THE CHARTER SCHOOL DEBATE FULL OF SOUND AND FURY, BUT WHAT DOES IT SIGNIFY?

1
THE CHARTER SCHOOL DEBATE FULL OF SOUND AND
FURY, BUT WHAT DOES IT SIGNIFY?

• Consensus
• Fall, 2006

2
WHY CONDUCT A CONSENSUS ON CHARTER SCHOOLS?

• League has no position on charter schools.
• League opposed S7877, which as amended became the
  Charter School Act of 1998.
• Without an independent finance mechanism for
  charters, it would mean less money available for
  all public school students.
• Inadequate separation of church and state.
• Inadequate provision for disabled students.
• Objections were largely resolved in final bill,
  leaving the League without a position.

3
WHAT ARE CHARTER SCHOOLS?

• Public schools
• Self governing
• Freedom from certain rules in return for greater
  accountability
• No virtual charter schools
• No private school conversions
• Secular
• Comply with Open Meetings Law and Freedom of
  Information Law

4
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS?

• To improve learning and achievement.
• To increase learning opportunities particularly
  for at-risk students.
• To encourage innovation.
• To offer school choice.
• To provide schools with opportunity to change
  from rule-based accountability to
  performance-based accountability.

5
HOW ARE CHARTER SCHOOLS CREATED?

• Application of organization or group (other than
  private school or for-profit corporation.
• Apply to SUNY (50), Board of Regents or local
  board of education or Chancellor (50)
• Granted if comply with CSA and likelihood can
  meet or exceed NYS student performance standards.
• Traditional public school may convert upon vote
  of Board of Education and majority of parents of
  students attending. (No cap on conversions.)

6
WHO MAY ATTEND A CHARTER SCHOOL?

• Anyone may apply.
• Lottery are if the number of applicants is
  greater than spaces available.
• A charter school must be nonsectarian,
  non-discriminatory and cannot charge tuition.
• Enrolled students may withdraw at any time and
  return to district schools.

7
WHO MAY TEACH AT A CHARTER SCHOOL?

• Generally, teachers must be certified.
• Lesser of 5 teachers or 30 need not be
  certified, provided they have at least three
  years of teaching experience, are members of a
  college faculty, or have other specialized
  experience.

8
ARE TEACHERS MEMBERS OF UNIONS AND SUBJECT TO
CONTRACTS?

• Generally not unionized and no contract.
• May unionize.
• Public school conversions and certain larger
  charter schools remain members of collective
  bargaining units and subject to collective
  bargaining agreements.

9
HOW ARE CHARTER SCHOOLS FUNDED?

• The district of residence pays the per pupil
  approved operating expense.
• Students attending charters are also eligible for
  the same aids that private school students
  receive, including textbooks, library materials,
  computer software, and health services from the
  school district of residence.
• If charter provides services to disabled student,
  the district of residence transfers the state and
  federal special education funds attributable to
  that student to the charter.
• Charter schools are eligible to receive both
  state and federal grants for planning and
  facilities planning and creation.
• Private grants and donations.
• Some charters spend more per student than others.

10
SUPERVISION AND OVERSIGHT

• By chartering agency.
• Charters file annual reports and audits.
• Chartering agency conducts site visits, to gauge
  contractual compliance (the schools compliance
  with the terms of its charter).
• SED is responsible for regulatory compliance
  (compliance with applicable state and federal
  laws and regulations, such as laws for provision
  of services to students with disabilities).

11
Revocation for Academic Failure

• If the schools outcome on student assessment
  measures adopted by the Board of Regents falls
  below the level that would allow the commissioner
  to revoke the registration of another public
  school, and student achievement on such measures
  has not shown improvement over the preceding
  three school years

12
Failure to Renew forAcademic Reasons

• No clear standards.
• Both SUNY and the Regents purport to apply
  achievement standards in the decision to renew a
  charter. These standards are not written and
  have been overruled by political considerations.

13
Challenges for Charters

• Limited grants for start-up and facilities.
  Otherwise, must pay out of operating costs
• Limited time between grant of charter and opening
• For-profit EMOs take a portion of operating
  expenses

14
Challenges for Traditional Public Schools

• Transfer of funds to charters without ability to
  reduce costs proportionately
• Educators of last resort

15
Conflicting Public Policies

• Charters function as independent school districts
• SED encourages amalgamation of small districts by
  making consolidation monies available

16
CHARTERS IN NEW YORK

• New York State has approximately 4,000 public
  schools, serving 2.8 million students. Over 1,000
  schools and 1 million students are in New York
  City.
• Anticipate 100 charter schools will account for
  approximately 2.5 of the statewide public school
  student body, or 70,000 students.

17
2004-2005 School Year

• 61 charters with 18, 408 students.
• 16 chartered by Board of Regents, 32 were
  chartered by the Board of Trustees of the State
  University of New York (SUNY), 11 were chartered
  by the Chancellor of the New York City Public
  Schools and 2 were chartered by the Buffalo City
  School District.
• Size 88 to 1105 students.
• 21, or approximately one-third, were operated by
  EMOs.

18
2004-2005 School YearWho Attended Charters?

• 5/6 of charter students in elementary schools
• Over 2/3 charter students black approximately
  1/6 were Hispanic under 1/6 were white
• 358 students (1.9) with limited English
  proficiency
• 1,502 students with disabilities, representing 9
  of the children enrolled in charter schools. 63
  of the students at charters received Free or
  Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL)
• During the 2004-05 school year 1,445 or 7.8 of
  charter students, transferred out of charter
  schools

19
Where are Charter Schools

• Home District Number of Charters of District
  Budget
• 6/26/2005 2004 - 2005
• Buffalo 14 7.77
• Lackawanna 1 8.25
• Niagara-Wheatfield 1
• Rochester 4 4.06
• Syracuse 2 3.18
• Albany 8 10.15
• Schenectady 1 3.64
• Troy 1 2.07
• Yonkers 1
• NYC 57 0.30
• Wainscott 1 3.03
• Riverhead 1
• Roosevelt 1 4.52
• Shelter Island 0 3.27
• Sagaponack 0 3.17

20
Racial Mix

• The 2003 Regents Five Year Report to the Governor
  and Legislature on charter schools indicated that
  85 of students in charter schools were
  minorities, compared to 45.5 in all New York
  State public schools
• In New York City 96 of students in charters were
  minorities, compared to 87.1 in all New York
  City public schools.

21
Economically Disadvantaged Students

• The 2003 Regents Five Year Report to the Governor
  and Legislature on charter schools indicated that
  74 of students in charter schools qualified for
  free or reduced price lunch, compared to 50.6 in
  all New York State public schools
• In New York City, 82 of both charter and public
  school students qualified
• The 2004-05 Annual Report indicated 63 of
  students in charter schools qualified for free or
  reduced price lunch

22
Disabled Students

• A 2003 report on charter schools indicates that
  New York charters educate a smaller percentage of
  disabled students than traditional public schools
• More severely disabled students are returned to
  their home schools

23
Teacher Innovation and Autonomy

• Charter school theory touts freedom of teachers
  from educational bureaucracies as giving talented
  teachers autonomy to engage in innovative
  educational practices
• No New York State data
• Nationally, studies indicate that teacher
  satisfaction varies tremendously from school to
  school. Factors that increase satisfaction
  include small school size, school-based decision
  making, clear administrative vision without
  micromanaging, professional development
  opportunities tied to the schools mission, a
  core of experienced teachers at the school, job
  security for teachers and staff, and absence of
  high teacher turnover.
• California study indicated charter teachers
  valued membership in larger professional
  organizations such as unions and missed this in
  charter schools.

24
Teacher Quality

• No New York State data
• Nationally
• More likely to have attended selective colleges
• Less likely to be certified
• Math teachers are less likely than public school
  teachers to have subject matter training or
  knowledge, as measured by a college major or
  minor in math or passage of a math subject matter
  test
• Twice as likely as traditional public school
  teachers to have five years or less teaching
  experience, with one-half to two-thirds of
  charter teachers having five years or less
  experience

25
Achievement in Charters

• Nationally, there is no consensus about whether
  charters do a better job
• Hoxby charters do a significantly better job
• AFT and 2003 NAEP data when student data is
  disaggregated by race, ethnicity and special
  needs, public schools do at least as good a job
  of educating students as charters and private
  schools

26
Achievement in Charters

• New York State
• Hoxby found no significant difference in
  achievement in New York State
• No other New York studies found
• Some charters very successful
• Some terrible failures
• Too early because many charters have no history
  of standardized tests
• New York State has not collected data required by
  Charter School Act

27
Does Achievement Matter

• Advocates argue that annual achievement in
  charters is less important than in public schools
  because
• charters are responsive to parents, who may
  remove their children, and
• Charters are responsive to chartering agencies,
  which may revoke or fail to renew charters.

28
How to Assess Academic Success

• Disaggregate data by race/ethnicity and special
  need
• Longitudinal collection of data
• Compare value added in a charter to that added in
  the home school

29
Top Charters 4th Grade ELA

• Harlem Day Charter School, New York City 100.0
• Renaissance Charter School, New York City 95.7
• ?Roosevelt Childrens Academy Charter School,
  Roosevelt 87.3
• Carl C. Icahn Charter School, New York City
  86.2
• ?Genesee Community Charter School, Rochester
  83.8.

30
Worst Charters 4th Grade ELA

• Pinnacle Charter School, Buffalo (baseline year)
  18.4
• Stepping Stone Academy Charter School, Buffalo
  20.4
• Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School, New York City
  29.9
• COMMUNITY Charter School, Buffalo 32.5
• Charter School of Science and Technology,
  Rochester 33.9.

31
Top Charters 4th Grade Math

• Carl C. Icahn Charter School, New York City
  100.0
• International Charter School of Schenectady,
  Schenectady, 100.0
• Tapestry Charter School, Buffalo 100.0
• Our World Neighborhood Charter School, New York
  City 95.8
• Harlem Day Charter School, New York City 94.4
• Renaissance Charter School, New York City 92.0
• Roosevelt Childrens Academy Charter School,
  Roosevelt 91.8
• Genesee Community Charter School, Rochester,
  90.7.

32
Worst Charters 4th Grade Math

• Stepping Stone Academy Charter School, Buffalo
  33.9.

33
Top Charters 8th Grade ELA

• KIPP Academy Charter School, New York City 71.5.

34
Worst Charters 8th Grade ELA

• John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School,
  New York City 8.3
• Buffalo Academy of Science Charter School,
  Buffalo 13.6
• Enterprise Charter School, Buffalo 16.3
• Stepping Stone Academy Charter School, Buffalo
  20.0
• Charter School for Applied Technologies,
  Kenmore-Tonawanda 27.3.

35
Other Measures of Achievement

• Performance on student outcome indicators such as
  attendance, discipline, graduation
• Student and parental satisfaction
• Post-school outcomes
• Teacher satisfaction and development of teacher
  expertise
• The effect of charters on equity across
  demographic groups.

36
THE HEALTH OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

• Nationally, Amy Stuart Wells indicates the
  movement slowing
• New York.
• Demand still strong. CSA relatively new and
  market not yet mature or saturated
• Per capita funding for charter education makes
  New York relatively attractive for proprietary
  EMOs.
• One-quarter fail

37
THE INTERACTION BETWEEN CHARTERS AND TRADITIONAL
PUBLIC SCHOOLS

• National studies indicate traditional public
  schools have not changed operations in response
  to competition
• Split in New York State between New York City and
  up-state in how school districts view and relate
  to charter schools, with the City being more
  receptive to charters

38
WHITHER GOEST THE EXPERIMENT - A DISCUSSION OF
CHARTERS IN THE LARGER CONTEXT OF EDUCATION
THEORY For every important social problem there
is a simple answer that is wrong. Henry Menken

• In Questions You Should Ask About Charter
  Schools and Vouchers, Seymour Sarason, professor
  emeritus of Yales Department of Psychology, and
  education doyen, places the charter debate in the
  larger context of what is wrong with education in
  America. The book is valuable for its discussion
  of the extent to which the charter movement does
  and does not address these shortcomings.

39
Sarason Suggestions

• Experiment with a limited number of pilots
• Increase the time between charter approval and
  opening. Amend funding mechanisms so that
  traditional public schools do not lose money when
  charters open
• Amend funding mechanisms so that funds available
  to charters mirror funding available to
  traditional public schools
• Adopt and fund adequate measures of evaluation
• Create mechanisms to share successes and failures
  of the charter movement with other charters and
  traditional public schools.

40
II.A SHOULD AUTHORITY OF AGENCIES (other than the
home school district) TO GRANT, TO OVERSEE, TO
RENEW, AND TO REVOKE CHARTERS BE LIMITED TO A
SINGLE ENTITY?

• The authority to grant, oversee operations,
  renew and revoke charters is vested in both the
  Board of Regents (SED) and SUNY.
• They employ different standards in the grant,
  oversight, renewal, and revocation of charters.
  They also have different reporting requirements.

41
PRO

• To the extent one wishes to evaluate the success
  of charter schools, enable both charters and
  public schools to benefit from successful models,
  and require that unsuccessful models are closed
  or do not receive charters in the future, one
  agency should perform the chartering and
  oversight function.
• Expense of maintaining two bureaucracies
  performing the same function.
• With the new governor, the political
  considerations that resulted in bifurcated
  authority may no longer exist or may be removed
  over time.

42
CON

• Bifurcated authority was the result of a
  political negotiation. The Regents tend to be
  more Democratic and anti-charter and SUNY more
  Republican and pro-charter. With the Republicans
  in control of the Senate, the political
  considerations are unlikely to change in the near
  future.

43
II.B SHOULD THE LEAGUE ADVOCATE FOR MORE
STRINGENT OVERSIGHT OF CHARTER COMPLIANCE IN THE
RENEWAL / REVOCATION OF CHARTERS?

• The charter constitutes a five-year contract
  between the school and chartering agency, in
  which the school describes its educational
  program and outcomes for which it will be held
  responsible. Nationally, few charter schools
  have been closed for academic reasons. Most have
  been closed for financial problems.

44
PRO

• Because charters are relieved of certain
  regulatory requirements in return for the
  promises of academic achievement, innovation, and
  increased job satisfaction, they should be held
  strictly accountable for achievement of their
  missions, and the CSA should be amended to hold
  charters strictly accountable.
• Because charter schools operate without elected
  Boards of Education they ought to have very
  strong objective compliance requirements.
• Because charter schools represent experimental
  innovations in education, directly opposed to
  SEDs policy of district consolidation, only
  those charters that achieve their stated missions
  should enjoy a continued existence.

45
CON

• The CSA provides for adequate oversight with
  annual visits and reports.
• Some authors are critical of the level of
  oversight to which charters are subjected in New
  York State, arguing that charters receive greater
  oversight than underperforming traditional public
  schools, although this oversight appears to be
  flexible and designed to avert failure.
• Enhanced oversight costs money, and the CSA has
  never contained sufficient funds for adequate
  oversight.
• The market will close unsuccessful charters as
  parents withdraw their children from failing
  charters.
• Parents and students have the right to choice,
  even without increased achievement.

46
II.C SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT GREATER EMPHASIS
ON POSITIVE EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES IN THE RENEWAL
OF CHARTERS?
47
PRO

• One purpose of charter schools is to grant
  autonomy in return for increased academic
  performance. If charters are not held to
  increased standards of educational performance,
  one rational for their existence no longer
  exists.
• Another rationale for the creation of charter
  schools is to give educators freedom to explore
  innovative and locally developed education
  strategies. Without meaningful evaluation, there
  is no way to know whether an innovation is
  successful and to weed out bad experiments.
• Another rationale of charters is to discover new
  ways to educate at-risk students, with the idea
  of sharing successful strategies with traditional
  public schools. If one never determines the
  success of a strategy, no cross-fertilization can
  occur.
• There is a cost to the creation of charters, both
  in terms of money lost by the home district and
  disruption to childrens educations. If the cost
  is not justified by increased student
  performance, then a major rationale for charters
  ceases to exist.
• The market is an imperfect vehicle with which to
  drive school choice. Parents and students are
  unable to gauge the success of charters by
  reviewing school report cards because the charter
  may not have a demographically similar district
  school for comparison purposes.

48
CON

• The market of student and parental choice is
  sufficient to close unsuccessful charters. If a
  charter is unsuccessful, students will not
  attend.
• Proponents of charter schools say that a school
  may be positive and yet be short of high test
  results.
• Four years (the time at which charters seek
  renewal) is an insufficient period of time in
  which to create a school, iron out bugs and
  fine-tune academic performance.
• Many enrichment qualities, such as creativity,
  attitude, motivation, conflict resolution, cannot
  be measured.

49
II.D SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT EDUCATIONAL
ACHIEVEMENT EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN THOSE OF
COMPARABLE DISTRICT SCHOOLS AS A PRECONDITION FOR
CHARTER RENEWAL

• PRO
• Charter schools, in return for the promise to
  provide a quality education, have been given
  freedom from many restrictions existing in other
  public schools, allowing them to use innovative
  methods to improve learning. Therefore test
  results should equal or surpass those in district
  schools.

50
CON

• Cost of compliance. Meaningful comparison
  between charters and comparable district schools
  is an expensive process, which requires
  sophisticated data analysis by trained
  specialists. The CSA does not contain funding
  for this type of analysis.

51
III.A SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT LIMITING THE
FINANCIAL IMPACT OF CHARTER SCHOOLS ON THEIR HOME
DISTRICTS?

• The current system is based on the belief that
  the state and local districts give money to each
  child, which he or she takes to the public school
  of choice.

52
PRO

• Those districts that have seen the greatest
  percentage decline in funding as the result of
  the charter movement have been required to cut
  programs for children remaining in the district,
  making it even harder for such districts to meet
  the Regents standards.

53
CON

• New York State currently is among the top
  spenders for K-12 education in this country. To
  limit the financial impact of charters on their
  home districts would only increase the cost of
  education.
• When a student leaves the district to go to a
  charter school, the district no longer has the
  responsibility to educate that student.
  Districts should reduce their expenses
  accordingly.
• Taxpaying parents should be free to choose the
  schools that they believe would be best for their
  children.

54
III.B SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT A DEDICATED
STATEWIDE FUNDING STREAM?

• PRO
• See Pro arguments in III.A.
• The school district of a students residence
  pays the per pupil approved operating expense to
  the Charter School in 6 installments, beginning
  July 1 and every 2 months thereafter. Because,
  in the first year of operation, payments are made
  on the basis of initial-year enrollment
  projections for the Charter, with subsequent
  reconciliation, it is very difficult for a
  district to prepare a budget and implement
  economies when it is unsure whether the charters
  enrollment will reach projected figures. A
  dedicated funding stream would resolve this
  problem.

55
CON

• See Con arguments in III.A.
• Opponents of such a funding stream say that the
  money would have to come from additional taxes,
  or at the expense of some other budget items.
• A dedicated funding stream would discourage
  districts from implementing efficiencies of scale
  as they lose students to charters.

56
III.C SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT A DEDICATED
FUNDING STREAM FOR STUDENTS ATTENDING CHARTER
SCHOOLS WHO PREVIOUSLY ATTENDED PRIVATE OR
PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS, OR WERE HOME-SCHOOLED?

• Some students from private schools and some from
  parochial schools are attending charter schools.
  District funds currently follow these children to
  charter schools, even though the district
  previously received no state or local operating
  funds for their educations. Previous national
  research indicated up to 30 of children
  attending charters had not been previously
  enrolled in the public system. Although the
  numbers in New York State do not appear to be
  this high, it is clear that some children
  currently enrolled in charters were not
  previously attending public schools.

57
PRO

• The entry of additional students into public
  schools creates additional expenses for
  districts, without an infusion of additional
  funds. It further complicates their yearly
  financial planning, which must be completed
  before attendance figures at charter schools are
  known.

58
CON

• Parents of students in private and parochial
  schools are taxpayers, and their children have
  the right to attend public schools.

59
III.D SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT TRANSITION
ASSISTANCE?

• Would lessen the financial impact of charters on
  their home districts by making payments to the
  districts for a period of time, usually five
  years or less, after a student moves to a
  charter.
• A number of bills have been introduced that would
  provide transition assistance. They vary in how
  they are structured. One approach is to provide
  assistance once charter enrollment reaches 5 of
  a districts population. Another would make
  assistance available to all districts that lost
  money to charters. Most bills would decrease the
  amount of transition assistance on an annual
  basis, so that it would phase out in no more than
  five years.
• The State Education Department recommends
  amendment of the CSA so that transition
  assistance would be provided once the number of
  students in charter schools reaches a certain
  percentage of the districts population.

60
PRO

• When a new charter school opens, its district
  continues to carry many expenses unaltered by the
  departure of students. Transition assistance
  would give districts time to plan for the
  increased expenses engendered by charters in a
  thoughtful fashion, thereby avoiding the need to
  cut program for students remaining in traditional
  public schools.

61
CON

• Expense

62
III.E SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT HOME DISTRICT
PAYMENT TO CHARTERS BASED ON THE SAME STANDARD
USED TO PAY OPERATING AID TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS?

• Traditional public schools receive State
  Operating Aid based on average daily attendance,
  while charter schools receive payment from home
  districts based on enrollment. Enrollment is
  always greater than average daily attendance.

63
PRO

• A yes answer would mean that both charters and
  traditional schools would be reimbursed according
  to the same standard.

64
CON

• Charter school operators need to plan according
  to numbers of enrolled students. Unless
  districts were reimbursed according to students
  enrolled, the change would create a hardship for
  charters.

65
III.F SHOULD CHARTER SCHOOLS BE ELIGIBLE FOR
CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION SERVICES AND
REIMBURSEMENT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES?

• Traditional public schools receive partial
  reimbursement for building costs of capital
  construction and renovation services.
• Charters must rely on limited grants, donations,
  and, in some cases, reduced rents in New York
  City schools.

66
PRO

• Seymour Sarason, professor emeritus of Yale and
  proponent of charters as a limited educational
  experiment, points out that the potential benefit
  of charters is to demonstrate educational
  strategies and innovations that are efficacious
  for similar (often at-risk) populations. The
  purpose is not whether such innovation can occur
  on the cheap but whether it can improve outcomes.
  To measure the validity of this thesis, the
  financial playing field should be level for both
  charters and traditional public schools.

67
CON

• This proposal represents a risky investment in
  experimental education technology, with no
  guarantee that charters will survive for the life
  of their buildings. The evidence to date on
  charter survival in New York State indicates that
  as many as 25 of charters will not survive past
  the first renewal process. A more reasonable way
  to meet the demand for facilities would be to
  require districts to recycle space in district
  schools for charter schools. If funding is
  provided, it should not be made available until a
  charter has a track record of fiscal stability
  and educational achievement (at the time of
  charter renewal).

68
III.G SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT SEPARATE LEVELS
OF REIMBURSMENT FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION TO CHARTER SCHOOLS BASED ON WHAT THE
HOME DISTRICT SPENDS FOR THE LEVEL OF SCHOOLING
PROVIDED?

• In general, districts spend more to educate
  secondary students than they do to educate
  elementary students. Yet charter schools receive
  the average district operating expense regardless
  of the grade level educated. The New York State
  School Boards Association (NYSSBA) has
  recommended that the level of payment to charters
  be correlated to the level of education provided,
  so that transfer of funds is more closely related
  to the actual cost of educating a particular
  level of student.

69
PRO

• This differential could be corrected by giving
  the charters what the home district spends at the
  relevant level. At present many charter schools
  are receiving more per pupil than elementary
  schools in the district.

70
CON

• Given that charters receive little money for
  start-up planning and facilities acquisition,
  they need the additional money to be economically
  viable institutions.

71
III.H . SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT MEASURES THAT
WOULD LIMIT THE PERCENTAGE OF A DISTRICTS SCHOOL
BUDGET THAT COULD BE PAID TO CHARTER SCHOOLS?

• The State Education Department has offered a
  guideline that there should be significant
  concern when a Districts payments to charter
  schools are over 7.5 of its total budget. For
  the 2004-05 school year, the districts of Albany,
  Buffalo, and Lackawanna exceeded this level.

72
PRO

• The purpose of charters is to provide students
  with choice not to decimate traditional public
  schools. SED has recognized that, although
  districts can adjust spending in response to
  charters as long as their financial impact on a
  district is limited, as the percentage of
  students attending charters increases, district
  programs will suffer.

73
CON

• Demand for charters is presumably greatest in
  those districts that are least successful at
  educating their students. These districts have
  the greatest need for educational alternatives.
• Mathematically this could become impossible to
  put into practice. Charters receive approval for
  a number of students and, given that different
  monies follow different students according to
  disability status, this cutoff would be
  impossible to monitor from year to year as the
  cutoff point was approached.
• When such a limit is reached it could impact
  unfairly on a worthy applicant.
• Districts should find other economies.
• If charter schools were funded separately this
  would not become a problem.

74
IV.A SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT TO
THE CHARTER SCHOOL ACT SO THAT A NEW CHARTER
COULD BE REISSUED TO ANOTHER CHARTERING ENTITY
UPON CLOSURE OF A CHARTER SCHOOL?

• Currently, when a charter school closes, the
  closed school is still counted toward the total
  number of charters. If this amendment passed,
  the charter could be reissued so that the closed
  charter schools would no longer be counted toward
  the maximum number. Given that ten charters are
  no longer in existence, this proposal would allow
  for the immediate issuance of ten additional
  charters.

75
PRO

• Charter schools are still experimental in New
  York State. We have no knowledge of what factors
  contribute to the success or failure of charters,
  and current funds available for oversight and
  research are insufficient to adequately study
  this issue. Given the current failure rate of
  25, charters can at best be considered a mixed
  social experiment. This measure would enable
  more schools to be chartered without lifting the
  overall number of 100 functioning charter schools
  at any one time. It would be a compromise
  position between those who would substantially
  lift the cap and those who would keep it at its
  current level.
• This measure might have the beneficial
  consequence of more stringent oversight in the
  renewal and revocation of charters, as chartering
  agencies seek to assure that existing charter
  schools are successful educational institutions.

76
CON

• Given the current rate of failure and the fact
  that we have no way of ascertaining those factors
  that contribute to school success, the cap should
  not be increased.

77
IV.B SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT A LIMITATION ON
THE NUMBER OF CHARTERS ISSUED IN NEW YORK STATE?

• Pro
• Charter schools are still experimental. More
  time is needed to properly evaluate results of
  existing charter schools.
• Financial impact on city school districts has
  been negative and is predicted to grow each year
  even with no additional charter schools.
• The State has recognized that small school
  districts are a fiscally inefficient way of
  educating students and therefore has made money
  available for district consolidation. Yet the
  charter movement makes funds available for what
  are multiple independent units, outside the
  supervision of school districts.

78
CON

• There are long waiting lists for places in most
  existing charter schools. There is strong
  parental demand, because public schools have
  failed to provide meaningful educational
  opportunities to all their students.
• Successful charter schools offer the possibility
  of educational achievement, creativity and
  safety in small classes. Lifting the cap would
  expand charter schools into areas where failing
  schools are not adequately serving students.
• Those opposing a limit believe that competition
  between charter schools and district schools
  ensures quality and will force district schools
  to improve. Already some district schools are
  adopting uniforms and seeking longer school
  hours.

79
IV.C SHOULD ANY INCREASE IN THE CAP BE TIED TO
INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EDUCATIONAL QUALITY?

• PRO
• There is currently no evidence that charters in
  New York State do a better job of educating
  children than district schools. If the cap is
  lifted, they must be held accountable for
  educational results that are better than
  traditional public schools.
• There has been insufficient discussion of the
  cost of charters to justify lifting the cap
  without increased accountability for educational
  quality.
• The market is an inadequate guarantor of charter
  success because parents often chose schools for
  reasons other than academic success. Thus, it is
  incumbent upon the State to monitor for success.

80
CON

• There already exist adequate procedures for
  monitoring charter schools. Charters of failing
  schools can be and are revoked now.
• Parental choice is demanding more charter
  schools.

81
IV.D SHOULD ANY INCREASE IN THE CAP BE TIED TO
TRANSITION ASSISTANCE?

• PRO
• Those in favor of increasing the cap together
  with provision of transitional aid believe that
  this would mitigate the negative financial impact
  on district schools. There would be time to
  plan and adjust to decreasing enrollment.

82
CON

• Expense.
• Additional money can not help dysfunctional
  district schools.

83
IV.E SHOULD ANY INCREASE IN THE CAP BE TIED TO
CREATION OF A DEDICATED STATEWIDE FUNDING STREAM?

• PRO
• Assuming an increase in the cap, a school
  district may be left with a majority of children
  with special needs and less money to educate
  them. A dedicated fund would decrease the
  negative impact on those students remaining in
  district schools.

84
CON

• Expense.
• Creation of a dedicated fund would remove
  incentive for the district to become more
  efficient in its operations. It would provide a
  financial incentive for educational failure as
  measured by children electing to attend charters.

85
V.A SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT MEASURES THAT
WOULD LIMIT THE PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN IN A
DISTRICT THAT COULD ATTEND CHARTERS?

• See Pro discussion in subsection III.H, relating
  to a limitation on the percentage of district
  funds that could go to charters. This would be a
  similar way of achieving the same result.
• This would be easier to administer than a cap on
  district spending for charters.

86
CON

• See Con discussion in subsection III.H. This
  would be a similar way of achieving the same
  result.

87
V.B SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT MEASURES TO
PREVENT MID-YEAR DEPARTURES?

• While traditional schools lose money every time a
  charter opens, they do not lose the absolute duty
  to educate children from their district attending
  charters, and the children can leave charters and
  return to their home districts at any time during
  the school year.
• The high level of transfer out of some charters
  during the school year indicates that they may be
  encouraging children with behavioral problems or
  other special needs to return to their home
  schools, thus enabling charters to weed out those
  students they consider more difficult to educate.

88
PRO

• This would give home districts and students a
  greater degree of stability in that a student
  who had enrolled in a charter would remain the
  responsibility of the charter for the entire
  year.
• It would limit the ability of charters to return
  difficult to educate students to their home
  schools.

89
CON

• Sometimes it is beneficial to move an unhappy
  child.
• Parents should be able to explore and compare
  charter schools seeking a good fit. School
  choice allows parents to determine which school
  is most appropriate.

90
VI.A SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT PUBLIC FUNDING OF
ACADEMIC RESEARCH ABOUT THE POSSIBLE CORRELATION
BETWEEN CHARTER SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS AND
STUDENT ACADEMIC SUCCESS?

• Areas for investigation might include length of
  school day, week, year per student expenditures
  after factoring in donations the roles of
  for-profit and not-for-profit education
  management organizations (EMOs) rates of teacher
  and administrator retention class size school
  size student selection mechanism and retention,
  demographics of student body size of district
  and location within State the role of
  stand-alone facilities vs. shared facilities in
  charter success .

91
PRO

• Research into how these variables affect the
  quality of charter schools will provide valuable
  information with which to evaluate the potential
  success of charter applicants.

92
CON

• Adequate funding may be difficult to secure.
• Demand is sufficient to create new charters
  without delay.

93
V.B SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT PUBLIC FUNDING TO
MEASURE EDUCATIONAL GROWTH IN INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS
AS THEY PROGRESS FROM GRADE TO GRADE IN CHARTER
SCHOOLS?

• Pro
• The NY State Education Department is requiring
  traditional districts and charters to adopt data
  systems that will enable them to measure value
  added to an individual students achievement over
  time. Academics agree that a longitudinal
  approach, in which the value added to a childs
  education is measured on an annual basis, is a
  more valid approach to measuring educational
  achievement that the current point-in-time
  approach presented by current standardized
  testing.

94
CON

• By emphasizing only academic achievement, this
  approach takes an unduly narrow view of student
  progress. Educational growth is not the only
  measure of student progress. Social, behavioral
  and creative skills are not as easily measured,
  but are very important in student development.

95

• I. SHOULD THE NEW YORK STATE CHARTER
  SCHOOL ACT BE AMENDED?