State of the Sector 2012

8/2/2019 State of the Sector 2012

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-the-sector-2012 1/44

It’s about great public schools.

e ae

e nyc caecl ec

2012





e ae e nyc cae

cl ec

2012



ab e cae cene

The New York City Charter School Center envisions a uture in which all o New York’s students haveaccess to a frst-rate public education, so that, no matter their background, they can participate in

society on air terms. We believe that charter schools are partners in a larger eort to build andmaintain a great system o public schools. We help new charter schools get started, support existingschools, and build community support so that highly eective schools can ourish.

ab e Daa anaency InIIaIve

This report is part o a multi-year eort to promote data transparency within New York City’s charterschool sector. To explore other available data and analysis, visitwww.nycCharterSchools.org/Data

jec eam

James Merriman, CEO Daniel Hayman, Lead AnalystChristina Brown, Chie o Sta Eric Horowitz, Data AnalystMichael Regnier, Project Lead Christian Villenas, Data AnalystDavid Frank, Project Manager Cara Volpe, Facilitator

cl leaDe aDvIy cmmIee

This report and the Data Transparency Initiative would not be possible without extensive eort andthoughtul advice rom a committed group o charter school and network leaders.

Vasthi Acosta, Ed.D. Daniel Rubenstein Amber Charter School Brooklyn Prospect Charter School

Ken Byalin, Ph.D. Matt Scott John W. Lavelle Preparatory Charter School Harlem Village Academies

Stacey Gauthier Alandrea TimmonsRenaissance Charter School Victory Education Partners

Jacob Mnookin Ka Yee TomConey Island Preparatory Charter School Uncommon Schools

ecIal ank

New York City Charter Schools Colorado League o Charter SchoolsNew York State Education Department Charter School Growth FundKIPP Foundation Rodriguez Valle CreativeFOCUS DC

The New York City Department o Education was instrumental in providing data, context, and adviceto improve the work o this project. The Department’s shared commitment to data transparency,accuracy, and airness is greatly appreciated.

upport for this prot os fro th mih & us D oudtio.Responsibility or the fnal content and any errors is the Charter Center’s alone.



Contents

Foreword: Looking Back to Move Ahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .02

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .04

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .06

What hois do NYC charter schools provide? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08

What are NYC charter schools’ rsuts? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Who are NYC charter schools’ studts? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

What is the outoo or the uture o NYC charter schools? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Sources and Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38



2 I NEW YORK CITY cae cl CENTER It’s about great public schools

While rom our current vantage point, we might view thegrowth and success o charter schools as inevitable, the actis that there was nothing inevitable about it. Certainly, manybelieved and ervently hoped the eort would ail. It is worthreviewing, then, how we got here and why.

First, there are 136 charters schools in NYC today only be-cause hundreds o dedicated educators, parents, communitymembers, partners, volunteers, and supporters came to-

gether to create these new schools rom the ground up. Manydid so when there was little organized assistance available,and when charter school authorizers were still fguring outhow to oversee them and hold them accountable. The sheerwork o building these schools (which are both educationalinstitutions and complex not-or-proft entities) was andremains immense.

It is because o this that those pioneers who frst ventureddown the charter school path must not be orgotten. I thedaunting challenge o school-building were not enough, theyaced a slew o lawsuits and political attacks (as our wellestablished sector still aces today). Yet they persevered,because they saw in charter schools a way to wrest controlo public schooling rom a large, clumsy and mandate-boundbureaucracy and restore it to communities, passionate edu-cators and the students they teach. And parents respondedenthusiastically.

What would the new charter schools do with their exibility?They worked on new ideas, but also existing theories that hadrarely been implemented. A longer school day and longerschool year, or example, had been discussed or years as a

way to provide hundreds o hours o additional instruction.Charter schools made it their hallmark. A school-wide cultureo hard work and academic ocus had been an extraordinaryaccomplishment. Charter schools made it an expectation.

NYC charter schools also used their exibility to fnd newways to structure educators’ employment in order to promotestudent achievement, re-thinking how work is divided; howeducators are compensated; and how they could be recruited

hired, developed, retained, and (i necessary) dismissed.Over time, this exibility and new way o thinking has startedto fnd its way into labor arrangements between charterschools and unions, and even between traditional districtsand unions.

Even with the almost heroic commitment o NYC charterschool ounders, it would be naïve to think that New YorkCity’s charter sector could have thrived without a critical de-cision by Mayor Bloomberg, Chancellor Joel Klein, and then-Deputy Mayor (now Chancellor) Dennis Walcott. Had they notmade space in district school buildings available to charterschools, the sector would have aced NYC’s expensive realestate market without public acility unding, and would be araction o its current size and strength as a result. That decision reverberated throughout American education; the leadeo the nation’s largest public school system had recognizedthat charter schools were a source o hope, not a competitivethreat, and that public resources should be tied tostudents and results above all else. Increasingly, other districts romacross the country have adopted this approach—entering intcollaboration compacts with their respective charter sectors

just as has happened in NYC.

ewD:

LOOKING BACK TO

mve aeaDWhen the legislation to allow charter schools was passed in late 1998, it was hard to imagine what

would arise in New York City just over a dozen years later: inarguably, the best and most vibrant char-

ter school sector in the United States. Because o NYC charter schools, tens o thousands o largely

disadvantaged students have received a better education. Their parents were given, oten or the rst

time, a meaningul choice o public school. Even students who never attended a charter school have

benetted rom charter schools’ inusion o new ideas—and more importantly, new urgency —or a system o public schools that works or all students.



3I

These contributions rom the NYC charter sector’s pastshould rame its approach to the present and uture.

Today, as this report’s review o the data confrms, the stateo the sector is strong and worth celebrating. But it is by nomeans perect. It would be a disservice to public education’sdifcult work to suggest otherwise. There are old challengesstill remaining, and new ones on the horizon. In particular,as charter schools establish a larger presence in the schoolsystem, and demand access to public acilities on par withtheir district counterparts, their role in that system willinevitably shit. That will include increasing the number ohigh-need students that the law requires them to enroll,retain, and teach. Equally, charter schools—like their districtcounterparts—will need to continue seeking improvement inthe crucial subject o English Language Arts and the ultimatechallenge o college readiness.

Charter school educators and their supporters have everyright to take pride in the sector’s historic accomplishments.O equal importance is, o course, what happens next. The

NYC charter school sector must continue to stake its claimas a powerul orce to improve education or all. The sameelements that brought the charter sector this ar—audaciouseort, creative leadership, a “no excuses” mentality, ac-countability or results, transparency about those results, aswell as visionary support rom outside—will be essential tothe sector’s continued success and viability. New York City iscounting on it.

James Merriman

CEONew York City Charter School Center

e ae e new yk cIy cae cl ec




Having become an established (i at times controversial) parto a larger system o public schools, charter schools willcontinue to expand, still working to refne their programsand obtain even better results. But as they pursue amiliargoals, they will also ace a new set o questions about theirscale and role. For instance, as charters move to serve evergreater numbers o students, to what extent can the charterschool model be adopted (and adapted) to improve traditional

district schools? To what extent are charter schools’ resultsshaped by their dierences in governance structures or en-rollment patterns? And are those dierences intrinsic to thecharter school model, or simply present-day eatures o it?

Since the charter school sector was built on a commitmentto achievement and accountability, such questions are asimportant as any the sector has aced—and some early,partial answers have begun to emerge. For instance, charterschools are now required to enroll and retain certain groupso at-risk students at rates comparable to the local districtschools, or risk closure, a shit that is likely to narrow dier-ences in charter and district school demographics. Charter

schools are also acting collectively to share best practices orstudents with special needs and make it easier or amilies tofnd and apply to charter schools (including through a com-mon online application). And with the signing o a District-Charter Collaboration Compact, charter schools are joiningtheir district colleagues to fnd new ways to work togetherand share best practices.

As charter schools adjust to their growing size and thechanging public debate, there is too oten a key ingredient

missing: meaningul, transparent, and accessible data aboutthe state o the NYC charter school sector. This State o theSector report attempts to do something about that. Its ap-proach is to oer a descriptive portrait based on data provid-ed by public agencies. While it does not show all the varietyamong individual charter schools, nor does it predict whatmay change as these generally small and very young schoolscontinue to grow, it does represent a frst step toward a more

data-driven conversation.

The report ocuses on our pressing questions and presentsthe ollowing fndings.

wht hois do nyc hrtr shoosproid?Charter schools’ steady growth over 12 years has been ueledby enormous demand rom students and amilies, manyo whom previously had ew i any choices. In last year’sadmissions lotteries, an estimated fve students applied oreach available seat. Enrolling 47,000 students today, charterschools will in a ew years’ time educate one in ten publicschool students. Charter schools have undoubtedly providedadditional choices; but it is important to remember thatcharter schools today are one small part o what has becomea vast system o school choice in NYC, including many districtschools that require much more than an application orm toenroll a student.

Charter schools’ reedom to implement new and unconven-tional ideas about education has also broadened amilies’choices. Among the most prominent innovations have been

execIve SUMMARY

Charter schools were created to change things. A bold and controversial concept when they

came to New York City in 1999, charter schools have had remarkable success in creating choices

or amilies, raising students’ academic achievement, and experimenting with innovative ideas or

education. Today, New York City’s charter school sector is higher-perorming and more vibrant than

any in the United States, and has grown rom two schools in 1999 to 136 schools educating 47,000

students today. The accomplishments refect the hard work o dedicated school ounders and educators, the support o public ocials, and, o course, the commitment and trust o the amilies who have

chosen to enroll in these independent and autonomous public schools.



The sTaTe of The New York CiTY CharTer sChool seCTor 5I

the longer school days and longer school years that allowschools to provide hundreds o hours o additional instructionin core areas while still leaving time or art, music, humani-

ties, and science. Parents have welcomed this innovation aswell as charter schools’ ocused concentration on a purpose-ul, college-bound culture that permeates every aspect o theschool day.

wht r nyc hrtr shoos’ rsuts?Even ater controlling or student characteristics, rigorousacademic research consistently fnds signifcant, positive aca-demic benefts to attending a NYC charter school. In addition,charter school students consistently outperorm CommunitySchool District (CSD) averages on state Math and EnglishLanguage Arts (ELA) exams in grades 3-8, although such com-parisons do not control or student demographics (and should

be used with caution in comparing the two sectors). The samepattern holds among students in all at-risk subgroups.

While the overall results are strong, charter school students’perormance in Math is stronger than in ELA (which is alsotrue or district students). At the ew charter high schoolsthat have existed long enough to graduate students, rateso college readiness and college enrollment lag those odistrict high schools. However, trends in Regents completionsuggest that high school outcomes will improve as a largerand more representative number o these schools start tograduate students.

Charter schools tend to have higher attendance rates thanNYC district schools. On the Department o Education’sLearning Environment Surveys, charter school parents,teachers, and secondary students respond more positively toquestions in every category: Academic Expectations, Engage-ment, Saety & Respect, and Communication.

who r nyc hrtr shoos’ studts?Three in our charter school students come rom low-incomeamilies. Over 60% o charter school students are Black(compared to about 30% o district school students), reect-ing the demand rom the Arican-American community.

At present, the charter sector serves a smaller percentageo students in special education than the citywide average,although this dierence may partly stem rom students beingover-identifed in district schools. Charter school studentsin special education are more likely to move toward lessrestrictive settings.

The charter sector also serves a smaller proportion o Eng-lish Language Learners (ELLs), but ELLs in charter schoolsare more likely to pass the English profciency tests requiredto leave that category.

The charter school law was amended in May 2010 to requirecharter schools to enroll and retain comparable percentageso ELLs, students with disabilities and low-income students.

That change is likely to result in a narrowing o the pres-ent demographic dierences between charter schools anddistrict schools.

wht is th outoo for th futur of nychrtr shoos?Charter schools have a small but growing oothold in NYC,serving about our percent o all public school students, butas much as 25% o students in neighborhoods where charterschools are most concentrated. Those numbers will con-tinue to increase as charter schools add more grade levels,and as more charter schools open each year. Given presentlevels o demand, there is good reason to believe that parentwill seek these new seats out and demand will continue tooutpace supply.

Charter schools’ physical place in the city is uncertain,however. As a rule, charter schools do not receive publicacilities support. A majority o charter schools operate indistrict buildings, which, given the lack o acility unding, hasbeen a critical actor in charter school growth. Yet it must beremembered that even schools in district buildings have noassurance o continued access.

The report fnds that charter schools, on average, have higherrates o teacher and principal turnover compared to NYC

district schools. Such rates o turnover are, in part, consistentwith a dynamic, growing and still quite new sector, and onewhich operates with dierent background labor rules andmore varied compensation structures. And while low rates oattrition are not an outcome valuable or its own sake, lowersta attrition could help charter schools sustain or expandtheir positive inuence on academic achievement, whilecontinuing to grow. Charter school leaders are paying closeattention to this issue, and seeking ways to improve educatorpipelines and keep eective educators on the job longer.

In sum, the present state o the NYC charter school sectoris strong and the outlook or the uture is very promising.Charter schools as a sector are meant to reach at-risk stu-dents, improve their education and lie prospects, and provideavenues or improvement or the larger public school system.The available data suggest real accomplishments to date andincreasing progress on the path toward that loty summit.Every indication is that NYC charter schools intend to keepclimbing.

To learn more about charter schools and the Data Transpar-ency Initiative, visit www.nycCharterSchools.org/Data.





Today, the NYC charter school sector serves 47,000 stu-dents, with an estimated fve applicants per available seat.Parents have overwhelmingly embraced this choice. NYCcharter schools have sparked innovations in areas rangingrom teacher practices, to school leadership, to integratedstudent supports. Established social service agencies areusing the charter structure to create new public schoolsthat meet local needs. Most importantly, rigorous researchhas ound that NYC charter schools make a signifcant,positive dierence in students’ academic achievement, withparticularly strong results in Math.

The change continues, though, including within the NYCcharter school sector itsel. While building on its pastachievements, the sector’s increasing size and maturitybring new kinds o challenges and opportunities.

Growing organizations require larger and dierent systems.In every area—rom instructional leadership, to teacherrecruitment, to parent engagement, to governance—charterschools and networks are learning to do their work on alarger scale. Scale also brings a growing need or physicalacility space, an increasing challenge given the organizedopposition to co-location in district buildings (rom constitu-encies who also oppose acility unding or charter schools).

The passing o years brings changes, too. No longer a novelexperiment or an untested promise, the still-young chartersector has a growing track record that can be analyzed tosee what has worked well and what has not, and what those

results may mean or reorming traditional district schools.Time also brings a growing interest in organizational sus-tainability at charter schools, to ensure that positive resultscan continue over time.

Perhaps the most signifcant shit is taking place in thepublic debate about charter schools. As it becomes obvi-ous that the charter sector is an integral (and growing) parto our public school system, discussion is turning to therole it plays (and should play) in the larger system o public

schools. This is a conversation not just in NYC but acrossthe country. To what extent can the charter school model beadopted (and adapted) in reorming and improving tradi-tional district schools and structures? To what extent arecharter schools’ results shaped by their dierences in gov-ernance structures or enrollment patterns? And how muchare these dierences intrinsic to the charter school model orsimply present-day eatures o it?

Whether ramed by ideological critics or charter schooleducators, such questions are o obvious importance to amovement premised on achievement and accountability.Indeed, that conversation has already led to the amendmeno New York State’s charter school law, which now requirescharter schools to meet targets or enrolling and retainingat-risk student subgroups—or risk closure.

As charter schools work through all o these changes, andespecially in the shit o public debate, there is too oten akey ingredient missing: meaningul, transparent, and accessible data about the state o the NYC charter school sector.The most important charter school discussions tend to bedominated by generalizations, simplifcations and anec-dotes, while the decentralized nature o charter schoolingmakes actual data hard to fnd and understand.

k QustiosThis report represents a modest frst step toward a more inormed and data-driven conversation about charter schools

Looking across NYC’s diverse charter school sector, thereport presents inormation that addresses our pressingquestions:

• What choices do NYC charter schools provide?

• What are NYC charter schools’ results?

• Who are NYC charter schools’ students?

• What is the outlook or the uture o NYC charter schools?

INTRODUCTIONa tt of chgCharter schools were created to change things. When they came to New York City in 1999,

the idea was something new and dierent: public schools run independently o a traditional district,

working with unprecedented fexibility and yet accountable or academic results. It was a bold and

controversial experiment, with the potential to change amilies’ choices, educators’ assumptions, and,

most importantly, students’ utures.




Readers will note that none o these questions relates toany individual charter school. Descriptions o the “char-ter sector” are statistical abstractions, useul or thinking

about trends but not a ull description o any individualschool. Many NYC charter schools have had successes,some o them inspirational and even paradigm-shiting.Other schools are steadily progressing, or trying to changedirection, or just opening their doors. Still others haveallen short and will be closed, as they should be. Given theindependence and autonomy that charter schools enjoy,wide variety is inevitable, and it is critical that all read-ers—including parents and policy makers alike—keep thisin mind.

ours d coprisosThis report is a portrait o the NYC charter school sector,

not a controlled research study designed to isolate and testhypotheses about it. It relies almost entirely on pre-exist-ing data sets collected and provided by public agencies, anddoes not make use o student-level records.

Wherever available, this report presents charter schooldata alongside comparable data on district schools as areerence point. These comparisons were constructed ascareully as possible given the data sources, or exampleby looking at comparable grade ranges and excluding thesame special cases rom both sides. (See the endnotes ormore detail about the calculations o particular fgures andcharts.) Yet the comparisons shown here are still not con-trolled or outside variables, and the dierences they showmay not be statistically signifcant.

Especially given these limitations, it is important to under-stand charter school data points together and in context,rather than as isolated numbers or comparisons. Students’characteristics and academic results are especially impor-tant to consider together, since everyone acknowledges thatthe ormer inuences the latter. That is not to excuse unac-ceptable results, but to avoid drawing simplistic conclu-sions about causes and eects in something as complex asa public school.

Readers should also keep in mind that district schools en-roll 20 times as many students as charter schools do, andthat a majority o charter schools are in their frst fve yearso operation. Both o these actors suggest that charter sec-tor averages will be prone to vary over time, particularly inthe high school grades, where charter school numbers areespecially small and ast-changing.

urthr srhIn developing this report, the Charter Center and its Advi-sory Committee o charter school leaders sought to present

inormation that is available, accurate, important, and un-derstandable. Each o these criteria ruled out some possibledata points, even when erring on the side o transparency.Our hope is that, over time, better data in a wider variety oormats will come to fll any gaps—and we are committed topushing that process along.

wht is hrtr shoo?

Charter schools are free public schools open to all NewYork City children.

Though public, they are not run by the NYC Department ofEducation; instead they are governed by independent, not-for-prot boards of trustees, and authorized and regulatedby public agencies (including the New York State Educa-tion Department). Charter schools operate according tothe terms of a performance contract or “charter.” Charterschools commit to meeting specic academic goals, thenmake their own decisions about how to achieve them. Ifthe goals are not met, the charter may be revoked and theschool closed.

Because they are independent from the district system,charter schools have greater exibility in the way theyoperate. Charter schools are free to develop their own

academic programs, set budgets, choose staff, set educa-tional goals, offer a longer school day and school year, andestablish their own standards for student behavior. Enroll-ment at a charter school is always by a parent’s choice,never mandatory.

Charter schools are tuition-free and non-sectarian. Stu-dents are admitted by a random lottery, without regard totheir academic background. Charter schools follow statestandards and participate in state exams. They are subjectto health, safety, non-discrimination, and open meetingslaws, as well as specic regulations to ensure fair admis-sions and prevent conicts of interest.

Charter schools commonly open their doors with only oneor two grade levels, then gradually “build out” by addingone grade level per year until they reach their authorizedgrade range.




WHAT cIce DO

NYC CHARTER SCHOOLSPROVIDE?



The sTaTe of The New York CiTY CharTer sChool seCTor

9I

ppitspri

stin NYC charter schools’ admissions lotteries(estimated, spring 2011)4

Source: Charter Center survey and analysis

Steady Growth, PopularDemand In their thirteenth year o operating in New York

City, charter schools now serve 47,000 students

in 136 schools, spread across all ve boroughs.

There is at least one charter school in 28 o

the 32 Community School Districts (CSDs), but

a large majority (77%) are clustered in three

areas: Harlem, Central Brooklyn, and the South

Bronx.1 Since amilies must actively choose

charter schools, the sector’s steady growth can

be attributed to citywide demand rom parentsor better educational choices.

NYC charter schools serve all grade levels, but most areelementary schools. They may be authorized by the New YorkState Board o Regents, the Trustees o the State Universityo New York (SUNY), or the NYC Schools Chancellor. TheChancellor has not authorized new charter schools sincestate law changed in 2010.

Most charter schools have been open or less than fve years.

About hal o charter schools are afliated with a network,in most cases a nonproft Charter Management Organiza-

tion (CMO). A dozen charter schools contract with a or-proftEducation Management Organization (EMO), but new charterschools are no longer allowed that option.2

47,000

414 17 18 24

3247

58 60

78

99

125136

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

al enllmen In nyc cae cl, 2000-20123

Grades K-4 Grades 5-8 Grades 9-12 Schools Open

Source: NYS Report Cards, Charter Center analysis

nyc cae cl by GaDe anGe, aIze,anD newk aIlIaIn, 2011-12

Source: Charter Center analysis

6-129K-8

14

K-129

High11

Middle18

Elementary75

Independent64

CMO60

EMO12

Grade Range Network Affiliation

SUNY59

Regents8

Authorizer

NYC

Chancellor69




la yea, In 2010-11, cae cl DenaccneD :


of pui shoo studts in NYC

of public school students ingrades K-5

of public school students inHarlem, Central Brooklyn, andthe South Bronx5

of public school students inCSD 5 (Harlem)

3.9%

5.6%

9.2%

25.1%

Extending School Choice In many cities and school districts, the ability to

choose among public schools is a novel propo- sition. Not so in New York City. The NYC school

system is ull o public school options, including

many schools that practice selective enrollment

o one orm or another. The result is a public

school system in which the word “public” does

not imply any particular orm o enrollment or

selectivity. Traditional neighborhood-based ad-

mission is in eect at most elementary schools,

about hal o all middle schools, and virtuallyno high schools. The other public schools are

all, to some degree, public schools o choice.

New York City’s non-charter school choices include special-ized high schools; high schools that enroll students through amutual “matching” process; middle schools where admissionis “screened” by test scores and even personal interviews; andschools or gited and talented students. There are magnetschools, dual-language immersion schools, and zoned schoolsthat are high-perorming, but require residence in an expen-sive neighborhood. Families o students with special needsalso oten sue the NYC Department o Education (NYC DOE) toobtain placement in private schools, entirely at public expense

In a city with options like these, whether there is school choiceis not the relevant question so much as which students aregiven choices, and which choices, under which terms? Manycharter school leaders would respond with a more pointedquestion: Why shouldn’t disadvantaged students have thehigh-quality public school choices that other students havealways had?

Charter schools extend amilies’ options through a choicethat does not depend on test scores or interviews, but doesrequire a parent to complete a simple application orm (see

p.11). Once those orms are submitted, the enrollment lotteryis random, with preerence or students in the local CSD. Thisstructure, not exactly “zoned” nor “selective,” puts chartersschools in a somewhat unique place on the school choicelandscape. Like any enrollment policy, the charter schoolchoice structure inuences the characteristics o incomingstudents.6 As a result, comparisons o schools’ results mustbe made with great caution.

nyc cae cl by yea eaIn, 2011-12


0-4 Years

80 schools

9-12 Years

17 schools

5-8 Years

39 schools




Dos th prt “rt” for hrtr shoos rt to tst sors?Since families must actively choose a charter school, do they avoid schools with poor academic results? Comparingcharter schools’ average prociency rates to the applications they received per seat, two interesting patterns emerge.

Parent demand is signicantly correlated with test scores. For every 10 percentage points its scores increase in pro-ciency, a charter school with 50 open seats can expect 100 additional applications.7 This suggests that parents aresensitive to academic results. (And the link is still signicant when controlling for the scores in the local CSD.)

Yet almost every charter school has more applicants than seats.8 Even the lowest-performing charter schools operateat full enrollment, which means that their motivations to improve academically do not include nancial pressure. If the“market” alone does not enforce charter schools’ promises of high achievement, then charter authorizers must—byenforcing high standards and closing schools that fail. In some cases, however, the charter school being closed maystill be the best option in the neighborhood. There is no easy answer to parents who see this outcome as unfair.

Is it difut to pp to hrtr shoo?As public schools of choice, charter schools require parents to proactively indicate their interest by submitting an ap-plication form prior to the admissions lotteries, which are conducted each April for the following school year. While theneed to apply may inuence the characteristics of students who ultimately attend charter schools (see discussionon p. 15), i t is important not to overstate the effort required.

A charter school “application” consists of one short and simple form, which asks for only basic information about thestudent. Since November 2011, the NYS Education Department has mandated that charter schools require only thefollowing information:9

About the Student About the Parent/Guardian

Name Name

Date of Birth Relationship to StudentGender Phone Number Home AddressSchool District / CSD (if known)Grade Applying for Enrolled Sibling, if any

Charter schools may optionally request other information if it relates to approved preferences for at-risk students. Theymay not consider “measures of achievement or aptitude” or “require any action by a student or family (such as an admis-sions test, interview, essay, attendance at an information session, etc.)” in order to receive or submit an application.

Most charter schools work extremely hard to see that all eligible students have access to the application and knowabout the choices they have. This year, for the rst time, a large majority of charter schools offer a common onlineapplication, which further simplies the application process.




49 thig thiqusBest practices named in the “taxonomy” developed by DougLemov o the Uncommon Schools charter school network and

implemented in Uncommon and other NYC charter schools

135 prits i kidrgrtWhat students complete at Success Network charter schoolsthrough 50-minute lessons every school day

350 tr hoursAnnual dierence in instructional time at many NYC charterschools, compared to the NYC DOE calendar

$125,000Minimum teacher’s salary at The Equity Project Charter Schoo

agriuturHigh school science sequences oered at The RenaissanceCharter School, making use o a rootop greenhouse to teachstudents about environmental stewardship

chp ido rsA key tool used to record lessons or later critique at the newRelay Graduate School o Education, which was co-oundedby three NYC charter school networks

cog uss fArm o the Harlem Children’s Zone providing academic,administrative, fnancial, and emotional support to college-en-rolled graduates o Promise Academy Charter Schools I and II

co-thig i r ssUniorm practice o using two teachers per class to teachstudents with and without special needs, in place at a grow-ing number o charter schools

Ideas at WorkCharter schools control their own lessons,

budgets, sta, schedules, and culture, with an autonomy no district school enjoys. This fexibility

makes the charter school sector a place or new

educational ideas to be tried, and or existing

ideas to be applied, rened, and re-combined.

Many NYC charter schools operate with a longer school dayand year that provides students with hundreds o hours a yearo additional instruction. This, in turn, allows charter schoolsto spend extra time on core subjects yet also provide music,art, science and other enrichment areas. The additional time

can also be used or teacher development. Other charter sec-tor hallmarks include practices to reinorce an orderly andcollege-centered school culture and a proessional ocus oninstructional data. Yet these are only a ew themes within asector whose schools are philosophically diverse, includingapproaches that are progressive, project-based, Montessori,“No Excuses,” and everything in between.

Another emerging area or innovation is in the education andtraining o new teachers. Already one new graduate school hasbeen ounded to educate both charter and district teachers;other programs are deep in the planning stages.

Given this diversity, it is no surprise that little systematic

data exists on the new and old ideas at work in charterschools, but here is a sampling.10




Dt DsSessions when educators at many charter schools reviewresults rom interim academic assessments, administered

every six weeks, and adjust their teaching plans in response

“I ’t ot, ut ou !”Message o the get-out-the-vote campaign run each ElectionDay by Democracy Prep Charter School students in grades 6-8

Kounaikenshuu

Japanese practice in which teachers work together tocontinuously improve curriculum and instruction, and theinspiration or proessional development at Harlem VillageAcademies

lg hp, dost hth sris,d ig sFree services available to students at Broome Street Acad-emy Charter School, which ocuses on students who are orhave been in the child welare system, or are homeless

mississippiDestination o bus ride to honor the Freedom Riders, the cul-mination o a Civil Rights Practicum at Renaissance CharterHigh School or Innovation

mo Dotor’s fOne place to practice real-world interactions at the New YorkCenter or Autism Charter School

rtrsTitle given to master-teachers, who replace traditionaladministrators at Teaching Firms o America Charter Schoolby leading and supervising colleagues while maintainingteaching duties

“rofssio wor D”Term used in lieu o a specifc number o minutes in the collec-tively bargained teachers’ contract at Green Dot Charter School

QuioExample o a lunch menu item—served with Chilled CucumbeSoup, and Tuna with Lime Vinaigrette—prepared on-site by the

proessional che at Family Lie Academy Charter School

oot-uidigOne competitive enrichment activity or students at InwoodAcademy o Leadership Charter School

ur i rotsProgram used to help students at Bronx Charter School orExcellence integrate and apply learning, while leaving teacherstime to rejuvenate and plan

usti prtiosWhat the Ascend charter school network calls its combinationo higher class sizes, teacher supports, and lean administra-tion, allowing schools to operate in private space withoutphilanthropic support

zstOne o seven character strengths measured on KIPP charterschools’ “character report cards,” alongside Grit, Sel-Con-

trol, Social Intelligence, Gratitude, Optimism, and Curiosity





WHAT ARENYC CHARTER SCHOOLS’el?




Because charter schools’ mission is to increase academicachievement, it is especially important to take care in evalu-ating their academic results. Since demographic dierencesare known to inuence achievement, students’ incomingcharacteristics should always be among the actors consid-ered when evaluating their academic outcomes.

This section presents data on NYC charter schools’ academicresults, viewed alongside the results o district schools. Thereare academic studies o this topic that control or studentcharacteristics, but at this time the bulk o available evidencedoes not include student controls. Even without such controls,it is useul and interesting to look at charter and district schoolresults comparatively, to see trends, compare the size o vari-ous dierences, note surprises, and simply have a reerencepoint. Readers are strongly cautioned not to treat simple testscore averages as straightorward measures o school quality,and to keep demographic dierences in mind. Dierencespresented here are not necessarily statistically signifcant.

cotrod srh tudisIn many states and cities, charter school studies have rarelyor never included controls or student characteristics. As Uni-versity o Caliornia economists Julian R. Betts and Richard C.Atkinson recently wrote in the journal Science, this is a seriousproblem: “The potential or sel-selection into charter schoolsis great, which makes naïve comparison o student outcomesat charter schools and traditional public schools misleading.

But rigorous research on charters is beginning to appear….”11

As Betts & Atkinson note, the NYC charter sector has actuallybeen the subject o multiple academic studies with rigorouscontrols. Hoxby, Murarka, & Kang (2009) used a lottery-basedanalysis to compare charter school students with studentswho applied or charter schools but were not selected in therandom lotteries, thus controlling or sel-selection.12 CREDO(2010) used a “virtual twin” method to match charter schoolsstudents with district school students with similar character-istics, then compared their academic results.13 Both studiesound a signifcantly positive eect o attending a charterschool on student test scores.14

Despite a strong research base, urther rigorously controlledstudies o academic achievement are well warranted.

An Academic Bottom Line Every charter school’s existence depends on its students’ academic achievement, judged

primarily by standardized test scores. The stakes are highest or the students, or whom a

great public school can be lie-changing, and can make the dierence between high school

dropout and college success. Preparing every student or college and career is a daunting

and ar-o goal, but successul charter school educators have seen too many changed lives

to lower their sights.




wht dos th “tio” rsrhs out nyc hrtr shoos?When the Center for Research on Educational Outcomesat Stanford University (CREDO) issued its study of charterschool achievement in 16 states, it found more charterschools with negative academic effects than positiveones. Yet that study did not include New York City charter

schools. The next year, CREDO conducted a NYC-specicstudy using the same methodology and found signicantlypositive results for NYC charter schools (see p. 15). 15

Unfortunately, the two studies are regularly confusedin NYC charter school debates, with some critics evenciting the study of charter schools in other states—whileneglecting to mention the NYC-specic research.

The CREDO reports’ lead researcher, Margaret Raymond,

made the distinction in the Los Angeles Times: “Not onlywere charter schools as a whole better in New York thanin any other city we have studied; there also was lessrange in quality. Although there were some underper-forming charter schools in New York City, they made up afar smaller proportion of the whole than in California orthe rest of the nation.”16 Raymond went on to speculateabout which New York City factors, such as strong autho-rizers, may have contributed to charter schools’ impact.

tt sts for Grds 3-8Ater years o inated profciency rates or all New York Statepublic schools, the 2010-11 school year marked the second

year o more accurate profciency standards on the New YorkState Math and English Language Arts (ELA) assessmentsin grades 3-8. It also saw the debut o tests that are longer,more writing-intensive, and intended to be less predictable bcovering a broader spectrum o the content that students areexpected to master in each grade.

Compared to district school students citywide, charter schoolstudents scored Profcient at a higher rate in Math, and at avirtually identical rate in ELA. Compared to the CSDs wherecharter schools with tested grades are located, however, thedierences are larger in both subjects (68.5% vs. 52.7% inMath, 44.6% vs. 40.1% in ELA).17

Charter school students also exceed the city average prof-ciency in both subjects at every grade level, except or ELAin Grade 5.

Despite the avorable comparisons, charter school perormancereects some stubborn challenges, particularly with literacy—one o the keys to higher-order analytic achievement. This isconsistent with long-standing patterns in district schools. Lessthan hal o all charter school students are Profcient in ELA,and only 1.2% o charter school students scored at the Advancedlevel, compared to 2.7% or district school students. Charter anddistrict school students scored Advanced in Math more oten(21.2% and 20.9%, respectively).




all nyc Den: ae IcIen aDvanceD emance, by GaDe level, 2010-1119

Charter Schools District Schools

Source: NYSED Grade 3-8 State Test Results

3 4 5 6 7 8

M A T H

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

66%

55%

72%

62%

67%

63%

68%

56%

70%

56%

69%

52%

3 4 5 6 7 8

E L A

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

53%51%

41%

49%

45%44%

37%36% 36% 35%

52%

48%

nyc Den emance n ny ae exam, 2010-1118

Source: NYSED Grade 3-8 State Test Results

21.2%

47.3%

27.8%

3.8%

Charter

Schools

20.9%

36.4%

33.0%

9.6%

District

Schools

43.4%

46.4%

9.0%

1.2%

Charter

Schools

41.2%

42.8%

13.3%

2.7%

District

Schools

M A T H E L A

CHATER SCHOOS DISTRICT SCHOOS

AdvancedProfcient

BasicBelow Basic




Comparing within student subgroups, charter school stu-dents consistently have higher profciency rates in Math than

the district school average. In ELA, charter school studentsscore about the same among the Low-Income, Special Edu-cation, and ELL groups. Among Black students and Hispanicstudents, ELA profciency is higher at charter schools.

nyc Den bG emance n ny ae exam, GaDe 3-8, 2010-1120

Source: NYS Report Cards

tudts fro lo Io iis

20.3%

M A T H E L A

19.9% 0.9%

41.9%

47.8%

9.4% 12.6%

44.5%

40.8%

2.1%

37.5%

33.8%

8.8%

47.5%

28.6%

3.7%

tudts i pi edutio

6.3%

5.0%

0.2% 0.3%

14.5%

49.4%

35.8%

15.1%

54.4%

30.3%

23.8%

46.6%

24.6%

33.5%

45.9%

14.3%

M A T H E L A

egish lgug lrrs

6.9%

6.9%

0.2% 0.1%

12.7%

49.4%

37.8%

14.6%

55.4%

29.8%

28.4%

44.6%

20.1%

38.8%

43.4%

10.9%

M A T H E L A

ispi tudtsb tudts

19.2%

10.7%0.9%

1.1%

35.4%

50.2%

13.3%

41.4%

47.8%

9.9%

35.4%

42.3%

11.5%

47.6%

29.1%

4.1%

M A T H E L A

19.6%

47.6%

29.0%

3.7%

12.8%

37.8%

38.9%

10.5%

0.9%1.0%

34.6%

49.1%

15.2%

40.2%

49.0%

9.9%

M A T H E L A

CHARTER SCHOOS DISTRICT SCHOOS Advanced

ProfcientBasic

Below Basic



19IThe sTaTe of The New York CiTY CharTer sChool seCTor 19I

adi Groth i midd hooAcademic profciency standards reect crucial goals, but theyare an incomplete standard or evaluating schools’ success

with students. A student who arrives at school ar below theprofciency standard may make dramatic progress in a year,yet still not be Profcient. Similarly, a student who arrives arabove profciency may regress over the year, yet still exceedthe standard.

In New York State, the Board o Regents has proposedholding schools accountable using a new combination oprofciency and student growth—calculated by a method thatcompares students’ progress against other students withsimilar scores in the prior year. A similar calculation hasbeen part o NYC DOE’s School Progress Reports, althoughit is not available in unadjusted orm. In the next ew years,

NYC charter schools will likely have public data on studentgrowth rom one or both o those sources.

Until that point, one (much rougher and more limited) growthindicator is available: a comparison o charter and districtmiddle school students’ test perormance to the same students’perormance in Grade 4 (where available). This comparison,also rom the NYC DOE Progress Reports, shows two interest-ing patterns.

In 2010-11, there were 29 charter middle schools operatingin NYC. Their students had higher ourth-grade profciencyscores than district middle school students, by 0.067 on aver-age (where a ull perormance level is equal to 1). Overall,

62% o charter middle schools had higher incoming prof-ciency scores than students at district middle schools in theirrespective CSDs.

On the other hand, charter middle school students madeacademic gains as a group since Grade 4, by 0.121 profciency

levels. Nearly all charter middle schools can claim to bemoving their students in the right direction.

District middle schools in the same CSDs did not makeacademic gains as a group since Grade 4, actually decreas-ing by 0.011 levels. It is not clear how much this pattern maybe inuenced by students who enrolled in district middleschools without ourth-grade test scores. I such studentsarrived with academic disadvantages, this measure would bea poor indication o academic growth. At the very least, it isanother reason or public school observers to look orward tothe release o student growth data.21




gts esBeore considering high school results, it must be notedthat the high school share o the charter sector is extremely

small; only seven charter schools serving high school gradeshave had a graduating class. As the high school portion othe charter sector matures, there will be more data availableabout how charter school students are being prepared orcollege. In 2011-12, there are 25 charter schools serving highschool grades, which means they will all have data on allhigh school metrics to report in the near uture.

In high school, New York State public school students do notsit or grade-level tests. Instead, they take course-culminat-ing Regents exams, which are administered three times peryear and may be taken more than once. Students must passRegents exams in fve dierent subjects in order to graduate.

On the Regents exams in Integrated Algebra and English(which both ulfll graduation requirements), charter highschool students passed at a higher rate than students indistrict high schools. Charter school students reach the topscoring category (at least 85 points out o 100) at the samerate as district school students in English, but a lower rate inIntegrated Algebra.

Regents exams are sometimes also administered in grade8, allowing middle school students a head start on their highschool graduation requirements. Eighth-grade studentsat charter schools are more likely to pass a Regents examand the corresponding course, thereby earning high school

credit, than their counterparts at district schools.

nyc GaDe 8 Den eceIvInG IG cl ceDI,2010-1123

Source: NYC DOE Progress Reports

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Charter

Schools

37%

23%

District

Schools

8.2%

9.2%

52.8%

19.2%

18.7%

68.7%

14.2%

8.9%

MATH

Charter

Schools

District

Schools

22.7%

22.7%

53.5%

9.9%

13.8%

10.3%

60.3%

6.7%

ENGLISH

Charter

Schools

District

Schools

nyc eGen aInG ae, 2010-1122


CHATER SCHOOS DISTRICT SCHOOS Advanced

ProfcientBasic

Below Basic




Grdutio d bodHigh school achievement is measured by more than Regentsexams. A critical indicator, obviously, is graduation rate.

Among students who entered high school in the all o 2007,the graduation rate ater our school years (in spring 2011)was higher in charter high schools than district high schools.O this same cohort o students, however, district high schoolstudents demonstrated college readiness by earning highmarks on their Regents exams and/or SATs at more than twicethe rate o charter high school students.

Ater high school, college enrollment data are available orthe cohort o students who entered high school in all 2006.District school graduates in this cohort were more likely thancharter school graduates to be enrolled in a degree programat a 2-year or 4-year college by December 31, 2010. NYC

students who do enroll in college are hardly guaranteed to besuccessul. Citywide, a large majority (74%) o public schoolgraduates who enroll in CUNY community colleges are re-quired to take remedial, non-credit coursework.24

Relying on recent data about high school seniors paints anincomplete picture o the charter sector, however, becauseonly seven charter schools serving high school grades havehad a graduating class.

To gain some insight into charter high schools that havenot yet built out to 12th grade, it is useul to compare the“completion rate o remaining Regents exams,” a metricincluded in the NYC DOE’s School Progress Reports. This

metric shows the number o Regents exams that the aver-age student successully completed during the year, as apercentage o the tests he or she should have passed to beon track or graduation. Among high schools without a 12thgrade, Regents completion rates were higher at charterschools than district schools.

all nyc Den: IG cl cme ae, 2010-112



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

4-Year Graduation

74.9%

71%

26.9%

10.2%

College Readiness

48.8%51.3%

College Enrollment

nyc eGen cmleIn ae, 2010-1126



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Schools servinggrades 9-10

73.6%

60.6%

88.3%

57.8%


56.1%54.5%




22 I nw yk Iy charter school n It’s about great public schools

nyc rogrss port lttr GrdsOne o the most recognized measures o NYC public schoolperormance is the letter grade assigned to each charter

and district public school as part o the annual NYC DOEProgress Reports. Letter grades are based on measures ostudent perormance, student progress, and school environ-ment, with some (but not all) measures weighted by studentcharacteristics. Within each category, a school’s results arecompared primarily to schools that serve similar studentpopulations, and also to schools citywide that serve the samegrade levels. It is important to note that, except or highschools, the grades are assigned rom a fxed distribution,which means that NYC DOE pre-determines how many oeach grade will be assigned across the city.

Because the letter grades are based on such a complex or-

mula, with weightings based on NYC DOE policy judgments,they should not be viewed as the only “quality” measure oa school. Nevertheless, the grades oer a common point ocomparison across all public schools, which—unlike similarsystems elsewhere—takes steps to account or student char-acteristics and to measure student academic progress.

On the 2010-11 Progress Reports, charter schools received ahigher percentage o A grades than district schools (33% vs.27%) and the same proportion A or B grades (61%). Charterschools received a higher proportion o D grades (9% vs. 7%),but the same proportion o C, D, or F grades (39%). Amongcharter schools, charter middle schools received the highest

proportion o A grades (52% vs. 23% or district middle schools)and charter schools serving grades K-8 received the lowestproportion o A grades (22% vs. 26% or district K-8 schools).

nyc Ge e, ecen veall GaDeeceIveD, 2010-11


33% A

28% B

26% C

9% D

Charter

SchoolsDistrict

Schools

3% F 3% F

7% D

29% C

34% B

27% A




coditios for ussSpurred by their commitment to be judged by academicoutcomes, the best charter schools pay deliberate attention

to everything that goes into creating a successul learningcommunity. While the metrics presented below may not beconsidered educational outcomes, they reect charter schools’ulfllment o important social commitments—and arguablycan serve as leading indicators o academic success.

rt, hr, d tudt ursThe NYC DOE’s “Learning Environment Surveys” gauge theopinions o all teachers, all parents, and students in grades6-12, at both charter and district schools. The survey posesmultiple questions about our topics, resulting in a compositescore or each.

Survey Category Questions Designed to Measure…Academic Expectations …whether the school encourages students

to “do their best by developing rigorousand meaningul goals.”

Engagement …whether parents, students, and teacherseel “engaged in an active and vibrantpartnership to promote learning.”

Safety and Respect …whether “all members o the schoolcommunity eel physically and emotionallysecure, allowing everyone to ocus onstudent learning.”

Communications …whether the school provides “inorma-tion about the school’s educational goalsand oers appropriate eedback on eachstudent’s learning outcomes.”

nyc vey ce (2010-11): cae DIeence v. nyc DIIc cl27

Source: NYC DOE. Learning Environment Surveys

School Type

Elementary

K-8

Middle

High

0.32

Academic Expectations

NYC Average

0.22

0.24

0.04

NYC Average

Engagement

0.11

0.23

0.28

-0.25

NYC Average

Safety and Respect

0.18

0.37

0.42

0.28

NYC Average

Communication

0.34

0.37

0.49

0.15

Looking across categories and school grade ranges, charterschools receive higher average scores in every case, with the

exception o Engagement in high school.

attdAttendance at school is critical to academic success oreach student; or a school community, it can reect overallengagement with students and amilies. Compared to districschools, charter schools have higher attendance rates acrosall grade levels.

0 20 40 60 80 100

High92.2%

86.4%

96.2%

92.5%Middle

94.7%

93.0%K-8

94.6%

93.5%Elem

94.9%

93.9%K-3

nyc DaIly aenDance ae, 2010-1128






WHO ARE

NYC CHARTER SCHOOLS’Den?




First, charter schools must reach at-risk students. To allowthat to happen, at-risk students and their amilies mustfrst learn about the charter school; apply to the admissionslottery (by flling out a simple orm); be selected in the lot-tery, or rom a waiting list when a space becomes available;decide to enroll; and decide to remain enrolled over time.

Charter schools can inuence what happens at each o thesestages by oering an appealing educational experience,actively recruiting students, and doing the labor-intensivework o community outreach. (For many charter schoolsand networks, proactively soliciting applications requires asubstantial investment o sta time and resources.) Depend-ing on the student group, a charter school may also receivepermission to employ a lottery preerence or studentsconsidered at-risk, e.g., students receiving special educa-tion services, though by law the selection o students alwaysremains random. A number o charter schools have recentlyimplemented such preerences, which are likely to become amore commonly used tool in the coming years.

Charter schools’ second and crucial task is to actually teach at-risk students—to “expand” their “learning experiences,”as the law says—and thereby keep risk rom becoming reality.Charter school students’ academic results were describedin the last section. This section describes the students theyenroll, including patterns o movement in and out o at-riskcategories.

25I

tudts fro lo-Io iisOne at-risk group is students rom low-income amilies, whoare identifed by their eligibility or Free or Reduced-PriceLunch (FRPL). Compared to other public schools citywide,charter schools serve an equal share o FRPL-eligiblestudents. Charter schools’ share o students in the lowest-income Free Lunch category, though, is smaller (65.2% o allstudents vs. 67.6%).

Compared to the CSDs where they are located, however, only32% o charter schools have an equal or higher percentage oFRPL-eligible students (20% or Free Lunch only). This sug-gests that, while charter schools serve low-income studentsin low-income neighborhoods, most have not attracted aneconomically representative sample o local amilies.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 100

Charter

Schools

Free Lunch

65.2%

Free Lunch

67.6%

Reduced

Price 10.4%

FRPL 75.6

FRPL 75.0

Reduced

Price 7.4%District

Schools

nyc enllmen Den elIGIble ee eDceD-Ice lnc, 2010-1130

Source: NYS Report Cards31

enllmen Den elIGIble ee eDceD-Ice lnc, nyc cae cl, 2010-1132


32%of Charter Schools

18%of Charter School

Compared to the ocal CSD: At or Above Mean or District

Schools in Same CSD

At or Below 10th Percentile Among

District Schools in Same CSD

Reaching and Teaching At-Risk Students

One o the original purposes or New York State charter schools was to “increase learning opportunitiesor all students, with special emphasis on expanded learning experiences or students who are at-risk

o academic ailure.” 29 The charter sector will always be judged against that mission, which requires a

two-part plan o action.




tudts ith pi edutio ndsStudents with physical, emotional, and/or cognitive disabilitiesare at signifcant risk or academic ailure.33 These students

may enroll at any public charter school through the lottery pro-cess, and a growing number o charter schools place a specialemphasis on serving them.

Similar to district schools, however, a given charter school maynot oer every special education service that may be listed ona student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP), but charterschools also have the exibility to work out alternative arrange-ments to meet students’ special needs—oten by inclusion in amainstream classroom with extra supports.

Compared to district schools in NYC, charter schools enrolla lower percentage o students with IEPs—both citywide andcompared to the CSDs where they are located. This patternvaries by grade level: charter schools that frst enroll studentsin Kindergarten have a smaller share o students with IEPsthan district schools, but charter middle and high schools havea larger share (see p. 27). This is consistent with the idea thatcharter schools may be more eective at preventing reerrals tospecial education, but a more detailed study would be requiredto test that hypothesis.

Among such students, charter school students also tend tospend a lower percentage o the school day receiving specialeducation services. This is consistent with the act that charterschools oer ewer sel-contained classes or students withspecial needs. Many charter schools operate at small scale,

which presents a serious logistical obstacle when consider-ing how to oer sel-contained classes. Out o several hundredspots, a charter school lottery may select only a ew studentswho require a sel-contained classroom, and those studentsmight be spread across dierent grade levels. The logistical di-fculty is exacerbated by the lack o acility unding, at least orthose charter schools in private space.

What is the proper response to this situation? Some studentswith IEPs that require a sel-contained classroom can be servedbetter in more inclusive settings. For others, creating a sel-contained classroom when even a single student requires itwould be fnancially prohibitive, but allowing lack o scale to

become an excuse—and simply reerring such students backto the district—is not consistent with the charter school vision.Charter school leaders have been exploring options to provide

0% 10% 2

Charter

Schools12.9%

14.4%District

Schools

nyc enllmen Den wI Ies, 2010-1134

Source: NYC DOE, Charter Center analysis

intensive special services collectively, across charter schoolnetworks or example, but the legality o this approach is notclear and charter advocates’ legislative eorts to make it easierto accomplish have not gained support.

NYC DOE also tracks which students with IEPs have movedtoward less time receiving services. While this is not the ap-propriate educational decision in every case, movement towardmore-inclusive settings can be a sign o student progress andan indication that the school is oriented toward supporting theprogress o all students.

Charter schools are more likely to have students who havemoved toward spending less time receiving special educationservices over the last our years, either due to progress madeat the charter school or ater re-evaluation o an incoming

student’s needs. In act, charter school students in special edu-cation average nearly one ull move across NYC DOE’s serviceclassifcations over a our-year comparison period.



enllmen Den wI Ies, nyc caecl, 2010-1135


Compared to the ocal CSD: At or Above Mean or DistrictSchools in Same CSD

At or Below 10th Percentile AmongDistrict Schools in Same CSD




aveaGe mve waD le eIcIveenvInmen (nyc Den wI Ies, la yea), 2010-1137


Based on classifcations o time spent receiving special education services: None(General Education), <20%, 20-60%, >60%. Moves toward more restrictive settingsnot available, so net movement not available.


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0 0.97

0.37

nyc enllmen Den wI Ies by clGaDe eveD, 2010-1136



0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

K-3

11.5%

13.0%

10.9%

14.6%

Elementary

14.4%

11.6%

K-8

18.1%16.4%

Middle

14.7%

12.7%

High

Dos nyc or-idtif studtsith spi ds, udr-srth, or oth?Special education needs are identied by the schoolsthemselves through the NYC DOE’s Committees on Spe-cial Education, with input from teachers and with parentpermission. As a practical matter such identication canmove a challenging student to a separate classroom oreven a different school. Given this arrangement, it is fairto ask whether Individualized Education Program (IEP)rates reect students’ underlying needs, or may be dis-torted by other factors.

In fact, ample evidence suggests that certain students—particularly African-American males from low-incomefamilies—are disproportionately identied for special

education, and in more restrictive settings. This maybe due to many factors such as systematic shortfalls inclassroom management or differentiated instruction, orcultural differences. Among students in special educa-tion, a higher percentage receives services at least 60%of the day in New York State, than any other state exceptone. Only Hawaii has a higher percentage.38

In New York City, consecutive Schools Chancellors haveled an ongoing reform effort aimed to promote inclusiveand exible educational strategies and reduce the num-ber of recommendations for more restrictive settings.Recently, the city’s selective middle and high schools havebeen explicitly instructed to enroll greater numbers ofqualied students with special education needs.

Despite nascent reforms, the use of service rates as aproxy for actual disability places educators in a difcultposition, setting up a perverse incentive to place studentsin inappropriately restrictive settings. For charter schooleducators, this danger will only heighten as charter schoolauthorizers implement the enrollment and retention tar-get-setting process now required by state law (p. 29).

At the same time, there exists a perception that somecharter schools have discouraged applications fromparents of students with special needs. While there is littledocumented evidence of this, the perception itself has thepotential to depress the number of such parents who apply.Charter school leaders and their authorizers recognizecharter schools’ obligation to actively welcome all stu-

dents and prevent ethical or legal violations. There is alsoincreasing interest in using the charter model to createschools that are devoted to serving those children mostat-risk, including special needs students.




egish lgug lrrsStudents identifed as English Language Learners (ELLs)39 comprise another group o largely at-risk learners, though one

that is extremely diverse. As the National Governors Associa-tion notes, “ELLs are a heterogeneous group with dierencesin ethnic background, frst language, socioeconomic status,quality o prior schooling, and levels o English languageprofciency.”40

NYC charter schools enroll ELLs at lower rates than districtschools, both citywide and in the CSDs where they are located.The geographic patterns o immigration and housing withinindividual CSDs do not explain away these dierences.

As the word “Learner” suggests, ELL status is not meantto be orever: all ELLs should eventually leave the category,which occurs when the student scores Profcient in bothcomponents (Reading and Writing, and Speaking and Listen-ing) o the New York State English as a Second LanguageAchievement Test (NYSESLAT). Yet, among citywide publicschools, progress in turning ELLs into non-ELL students iswoeully scarce. By one study, more than one third o NYCstudents classifed as ELLs by age six are still ELLs by thetime they fnish seventh grade.41

Recent cohort comparisons are not available, but a comparisono profciency (i.e. passing) rates on the NYSESLAT suggeststhat charter schools are more successul on average in movingstudents out o ELL status. More careul study would be re-quired to determine whether ELLs in charter schools have any

meaningul dierences rom the citywide ELL population.

nyc enllmen enGlI lanGaGe leane,2010-1143



0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

5.8%

15.0%

nyc enGlI lanGaGe leane acIevInG IcIencyn nyela, 2010-1144



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Reading andWriting

26.0%

21.1%

50.8%

44.2%

Speaking andListening

enllmen enGlI lanGaGe leane, nyccae cl, 2010-1142



Compared to the ocal CSD: At or Above Mean or DistrictSchools in Same CSD






d ethiitAlthough they are not a pedagogical category, Black andHispanic* students are oten described as being statistically

at-risk or academic ailure. NYC charter schools enroll morethan twice the share o Black students as the overall districtschool system, and a lower share o every other category orace/ethnicity including Hispanic. There is no evidence thatcharter schools’ racial and ethnic enrollment patterns arecaused by discrimination, let alone a desire to “segregate”Black students. There are other explanations, including charterschools’ concentration in Black neighborhoods and the actthat Black amilies show more interest in charter schools thanother groups—a phenomenon that is not evident in every state,and deserves more study.

One study also suggests another actor: enrollment trends

that sel-perpetuate. Hoxby, Murarka, and Kang (2009) fndthat students who enroll in charter schools, then voluntarilytranser to a district school, are more likely to be White orAsian. The researchers speculate that parents’ desire toavoid racial isolation may explain this correlation.

*This is the term used in city and state education data.

nyc cae anD DIIc cl enllmen by ace/enIcIy, 2010-1145

Charter Schools

District Schools


Asian1.8%

White3.0%

American Indian0.2%

Multi-Racial2.1%

Black61.9%

Hispanic30.9%

American Indian0.5%

Black28.6%

Hispanic40.4%

Asian15.8%

White14.8%

Do hrtr d distrit shoos sr“opr” poputios?When the New York State Charter Schools Act was revisedin 2010, a new provision was added to strongly encouragecharter schools to be more demographically similar totheir local districts or CSDs.

By law, charter school authorizers must set enrollmentand retention “targets” for each charter school, in eachof three categories: low-income (FRP-eligible), specialeducation students, and English anguage earners.

Failure to meet the targets can result in school closure(via charter non-renewal). The rst set of targets will bereleased later this year.

nyc enllmen blackDen, 2010-11Compared to the ocal CSD: At or Above Mean or DistrictSchools in Same CSD




nyc enllmen IanIc Den, 2010-11Compared to the ocal CSD:At or Above Mean or DistrictSchools in Same CSD








c hrtr shoos udirsit, too?Many families and educators value public schools that areracially and economically diverse. If diversity is important,it can seem odd to compare enrollments of minority orlow-income students—as if charters should strive for100% enrollment of each group. To be clear, this reportimplies no such thing.

Diversity also creates a political catch-22 for charterschools. If charter schools locate in largely Black andHispanic neighborhoods, they are accused of segregation;when they locate in middle-class neighborhoods, the chargeis that they are “creaming” easier-to-serve students.

tudt moiitA ull view o the charter school sector, and its academic re-sults, also requires a sense o how students enter and leavecharter schools over time. For example, i charter schoolslose struggling students each year and do not replace them,achievement results in the upper grades will be aected bythis pattern. Although data about student mobility is woeullylimited, it is possible to glean some general patterns rom theavailable inormation.

First, state data sources can be used to show how charterschools’ individual cohorts change in size rom one year to the

next—or example, rom the all o the cohort’s third-gradeyear to the all o their ourth-grade year. Although thesecalculations only show net changes in cohort size, without iso-lating patterns o student transer in and out o the cohort, theycan still test or the “shrinking class” phenomenon.

Overall, the average cohort sizes o returning gradesshrink at a lower rate at NYC charter schools than at dis-trict schools. It is more useul, however, to compare cohortchange at dierent grade ranges. For elementary and K-8schools, the dierences between charter and district schoolsare negligible.

Charter middle schools tend to see their cohort sizes de-crease by about six percent, year to year, while district middleschools grow by more than three percent. At that rate, acharter school with 100 students at the start o sixth gradewould open eighth grade with only 89 students; a district

school would have 107. (Since that is a net change, manymore than seven students may have come and/or gone inthe meantime.) Charter high school cohorts also tend to

decrease, by nearly seven percent year-to-year, but districthigh school losses amount to 16% (a rate strongly inuencedby dropout).

Data on NYC schools’ student transers out (attrition) and in(“backfll”) provide some richer detail about enrollment orthe 2010-11 school year (between October and May), and ortested grades only. Notably, charter schools have lower rateso transer in both directions, suggesting a higher level o in-year stability in the student population.

There is no enrollment change inormation available aboutthe summer period, when many transers occur.

A central dierence between district schools and charterschools is that many charters have the option not to backfllwhen a student transers out, rather leaving that seat empty(and oregoing that portion o per-pupil unding). Althoughmany charter schools do backfll, this is a key point o con-trast: it is not that charter schools lose more students—it ispossible that they lose ewer—but that they do not consis-tently replace them.

NYC charter school leaders have mixed opinions about backflenrollment. By one view, charter schools should embracebackfll in order to serve a community mission and be exem-plars or the larger school system. Since all students, even

nyc yea--yea ne enllmen canGe by GaDeanGe, all 2010 all 201146



-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

Total

-1.1%

-3.7%

Elementary

1.0%0.6%

K-8

-0.3%

0.5%

MiddleSchool

-5.9%

3.2%

HighSchool

-6.7%

-16.0%




wht dos grd rttio h to doith studt oiit?The wildcard at play in charter school student mobilitydebates is grade-level retention, i.e. students being heldback for academic reasons. In 2009-2010 about 4.7% ofcharter students were retained in grade, according tostate data that, unfortunately, does not include district

schools.49

Grade-retained students are not part of student attrition,a distinction some analysts have overlooked. (It is be-cause of grade retention that we cannot measure studentmobility by the size of test-taking cohorts each year, forexample.) Still, deciding to hold a student back may affectmobility patterns. In the best case, a successful reten-tion can put a student on track to graduate rather thandropout. Sometimes, though, students who would havebeen retained in-grade will instead elect to transfer tothe school district, which typically has a less demandingpromotion standard.

31I

newcomers to the district, must enrollsomewhere, charterschools should not be out o the question when they havespace available.

By another view, backfll—especially in older grades—olarge numbers o students undermines a promise to amilies:to take students with large academic defcits, establish anextraordinary culture and work ethic, and put those samestudents on track or academic success. By this reason-ing, a charter school that makes such a promise should beexpected to assimilate older students only i they would beacademically similar to their new classmates—or could beplaced at a more appropriate grade level.

From an observer’s standpoint, charter schools’ dierencesin student mobility could color their academic results intwo possible ways. To the extent that enrollment change is

selective, with low perormers leaving, charter schools’ aver-age test scores would be skewed in a positive direction. Theone longitudinal study that has tested this ound no signif-cant achievement dierence between students who leaveNYC charter schools or district schools, and students whoremain.47 Common sense suggests that struggling studentsmay be more likely to leave, but there are also nonacademiccauses o attrition. Depending on the charter school and itsgrade range, students may even leave or positive academicreasons, such as entry into a selective middle or high school.

Enrollment patterns also may have an impact through whatresearchers call “peer eects,” or the impact o being sur-

rounded by one group o classmates rather than another. Icharter schools’ mobility patterns select or better students,there may also be positive peer eects at work. Yet even istudents who remain at charter schools are not better aca-demically, charter school critics point out that they may stillbe a better “ft” to the particular charter school’s culture andexpectations. For many charter school leaders, this latterkind o “peer eect” is not an unair advantage—it’s an ad-vantage that more schools should oer. By this logic, schoolsshould be ull o students who share a common culture olearning, provided that the culture is not defned in an exclu-sive ashion. Indeed, in a city ull o public school choice, astudent who leaves one school to fnd a better ft at another

should be considered a success story.

Whatever its possible interpretations, data about student mo-bility in NYC are incomplete or charter and district schoolsalike. The more detailed inormation that can be collectedand made public, the better educators and observers will beable to test their theories about this critical acet o lie in adistrict or charter school.

In-yea Den aIIn anD backIll a nyccae anD DIIc cl, GaDe 3-8 nly,2010-1148

Charter Schools Attrition District Schools Attrition

Charter Schools Backfll District Schools Backfll


0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

Elementary

3.6%

2.6%

8.1%

7.3%

K-8

2.4%2.2%

8.5%

6.2%

Middle

6.3%

4.8%

9.1%

7.8%




WHAT IS THE lk FOR

THE FUTURE OF NYC CHARTERSCHOOLS?



33IThe sTaTe of The New York CiTY CharTer sChool seCTor

Room to GrowThe NYC charter sector is on a path to

continued growth, as existing schools expand and new schools open their doors.

Most NYC charter schools (68%) are still “building out” byadding grade levels each year. Across NYC, existing charterschools have 24,000 authorized seats still to add. Thus, whilethe sector is now 13 years old, many o its schools are stillteaching new grades or the very frst time. By all 2017, it isexpected that charter schools will enroll 10% o all NYC publicschool students.50 Given past demand, there is every reason toexpect that parents will seek to enroll their children in thesenew and growing schools.

State law limits the number o charter schools allowable inNYC. Under that cap, 116 new charter schools are still allow-able, 31 o which have already been chartered to open in utureyears. As new charter schools open, others may be closed orpoor academic perormance or mismanagement.

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

cen anD jeceD enllmen: nyc caecl eaInG In 2011-12 nly

Built Out Enrollment 2011–12 Enrollment


Building Uncertainty In New York State, charter schools receive a

per-pupil share o each dollar the local school district spends on school operations. When it

comes to school facilities, however, charter

schools have no reliable source o public unding.

Since every school needs a building, charter schools aroundthe state make mortgage or rent payments by diverting op-erating unds, raising private donations, or both. In New YorkCity, there is sometimes another option. NYC DOE houses amajority o the city’s charter schools in district buildings,typically in shared space with one or more other publicschools. (Such “co-location” is common across the schoolsystem. In act, a vast majority o co-locations are one dis-trict school with another, with no charter school involved.)Reecting the view that all public school students are equallyworthy o access to public school space, NYC DOE does notcharge an occupancy ee to charter schools (just as it doesnot charge its own schools). Charter schools must pay useees, however, when they operate with longer school daysand/or school years in DOE acilities.

Charter schools’ access to district space is in accordance withan important principle: charter schools are public schools,serving public school students, and thereore worthy o publicresources.

The principle is not ully reected in law, however, so charterschool co-locations only exist at the discretion o the NYCSchools Chancellor and, in some instances, by approval by thePanel or Education Policy. Co-located charter schools do noteven have lease agreements to rely on.

The use o NYC DOE buildings has been, and continues tobe, a tremendous boon to the NYC charter school sector,including charter school students and their amilies. Withoutree space, the charter sector’s present size and growth ratewould have been unthinkable. Many o the city’s success-ul charter schools would not exist in such a scenario, withreduced educational options in many disadvantaged neigh-borhoods as a result.

Despite the opportunities provided or by co-location, it is stillonly a fnite opportunity with inherent challenges. Whether ornot a charter school is involved, multiple schools sharing asingle building is an exercise in communication and compro-mise. The process to seek co-location creates an enormous




None o these disadvantages changes the great importanceo NYC DOE space to a charter school. Unortunately, not allcharter schools have access to DOE space, which creates a

serious resource gap between schools in public and privatespace. To the extent that the debate over NYC school acilitiesis about equity, the lack o acilities support available to allcharter schools should be recognized as undamentally unair.To date, advocates who have historically ought to equalizeunding between districts in New York State have not advocatedor such equity between charter and district schools.

time and resource burden, and its outcome can be uncertain.Once co-located, the lack o control over an NYC DOE buildingmay limit charter school autonomy. New co-locations requireregular attention and communication. Ultimately, o course,most co-located schools work through any conicts with pro-essionalism, and some even fnd opportunities to collaborate.

In addition, when a charter school does secure space in anNYC DOE acility, it is not always a lasting solution—even i theschool could act as i it had a lease agreement—because manygrowing charter schools are sited in “incubation” spaces thatwill not house all the grade levels the schools will ultimatelyserve. In the coming years, an increasing number o charterschools currently housed in DOE buildings will experience thissqueeze, leading them to seek additional DOE space or fndresources to secure a non-DOE or private acility.

ar rodd fiitis hrtrshoo phoo?

No. Critics sometimes point to New York City charterschools co-locating in district buildings as a driving causefor school overcrowding across the city, but an analysisof building utilization rates from the City’s “Blue Books”(2009-10 and 2010-11) does not support that theory. Onaverage, co-located schools are less crowded than single-school buildings. Co-located buildings with charterschools are less crowded than those without, on aver-age (76% vs. 85%). Even within co-located buildings thatcontain charter schools, there tends to be less crowdingon the district school side.

These differences are wider than the Blue Book marginof error estimated by the Ofce of the NYC Comptroller(7.22%). School crowding and charter school co-location

are both important, but they are separate issues.NYC SCHOO BUIDING UTIIATION RATES, 2009-1051

Single-school Co-located Co-locatedbuildings buildings buildings with

charter school

Averageutilization 103.7% 84.7% 75.7%

Buildings 991 389 63

Source: NYC Independent Budget Ofce, Charter Center analysis, bothbased on NYC DOE building utilization data

nyc c-lcaeD acIlIIe by cl ye(), 2010-11

Source: NYC DOE, NYC School Construction Authority, Charter Center analysis

nyc cae cl by acIlIy ye(), 2011-12

Source: Charter Center analysis

Charterwith District

School16%

District SchoolsTogether84%

DOE

58%

Non-DOE/Private

37%

DOE &Non-DOE/Private

4%




Staff ChangesWhile charter school student achievement in

NYC is high, there are myriad actors that, over time, can aect whether it will be sustainable

and even improved upon. One o the less-stud-

ied aspects o the sector is charter schools’

ability to attract, develop and retain eective

school teachers and leaders.

Citywide data about charter school educators’ proessionalskills and development are unortunately scarce, but the NewYork State BEDS Survey o all public schools provides inter-esting insight into teacher and principal turnover—although

even here the numbers are imprecise. The BEDS data do notcapture why teachers let their positions or where they went,so there is no way to tell how many departing teachers letvoluntarily vs. involuntarily; how many moved to other charterschools; or even how many let the classroom because theywere promoted within the same charter school or network.Even considering these limitations, the trends are striking:26%-33% o charter school teachers leave their positionsannually, while teacher turnover at district schools is in the13-16% range.

The data on principal turnover are also notable; the BEDSSurvey does not report this directly, but it is possible to arrive

at a conservative estimate by tabulating changes in the “prin-cipal name” feld. (Since the Survey is administered once peryear, this method o analysis would not capture when a schoolchanges school leaders more than once in a year.) Based ondata or school years 2005-06 through 2010-11, the averageyear-to-year turnover among principals was at least 18.7% orthe charter sector, compared to at least 3.6% across districtschools.

Charter schools’ teacher turnover rates may be related totheir use o younger and less experienced teachers, whowould be more likely to change jobs in any context. In the2010-11 school year, BEDS data indicate that 29% o charter

teachers had no more than three years o teaching experi-ence, compared to fve percent o district teachers.52 Both

nyc eace nve ae53


Source: NYS Report Cards. Includes turnover due to promotion.

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0%

35%

31%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

27%

33%

26%

30%

16% 16%

14%

13% 13%

nyc annal IncIal nve ae (cnevaIveeImae), 2006-201154


20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Charter Schools

18.7%

District Schools

3.6%




teacher and principal turnover rates may also be inuencedby the demanding nature o any school in “start-up mode”—as most charter schools are or years as they recruit stu-

dents, hire sta, and otherwise build a school rom scratch.To be clear, high sta retention is not an end itsel, nor a signo an eective school. Some schools consistently produce lowlevels o academic achievement, despite high sta retention.(It was precisely that pattern that led to such strong supportor charter schools rom legislators, educators and parentsin the frst place.) There are also instances o “turnover” thatcan be a net help to a school, as when an under-perormingstaer is dismissed, or a successul teacher takes a leader-ship position as a charter school or charter network grows.

Nevertheless, NYC charter school leaders are paying closeattention to turnover. It is fnancially and educationally costly

to lose teachers, especially beore they reach their primeyears o eectiveness.55 Losing a school leader may be evenmore costly, especially or young charter schools still acingthe numerous challenges o starting up and building out. More-over, as the sector scales, increased stability in personnelwill become more important. Finding ways to grow capableleaders and keep teachers longer, including through thephase o lie when many decide to start amilies, are goalsmany charter schools and networks see as critical to sus-taining their success, and building on it, even as they grow.

A Movement in Motion I the New York City charter school sector is

in a state o change, its outlook continues tobe prooundly promising and exciting. Charter

schools have shown their ability to make a

positive dierence in academic achievement,

attracting amilies and trying out new ideas

along the way. With many schools chartered to

add new grade levels, and with room to grow

under the statewide charter limit, NYC charter

schools are poised to become an even more

established part o the city’s choice-inused system o public schools. As that happens, they

will only gain momentum as a orce to improve

education and raise academic achievement.

Data rom public sources highlight several difcult chal-lenges that the charter sector aces. Strengthening academicachievement, especially in the high school grades and inreading and writing, is still job number one. Attracting andretaining eective educators is another challenge, and thereis a critical need to maintain access to public acility space.

Also, while dierences in enrollment have arisen or many

reasons, the task alls to the charter sector to serve morestudents with disabilities, more English Language Learners,and even more students rom low-income amilies. Doing sowould provide expanded opportunity to those students andensure that charter schools remain relevant to the largerschool system. Making progress in these areas is eminentlypossible, and individual charter schools and networks arealready hard at work.



37Ie ae e new yk cIy cae cl ec

To urther this last goal, the sector is also acting collectively,with support rom the New York City Charter School Center:

• The sector supported, and will soon be responding to, a

new system o targets or the enrollment and retention ospecial student populations—set by reerence to the sur-rounding district schools.

• A new NYC Special Education Collaborative now connects125 charter schools and networks or proessional develop-ment and practice sharing.

• A common online charter school application is in place,with translations into multiple languages, to help moreamilies apply to charter schools with ease. Over 100 NYCcharter schools are participating in this project, and atthe time o this publication they had received over 21,000applications.

• Work has begun under New York City’s District-Charter

Collaboration Compact, which promotes sharing and col-laboration across dierent types o public schools.

The NYC charter sector has brought new resources, attentionand energy to public education. It has provided choice to par-ents who previously had little or none, which is why parentsare ocking to enroll their children in these schools. Overall,it has improved academic achievement, and become a nationalmodel or how much charter schools can accomplish. It hasdone this through the hard work and dedication o its lead-ers, teachers, sta, parents, students and board members,

who collectively created new school communities that enrichour city’s system o public schools with their success. We owethem, as we owe all those who are dedicated to improving pub-lic schools, our deepest thanks and our strongest support inthe years to come.

Gt th ltstFor updates, or to download this report, visit:www.nycCharterSchools.org/Data



not o copriso mthodsThis report includes comparisons o charter schools and district schools. Suchcomparisons reect the weightings and exclusions described below. Overviewfgures that do not show comparisons do not reect weightings or exclusions.

Weightings Figures that collectively describe “charter schools” / ”charter sector” or “districtschools” are weighted averages o the results or all charter schools in the indicatedgrade(s) and school year(s), with the exclusions noted below. Specifc weightings are

described in the notes below. In general, results are weighted by student enrollment,rom the same grade level(s) i possible, and rom the same data source i possible.

Exclusions Charter sector fgures exclude two schools: the New York Center or Autism Char-ter School (an ungraded school serving students with autism) and John V. LindsayWildcat Academy (a “transer high school” or students who have dropped out orare at serious risk o doing so). District school fgures exclude special educationschools in District 75, all transer high schools, and all other alternative schoolsand programs in District 79.

edots1 Harlem is defned as CSD 4, 5; Central Brooklyn 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 32;

South Bronx 7, 8, 9.

2 There are also no more than six charters available or charter schools with or-proft management partners, statewide, which remain rom a previous version o

the law. These charters may or may not go to charter schools with such arrange-ments in New York City.

3 2012 enrollments are projected. Some 2000-2002 grade levels are estimated. Allenrollments exclude ungraded students.

4 Lottery applicants are the estimated unique applicants to the charter sector inSpring 2011; this is not an estimate o total applications.

5 For neighborhood defnitions, see Note 1.

6 As Commissioner John B. King, Jr. has written o a charter school he co-oundedin Boston, “[S]election bias (as a result o requiring parental applications) must beacknowledged as a actor in Roxbury Prep’s impressive results…” although otheractors mitigate against that bias. “Thus, important lessons can be learned romRoxbury Prep’s experience even i one assumes that some portion o the school’ssuccess can be traced to student inputs.” King Jr., John B. “Fulflling the Hope oBrown V. Board o Education Through Charter Schools.” The Emancipatory Promise

o Charter Schools: Toward a Progressive Politics o School Choice. Eds. Eric Roes

and Lisa M. Stulberg. Albany: State University o New York Press, 2004. 64. Print.7 Analysis is based on combined profciency rates in Math and English Language

Arts, on 2010-11 NYS exams. Signifcance is at p<0.05.

8 Charter Center survey and analysis

9 New York State Education Department. (2011) New York State Charter School

Uniorm Application Form. Web. 27 March 2012. http://www.p12.nysed.gov/psc/documents/CSUniormAppFormNov2011.pd

10 Selected sources or “Ideas at Work”:

Harlem Children’s Zone. (2008). A Look Inside. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. http://www.hcz.org/images/stories/pds/ali_college_success_ofce.pd

Otterman, Sharon. “Ed Schools’ Pedagogical Puzzle.” New York Times 21 July2011, n. pag. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/education/edlie/edl-24teacher-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Anderson, Jenny. “Bronx Charter Makes Eating Well Part o Its Philosophy.”

New York Times 10 May 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/bronx-charter-makes-eating-well-part-o-its-philosophy/

“Autism Now: Demand or Educational Resources or Children Outstrips Sup-ply.” PBS Newshour . PBS. 2011. Web. 27 March 2012. http://video.pbs.org/video/1891154014

“Lunch Calendar and Recipes.” Family Lie Academy Charter School. n.p., n.d.Web. 20 Feb. 2012. http://www.acsnyc.com/special-programs/wellness/lunch-calendar-recipies/index.aspx

Tough, Paul. “What i the Secret to Success Is Failure?” New York Times Magazine.14 Sept. 2011: n. page. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/magazine/what-i-the-secret-to-success-is-ailure.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&sq=kipp&st=cse&scp=3

11 Betts, Julian R. & Richard C. Atkinson. “Better research needed on the impact ocharter schools.” Science. 335.6065 (2012): 171-172. Print.

12 Hoxby, C. M., Murarka, S., and Kang, J. (2009). How New York City’s Charter

Schools Aect Achievement, August 2009 Report. Cambridge, MA: New York CityCharter Schools Evaluation Project. p. VI-1. Web. 27 March 2012. http://www.nberorg/~schools/charterschoolseval/how_NYC_charter_schools_aect_achieve-ment_sept2009.pd

13 Center or Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO). (2010). Charter School

Perormance in New York City , Palo Alto: CA. Web. 27 March 2012. http://credo.stanord.edu/reports/NYC%202009%20_CREDO.pd

14 This report does not ocus on perormance at individual charter schools or net-works, but other controlled studies have. See, or example:

Dobie, Will & Roland G. Fryer, Jr. “Are High-Quality Schools Enough to IncreaseAchievement Among the Poor? Evidence rom the Harlem Children’s Zone.” Amer

ican Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 3.3 (2011): 158-87. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.

Tuttle, Christina C., Bing-ru Teh, Ira Nichols-Barrer, Brian P. Gill, and PhilipGleason. “Student Characteristics and Achievement in 22 KIPP Middle Schools.”Mathematica Policy Research Inc. June 2010.

Teh, Bing-ru Teh, Moira McCullough, and Brian P. Gill, “Student Achievement inNew York City Middle Schools Afliated with Achievement First and UncommonSchools.” Mathematica Policy Research Inc. July 2010.

15 Center or Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO). (2009). Multiple Choice:

Charter School Perormance in 16 States, Palo Alto: CA. Web. 23 March 2012.http://credo.stanord.edu/reports/MULTIPLE_CHOICE_CREDO.pd

16 Raymond, Margaret. “L.A. Could Learn a Lot About Charter Schools rom the Big

Apple.” Los Angeles Times. 1 Feb. 2010, n. pag. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/eb/01/opinion/la-oe-raymond1-2010eb01

17 Source: NYSED 3-8 Grade State Test Results, with charter and district school ag-gregates weighted based on the number o test takers. CSDs 20, 24, 25, 26 did nohave charter schools during the 2010-11 school year.

18 Perormance levels are labeled with their inormal, conventional names (“Ad-vanced” through “Below Basic”). Ofcially, the levels are Exceeds Profciency Stan-

dard (Level 4), Meets Profciency Standard (Level 3), Meets Basic Standard (Level 2)and Below Standard (Level 1). “Profciency” generally reers to Level 3 + Level 4.Charter and district school aggregates are weighted based on the number o testtakers.

19 Charter and district school aggregates are weighted based on the number o testtakers.

20 Subgroup perormance data are rom NYS Report Cards. Charter and districtschool aggregates are weighted based on the number o test takers. Students

are considered low income i their amily participates in economic assistance orone o the ollowing: ree or reduced-price lunch (amily income below 185% oederal poverty line), social security insurance, ood stamps, oster care, reugeeassistance, earned income tax credit, home energy assistance program, saetynet assistance, Bureau o Indian Aairs, or temporary assistance or needyamilies. Subgroup test result aggregates are aected by NYSED data suppres-sion rules designed to protect student confdentiality at the school level. https://reportcards.nysed.gov/

21 Incoming profciency level is an average o grade 4 ELA and Math exams or allstudents currently enrolled at the school. Profciency level gain is the dierencebetween incoming profciency and 2010-11 averaged ELA and Math profciency.Charter and district school aggregates are weighted based on individual schoolsample sizes or the indicated measure as provided by NYC DOE.

22 A scaled score o 65 or higher is considered a passing Regents score. The districtschool comparison group includes all non-charter, non-transer NYC highschools, weighted or number o test takers.

23 Eighth-grade students receive high school credit or passing both a Regents examand the course aimed at preparing the student or the exam. Charter and districtschool aggregates are weighted based on individual school sample sizes or the8th grade high school credit Progress Report measure as provided by NYC DOE.

24 Logue, Alexandra W. Evaluating the Impact o College Remediation at Commu-

nity Colleges and Other Postsecondary Institutions. Testimony Beore the NewYork City Council Committee on Higher Education. 24 Oct. 2011. Web. 27 March2012. http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/academic-news/fles/2011/11/Testimony_AWL_10_24_111.pd

25 The our-year graduation rate is the percentage o students in the our-year 2010graduating cohort who graduate with a Regents or Local Diploma, includingAugust graduates. The our-year cohort includes all students who frst enteredhigh school in the 2007-2008 school year. These are unofcial graduation rates.Ofcial graduation rates or 2010-11 have yet to be released by NYSED. The col-

http://www.p12.nysed.gov/psc/documents/CSUniformAppFormNov2011.pdf


http://www.hcz.org/images/stories/pdfs/ali_college_success_office.pdf


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/education/edlife/edl-24teacher-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all


http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/bronx-charter-makes-eating-well-part-of-its-philosophy


http://video.pbs.org/video/1891154014


http://www.flacsnyc.com/special-programs/wellness/lunch-calendar-recipies/index.aspx


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/magazine/what-if-the-secret-to-success-is-failure.html?pagewanted=1&_%20r=2&sq=kipp&st=cse&scp=3



http://www.nber.org/~schools/charterschoolseval/how_NYC_charter_schools_affect_achievement_sept2009.pdf




http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/NYC%202009%20_CREDO.pdf


http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MULTIPLE_CHOICE_CREDO.pdf

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/01/opinion/la-oe-raymond1-2010feb01



https://reportcards.nysed.gov/


http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/academic-news/files/2011/11/Testimony_AWL_10_24_111.pdf








http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MULTIPLE_CHOICE_CREDO.pdf
























lege enrollment rate measures the percentage o students in the our year 2010graduating cohort who graduate and enroll in a degree program at a two- orour-year college or university by December 31 o their graduation year. The col-lege readiness index is included in the NYC DOE annual Progress Reports. Thismetric measures the percentage o students in the 2011 cohort (all students whoentered high school our years earlier) who graduated and met the standards orpassing out o remedial coursework at the City University o New York (CUNY),by August 2011. The standards are: (1) graduating with a Regents diploma; and(2) (a) earning a 75 or higher on the English Regents or (b) scoring 480 or higher

on the Critical Reading SAT; and (3) (a) earning an 80 or higher on one MathRegents and completing coursework in Algebra II/Trigonometry or a higher-levelMath subject, or (b) scoring 480 or higher on the Math SAT. Charter and districtschool aggregates are weighted based on individual school sample sizes or theindicated Progress Report measures as provided by NYC DOE.

26 Each year students must pass a certain number o remaining Regents examsto stay on track or graduation. The “Regents completion rate” metric gives thepercentage o those Regents passed by students in grade 10 grade or higher.Charter and district school aggregates are weighted based on individual schoolsample sizes or the remaining Regents completion Progress Report measure asprovided by NYC DOE.

27 Learning environment survey scores are based on responses o parents, middleand high-school students, and teachers on a school survey included in the NYCDOE annual Progress Reports. These scores are recorded in our categories:academic expectations, engagement, saety and respect, and communication.Charter and district school aggregates are weighted based on total October 31,

2010 enrollment. Schools with K-12 grade confgurations are classifed with K-8schools, and schools with 6-12 grade confgurations are classifed with middleschools.

28 The “attendance rate” is the average daily attendance rate or the 2010-11 schoolyear. Charter and district school aggregates are weighted based on total October31, 2010 enrollment. Schools’ grade confgurations are based on progress reportclassifcations, with K-2 and K-3 early childhood schools combined into onecategory.

29 See NYS Ed. Law, Article 56 §2850 2.

30 Students with a amily income below 130% o the ederal poverty thresholdqualiy or ree lunch. Students with a amily income between 130% and 185% othe ederal poverty threshold qualiy or reduced-price lunch. Counts are basedon registered students as o the frst Wednesday in October, 2010, and the lunchorm status o those students updated by schools up through January, 2011.Charter and district school aggregates are weighted based on overall enrollmenton the frst Wednesday in October (“BEDS day”). By common practice, students at

charter or district schools participating in the Universal School Meals program,an NYC DOE program that allows schools with high FRPL eligibility to give allstudents ree lunch, are counted based on their personal eligibility, and are notautomatically assumed to be ree lunch eligible.

31 NYSED data reect school lunch orms reported in October, as well as updatessubmitted through January, 2011. Later in the year, school or NYC DOE totals maybe higher, especially or charter schools. The new enrollment and retention targetsor FRPL eligible students in charter schools will be calculated based on NYSEDdata.

32 School data based on registered students as o BEDS day, and the lunch ormstatus o those students updated by schools up through January, 2011.

33 Students in one o 13 disability categories may have special education needs. Notall disabled students require special education.

34 Charter school data are based on October 31, 2010 registered students withbiographic inormation updated at the end o the school year. District school data

are based on October 31, 2010 registered students. Charter and district schoolaggregates are weighted based on total October 31, 2010 enrollment.

35 Charter school data are based on October 31, 2010 registered students withbiographic inormation updated at the end o the school year. District school dataare based on October 31, 2010 registered students.

36 Charter school data are based on October 31, 2010 registered students withbiographic inormation updated at the end o the school year. District school dataare based on October 31, 2010 registered students. Charter and district schoolaggregates are weighted based on total October 31, 2010 enrollment. Schoolswith K-12 grade confgurations are classifed with K-8 schools, and schools with6-12 grade confgurations are classifed with middle schools.

37 Charter and district school aggregates are weighted based on individual schoolsample sizes or the LRE Progress Report measure as provided by NYC DOE.

38 U.S. Department o Education, Ofce o Special Education Programs. “Table 2-2.Number o students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by educa-tional environment and state: Fall 2010” https://www.ideadata.org/arc_toc12.asp#partbLRE

39 Students are classifed as English Language Learners at intake based on HomeLanguage Survey and LAB-R test results.

40 “Application o Common Core Standards For English Language Learners.”Common Core State Standards Initiative. Web. 27 March 2012. http://www.cores-

tandards.org/assets/application-or-english-learners.pd41 Success Charter Network. (2011) The Parking Lot o Broken Dreams: How English

Language Learner programs in NYC Hurt Children. Web. 27 March 2012. http://www.successacademies.org/uploaded//SCN_NYSESLAT_Report_March_2011.pd

42 School data are based on registered students as o BEDS day, 2010, and the ELLstatus o those students as updated by schools up through January, 2011.

43 School data are based on registered students as o BEDS day, 2010, and theELL status o those students as updated by schools up through January, 2011.Charter and district school aggregates are weighted based on BEDS day overallenrollment.

44 Charter and district school aggregates are weighted based on number o test takers.

45 School data are based on registered students as o BEDS day, 2010. Charter anddistrict school aggregates are weighted based on BEDS day overall enrollment.

46 Net enrollment change is the percent change in the number o students within

expected returning cohorts o students rom year to year. Data are rom the all o2010 to the all o 2011 rom NYS Report Cards.

47 Hoxby, Murarka, and Kang (2009). See Note 12.

48 Backfll measures the percentage o students entering a school between Octoberand spring state test administration, in terms o October enrollment. Data are orthe 2010-11 school year, rom the dierence between test time total enrollmentand continuous enrollments reported by NYSED or NCLB accountability pur-poses. Attrition measures the percentage o students leaving the school betweenOctober and spring state test administration. Data are or the 2010-11 schoolyear, rom the dierence between NYSED BEDS day enrollment and test timecontinuous enrollments reported by NYSED or NCLB accountability purposes onNYS Report Cards.

49 NYS Education Department, Fall 2010 BEDS Survey Data, by request rom NYSED

50 Projections are based on historical patterns o size and growth in the NYC chartersector.

51 See NYC Independent Budget Ofce, NYC Public School Indicators (2011),adapted rom p. 23, Table 3.19. Note that “Number o buildings” is incorrectlylabeled “Number o schools” in Table 3.19. Values include District 75 schools, perIBO methodology.

52 Source: NYS Report Cards

53 The teacher attrition rate is the percent o teachers who leave the school romone year to the next. The district school comparison group includes all non-charterNYC teachers. The 2011 rate is or the percent o teachers leaving between the2009-10 school year and the 2010-11 school year. The 2010 rate is or the percento teachers leaving between the 2008-09 school year and the 2009-10 school yearThe 2009 rate is or the percent o teachers leaving between the 2007-08 schoolyear and the 2008-09 school year. The 2008 rate is or the percent o teachersleaving between the 2006-07 school year and the 2007-08 school year. The 2007rate is or the percent o teachers leaving between the 2005-06 school year andthe 2006-07 school year. Charter and district aggregates are weighted by numbero teachers.

54 Principal turnover measures how oten schools changed leaders between 2006and 2011. The metric is calculated by taking one less than the number o leadersa school had between 2006 and 2011, and dividing it by one less than number oyears the school was in existence between 2006 and 2011. This gives the percent-age o school years in which a school had a new school leader on BEDS day.

55 For example, see Stuit, D. A. and Thomas M. Smith. (2009). Teacher Turnover in

Charter Schools. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Web. 27 March 2012. http://www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice/documents/bries/brie_stuit_smith_ncspe.pdAlso see discussion in Brill, Steven. Class Warare: Inside the Fight to Fix America’s

Schools. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011. Print.

https://www.ideadata.org/arc_toc12.asp#partbLRE


http://www.corestandards.org/assets/application-for-english-learners.pdf


http://www.successacademies.org/uploaded//SCN_NYSESLAT_Report_March_2011.pdf


http://www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice/documents/briefs/brief_stuit_smith_ncspe.pdf












111 Broadway, Suite 604New York, NY 10006212.437.8300

www.nycCharterSchools.org

Read Our Blog:http://www.nyccharterschools.org/blog

Documents

State of the Sector 2012