1. education
2. school

CHARTER REPORT
January 2015
UFT says Cuomo’s proposed requirements for charter
schools are too little, too late
“No more empty promises” – Mulgrew urges Legislature
to establish new admission and suspension policies, freeze
cap until charters serve appropriate numbers of neediest
children
District-by-district school survey demonstrates how –
despite current state law — charters fail to admit and
retain pupils with the highest needs.
To equalize charter and district school populations,
Legislature should establish admission preferences for
highest-need students, allow district superintendents to
fill empty charter seats
United Federation of Teachers
President
Michael Mulgrew, joined by elected officials, teachers
and parents, today released a district-by-district study
of New York City charter schools that showed charters
fall far short of enrolling and keeping the neediest and
hardest-to-educate students in the city.”
Mr. Mulgrew said: “In school after school, district
after district, many charters do not enroll appropriate
numbers of English language learners, the poorest and
highest-need special ed pupils, and homeless children. In addition, the schools often post suspension rates
that can be 10 times higher than public schools in the
same neighborhood.”
“Governor Cuomo has proposed raising the current cap on charter schools and a law that would forbid
charters from “creaming” the best students. But dozens
of charter schools have been ignoring an existing 2010
state law that already requires them to enroll and retain a student body comparable to those attending local
public schools. The cap should not be lifted unless and
until charters meet their obligation to all our children.”
ANALYSIS USES BLOOMBERG
ADMINISTRATION’S PEER INDEX
Recognizing the educational challenges represented by children in poverty, who are not fluent in English
or have other special needs, the Bloomberg administration – even as it relentlessly encouraged the growth
of charter schools – built a citywide methodology designed to look past simple comparisons of average
school scores on state tests. Since the presence of children with such challenges tends to lower average scores on standardized
tests, the administration’s “peer index” compared every
school with 20 or so other schools with similar levels of
student poverty, English Language Learners, special ed
students and other categories.
The original weighting formula for elementary
school comparisons had four main components: English Language Learners; total special ed students; number of students eligible for free or reduced price
lunch; and black or Hispanic students. (Each category
contributed 30% to the overall algorithm, except ELLs,
which counted for 10%).
Since the original algorithm was created, new and
more specific information has become available for
schools, which has allowed the UFT to refine the formula to help it more accurately compare the student
bodies of separate schools.
The refined formula retains the 30% for black or
Hispanic students, uses 20% for all special ed students,
adds an additional 20% for special ed students who
need self-contained classrooms; and alters the poverty
ously understates the academic challenges of the poorest
children.
peer
index
shows clearly
that charter
schools by
Which The
schools serve the highest-­‐need and lowest-­‐need students? and large do not
serve
the
same
kind
of
students
as district
Community School District 16 schools, and that allegations to the contrary are demonstraThis chart shows how many of the city’s highest-­‐need students are enrolled in each bly false.
district and charter school in Community School District 16. The charts were created using a formula adapted from the Bloomberg administration’s progress reports’ “peer index.” Schools on the left side of the chart serve the largest proportions of high-­‐need students; Schools on the left side of the chart serve the largest proportions of high-­‐need students; schools on the right side serve the smallest proportions in their district. schools on the right side serve the smallest proportions in their district. 5 in central Harlem has 24 elementary schools, among them nine
Community School District
charters. As the chart shows,
Charter schools are highlighted in red, and the red line represents the average student Charter schools are highlighted in red, and the red line represents the average student every
charter
is
well
below
the
district
average
in
terms
of
the
peer
index.
need in the district (meaning schools below the red line serve a smaller proportion of need in the district (meaning schools below the red line serve a smaller proportion of high-­‐need students than the average school in their district) high-­‐need students than the average school in their district) Community School
District
5
Community School
District 16
index.” PATTERN OF DISCRIMINATION IS UNMISTAKABLE:
Elementary & K-­‐8 Schools Elementary K-­‐8 Schools Highest Need Highest Need Lowest Need 70 60 50 40 Democracy Prep Harlem Success Academy Charter Harlem Children's Zone Success Academy Charter Thurgood Marshall Academy Harlem Village Academy Harlem Children's Zone Harlem Village Academy KIPP STAR College Prep P.S. 129 John H. Finley KIPP InTinity Charter School P.S. 036 Margaret Douglas P.S. 123 Mahalia Jackson P.S. 046 Arthur Tappan P.S. 161 Pedro Albizu Campos P.S. 197 John B. Russwurm P.S. 133 Fred R Moore P.S. 154 Harriet Tubman P.S. 125 Ralph Bunche P.S. 030 Hernandez/Hughes P.S. 200-­‐ The James Mccune P.S. 092 Mary McLeod 10 P.S. 175 Henry H Garnet 30 20 Lowest Need 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 80 P.S. 194 Countee Cullen index to put a value of 30% on students eligible for free (not
reduced price) lunch or who are homeless and in temporary
housing.
Which schools serve the highest-­‐need and lowest-­‐need students? National testCommunity scores andSchool otherDistrict studies
5 have shown that
reduced-price lunch students significantly outperform free
This chart shows how many of the city’s highest-­‐need students are enrolled in each lunch
children and that conflating the two categories seridistrict and charter school in Community School District 5. The charts were created using a formula adapted from the Bloomberg administration’s progress reports’ “peer z Charter Schools District Schools CSD Average Need z Charter Schools District Schools CSD Average Need Comparison Demographics: District 5 Elementary & K-­‐8 27% 30% 20% 15% n District 5
Traditional
Public Schools
10% 8% 10% 6% 5% 7% 4% 1% 1% 0% 0% Charter Schools
14% 5% % Students % Self-­‐
with Disabili;es Contained Traditional
Public Schools
n District 16
15% 6% % ELL n District 16
24% 20% Charter Schools
14% 25% 25% n District 5
17% 11% 10% 30% 24% 25% Comparison Demographics: District 16 Elementary & K-­‐8 % Temporary Housing % ELL % Students with Disabili;es % Self-­‐
Contained % Temporary Housing Much the same pattern exists in Districts 7, 8 and 9 in the Bronx; Districts 16, 23 and 32 in Brooklyn; and elsewhere.(see
accompanying charts)
District'5'))'Same'Building'
35%%
30.4%%
26.7%%
30%%
THE DISCREPANCY IS GLARING EVEN IN CHARTER
AND DISTRICT SCHOOLS THAT
25%%
SHARE THE SAME BUILDING.
20%%
14.8%%
12.0%% has more than
In District 4, for example, Success Academy 3 and Mosaic Prep
ELL stu15%% are co-located. Mosaic
10.4%%twice the
9.5%%
10%%number
dents as Success Academy (13.5% vs. 6.6%); nearly three times the
of
overall
special
ed
students
(35.4
%
vs.
13.9%);
4.7%%
5%% none in Harlem Success); and0.4%%
dramatically more high-needs special ed students (12.5 % vs. virtually
nearly six times the num0%%
ber of students in temporary housing (47.5% vs. 8.2 %).
%%ELL%
%%IEPs%
%%High%Need%
%%Temporary%
In Excellence Girls Charter School and PS 309 in Brooklyn’s District 16, the same pattern exists.
PS 309 has four
times the
Special%Educa@on%
Housing%
number of ELL students (6.6% VS. 1.6 %); three times more special ed students overall ( 30.6 % vs. 9.9%); a significant number
Harlem%Success%Academy%Charter%2%
P.S.%030%Hernandez/Hughes%
(12 percent) of high-needs special ed students in PS 309 vs. virtually none in the charter school; and more than four times the
number of students in temporary housing (30.6 % vs. 6.6 %). Similar discrimination is shown in charts below:
District'23'**Same'Building'
District'5'))'Same'Building'
35%%
30%%
25%%
20%%
15%%
10%%
5%%
0%%
46.4%%
50%%
30.4%%
26.7%%
40%%
30.8%%
30%%
14.8%%
12.0%%
10.4%%
9.5%%
4.7%%
%%IEPs%
%%High%Need%
Special%Educa@on%
Harlem%Success%Academy%Charter%2%
10%%
0%%
0.4%%
%%ELL%
19.9%%
20%%
8.8%%
1.6%% 1.4%%
%%ELL%
%%IEPs%
%%Temporary%
Housing%
P.S.%030%Hernandez/Hughes%
7.2%%
0.4%%
%%High%Need%
Special%Educa@on%
%%Temporary%
Housing%
Leadership%Preparatory%Ocean%Hill%Charter%School%
Christopher%Avenue%Community%School%
CHARTER
SCHOOL SUSPENSION RATES: WAY ABOVE MOST DISTRICT AVERAGES
District'23'**Same'Building'
Many charter schools, in particular the larger chains,
46.4%% suspend students at rates well in excess of their home-district averages,
rates
that
would
trigger
an
investigation
if
they
were logged by traditional public schools.
40%%
30.8%%
Charter school parents complain that their children are repeatedly suspended, or subject to disproportionate punish30%%
19.9%%
ments,
until the family finally withdraws
the child from the school.
20%%
8.8%%
The
tables
below
compare
suspension
rates7.2%%
of charter schools located in each of the 32 school districts with their dis10%%
1.6%% 1.4%%
0.4%%
trict
averages.
The
numbers
are
for
2011-12,
the
most recent available. The data come from the New York State Education
0%%
%%ELL%
%%IEPs%
%%High%Need%
%%Temporary%
Dept.’School Report Cards database.
50%%
Special%Educa@on%
Housing%
Community School District 4 Suspensions, Charter vs. District
Leadership%Preparatory%Ocean%Hill%Charter%School%
Charter School Name
School
2011-2012
Number Suspension %
Christopher%Avenue%Community%School%
Community School District 5 Suspensions, Charter vs. District
Charter School Name
School
Number
2011-2012
Suspension %
Harlem Village Academy Charter School Ehvacs
84 M 848
12%
Kipp Success Through Teamwork Charter
School
84 M 858
6%
Harlem Children’s Zone Promise Academy
Charter School
84 M 864
3%
Kipp Infinity Charter School
84 M 883
7%
Harlem Children’s Zone Promise Academy II
Charter School
84 M 886
2%
Democracy Preparatory Charter School
84 M 894
22%
Harlem Success Academy Charter School 2
84 M 921
17%
St Hope Leadership Academy Charter School
84 M 928
22%
Amber Charter School
84 M 806
5%
Harbor Science And Arts Charter School
84 M 812
9%
Harlem Prep Charter School
84 M 840
11%
Harlem Village Academy Leadership
Charter School
84 M 849
16%
New York Center For Autism Charter School
84 M 888
0%
Dream Charter School
84 M 919
5%
Harlem Success Academy Charter School 3
84 M 922
20%
Rensaissance Charter High School
For Innovation
84 M 968
32%
East Harlem Scholars Academy Charter School
84 M 995
3%
New York French-American Charter School
84 M 963
3%
Charter Average
11%
Harlem Success Academy Charter School 5
84 M 979
12%
District 4 Average
1%
Democracy Prep Harlem Charter School
84 M 989
31%
Democracy Prep Endurance Charter School
84 M 001
0%
Neighborhood Charter School Of Harlem
84 M 015
District 5 has a suspension rate of 2 percent, and a charter
suspension average of 11 percent. Democracy Prep Harlem leads
the charter category with 31 percent.
0%
Charter Average
11%
District 5 Average
2%
NYSED does not count in-school suspensions, which may
explain the 0% suspension rate reported for some schools.
The department counts each suspended student once, even
if that student was suspended multiple times during the
school year.
(The charter averages include all elementary, middle and
high school charters in that district in order to make an accurate comparison with the district average, which include all
school levels.)
The pattern is repeated in district after district.
THE LINK TO STUDENT ATTRITION
Student churn is a factor in many schools in New York
City, and in particular the poor neighborhoods where many
charters operate. Sometimes it is because families leave the
neighborhood or the city. In other cases, students who are
struggling decide to leave a charter school – or are encouraged to leave, either by repeated suspensions or by being
“counseled-out.”
To quote a 2014 IBO report on this issue: The fact that
leavers from charter schools have lower test scores than the
stayers suggests that such attrition serves to increase the
overall academic performance of these schools ...”
This is true because while district schools routinely replace students who leave, some charters “back-fill” only in
the early grades, or not at all, meaning that the number of
children at each level (the “cohort”) can fall significantly.
As the size of the cohort declines and with the generally
more successful students staying, test scores in non-backfill
schools usually reflect an upward trajectory, particularly in
comparison with district schools that accept students of all
backgrounds throughout the academic year.
One potential solution would be to allow local district superintendents to fill empty seats as they open up in charters,
including with high-needs students such as “over-the-counter” and other children who need a seat after the school year
has begun.
United Federation of Teachers A Union of Professionals
52 Broadway, New York, NY 10004
212.777.7500 www.uft.org
Officers: Michael Mulgrew President, Emil Pietromonaco Secretary, Mel AaronsonTreasurer, LeRoy Barr Assistant Secretary, Thomas Brown Assistant Treasurer
Vice Presidents: Karen Alford, Carmen Alvarez, Evelyn DeJesus, Anne Goldman, Janella Hinds, Richard Mantell, Sterling Roberson
GL339