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 Establish the Williamsburg Ascend Charter School (Brooklyn) Action Requested The proposed resolution authorizes the granting of a new charter to the proposed Williamsburg Ascend Charter School pursuant to Education Law subdivision 2852(9-a). 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”) to establish new charter schools on January 3, 2012, in response to which Williamsburg Ascend Charter School, a proposed education corporation seeking to operate one school to be located in Brooklyn, submitted a proposal 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 education corporation (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 the 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 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 applicant submitting the Recommended Proposal and the founding team described therein demonstrate 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 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 charter with the applicant of the Recommended Proposal, 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 to be formed 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 SUNY 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 education corporation 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/SUNYTrusteesCommittee Materials.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 is proposed to be located as well as public and non-public schools in the same geographic area regarding the receipt of a proposal to establish a charter school education corporation to operate one school (copy on file in the Albany Office of the Institute). Through September 20, 2012, SUNY received no comments from the district. Summary of Findings and Recommendations Proposal to Establish Williamsburg Ascend Charter School September 21, 2011 Executive Summary The proposal to establish the Williamsburg Ascend Charter School (“Williamsburg Ascend”) was submitted to the SUNY Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”) by lead applicant Steven Wilson 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 proposed mission of Williamsburg Ascend is to equip every student with the knowledge, confidence, and character to succeed in college and beyond. Students will, from the earliest grades, steadily build a strong foundation of learning habits, critical thinking skills, and knowledge; excel academically as they progress through the program, mastering high-level math and science; and graduate as confident young adults, prepared to succeed as college students, citizens, and leaders in their chosen fields. The founding school board intends to contract with the not-for-profit charter management organization Ascend Learning, Inc. (“Ascend Learning”) for overall school management services. Williamsburg Ascend would open in the fall of 2013 in New York City Community School District (“CSD”) 14 (Brooklyn) with 208 students in Kindergarten and 1st grade and grow to serve 660 students in Kindergarten through 5th grade in the final year of the proposed charter term. The school plans to enroll new students at all grade levels as space permits within the proposed charter term, a practice known as “backfilling.” The founders of the school ultimately envision a full K - 12th grade program and plan to seek an expansion of the school’s initial K - 5th grade structure at the time of Initial Charter Renewal. In conjunction with Ascend Learning, the proposed education corporation board has identified a possible private facility space to house the school. Ascend Learning, a New York based non-profit organization, currently manages three charter schools authorized by the NYC Schools Chancellor. A fourth charter school, Canarsie Ascend Charter School (“Canarsie Ascend”) was authorized by the SUNY Trustees and would open in the fall of 2013. Canarsie Ascend was originally scheduled to open in the fall of 2012, but delayed opening for one year as Ascend Learning continued to develop leadership capacity and sought further evidence of the academic success of the schools under its management. Based on recent assessment scores and the development of a stronger leadership development program at Ascend Learning managed schools, the Institute has determined that the decision to take a planning year for Canarsie Ascend was justified and will support a successful opening. Additionally, through an analysis of Ascend Learning’s business plan as discussed below, the Institute has determined that the delay in opening Canarsie Ascend will not impede the successful opening of Williamsburg Ascend. Williamsburg Ascend would replicate the educational program implemented at Brooklyn Ascend Charter School, Brownsville Ascend Charter School and Bushwick Ascend Charter School, which is based on the model set forth below. The use of the SABIS Educational Systems, Inc. (“SABIS”) proprietary curriculum and assessment program, through an established licensing agreement with Ascend Learning, is a central feature of the educational model. Available student performance data for Ascend Learning is also provided below. Consistent with the May 2010 amendments to the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended, the “Act”), the Institute finds: 1) that the proposal for Williamsburg Ascend 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 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 charter proposal for the establishment of the Williamsburg Ascend Charter School. 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 Williamsburg Ascend proposal including academic, fiscal and legal soundness reviews. Pursuant to its protocols, the Institute has met with the applicant, the proposed board of trustees which will oversee the school, other members of the founding team and representatives of Ascend Learning. In addition, one or more members of the SUNY Trustees’ Charter Schools Committee interviewed the lead applicant, members of the proposed education corporation board and representatives from Ascend Learning. The mission of Williamsburg Ascend would be, in part, to “equip every student with the knowledge, confidence, and character to succeed in college and beyond.” The founders would implement the following key design elements in pursuit of the school’s mission: * use of the SABIS Educational System including a college-preparatory curriculum that is tightly linked to an electronic assessment system, innovative pedagogical protocols, tools for building a transformative school culture, and state-of-the-art school management software; * the implementation of a No Excuses school culture, which endeavors to assertively shape students’ habits, values, and aspirations; and * a college preparatory environment of high expectations for all students. The school would offer 180 days of instruction with the first day of the 2013-14 school year on or near September 3, 2013 and the last day on or near late June 25, 2014; subsequent years would follow a similar calendar. The school day would begin at 8:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:30 p.m., except on Fridays when students would be dismissed at 2:00 p.m. to allow for teacher professional development. As stated above, the board of trustees of Williamsburg Ascend would contract with Ascend Learning for charter management services including providing the school’s educational program; selecting and acquiring instructional materials; recruiting, recommending to the board for hire, and developing the school director; and day-to-day operations including business administration, contracted services, human resources, and maintenance of the school’s facilities. Ascend Learning would provide these services in exchange for a fee, as outlined in an agreement with the proposed board of trustees. The education corporation board will evaluate the quality of the services provided by Ascend Learning and have the opportunity to extend or cancel the agreement at the end of each contract period. Currently Ascend Learning contracts with three charter schools in Brooklyn authorized by the New York City School’s Chancellor: Brooklyn Ascend Charter School, Brownsville Ascend Charter School, and Bushwick Ascend Charter School, which collectively serve 1,686 students; and the SUNY authorized Canarsie Ascend Charter School scheduled to open in the fall of 2013. A draft contract between the parties for Williamsburg Ascend indicates that the management fee will be approximately $2,029 per student, or 15% of the per pupil income. Approximately 6% of that fee is a pass-through of the SABIS licensing fee for curriculum and assessments. 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 Institute examined the relationship between the school and SABIS, a for-profit entity to make certain that the arrangement would not violate the restrictions on for-profit management or operation of charter schools set forth in Education Law subdivision 2851(1). The Institute found the contractual arrangements between SABIS, Ascend Learning and the proposed school legal because SABIS is not providing managerial or operational services to the school. Rather, Ascend Learning is paying a per pupil fee to SABIS for use of propriety curricula and assessment materials and systems pursuant to a license, the cost of which is passed on to the school through the not-for-profit management contract with Ascend Learning in the same manner as textbooks are purchased from for-profit book vendors. The chart below illustrates the schools that currently contract with Ascend Learning. School Name Authorizer Location Year Opened Grades Served 2012-13 Brooklyn Ascend Charter School New York City Department of Education CSD 18, Brooklyn 2008 K-5 Brownsville Ascend Charter School New York City Department of Education CSD 18, Brooklyn 2009 K-4 Bushwick Ascend Charter School New York City Department of Education CSD 32, Brooklyn 2010 K-3 Of the schools listed above, state testing data is available for Brooklyn Ascend Charter School (“Brooklyn Ascend”) from 2009-10 through 2011-12 and for Brownsville Ascend Charter School (“Brownsville Ascend”) from 2011-12. Brooklyn Ascend Charter School: 2009-10 State Assessments Testing Grades School Percent Proficient District Percent Proficient School Percent Free Lunch Effect Size1 ELA 3 49.1 43.6 68.3 0.37 Math 3 43.4 48.8 68.3 -0.33 In 2009-10, 49.1 percent of Brooklyn Ascend’s 3rd grade students were proficient in ELA and 43.4 percent of the school’s 3rd grade students were proficient in mathematics. The school outperformed its district of location by 5.5 percentage points in ELA. The school was outperformed by the district by 5.4 percentage points in mathematics. Compared to demographically similar schools throughout New York State, the school performed higher than expected to a small degree in ELA and it performed lower than expected to a small degree in mathematics posting effect sizes of 0.37 and -0.33, respectively. Brooklyn Ascend Charter School: 2010-11 State Assessments Testing Grades School Percent Proficient District Percent Proficient School Percent Free Lunch Effect Size ELA 3-4 53.4 46.1 65.4 0.43 Math 3-4 58.3 51.8 65.4 0.26 In 2010-11, 53.4 percent of Brooklyn Ascend’s 3rd - 4th grade students were proficient in ELA and 58.3 percent of the school’s 3rd - 4th grade students were proficient in mathematics. The school outperformed its district of location by 7.3 percentage points in ELA and by 6.5 percentage points in mathematics. Compared to demographically similar schools throughout New York State, the school performed higher than expected to a small degree in both ELA and mathematics, posting effect sizes of 0.43 and 0.26, respectively. Brooklyn Ascend Charter School and Brownsville Ascend Charter School: 2011-12 State Assessments Testing Grades School Percent Proficient District Percent Proficient School Percent Free Lunch Effect Size Brooklyn Ascend Charter School ELA 3-5 58.8 37.2 N/A N/A Math 3-5 92.6 49.0 N/A N/A Brownsville Ascend Charter School ELA 3 60.1 38.7 N/A N/A Math 3 89.0 50.5 N/A N/A In 2011-12, 58.8 percent of Brooklyn Ascend’s 3rd - 5th grade students were proficient in ELA and 92.6 percent of the school’s 3rd - 5th grade students were proficient in mathematics. The school outperformed its district of location by 21.6 percentage points in ELA and by 43.6 percentage points in mathematics. A comparison to demographically similar schools throughout New York State is not available for the 2011-12 school year because the free lunch data required for the analysis is not yet available. Also in 2011-12, 60.1 percent of Brownsville Ascend’s 3rd grade students were proficient in ELA and 89.0 percent of the school’s 3rd grade students were proficient in mathematics. The school outperformed its district of location by 21.4 percentage points in ELA and by 38.5 percentage points in mathematics. A comparison to demographically similar schools throughout New York State is not available for the 2011-12 school year because the free lunch data required for the analysis is not yet available. The features of the school’s proposed educational program include relatively large class sizes with explicit, whole-class instruction; frequent electronic assessment that provides teachers with immediate feedback on student mastery of concepts taught over the past week; the use of student prefects to assist their peers and the teacher; an Intensive Program to fill learning gaps quickly, including those resulting from language barriers; specific, concrete, and actionable techniques to raise academic and behavioral expectations that make the most efficient use of classroom time, create a strong and vibrant culture, and build character and trust; and powerful academic management software that relieves teachers of many time-consuming tasks, with the goal of allowing them to focus on delivering clear, vibrant, and engaging lessons. The SABIS Educational System includes a detailed, college-preparatory curriculum linked to an electronic assessment system, innovative pedagogical protocols, tools for building a transformative school culture, and state-of-the-art school management software. Over the course of 180 days of instruction, students will receive relatively more time on core subjects, with the school day running from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. four days a week, Monday through Thursday, and 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Friday. Each student will have eight periods of instruction each day, including ELA 15 times a week and mathematics eight times a week, as well as time for independent reading. In addition to ELA and math, the curriculum will include science, social studies, Spanish (four days a week), fine arts (dance, music, theater, and visual arts), health education, and physical education. Through the SABIS Intensive Program, students substantially behind in English, mathematics, or both, would receive instruction in small groups, focusing only on the essential concepts necessary to succeed in the general education classroom with their peers. A program of Structured English Immersion will be used to prepare ELLs to join their peers successfully and as quickly as possible. The school will use SABIS programs specifically designed for ELLs that focus on phonics, reading, fluency, comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, and other English language fundamentals. Reporting jointly to Ascend Learning and the school board, the school director would be ultimately responsible for the quality of instruction in the school and the academic progress of the student body; the proposal states that he or she will be, above all, the school’s instructional leader. The school’s leadership team, composed of a dean of instruction, a dean of students, a dean of special education and a director of operations, would report directly to the school director. The dean of instruction and dean of students would oversee instructional staff, with the former concentrated on academic program implementation and the latter on the implementation of the No Excuses culture. The dean of special education would oversee special education staff and the special education program. The director of operations would oversee non-instructional staff. Teachers would be accountable for student results as they track their students’ progress in mastering required skills and concepts. The school’s faculty would receive intensive and ongoing professional development through three weeks of pre-service training; professional development days; after-school sessions throughout the school year; weekly grade-team meetings; and ongoing modeling. The Williamsburg Ascend by-laws indicate that school board would consist of not less than five voting members. The proposed initial members of the board of trustees are set forth below. 1. Lorna Alleyne – Former Vice President of the Bank of New York Mellon. B.S., Pace University. 2. Theodore Coburn – Founder of Coburn Greenberg Partners; former executive vice president of Nations Academy (a private school) and executive vice president of Edison Schools (a for-profit education management organization). M.B.A., Columbia University; M.Ed., Harvard University. 3. C. Allison Jack – Senior Program Director, New Leaders for New Schools; former Director of New Schools, Chicago Public Schools. M.P.A., University of Chicago. 4. Amanda Craft – Recruiting Research Analyst, Bridgewater Associates; former Regional Recruitment Fellow at Teach for America. B.A., Columbia College. 5. Stephanie Mauterstock – Co-Director for Business and Operations, Manhattan Charter School; previously a grants compliance and market research analyst for Edison Schools. B.A. ,Tufts University. The founding team for Williamsburg Ascend envisions locating the school in CSD 14. The applicant and Ascend Learning have demonstrated the ability implement a viable private facilities plan with the three existing schools Ascend Learning manages and have presented an effective plan for doing so within the proposal for the facility currently under consideration. The fiscal impact of Williamsburg Ascend on the district of residence, the New York 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) New York City School District Budget* (D) Projected Impact to District (E = C / D) 208 (2013-14 – Year 1) $13,527 $2,813,616 $19,720,913,110 0.01% 660 (2017-18 – Year 5) $13,527 $8,927,820 $19,720,913,110 0.05% *The New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE”) budget was derived from and can be found on the NYCDOE’s website: http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/funding/overview/default.htm. 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 for five years. Based on these assumptions, and projections that the charter school will have full enrollment, Williamsburg Ascend will have minimal fiscal impact on public schools in the District: 0.01% in 2013-14 school year and 0.05% 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, in the charter school per-pupil funding, and in the actual enrollment of the charter school. For example, in the event that the budget of the District increases 5% in five years (assumes a 1% increase each year) to $20.7 billion and the basic per pupil tuition to charter schools remains unchanged, the impact to the District would remain minimal: 0.04% in 2017-18 school year. While the school 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 schools open slightly larger enrollment, the Institute has determined that the fiscal impact of the proposed schools 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 start-up and operating budgets for each year of the proposed charter term and supporting evidence. The Institute also reviewed the business plan of Ascend Learning to determine whether Ascend could support an additional school. The Institute finds the school’s budgets and fiscal plans are sound and that sufficient start-up funds will be available. The Institute reviewed Ascend Learning’s proposed fiscal and operating plans for each year of the proposed charter term and supporting evidence. The Institute also reviewed the network’s business plans to determine whether it could fully support its existing and the new school proposed in this application with a particular emphasis on the philanthropy needed to support the network. 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 held by the NYCDOE on August 14, 2012. Through September 21, 2012, the Institute received no comments from the District regarding this proposal (Appendix A). The proposal was posted on the Institute’s website for public review and SUNY provided notice to education and parent organizations in the area. Public comments made at the hearing and received separately by the Institute have been compiled in a Summary of Public Comments (Appendix B) which was shared with the SUNY Trustees and posted on the Institute’s website at: http://www.newyorkcharters.org/ SUNYTrusteesCommitteeMaterials.htm. All public comments have been carefully reviewed and considered. 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 (Ed. Law §2852(9-a)(b)(ii)). The Institute has determined that the applicant has appropriately demonstrated community support for the school. 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 ­ 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, students who are ELLs and students who are eligible to participate in the FRPL program (as detailed in Request No. 17 of the proposal). For the purpose 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 CSD 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 Williamsburg Ascend proposal met the eligibility criteria, the Institute’s evaluation continued with a full review of the proposal, continued due diligence on Ascend Learning, an interview of the founding team and proposed board of trustees, 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 11 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 Williamsburg Ascend earned a score of 35 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 establish Williamsburg Ascend Charter School, 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 proposed 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 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 of the school on surrounding public and private schools. 2. The applicant has demonstrated the ability to operate the 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 the 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 implementation of the SABIS Educational System; * robust programs to meet the needs of students at risk of academic failure; * 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 with an explicit focus on instructional leadership to improve teaching and student learning. 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 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. Conclusion and Recommendations Based on its review and findings, the Institute recommends that the SUNY Trustees approve the proposal to establish the Williamsburg Ascend Charter School to open in Brooklyn in September of 2013. Williamsburg Ascend Basic Identification Information Lead Applicant(s): Steven F. Wilson Management Co.: Ascend Learning, Inc. Other Partners: None Location (District): Community School District 14 Student Pop./Grades: Opening with 208 students in Kindergarten and first grade; growing to 660 students Kindergarten through 5th grade Opening Date: September 2013 School District of Proposed Location Profile Brooklyn District 14 Enrollment (2010-11): 19,714 Percent (2010-11): African-American: 29 Hispanic: 59 Asian, White, Other: 11 Percent Qualifying for Free or Reduced Priced Lunch (2010-11): 87 English Language Arts (2010-11) Mathematics (2010-11) Grade Percent Proficient Grade Percent Proficient 3 46 3 52 4 49 4 57 5 49 5 61 6 37 6 41 7 31 7 49 8 27 8 42 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 Williamsburg Ascend Charter School The New York City Schools Chancellor provided SUNY with comments only for those schools seeking space in a District operated building. As Williamsburg Ascend plans to locate in private space, no District comments were received. Appendix B Summary of Public Comments Received During SUNY Public Comment Period Proposal to Establish the Williamsburg Ascend Charter School A public hearing was held by the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) on August 14, 2012. Attendees: 11. Speakers: Four, including NYS Assemblyman Lentol and a staff member from NYC Councilwoman Reina’s office. Comments were as follows: * Charter schools should be placed only where needed; CSD 14 does not need them. * Existing district schools in CSD 14 are under-enrolled and cannot afford to lose more students to charter schools. * Existing CSD 14 schools are quality schools. * Principals of PS 84, PS 34, PS 31, and PS 110 say that their ELA proficiency is only one point less than an existing Ascend school. * Would like charter schools to leave district schools alone; they are “being shoved down our throats.” * No parents or community members want charter schools. Charter schools should only be placed where they are needed. * No need for new elementary schools; elementary schools in CSD 14 are already under-enrolled. CSD 14 needs middle schools and high schools. * CSD 14 is drowning in elementary schools. We are not anti-charter. We just want what we need; middle school and high school seats. * SUNY representative not here because they do not care. Charter schools lead to under-enrollment in district schools. The Institute received two e-mails regarding this application: * From a Community School Board 14 resident and parent- - Williamsburg Community and CEC 14 against charter schools, especially those invading public [district] school buildings. - Co-locations deprive [district] public schools of funding they need to be or become successful. - Already good elementary schools in the community. - Charter schools are boot camps with no parent input; they do not serve English language learners or students with special education needs. - The state should support district schools and not profit driven charter schools. - Some of the people affiliated with this school have a relationship to the failed Edison schools. * From a representative of Williamsburg and Greenpoint Parents: Our Public Schools! (WAGPOPS!) - Wholeheartedly opposed to the creation of another elementary school in D14. - By the fall of 2013, when Ascend would open, 46% of D14 Kindergartners will be enrolled in D14 charter schools. - D14 has an array of school choice already. - WAGPOPS! sent a 45 page letter in opposition to the Citizens of the World Charter Schools in CSD 14. The group continues to assert the points from that letter which include: > District schools are under-enrolled. > Additional elementary charter school seats will have a considerable negative impact on District schools. 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 2 1