rochester Prep 3 would have a significant educational benefit to the students expected to attend the proposed school as evidenced by: * the provision of an educational program that in Rochester has resulted in: - absolute ELA and mathematics scores higher than the District every time the state assessments have been administered; and - comparative ELA and mathematics scores that have yielded a positive effect size to a large degree when compared to students state-wide based on Free Lunch status every time the state assessments have been administered through 2010-11 school year (the last year for which complete data was available). Conclusion and Recommendations Based on its review and findings, the Institute recommends that the SUNY Trustees approve the proposal to allow True North Rochester Preparatory Charter School to operate Rochester Prep Charter School 3 beginning in September of 2013. In the event the Board of Regents does not permit the existing education corporation to add authority to operate two schools set forth in the proposal, the Institute recommends that the SUNY Trustees approve in advance, to the extent necessary, a merger of the two education corporations as soon as possible after corporate formation such that True North Rochester Preparatory Charter School would be the successor corporation and have the authority to operate two schools. Rochester Prep 3 Basic Identification Information Lead Applicant(s): Geoffrey Rosenberger for True North Rochester Preparatory Charter School Management Co.: Uncommon Schools, Inc. Other Partners: None Location (District): Rochester City School District Student Pop./Grades: Opening with 87 students in grade 5; growing to 576 students K - 2nd and 5th- 8th grade Opening Date: September 2013 School District of Proposed Location Profile Rochester City School District Enrollment (2010-11): 31,279 Percent (2010-11): African-American: 63 Hispanic: 23 Asian, White, Other: 13 Percent Qualifying for Free or Reduced Priced Lunch (2010-11): 84 English Language Arts (2010-11) Mathematics (2010-11) Grade Percent Proficient Grade Percent Proficient 3 24 3 29 4 29 4 32 5 26 5 33 6 29 6 34 7 21 7 30 8 17 8 20 Source: Demographic data are from the New York State Accountability and Overview Report 2010-11; test data are from the 2010-11 results released on the New York City Department of Education’s website. Appendix A District Comments Proposal to Establish the Rochester Preparatory Charter School 3 The Institute notes that the school is not seeking space in a district building. After official notice of the application and through September 21, 2012, the Institute received no comments on this proposal from the district. However, the district wrote two letters of support attached hereto that were included in the application. Appendix B Summary of Public Comments Received During SUNY Public Comment Period Proposal to Establish the Rochester Preparatory Charter School 3 A public hearing was held by the Rochester City School District on July 26, 2012. There were no speakers at the hearing. The Institute did not receive any comments about this proposal via e-mail or in writing. 1 Effect Size is a statistical measure calculated by dividing the difference between the actual and predicted outcome by the standard deviation. It reflects the difference between a school’s attained and expected performance in each tested grade, relative to other schools with similar free-lunch statistics and tested grades. (The Effect Size for all grades is weighted by the number of students tested in each grade.) The school’s overall performance rating is based on the following Effect Size ranges: Above 0.79 - Higher than expected to a large degree; 0.50 to 0.79 - Higher than expected to a medium degree; 0.30 to 0.49 - Higher than expected to a small degree; 0.01 to 0.29 - Slightly higher than expected; -0.29 to -0.01 - Slightly lower than expected; -0.30 to -0.49 - Lower than expected to a small degree; -0.50 to -0.79 - Lower than expected to a medium degree; Below -0.79 - Lower than expected to a large degree. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Resolution -4- October 2, 2012 2 1 16 Charter Schools Institute ? Summary of Findings and Recommendations 1 Page 17 of 23 Page 18 of 23