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

1. THE CHARTER SCHOOL DEBATE FULL OF SOUND AND FURY, BUT WHAT DOES IT SIGNIFY? Consensus Fall, 2006

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

3. WHAT ARE CHARTER SCHOOLS? Public schools Self governing Freedom from certain rules in return for greater accountability No virtual charter schools No private school conversions Secular Comply with Open Meetings Law and Freedom of Information Law

4. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS? To improve learning and achievement. To increase learning opportunities particularly for at-risk students. To encourage innovation. To offer school choice. To provide schools with opportunity to change from rule-based accountability to performance-based accountability.

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

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

7. WHO MAY TEACH AT A CHARTER SCHOOL? Generally, teachers must be certified. Lesser of 5 teachers or 30% need not be certified, provided they have at least three years of teaching experience, are members of a college faculty, or have other specialized experience.

8. ARE TEACHERS MEMBERS OF UNIONS AND SUBJECT TO CONTRACTS? Generally not unionized and no contract. May unionize. Public school conversions and certain larger charter schools remain members of collective bargaining units and subject to collective bargaining agreements. Charters of over 250 students on the opening day become a separate negotiating unit of the home district�s teachers� union, subject to the existing collective bargaining agreement. However union membership can be waived for up to 10 schools chartered by SUNY. As a practical matter, no SUNY or Regents charters have been subject to collective bargaining agreements because, during the first year of operation, they have been relatively small schools, with additional grades and classes being added over time. Charters of over 250 students on the opening day become a separate negotiating unit of the home district�s teachers� union, subject to the existing collective bargaining agreement. However union membership can be waived for up to 10 schools chartered by SUNY. As a practical matter, no SUNY or Regents charters have been subject to collective bargaining agreements because, during the first year of operation, they have been relatively small schools, with additional grades and classes being added over time.

9. HOW ARE CHARTER SCHOOLS FUNDED? The district of residence pays the per pupil approved operating expense. Students attending charters are also eligible for the same aids that private school students receive, including textbooks, library materials, computer software, and health services from the school district of residence. If charter provides services to disabled student, the district of residence transfers the state and federal special education funds attributable to that student to the charter. Charter schools are eligible to receive both state and federal grants for planning and facilities planning and creation. Private grants and donations. Some charters spend more per student than others. The per pupil charter payment is based on the district budget of two years earlier. Costs of central office, building costs, other than amortization of debt, classroom costs, and some categorical grants are added together, divided by the average daily attendance, and multiplied by a two year inflation factor, representing the two year percentage increase in state-wide operating expenses for all public school districts. This sum is paid to the charter in 6 installments, beginning July 1 and every 2 months thereafter. In the first year of operation, payments are made on the basis of initial-year enrollment projections for the Charter, with subsequent reconciliation. Funds for disabled students are generally less than the true cost to educate a disabled child because the district traditionally supports the education of disabled children with an additional local contribution in addition to the contribution of state and federal funds. New York City has elected to give charters additional monies for the education of disabled children by turning over the local share of funds for a disabled student as well as state and federal funds. Although we do not have statewide figures, a limited New York City League study indicates the amount of per student operating expenditures of charters are quite variable. 2005 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR SIX NEW YORK CITY CHARTER SCHOOLS. School Received Total Facilities Instruction From District Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures[1] AMBER $8,335 $12,728 $0 $12,728 HARLEM DAY $8733 $14,222 $655 $13,567 HARLEM $8069 $12,863 $944 $11,919 VILLAGE HARLEM $9115 $12,616 $0 $12,616 CHILDREN�S ZONE HARBOR SCIENCE $8843 $10,151 $447 $9704 SISULU-WALKER $8590 $9734 $1797 $7937 [1] Instruction expenditures is total expenditures minus facilities expenditures.The per pupil charter payment is based on the district budget of two years earlier. Costs of central office, building costs, other than amortization of debt, classroom costs, and some categorical grants are added together, divided by the average daily attendance, and multiplied by a two year inflation factor, representing the two year percentage increase in state-wide operating expenses for all public school districts. This sum is paid to the charter in 6 installments, beginning July 1 and every 2 months thereafter. In the first year of operation, payments are made on the basis of initial-year enrollment projections for the Charter, with subsequent reconciliation. Funds for disabled students are generally less than the true cost to educate a disabled child because the district traditionally supports the education of disabled children with an additional local contribution in addition to the contribution of state and federal funds. New York City has elected to give charters additional monies for the education of disabled children by turning over the local share of funds for a disabled student as well as state and federal funds. Although we do not have statewide figures, a limited New York City League study indicates the amount of per student operating expenditures of charters are quite variable. 2005 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR SIX NEW YORK CITY CHARTER SCHOOLS. School Received Total Facilities Instruction From District Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures[1] AMBER $8,335 $12,728 $0 $12,728 HARLEM DAY $8733 $14,222 $655 $13,567 HARLEM $8069 $12,863 $944 $11,919 VILLAGE HARLEM $9115 $12,616 $0 $12,616 CHILDREN�S ZONE HARBOR SCIENCE $8843 $10,151 $447 $9704 SISULU-WALKER $8590 $9734 $1797 $7937

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

11. Revocation for Academic Failure If the school�s outcome on student assessment measures adopted by the Board of Regents falls below the level that would allow the commissioner to revoke the registration of another public school, and student achievement on such measures has not shown improvement over the preceding three school years

12. Failure to Renew forAcademic Reasons No clear standards. Both SUNY and the Regents purport to apply achievement standards in the decision to renew a charter. These standards are not written and have been overruled by political considerations. Charter files a progress report on the extent to which the charter has met its educational goals. Renewal requires meeting the same standards that must be met to receive the charter initially, including the findings that the applicant can operate the school in an educationally sound manner and that granting the application is likely to improve student learning and achievement. In its December, 2003 five year report on the educational effectiveness of charter schools in New York State, the State Education Department effectively admitted that it had no way of conducting a meaningful comparison of charter performance with that of public schools. This shortcoming has two causes. First, the only meaningful achievement data are results on the statewide tests: Overall, the student performance data from the administration of standardized assessments other than the State tests leave the question of charter schools� academic effectiveness unresolved. Indeed, the data can hardly be said even to address the question of academic effectiveness. Partly this is a result of charter schools not communicating, for example, about the standardized tests they elected to purchase and administer. Partly it is a result of a similar lack of communication about the metrics the charter schools selected and reported. But another aspect of the problem of deriving meaningful generalizations based on data from standardized tests is that the charter schools have not made an effective effort to organize and present their data to make the case for their academic effectiveness. To date, inferences regarding the academic performance of charter schools depend on data collected from the administration of the grade 4 and 8 State ELA and math assessments. These are the only assessments that are comparable longitudinally. Second, the statewide tests may not be meaningful for comparison purposes, given that the state, in looking at achievement data, does not attempt to ascertain the comparability of charter and traditional public school populations: When comparing charter school performance with that of the district of location, it is important to remember that the student population in the charter school may not be representative of the student population of the district. Some charter schools may draw from the lowest-performing district schools. On the other hand, data in a previous section showed that, on average, charter schools enroll a mostly minority and economically- disadvantaged population, and also generally enroll a smaller percentage of students with disabilities and limited English proficiency than do the districts of location. Further, the students with disabilities that charter schools enroll are unlikely to have severe disabilities. We suspect both lack of adequate funding and lack of clear standards make assessment of progress an �eyeball� or �gut� review rather than a meaningful study of whether any particular charter is actually improving outcomes in a statistically significant way. Given that SED has recommended successful charters be renewed for a period of 10 years, clarification of the standard for renewal becomes even more important. Charter files a progress report on the extent to which the charter has met its educational goals. Renewal requires meeting the same standards that must be met to receive the charter initially, including the findings that the applicant can operate the school in an educationally sound manner and that granting the application is likely to improve student learning and achievement. In its December, 2003 five year report on the educational effectiveness of charter schools in New York State, the State Education Department effectively admitted that it had no way of conducting a meaningful comparison of charter performance with that of public schools. This shortcoming has two causes. First, the only meaningful achievement data are results on the statewide tests: Overall, the student performance data from the administration of standardized assessments other than the State tests leave the question of charter schools� academic effectiveness unresolved. Indeed, the data can hardly be said even to address the question of academic effectiveness. Partly this is a result of charter schools not communicating, for example, about the standardized tests they elected to purchase and administer. Partly it is a result of a similar lack of communication about the metrics the charter schools selected and reported. But another aspect of the problem of deriving meaningful generalizations based on data from standardized tests is that the charter schools have not made an effective effort to organize and present their data to make the case for their academic effectiveness. To date, inferences regarding the academic performance of charter schools depend on data collected from the administration of the grade 4 and 8 State ELA and math assessments. These are the only assessments that are comparable longitudinally. Second, the statewide tests may not be meaningful for comparison purposes, given that the state, in looking at achievement data, does not attempt to ascertain the comparability of charter and traditional public school populations: When comparing charter school performance with that of the district of location, it is important to remember that the student population in the charter school may not be representative of the student population of the district. Some charter schools may draw from the lowest-performing district schools. On the other hand, data in a previous section showed that, on average, charter schools enroll a mostly minority and economically- disadvantaged population, and also generally enroll a smaller percentage of students with disabilities and limited English proficiency than do the districts of location. Further, the students with disabilities that charter schools enroll are unlikely to have severe disabilities. We suspect both lack of adequate funding and lack of clear standards make assessment of progress an �eyeball� or �gut� review rather than a meaningful study of whether any particular charter is actually improving outcomes in a statistically significant way. Given that SED has recommended successful charters be renewed for a period of 10 years, clarification of the standard for renewal becomes even more important.

13. Challenges for Charters Limited grants for start-up and facilities. Otherwise, must pay out of operating costs Limited time between grant of charter and opening For-profit EMOs take a portion of operating expenses For the 2001-02 school year NYC charters, other than public school conversions, spent 19% of their public funding for capital costs.[1] A 2004 study indicated that, nationwide, charters spend an average of 20-25% of instructional revenues to finance building, although financiers generally agree that no more than 15% should be spent on debt service.[2] Moreover, the size, lack of a track record, and potential instability of charters renders them less likely to qualify for competitively priced finance products. [1] Jacobowitz, Robin and Gyurko, Jonathan S., (2004) Charter School Funding in New York: Perspectives on Parity With Traditional Public Schools, www.nyu.edu/iesp/publications/charter/CharterFinance.pdf. [2] Ascher, Carol, et al., (2004) The Finance Gap: Charter Schools and Their Facilities � Findings From a Nine-Month Study, Institute for Education and Social Policy, New York University, www.lisc.org/resources/assets/asset_upload_file678_6781.pdf.For the 2001-02 school year NYC charters, other than public school conversions, spent 19% of their public funding for capital costs.[1] A 2004 study indicated that, nationwide, charters spend an average of 20-25% of instructional revenues to finance building, although financiers generally agree that no more than 15% should be spent on debt service.[2] Moreover, the size, lack of a track record, and potential instability of charters renders them less likely to qualify for competitively priced finance products.

14. Challenges for Traditional Public Schools Transfer of funds to charters without ability to reduce costs proportionately Educators of last resort

15. Conflicting Public Policies Charters function as independent school districts SED encourages amalgamation of small districts by making consolidation monies available

16. CHARTERS IN NEW YORK New York State has approximately 4,000 public schools, serving 2.8 million students. Over 1,000 schools and 1 million students are in New York City. Anticipate 100 charter schools will account for approximately 2.5% of the statewide public school student body, or 70,000 students. Vergari, Sandra, Editor, The Charter School Landscape, University of Pittsburgh Press, (2002). Vergari, Sandra, Editor, The Charter School Landscape, University of Pittsburgh Press, (2002).

17. 2004-2005 School Year 61 charters with 18, 408 students. 16 chartered by Board of Regents, 32 were chartered by the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York (SUNY), 11 were chartered by the Chancellor of the New York City Public Schools and 2 were chartered by the Buffalo City School District. Size: 88 to 1105 students. 21, or approximately one-third, were operated by EMOs. The EMOs and the number of schools each manages is as follows. EMO No. of Charters Edison 6 Victory 4 National Heritage Academies 4 Chancellor Beacon Academies 3 SABIS 1 Lighthouse Academies 1 Uncommon Schools 1 Mosaica 1 A Michigan study found that during the five-year period under review, the percentage of Michigan charters run by an EMO increased from 17% to 74%.[1] EMO-run schools have been described as �cookie-cutter� schools because they offer little opportunity for curricular freedom or building level decision making.[2] Jeffrey Hennig and Thomas Holyoke examined the hypothesis that organizational type of charter will affect behavior with respect to how the school defines, pursues, and responds to its consumers in The Influence of Founder Type on Charter School Structures and Operations. The study looked at charters in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, dividing them into the following categories: EMO; local business; mission; parent founded; teacher founded. The study concluded that EMO operated charters were likely to behave differently than non-EMO operated charters. The EMO charters were less likely to include high school students, likely to be larger, less likely to target subpopulations of students, substantially more likely to aim at the median student than mission-oriented charters, and a little more likely to use high price marketing strategies. Charters launched by local businesses behaved more like mission-oriented charters than EMO charters. Schools formed by mission oriented groups were most likely to target at-risk students, while those formed by parents were least likely to do so. Schools formed by educators were least likely to aggressively advertise. Local business charters were more likely to be organized around a theme (usually vocational). In addition, many charters have not-for�profit partners, which provide varying degrees of operational, instructional, and financial support. For the 2001-02 school year, thirteen of the eighteen NYC charters, 72 percent, had institutional (for-profit or not-for-profit) partners.[3] SED figures, which only look at EMO involvement, indicated that approximately 33% of charters in New York State were run by an EMO during the 2004-05 school year. It is estimated that EMOs will run 28% of charters during the 2006-07 school year. [1] Bracey, Gerald, (2004) City-wide Systems of Charter Schools: Proceed with Caution, Education Policy Studies Laboratory of Arizona State University, www.nyssbba.org/ScriptContent/VA_Custon/PDFs/grepsl-0403-115epru.pdf, p.5. [2] Jacobowitz, Robin and Gyurko, Jonathan S., (2004) Charter School Funding in New York: Perspectives on Parity With Traditional Public Schools, www.nyu.edu/iesp/publications/charter/CharterFinance.pdf [3] Ascher, Carol, et al., (2003) Governance and Administrative Infrastructure in New York City Charter Schools: Going Charter Year Three Findings, Institute for Education and Social Policy, New York University, www.nyu.edu/iesp/publications/charter/gov_admin_may2003.pdf. The EMOs and the number of schools each manages is as follows. EMO No. of Charters Edison 6 Victory 4 National Heritage Academies 4 Chancellor Beacon Academies 3 SABIS 1 Lighthouse Academies 1 Uncommon Schools 1 Mosaica 1 A Michigan study found that during the five-year period under review, the percentage of Michigan charters run by an EMO increased from 17% to 74%.[1] EMO-run schools have been described as �cookie-cutter� schools because they offer little opportunity for curricular freedom or building level decision making.[2] Jeffrey Hennig and Thomas Holyoke examined the hypothesis that organizational type of charter will affect behavior with respect to how the school defines, pursues, and responds to its consumers in The Influence of Founder Type on Charter School Structures and Operations. The study looked at charters in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, dividing them into the following categories: EMO; local business; mission; parent founded; teacher founded. The study concluded that EMO operated charters were likely to behave differently than non-EMO operated charters. The EMO charters were less likely to include high school students, likely to be larger, less likely to target subpopulations of students, substantially more likely to aim at the median student than mission-oriented charters, and a little more likely to use high price marketing strategies. Charters launched by local businesses behaved more like mission-oriented charters than EMO charters. Schools formed by mission oriented groups were most likely to target at-risk students, while those formed by parents were least likely to do so. Schools formed by educators were least likely to aggressively advertise. Local business charters were more likely to be organized around a theme (usually vocational). In addition, many charters have not-for�profit partners, which provide varying degrees of operational, instructional, and financial support. For the 2001-02 school year, thirteen of the eighteen NYC charters, 72 percent, had institutional (for-profit or not-for-profit) partners.[3] SED figures, which only look at EMO involvement, indicated that approximately 33% of charters in New York State were run by an EMO during the 2004-05 school year. It is estimated that EMOs will run 28% of charters during the 2006-07 school year.

18. 2004-2005 School YearWho Attended Charters? 5/6 of charter students in elementary schools Over 2/3 charter students black; approximately 1/6 were Hispanic; under 1/6 were white 358 students (1.9%) with limited English proficiency 1,502 students with disabilities, representing 9% of the children enrolled in charter schools. 63% of the students at charters received Free or Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL) During the 2004-05 school year 1,445 or 7.8% of charter students, transferred out of charter schools The Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School had the largest percentage of disabled students at 55% (48 of 88 students). Of the students leaving charters, 1331 transferred back to their home schools and 114 to non-public schools or home instruction. The Child Development Center of the Hamptons Charter School had the largest percentage of disabled students at 55% (48 of 88 students). Of the students leaving charters, 1331 transferred back to their home schools and 114 to non-public schools or home instruction.

19. Where are Charter Schools Home District Number of Charters % of District Budget 6/26/2005 2004 - 2005 Buffalo 14 7.77 Lackawanna 1 8.25 Niagara-Wheatfield 1 Rochester 4 4.06 Syracuse 2 3.18 Albany 8 10.15 Schenectady 1 3.64 Troy 1 2.07 Yonkers 1 NYC 57 0.30 Wainscott 1 3.03 Riverhead 1 Roosevelt 1 4.52 Shelter Island 0 3.27 Sagaponack 0 3.17 In general, an urban phenomenon.In general, an urban phenomenon.

20. Racial Mix The 2003 Regents Five Year Report to the Governor and Legislature on charter schools indicated that 85% of students in charter schools were minorities, compared to 45.5% in all New York State public schools In New York City 96% of students in charters were minorities, compared to 87.1% in all New York City public schools. Some indication in national studies that children in charters move from less to more segregated settings. But no evidence for New York State. The percentage of minority students in charters compared to public schools does not tell the whole story. Without knowing the racial mix of the home school, one cannot know if a student is moving to a more segregated school.Some indication in national studies that children in charters move from less to more segregated settings. But no evidence for New York State. The percentage of minority students in charters compared to public schools does not tell the whole story. Without knowing the racial mix of the home school, one cannot know if a student is moving to a more segregated school.

21. Economically Disadvantaged Students The 2003 Regents Five Year Report to the Governor and Legislature on charter schools indicated that 74% of students in charter schools qualified for free or reduced price lunch, compared to 50.6% in all New York State public schools In New York City, 82% of both charter and public school students qualified The 2004-05 Annual Report indicated 63% of students in charter schools qualified for free or reduced price lunch Some commentators have suggested that FRPL (eligibility for which is set at 185% of the poverty level) is an insufficiently specific measure of poverty. Nationally, charter school proponents have often claimed that charter school students are more disadvantaged than their public school counterparts. The Charter School Dust Up reviewed existing literature to evaluate the validity of this assertion and found that, in general, charter students were less disadvantaged than public school students.[1] The authors examined the 2003 NAEP data and reviewed studies of charters in individual states to conclude that charter students from racial or ethnic minority groups were at least as economically advantaged as their public school peers and in some cases more so. However, relative economic advantage of charter students varies from state to state, and there is some national evidence that charter students are more disadvantaged in some states. We are not aware of any New York studies dealing with relative advantage. [1] Carnoy, et al. (2005), pp.21 � 65.Some commentators have suggested that FRPL (eligibility for which is set at 185% of the poverty level) is an insufficiently specific measure of poverty. Nationally, charter school proponents have often claimed that charter school students are more disadvantaged than their public school counterparts. The Charter School Dust Up reviewed existing literature to evaluate the validity of this assertion and found that, in general, charter students were less disadvantaged than public school students.[1] The authors examined the 2003 NAEP data and reviewed studies of charters in individual states to conclude that charter students from racial or ethnic minority groups were at least as economically advantaged as their public school peers and in some cases more so. However, relative economic advantage of charter students varies from state to state, and there is some national evidence that charter students are more disadvantaged in some states. We are not aware of any New York studies dealing with relative advantage.

22. Disabled Students A 2003 report on charter schools indicates that New York charters educate a smaller percentage of disabled students than traditional public schools More severely disabled students are returned to their home schools A 2003 NYSSBA Report indicated Buffalo charters enrolled 5 to 6% disabled students, compared to 22% in the city schools. Enrollment statistics were similar in Albany. The 2003 Regents Five Year Report on charter schools indicated a somewhat higher percentage of disabled students being educated by charters, with 11.8% of charter school students classified as disabled and 15% of the public school population statewide classified as disabled. In New York City the total number of disabled students in all public schools was 14%, compared to 7% in charter schools. For the 2004-05 school year, 9% of charter students were disabled.  A 2003 NYSSBA Report indicated Buffalo charters enrolled 5 to 6% disabled students, compared to 22% in the city schools. Enrollment statistics were similar in Albany. The 2003 Regents Five Year Report on charter schools indicated a somewhat higher percentage of disabled students being educated by charters, with 11.8% of charter school students classified as disabled and 15% of the public school population statewide classified as disabled. In New York City the total number of disabled students in all public schools was 14%, compared to 7% in charter schools. For the 2004-05 school year, 9% of charter students were disabled.

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

24. Teacher Quality No New York State data Nationally More likely to have attended selective colleges Less likely to be certified Math teachers are less likely than public school teachers to have subject matter training or knowledge, as measured by a college major or minor in math or passage of a math subject matter test Twice as likely as traditional public school teachers to have five years or less teaching experience, with one-half to two-thirds of charter teachers having five years or less experience High quality teachers can positively and significantly raise student achievement. Subject matter knowledge, as measured by a major or minor in the subject to be taught or by having passed a subject matter test, teaching experience, selectivity of college attended, courses in education or pedagogy, and receipt of mentoring from experienced teachers have been found to lead to better student outcomes. Studies have shown that teaching skill continues to grow during the first five years of teaching. Furthermore a teaching staff of inexperienced teachers loses the ability to mentor less experienced teachers. While limited teacher experience could be a function of the brief life span of the charter movement, it could also result from the need of charters to contain costs by hiring inexperienced teachers. A large number of charter teachers work without full credentials. Uncredentialed teachers are more concentrated in urban charters. Similarly, EMOs are likely to employ significantly larger numbers of uncredentialed teachers, and charters run by EMOs tend to employ teachers with 2 years less classroom experience than do other charters.[1] [1] Bulkley and Wohlstetter, (2004) pp. 111-142. High quality teachers can positively and significantly raise student achievement. Subject matter knowledge, as measured by a major or minor in the subject to be taught or by having passed a subject matter test, teaching experience, selectivity of college attended, courses in education or pedagogy, and receipt of mentoring from experienced teachers have been found to lead to better student outcomes. Studies have shown that teaching skill continues to grow during the first five years of teaching. Furthermore a teaching staff of inexperienced teachers loses the ability to mentor less experienced teachers. While limited teacher experience could be a function of the brief life span of the charter movement, it could also result from the need of charters to contain costs by hiring inexperienced teachers. A large number of charter teachers work without full credentials. Uncredentialed teachers are more concentrated in urban charters. Similarly, EMOs are likely to employ significantly larger numbers of uncredentialed teachers, and charters run by EMOs tend to employ teachers with 2 years less classroom experience than do other charters.[1]

25. Achievement in Charters Nationally, there is no consensus about whether charters do a better job Hoxby � charters do a significantly better job AFT and 2003 NAEP data � when student data is disaggregated by race, ethnicity and special needs, public schools do at least as good a job of educating students as charters and private schools A 2004 review of charter achievement nationally noted that Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Wisconsin had no way of comparing charter achievement to that in traditional public schools.[1] A meta- analysis of charter studies indicates students in charters not exceed their peers in academic achievement. Another 2004 study compared charter school students nationally with traditional public schools they would have been likely to attend and found that in the areas of reading and mathematics charter school students were more likely to be proficient and that the proficiency advantage increased with the length of charter school operation.[2] The study suggested that charter schools are especially likely to raise the achievement of students who are poor or Hispanic. Two aspects of this study are worth noting. In New York State the data showed no statistically significant difference between achievement in charter schools and traditional public schools. Secondly, in drawing her final conclusions, Hoxby excluded data from charters that targeted at-risk or gifted students because she assumed such schools could not be compared to neighborhood schools. Charter schools targeting at-risk students performed significantly lower than their traditional public school counterparts. If achievement data from charter schools targeting gifted and at-risk students had not been removed from Hoxby�s data, it is likely that achievement at traditional public schools would have exceeded that in charters. Without data to support the assertion that charters for at-risk students differed demographically from traditional public schools, the validity of Hoxby�s results are called into question. Other authors were unable to replicate the Hoxby results using data from Washington, D.C. Moreover, several statistical models used in the D.C. analysis showed traditional public schools to be outperforming charters at a statistically significant level.[3] Furthermore, Hoxby�s study has been criticized for making comparisons based on different standardized tests administered in charter and public schools, a flaw that would further call into question the validity of her conclusions. In direct opposition to the Hoxby findings, the American Federation of Teachers issued an analysis of the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data,[4] finding that charter school students had lower scores than traditional public school students on 4th and 8th grade math tests and on 4th grade reading tests and that the differences were statistically significant. It also found lower scores for 8th grade reading but that the difference was not statistically significant. Looking at performance of students who were eligible for free and reduced price lunch, the gaps remained statistically significant. Looking at the performance of black and Hispanic students in charter and traditional public schools, there was no statistically significant difference in performance. Hoxby criticized the NAEP study because it sampled approximately .045% of charter school students nationally. Others have criticized it, alleging students who attend charter are inherently harder to educate than those attending traditional public schools.[5] Subsequent analysis of the 2003 NAEP data, disaggregating results for various student characteristics, has confirmed the AFT conclusions.[6] This analysis of the 2003 NAEP mathematics results compared results of students in traditional public schools, charter schools, and different types of private schools. This study attempted to overcome criticism of earlier NAEP analysis by controlling for demographic difference (socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, gender, disability, limited English proficiency, school location) in the populations served by the schools. With disaggregated data the authors concluded there was no statistically significant achievement benefit to attending either a charter or private school. With respect to charter performance, the authors found that they performed a statistically significant 4.4 points lower than traditional public schools in 4th grade tests and a statistically insignificant 2.4 points higher in 8th grade tests. The authors noted that the relatively small size of some of the private school populations indicated the conclusions about private schools should be viewed as suggestive only. The Charter School Dust Up, occasioned by the furor surrounding the American Federation of Teachers� analysis of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data, provided an in-depth discussion of achievement in charter schools. [7] It reviewed and critiques the academic literature about charter school achievement and concluded that there is, on average, no evidence that charter schools outperformed traditional public schools. The authors considered the assertion that competition provided by charters increased performance in public schools and found the studies to be mixed, with a study of Florida schools finding a significant positive effect and other statewide studies failing to find this effect.[8] [1] Bulkley and Wohlstetter, (2004) pp.161-164. [2] Hoxby, Caroline, (2004) Achievement in Charter Schools and Regular Public Schools in the United States: Understanding the Differences, www.innovations.harvard.edu/cache/documents/4848.pdf. [3] Buckley, et al. [4] Howard, Nelson, F. et al., (2004) Charter School Achievement of the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress, , www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/articles/EPRU-0408-63-OWI.pdf. [5] But see discussion in section V.C of this paper. [6] Christopher Lubienski and Sarah Theule Lubienski in Charter, Private, Public Schools and Academic Achievement: New Evidence from NAEP Mathematics Data. The authors of this study noted that even though the data were cross-sectional rather than longitudinal, thereby prohibiting a value-added analysis of achievement, the extensive and varied disaggregation of data made it likely their findings would be replicated in a longitudinal analysis. [7] Carnoy, (2005) p. 9. [8] Carnoy, (2005) pp. 95 � 96.A 2004 review of charter achievement nationally noted that Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Wisconsin had no way of comparing charter achievement to that in traditional public schools.[1] A meta- analysis of charter studies indicates students in charters not exceed their peers in academic achievement. Another 2004 study compared charter school students nationally with traditional public schools they would have been likely to attend and found that in the areas of reading and mathematics charter school students were more likely to be proficient and that the proficiency advantage increased with the length of charter school operation.[2] The study suggested that charter schools are especially likely to raise the achievement of students who are poor or Hispanic. Two aspects of this study are worth noting. In New York State the data showed no statistically significant difference between achievement in charter schools and traditional public schools. Secondly, in drawing her final conclusions, Hoxby excluded data from charters that targeted at-risk or gifted students because she assumed such schools could not be compared to neighborhood schools. Charter schools targeting at-risk students performed significantly lower than their traditional public school counterparts. If achievement data from charter schools targeting gifted and at-risk students had not been removed from Hoxby�s data, it is likely that achievement at traditional public schools would have exceeded that in charters. Without data to support the assertion that charters for at-risk students differed demographically from traditional public schools, the validity of Hoxby�s results are called into question. Other authors were unable to replicate the Hoxby results using data from Washington, D.C. Moreover, several statistical models used in the D.C. analysis showed traditional public schools to be outperforming charters at a statistically significant level.[3] Furthermore, Hoxby�s study has been criticized for making comparisons based on different standardized tests administered in charter and public schools, a flaw that would further call into question the validity of her conclusions. In direct opposition to the Hoxby findings, the American Federation of Teachers issued an analysis of the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data,[4] finding that charter school students had lower scores than traditional public school students on 4th and 8th grade math tests and on 4th grade reading tests and that the differences were statistically significant. It also found lower scores for 8th grade reading but that the difference was not statistically significant. Looking at performance of students who were eligible for free and reduced price lunch, the gaps remained statistically significant. Looking at the performance of black and Hispanic students in charter and traditional public schools, there was no statistically significant difference in performance. Hoxby criticized the NAEP study because it sampled approximately .045% of charter school students nationally. Others have criticized it, alleging students who attend charter are inherently harder to educate than those attending traditional public schools.[5] Subsequent analysis of the 2003 NAEP data, disaggregating results for various student characteristics, has confirmed the AFT conclusions.[6] This analysis of the 2003 NAEP mathematics results compared results of students in traditional public schools, charter schools, and different types of private schools. This study attempted to overcome criticism of earlier NAEP analysis by controlling for demographic difference (socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, gender, disability, limited English proficiency, school location) in the populations served by the schools. With disaggregated data the authors concluded there was no statistically significant achievement benefit to attending either a charter or private school. With respect to charter performance, the authors found that they performed a statistically significant 4.4 points lower than traditional public schools in 4th grade tests and a statistically insignificant 2.4 points higher in 8th grade tests. The authors noted that the relatively small size of some of the private school populations indicated the conclusions about private schools should be viewed as suggestive only. The Charter School Dust Up, occasioned by the furor surrounding the American Federation of Teachers� analysis of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data, provided an in-depth discussion of achievement in charter schools. [7] It reviewed and critiques the academic literature about charter school achievement and concluded that there is, on average, no evidence that charter schools outperformed traditional public schools. The authors considered the assertion that competition provided by charters increased performance in public schools and found the studies to be mixed, with a study of Florida schools finding a significant positive effect and other statewide studies failing to find this effect.[8]

26. Achievement in Charters New York State Hoxby found no significant difference in achievement in New York State No other New York studies found Some charters very successful Some terrible failures Too early because many charters have no history of standardized tests New York State has not collected data required by Charter School Act While the CSA requires an annual comparison of charter schools with that of comparable district schools, SED has elected to fulfill this requirement by comparing charter test results with those of the community school district in which the charter is located in New York City and the overall district statistics in the rest of the state. As we have indicated earlier in this discussion, SED�s elected method of comparing achievement is neither academically sound nor in compliance with the CSA. Without knowing whether or the extent to which a charter school�s student makeup, disaggregated by ethnicity and special needs, matches that of the district or community school district, there is no way we can make meaningful comparisons of achievement between the two. One quarter of New York charters that would have come up for renewal are no longer in existence.While the CSA requires an annual comparison of charter schools with that of comparable district schools, SED has elected to fulfill this requirement by comparing charter test results with those of the community school district in which the charter is located in New York City and the overall district statistics in the rest of the state. As we have indicated earlier in this discussion, SED�s elected method of comparing achievement is neither academically sound nor in compliance with the CSA. Without knowing whether or the extent to which a charter school�s student makeup, disaggregated by ethnicity and special needs, matches that of the district or community school district, there is no way we can make meaningful comparisons of achievement between the two. One quarter of New York charters that would have come up for renewal are no longer in existence.

27. Does Achievement Matter Advocates argue that annual achievement in charters is less important than in public schools because charters are responsive to parents, who may remove their children, and Charters are responsive to chartering agencies, which may revoke or fail to renew charters. Given the furious debate over comparability of academic achievement, it may be unrealistic to ask parents to make rational decisions about a school�s academic success or failure. A review of charter closures shows few are closed for poor academic performance, while the majority close as the result of financial mismanagement. In a recent national study, over half of chartering agencies reported difficulty in closing one or more failing charters. These data raise questions about whether the purpose of the publicly funded charter experiment is to improve student achievement or whether it is to give parents choice, irrespective of educational outcome. Given the furious debate over comparability of academic achievement, it may be unrealistic to ask parents to make rational decisions about a school�s academic success or failure. A review of charter closures shows few are closed for poor academic performance, while the majority close as the result of financial mismanagement. In a recent national study, over half of chartering agencies reported difficulty in closing one or more failing charters. These data raise questions about whether the purpose of the publicly funded charter experiment is to improve student achievement or whether it is to give parents choice, irrespective of educational outcome.

28. How to Assess Academic Success Disaggregate data by race/ethnicity and special need Longitudinal collection of data Compare value added in a charter to that added in the home school

29. Top Charters � 4th Grade ELA Harlem Day Charter School, New York City: 100.0% Renaissance Charter School, New York City: 95.7% ?Roosevelt Children�s Academy Charter School, Roosevelt: 87.3% Carl C. Icahn Charter School, New York City: 86.2% ?Genesee Community Charter School, Rochester: 83.8%.

30. Worst Charters � 4th Grade ELA Pinnacle Charter School, Buffalo (baseline year): 18.4% Stepping Stone Academy Charter School, Buffalo: 20.4% Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School, New York City: 29.9% COMMUNITY Charter School, Buffalo: 32.5% Charter School of Science and Technology, Rochester: 33.9%.

31. Top Charters � 4th Grade Math Carl C. Icahn Charter School, New York City: 100.0% International Charter School of Schenectady, Schenectady, 100.0% Tapestry Charter School, Buffalo: 100.0% Our World Neighborhood Charter School, New York City: 95.8% Harlem Day Charter School, New York City: 94.4% Renaissance Charter School, New York City: 92.0% Roosevelt Children�s Academy Charter School, Roosevelt: 91.8% Genesee Community Charter School, Rochester, 90.7%.

32. Worst Charters 4th Grade Math Stepping Stone Academy Charter School, Buffalo: 33.9%.

33. Top Charters 8th Grade ELA KIPP Academy Charter School, New York City: 71.5%.

34. Worst Charters � 8th Grade ELA John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School, New York City: 8.3% Buffalo Academy of Science Charter School, Buffalo: 13.6% Enterprise Charter School, Buffalo: 16.3% Stepping Stone Academy Charter School, Buffalo: 20.0% Charter School for Applied Technologies, Kenmore-Tonawanda: 27.3%.

35. Other Measures of Achievement Performance on student outcome indicators such as attendance, discipline, graduation Student and parental satisfaction Post-school outcomes Teacher satisfaction and development of teacher expertise The effect of charters on equity across demographic groups. From Vargari, (2002) pp. 260-266. From Vargari, (2002) pp. 260-266.

36. THE HEALTH OF CHARTER SCHOOLS Nationally, Amy Stuart Wells indicates the movement slowing New York. Demand still strong. CSA relatively new and market not yet mature or saturated Per capita funding for charter education makes New York relatively attractive for proprietary EMOs. One-quarter fail Wells speculated that the recession could be traced to exhaustion on the part of charter operators and to the fact that a limited number of individuals were capable of or willing to devoting the educational, and administrative expertise and the time necessary to develop a successful charter school. For some charters EMOs have provided the educational and administrative expertise, and in some cases the finances, necessary to get a charter off the ground, but often at a price. For-profits require a portion of the charter outlay to support their shareholder return, and the need to generate a profit may conflict with a community vision for small schools and those that are responsive to specific community needs. Thus, the structure imposed by an EMO can be equally as oppressive as the central educational bureaucracy that charters were created to avoid. Wells asserts that the charter movement will fail to fulfill its initial rhetoric because charters are inadequately supported by the policies under which they are created. Nationally, although charters vary greatly, they all receive greater autonomy in return for greater accountability. Yet Wells indicates the movement is not structured to provide adequate support for committed educators, especially those serving the most disadvantaged children. Furthermore charter laws often fail to provide an infrastructure for holding charters accountable and have few consequences for academic failure. Forty-four New York State charters have had action taken on their charters. Of these, 11 are no longer in existence. Five did not receive renewal; 3 had charters revoked prior to renewal; 2 surrendered their charters prior to renewal; 1 agreed not to seek renewal.Wells speculated that the recession could be traced to exhaustion on the part of charter operators and to the fact that a limited number of individuals were capable of or willing to devoting the educational, and administrative expertise and the time necessary to develop a successful charter school. For some charters EMOs have provided the educational and administrative expertise, and in some cases the finances, necessary to get a charter off the ground, but often at a price. For-profits require a portion of the charter outlay to support their shareholder return, and the need to generate a profit may conflict with a community vision for small schools and those that are responsive to specific community needs. Thus, the structure imposed by an EMO can be equally as oppressive as the central educational bureaucracy that charters were created to avoid. Wells asserts that the charter movement will fail to fulfill its initial rhetoric because charters are inadequately supported by the policies under which they are created. Nationally, although charters vary greatly, they all receive greater autonomy in return for greater accountability. Yet Wells indicates the movement is not structured to provide adequate support for committed educators, especially those serving the most disadvantaged children. Furthermore charter laws often fail to provide an infrastructure for holding charters accountable and have few consequences for academic failure. Forty-four New York State charters have had action taken on their charters. Of these, 11 are no longer in existence. Five did not receive renewal; 3 had charters revoked prior to renewal; 2 surrendered their charters prior to renewal; 1 agreed not to seek renewal.

37. THE INTERACTION BETWEEN CHARTERS AND TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS National studies indicate traditional public schools have not changed operations in response to competition Split in New York State between New York City and up-state in how school districts view and relate to charter schools, with the City being more receptive to charters Bracey, (2004) pp. 8-12. suggests the lack of change in response appears to have two causes. First, early studies indicate that charters may be less innovative than originally assumed. Second, there are few mechanisms in place whereby charters and traditional public schools can learn from each other. The geographic difference in charter reception may be explained partially by the relative unimportance of the charter phenomenon in New York City, where charters account for less than one percent of the student population. One writer suggested that New York City has embraced charters and used them as an ingredient for driving system-wide change as the result of strong support from both the Mayor and Chancellor and the lack of union opposition.[1] [1] Lake, Robin J., (2004), Seeds of Change in the Big Apple: Chartering Schools in New York City, Progressive Policy Institute, www.ppionline.org/documents/NewYork_0921.pdf.Bracey, (2004) pp. 8-12. suggests the lack of change in response appears to have two causes. First, early studies indicate that charters may be less innovative than originally assumed. Second, there are few mechanisms in place whereby charters and traditional public schools can learn from each other. The geographic difference in charter reception may be explained partially by the relative unimportance of the charter phenomenon in New York City, where charters account for less than one percent of the student population. One writer suggested that New York City has embraced charters and used them as an ingredient for driving system-wide change as the result of strong support from both the Mayor and Chancellor and the lack of union opposition.[1]

38. WHITHER GOEST THE EXPERIMENT - A DISCUSSION OF CHARTERS IN THE LARGER CONTEXT OF EDUCATION THEORY For every important social problem there is a simple answer that is wrong. Henry Menken In Questions You Should Ask About Charter Schools and Vouchers, Seymour Sarason, professor emeritus of Yale�s Department of Psychology, and education doyen, places the charter debate in the larger context of what is wrong with education in America. The book is valuable for its discussion of the extent to which the charter movement does and does not address these shortcomings.

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

40. II.A SHOULD AUTHORITY OF AGENCIES (other than the home school district) TO GRANT, TO OVERSEE, TO RENEW, AND TO REVOKE CHARTERS BE LIMITED TO A SINGLE ENTITY? The authority to grant, oversee operations, renew and revoke charters is vested in both the Board of Regents (SED) and SUNY. They employ different standards in the grant, oversight, renewal, and revocation of charters. They also have different reporting requirements.

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

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

43. II.B SHOULD THE LEAGUE ADVOCATE FOR MORE STRINGENT OVERSIGHT OF CHARTER COMPLIANCE IN THE RENEWAL / REVOCATION OF CHARTERS? The charter constitutes a five-year contract between the school and chartering agency, in which the school describes its educational program and outcomes for which it will be held responsible. Nationally, few charter schools have been closed for academic reasons. Most have been closed for financial problems.

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

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

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

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

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

49. II.D SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN THOSE OF COMPARABLE DISTRICT SCHOOLS AS A PRECONDITION FOR CHARTER RENEWAL PRO Charter schools, in return for the promise to provide a quality education, have been given freedom from many restrictions existing in other public schools, allowing them to use innovative methods to improve learning. Therefore test results should equal or surpass those in district schools.

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

51. III.A SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT LIMITING THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF CHARTER SCHOOLS ON THEIR HOME DISTRICTS? The current system is based on the belief that the state and local districts give money to each child, which he or she takes to the public school of choice.

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

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

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

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

56. III.C SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT A DEDICATED FUNDING STREAM FOR STUDENTS ATTENDING CHARTER SCHOOLS WHO PREVIOUSLY ATTENDED PRIVATE OR PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS, OR WERE HOME-SCHOOLED? Some students from private schools and some from parochial schools are attending charter schools. District funds currently follow these children to charter schools, even though the district previously received no state or local operating funds for their educations. Previous national research indicated up to 30% of children attending charters had not been previously enrolled in the public system. Although the numbers in New York State do not appear to be this high, it is clear that some children currently enrolled in charters were not previously attending public schools.

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

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

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

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

61. CON Expense

62. III.E SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT HOME DISTRICT PAYMENT TO CHARTERS BASED ON THE SAME STANDARD USED TO PAY OPERATING AID TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS? Traditional public schools receive State Operating Aid based on average daily attendance, while charter schools receive payment from home districts based on enrollment. Enrollment is always greater than average daily attendance.

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

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

65. III.F SHOULD CHARTER SCHOOLS BE ELIGIBLE FOR CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION SERVICES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES?  Traditional public schools receive partial reimbursement for building costs of capital construction and renovation services. Charters must rely on limited grants, donations, and, in some cases, reduced rents in New York City schools.

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

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

68. III.G SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT SEPARATE LEVELS OF REIMBURSMENT FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION TO CHARTER SCHOOLS BASED ON WHAT THE HOME DISTRICT SPENDS FOR THE LEVEL OF SCHOOLING PROVIDED? In general, districts spend more to educate secondary students than they do to educate elementary students. Yet charter schools receive the average district operating expense regardless of the grade level educated. The New York State School Boards Association (NYSSBA) has recommended that the level of payment to charters be correlated to the level of education provided, so that transfer of funds is more closely related to the actual cost of educating a particular level of student. This is not the case in NYC, where more is spent to educate elementary students. See Charter School Funding in New York: Perspectives on Parity With Traditional Public Schools, Jacobowitz, Robin and Gyurko, Jonathan S., 2004, www.nyu.edu/iesp/publications/charter/CharterFinance.pdf, in which the authors found that NYC spent $9057 to educate each non-disabled elementary student and $8645 for each high school student. This is not the case in NYC, where more is spent to educate elementary students. See Charter School Funding in New York: Perspectives on Parity With Traditional Public Schools, Jacobowitz, Robin and Gyurko, Jonathan S., 2004, www.nyu.edu/iesp/publications/charter/CharterFinance.pdf, in which the authors found that NYC spent $9057 to educate each non-disabled elementary student and $8645 for each high school student.

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

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

71. III.H . SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT MEASURES THAT WOULD LIMIT THE PERCENTAGE OF A DISTRICT�S SCHOOL BUDGET THAT COULD BE PAID TO CHARTER SCHOOLS? The State Education Department has offered a guideline that there should be significant concern when a District�s payments to charter schools are over 7.5% of its total budget. For the 2004-05 school year, the districts of Albany, Buffalo, and Lackawanna exceeded this level.

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

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

74. IV.A SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER SCHOOL ACT SO THAT A NEW CHARTER COULD BE REISSUED TO ANOTHER CHARTERING ENTITY UPON CLOSURE OF A CHARTER SCHOOL? Currently, when a charter school closes, the closed school is still counted toward the total number of charters. If this amendment passed, the charter could be reissued so that the closed charter schools would no longer be counted toward the maximum number. Given that ten charters are no longer in existence, this proposal would allow for the immediate issuance of ten additional charters.

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

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

77. IV.B SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT A LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF CHARTERS ISSUED IN NEW YORK STATE? Pro Charter schools are still experimental. More time is needed to properly evaluate results of existing charter schools. Financial impact on city school districts has been negative and is predicted to grow each year even with no additional charter schools. The State has recognized that small school districts are a fiscally inefficient way of educating students and therefore has made money available for district consolidation. Yet the charter movement makes funds available for what are multiple independent units, outside the supervision of school districts.

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

79. IV.C SHOULD ANY INCREASE IN THE CAP BE TIED TO INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EDUCATIONAL QUALITY? PRO There is currently no evidence that charters in New York State do a better job of educating children than district schools. If the cap is lifted, they must be held accountable for educational results that are better than traditional public schools. There has been insufficient discussion of the cost of charters to justify lifting the cap without increased accountability for educational quality. The market is an inadequate guarantor of charter success because parents often chose schools for reasons other than academic success. Thus, it is incumbent upon the State to monitor for success.

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

81. IV.D SHOULD ANY INCREASE IN THE CAP BE TIED TO TRANSITION ASSISTANCE? PRO Those in favor of increasing the cap together with provision of transitional aid believe that this would mitigate the negative financial impact on district schools. There would be time to plan and adjust to decreasing enrollment.

82. CON Expense. Additional money can not help dysfunctional district schools.

83. IV.E SHOULD ANY INCREASE IN THE CAP BE TIED TO CREATION OF A DEDICATED STATEWIDE FUNDING STREAM? PRO Assuming an increase in the cap, a school district may be left with a majority of children with special needs and less money to educate them. A dedicated fund would decrease the negative impact on those students remaining in district schools.

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

85. V.A SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT MEASURES THAT WOULD LIMIT THE PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN IN A DISTRICT THAT COULD ATTEND CHARTERS? See Pro discussion in subsection III.H, relating to a limitation on the percentage of district funds that could go to charters. This would be a similar way of achieving the same result. This would be easier to administer than a cap on district spending for charters.

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

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

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

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

90. VI.A SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT PUBLIC FUNDING OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH ABOUT THE POSSIBLE CORRELATION BETWEEN CHARTER SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS AND STUDENT ACADEMIC SUCCESS? Areas for investigation might include: length of school day, week, year; per student expenditures after factoring in donations; the roles of for-profit and not-for-profit education management organizations (EMOs); rates of teacher and administrator retention; class size; school size; student selection mechanism and retention, demographics of student body; size of district and location within State; the role of stand-alone facilities vs. shared facilities in charter success .

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

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

93. V.B SHOULD THE LEAGUE SUPPORT PUBLIC FUNDING TO MEASURE EDUCATIONAL GROWTH IN INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS AS THEY PROGRESS FROM GRADE TO GRADE IN CHARTER SCHOOLS? Pro The NY State Education Department is requiring traditional districts and charters to adopt data systems that will enable them to measure value added to an individual student�s achievement over time. Academics agree that a longitudinal approach, in which the value added to a child�s education is measured on an annual basis, is a more valid approach to measuring educational achievement that the current point-in-time approach presented by current standardized testing.

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

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