The New York Charter Schools Act, now Article 56 of the Education Law, was enacted on December 17, 1998. This Act amended existing Education Law to allow for the creation of charter schools. The stated purpose of the Article "is to authorize a system of charter schools to provide opportunities for teachers, parents, and community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently of existing schools and school districts in order to accomplish the following objectives:

1. Improve student learning and achievement;
2. Increase learning opportunities for all students, with special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for students who are at risk of academic failure;
3. Encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods;
4. Create new professional opportunities for teachers, school administrators and other school personnel;
5. Provide parents and students with expanded choices in the types of educational opportunities that are available within the public school system; and
6. Provide schools with a method to change from rule-based to performance-based accountability systems by holding the schools established under this article accountable for meeting measurable student achievement results (§2850(2) of Education Law)."

Article 56 also requires the Board of Regents to report annually to the Governor, the Temporary President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the Assembly on the status of charter schools in New York State (§2857(3) of Education Law). This report covers the 2000-01 school year.

This report includes data submitted by the charter schools and local school districts.

This report provides data required by §2857(3) of Education Law, and covers the 2000-01 school year. A total of 23 charter schools were open for instruction during that time, including five that opened for instruction during the 1999-2000 school year. Of these 23 schools, 16 were chartered by the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York, and seven were chartered by the Chancellor of the New York City Public Schools. Eight had management companies as partners, while 15 did not. There were three schools with Victory Schools, Inc. as a partner, two schools each with Beacon Education Management, LLC and Edison Schools, Inc. as partners, and one with National Heritage Academies as the management partner. There were 14 charter schools located in New York City, three in Rochester, two in Buffalo, and one each in Syracuse, Albany, Roosevelt, and East Hampton (Wainscott Common School District). The largest student enrollment reported was 876, the smallest 24. There were 15 schools that served K-6 students, three served high school students in grades 9-12, two served students in grades K-8, and one each served students in grades 2-7, 5-8, and K-12.

The lowest adjusted expense per pupil (AEP) paid was $6,029 per student in Syracuse, and the highest was $26,287 per pupil paid by the Wainscott Common School District. The average AEP was $6,663. Overall fiscal impact in New York City appeared to be negligible (0.002 – 0.03 percent impact on the district budget). In 2000-01, fiscal impact ranged from .01 percent of the school budget for several school districts with a small number of students attending charter schools to 3.05 percent of the Roosevelt Union Free School District budget.

Academic achievement, as measured by State exams, was mixed. For those schools for which the 2000-01 school year was the first year of instruction, the test results should be interpreted as a baseline by which all future test results will be judged. The grade 4 English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics scores for the REACH Charter School (for which this was the baseline year) placed it among those furthest from State standards. REACH had nearly 80 percent of its students scoring at or below Level 2 on the grade 4 ELA exam, and 94 percent of its students scoring at or below Level 2 on the grade 4 math exam. The New Covenant Charter School had approximately 78 percent of its students score at or below Level 2 on both the grade 4 ELA and math exams. In contrast, the South Buffalo Charter School had nearly 57 percent of its students at or above Level 3 on the grade 4 ELA exam, and the Renaissance Charter School had 60 percent of its students at or above Level 3 on the grade 4 math exam. 2000-01 was the baseline year for both of these schools.

On the grade 8 exams, the results for the Charter School of Science and Technology place it among the furthest from State standards. Nearly 88 percent and nearly 90 percent of its students scored at or below Level 2 on the grade 8 ELA and math exams respectively. In contrast, the KIPP Academy Charter School results for the grade 8 ELA and math results showed the majority of students performing at or above Level 3 (64 percent on the ELA exam and nearly 73 percent on the math exam). This was the baseline year for both of these schools.

Results for the 1997 grade 9 cohort show that most students (89.2 percent) in the Renaissance Charter School scored between 55 and 100 on the Regents exam in English or received Regents credit for an approved alternative exam. The results further show that most students (81.1 percent) attending the Renaissance Charter School scored between 55 and 100 on the Regents exam in mathematics or received Regents credit for an approved alternative exam.

A total of 5,278 students were reported enrolled in these 23 charter schools during 2000-01. Most (3,600) were reported as Black (not Hispanic origin) and the fewest (26) were reported as being American Indian or Alaskan Native. Hispanics made up the second largest population, with 934 students enrolled. Most students (3,991) were enrolled in grades K-6, while 1,287 were enrolled in grades 7-12. Of the elementary grades, most (2,620) were enrolled in grades K-3. Grade 4 had the lowest enrollment (386) at the elementary level. At the secondary level, most students (410) were enrolled in grades 7 and 8, while 337 were enrolled in grades 9-12.

The charter schools report a total of 468 English language learners, with 78 being enrolled in grades K-6 and the remaining 390 students enrolled in grades 7-12.

Two charter schools, International Charter High School and Middle College Charter High School, voluntarily surrendered their charters effective September 3, 2001.

Additional information is provided that describes many of the issues and concerns that have been raised regarding the implementation of Article 56, the New York Charter Schools Act. Suggestions are made for possible amendments to the legislation.

Appendix A contains a list of all charter schools in New York.

Table 1 provides information for each charter school open for instruction during the 2000-01 school year and includes the grades and number of students to be served, the management company (if applicable), the specific educational approach to be used, the date that instruction commenced, and the charter entity.

Table 2 shows the distribution of students reported enrolled by grade, ethnicity, and gender. A total of 5,278 students were reported enrolled in these 23 charter schools during 2000-01. Most (3,600) were reported as Black (not Hispanic origin) and the fewest (26) were reported as being American Indian or Alaskan Native. Hispanics made up the second largest population, with 934 students enrolled. Most students (3,991) were enrolled in grades K-6, while 1,287 were enrolled in grades 7-12. Of the elementary grades, most (2,620) were enrolled in grades K-3. Grade 4 had the lowest enrollment (386) at the elementary level. At the secondary level, most students (410) were enrolled in grades 7 and 8, while 337 were enrolled in grades 9-12. There were 540 students reported as "Ungraded Secondary."

Article 56 requires that this report contain information on the current and projected fiscal impact of charter schools on the delivery of services by the public school system. Appendix B contains information obtained from the public school districts in which charter schools are located. They were asked to provide such information from their point of view. It was assumed that the districts themselves would be in the best position to ascertain what type and level of impact, if any, the charter schools had upon the districts. A copy of the letter that was sent to the superintendent of each district is also included in Appendix B.

Table 3 shows the fiscal information for each charter school for the 2000-01 school year. Included are the name of each charter school, the reported sending districts, the number of students reported enrolled for the 2000-01 school year, the adjusted expense per pupil (AEP) for the 2000-01 school year, and the AEP multiplied by the number of students. It should be noted that this fiscal analysis is based upon the assumption that all charter school students would have been enrolled in their district of residence if the charter school had not been in existence, and that the school districts would not have incurred costs for special education, transportation, textbooks, and health services beyond the costs that the districts would have incurred if the charter school students had been enrolled in their districts of residence.

Projections for the same categories of information are also provided for the charter schools’ subsequent years of operation in Table 4, based upon the enrollments anticipated in their applications and an initial charter term of five years. Given that returning students, students residing in the district of location, and siblings must be given preference in admission, it is assumed for the purpose of Table 4 that all students enrolled in these charter schools will come from the district of location. The reader is cautioned that the actual distribution of students will likely vary in many instances.

To provide a more comprehensive picture of the projected fiscal impact of charter schools during 2001-02, those charter schools commencing instruction during 2001-02 are also included in Table 4 and are denoted by use of italic script.

Table 3

*From Schedule U of the State Aid Claim Worksheet and Projections (§3601 and §3604(11) of Education Law). The total number of students differs from that in Table 2 because the data are reported at different times of the year, and the difference represents the mobility of the students.