P. 1
Brooks Affirm Exh 4 - NYLS Legislative History

Brooks Affirm Exh 4 - NYLS Legislative History

|Views: 5|Likes:
Published by Marc Landis
Index No. 104300-2011, Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County

Steglich, Cherwin et al v Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, et al.

Exhibit 4 to Affirmation in Support of Continuing TRO
Index No. 104300-2011, Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County

Steglich, Cherwin et al v Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, et al.

Exhibit 4 to Affirmation in Support of Continuing TRO

More info:

Published by: Marc Landis on May 29, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/29/2011

pdf

text

original

IFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK OS/26/20111

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 57-4

INDEX NO. 104300/2011 RECEIVED NYSCEF: OS/26/2011

NYLS LEG ISLATIVE HISTORY
© Copyrighted as a compilation by New York Legislative Service, Inc.

2010 CHAPTER 101
25 PAGES
CHARTER SCHOOLS
Also Available from NYLS:
Senate Debate Transcripts: 24 pages. Assembly Debate Transcripts: 70 pages. Material on Prior Legislation

Terms and Conditions
This legislative history has been compiled by New York Legislative Service, Inc. In the absence of the official Governor's Bill Jacket, we have accumulated any relevant material that we can find such as memoranda, Committee Reports, Commission Reports, Senate and Assembly debate transcripts, public hearing transcripts, and news clippings. It may be specifically tailored to a section of the Statute which you requested, and may also be updated from time to time. Legislative histories purchased on behalf of your client may not be copied for archiving in your library, nor for distribution. This compiled legislative history may not be loaned or copied, nor submitted for inclusion on a union list for loan or copy. New York Legislative Service is a completely self-supporting, not-for-profit organization which operates as a service to the community. Essentially, our expert services are provided at cost, and we keep our fees as low as possible. These document fees are based upon a one-time usage by our clients and are our main source of income. Thank you for supporting our organization and helping us to maintain our services!

NEW YORK LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, INC.
The Research Specialists on Legislative Intent and Current Legislation.
A NEW YORK NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION. ESTABLISHED 1932.

15 Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038

(212) 962-2826

www.nyls.org

A113tO Rules (Nolan) Same as S 7990 OPPENHEIMER Governor Program # 269 Education Law TITLE ....Relates to the establishment, organization, and administration of charter schools OS/2811 0 OS/28/10 OS/2811 0 OS/28/10 OS/28/10 OS/28/10 OS/28/10 OS/28/10 OS/2811 0 OS/28/10 OS/28/10 OS/2811 0 OS/28/10 OS/28/10 OS/28/10 OS/28/10 referred to education reported referred to rules reported rules report ca1.59 ordered to third reading rules ca1.59 message of necessity - 3 day message passed assembly delivered to senate REFERRED TO RULES SUBSTITUTED FOR S7990 3RD READING CAL.665 MESSAGE OF NECESSITY - 3 DAY MESSAGE PASSED SENATE RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY delivered to governor signed chap.tOt

A11310 Rules (Silver) 05128/10 A11310

Same as S 7990 OPPENHEIMER Yes: 93 No: 42

AssemblyVote

ER Abbate
Yes Arroyo No Barclay Yes Benjamin No Brennan No Butler Yes Canestrari ER Christensen ER Cook Yes Cusick Yes Destito ER Errigo No Finch ER Gantt No Glick Yes Hawley Yes Hikind Yes Jacobs Yes Jordan No Koon Yes Lentol Yes Lupardo Yes Markey Yes McKevitt Yes Millman Yes Murray No O'Mara Yes Peoples-Stokes No Pretlow No Ramos ER RiveraN No Russell Yes Schimel Yes Skartados Yes Tedisco Yes Tobacco Yes Weisenberg Yes Mr. Speaker

Yes Alessi Yes Aubry ER Barra Yes Bing Yes Brodsky Yes Cahill Yes Carrozza Yes Clark Yes Corwin Yes Cymbrowitz No Dinowitz Yes Espaillat Yes Fitzpatrick Yes Gianaris No Gordon No Hayes Yes Hooper No Jaffee Yes Kavanagh Yes Lancman No Lifton ER Magee Yes Mayersohn Yes Meng No Molinaro Yes Nolan No Ortiz Yes Perry Yes Quinn No Reilich ER Rivera P No Saladino Yes Schimminger Yes Spano No Thiele Yes Towns Yes Weprin

No Alfano ER Bacalles No Barron
Yes Boyland Yes Brook-Krasny No Calhoun Yes Castelli Yes Colton Yes Crespo Yes DelMonte No Duprey Yes Farrell Yes Gabryszak Yes Gibson Yes Gottfried ER Heastie Yes Hoyt Yes Jeffries Yes Kellner No Latimer Yes LopezP Yes Magnarelli Yes McDonough No Miller J No Montesano No Oaks No Parment Yes Pheffer No Rabbitt No Reilly No Robinson Yes Sayward Yes Schroeder Yes Stirpe Yes Titone No Townsend Yes Wright

Yes Yes Yes Yes

ER
Yes Yes

No No
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No
Yes Yes Yes

No
Yes

ER No No
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No
Yes Yes

No
Yes Yes

ER
Yes

Amedore Ball Benedetto Boyle Burling Camara Castro Conte Crouch DenDekker Englebright Fields Galef Giglio Gunther A Hevesi Hyer-Spencer John Kolb Lavine Lopez V Maisel McEneny MillerM Morelle O'Donnell Paulin Powell Raia Rivera J Rosenthal Scarborough Scozzafava Sweeney Titus Weinstein Zebrowski K

Wl{l < NOfL"1l ~0?

ot J-eJoare.

A11310 Rules (Silver) 05128/10 A1l310 Aye Aye Aye Nay Nay Aye Aye Aye Nay Nay Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Exc

Same as S 7990 OPPENHEIMER Aye: 45 Nay: 14 Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Nay Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Exc Aye Aye Alesi DeFrancisco Espada Fuschillo Hassell- Thompson Klein Larkin Little Montgomery Oppenheimer Perkins Sampson Seward Stachowski Va1esky Aye Aye Nay Nay Aye Aye Nay Aye Exc Nay Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aubertine Diaz Farley Golden Huntley Krueger LaValle Marcellino Morahan Padavan Ranzenhofer Savino Skelos Stavisky Volker

Senate Vote Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Nay Aye Nay Nay Aye Aye Nay Aye Aye Aye Nay

Adams Bonacic Dilan Flanagan Griffo JohnsonC Kruger Leibell Maziarz Nozzolio Parker Robach Schneiderman Smith Stewart-Cousins Winner

Addabbo Breslin Duane Foley Hannon Johnson 0 Lanza Libous McDonald Onorato Peralta Saland Serrano Squadron Thompson Young

tv

PROGRAM BILL I:26 9
GOVERNOR'S PROGRAM BILL

2010
MEMORANDUM AN ACT to amendthe education law in . relation to charter schools

Purpose:'
. To provide for the issuance of additional charters through a new , competitive request for proposals process developed by the board of regents and the board of trustees of the state university qf New York and to establish enhanced transparency and accountabilitymeasures for the operation and management of charter schools. "

Summary ,of Provisions:
This legislation provides for the establishment of a new process to issue charters. The board-of regents and the board of trustees of the state university of New York (SUNY Trustees) are each authorized to develop a request for proposals process for 260 new charters that provides for thoughtful review of charter appllcations and ensures that growth in charter schools is targeted, 'planned, and. geared toward high-performance standards. One hundred thirty of the new charters would be issued on' the' recommendation of the SUNY Trustees, of which no more than 57 may be for charter schools located in New York City. Of the. additional 130 charters issued by the board of regents, no more than 57 may be for charter schools to be located in NeW York City. ,The first request for proposals pursuant to this process will be issued by August 1,2010 for a maximum of 32 charters for each the board of regents and the SUNY trustees. The board of regents and the SUNY trustees must issue a new request for proposals on January 1, 2011, for 33 charters each, on January 1, 2012 for 32 charters each, and on January 1, 2013 for 33 charters each.
.
,.

.Charter schools. will have to meet enrollment and retention targets of students. with disabilities, English 'language learners (ELLs), and students eligible, for the free and reduced price lunch program (FRPLs) and undergo a rigorous public 'review process, A repeated failure to meet enrollment and retention ' targets could be grounds for revocation of a.charter. . 'The board of regents and the SUNY Trustees must develop a scoring rubric to grant priority to applications that best demonstrate several objectives, fncluding increasing student achievement and decreasing student achievement gaps, increasing high school graduation rates and focusing on serving specific high school student populations, focusing on the academic achievement of middle school students, ~tilizing high quality assessments, using local

1.

instructional systems, partnering with low performing public schools to share best educational practices; demonstrating the management and leadership techniques to operate a thriving, financially viable charter school, and demonstrating the support of the school district in which the proposed charter school will be located. New procedures are enacted for co-locations of charter schools in public school buildings in New York City. The chancellor would be required to develop. · a building usage plan for each co-located charter school, which would include information such as the actual allocation and sharing of classroom and administrative space, a proposal for the collaborative usage of shared resources, building safety, and communication and collaborative decision-making strategies .. An expedited appeal may be made regarding the determination to locate or colocate a charter school in a public school building and the implementation of and compliance with the building usage plan.. In addition, capital improvements or · facility upgrades in excess of $5,000 made to a co-located charter school will require a matching capital improvement in the co-located non-charter public' schools. In addition to establishing .a new standardized charter issuance process, certain changes to the management and operation of charter schools will apply to charters issued pursuant to the request for proposals process, such as ·prohibiting for-profit corporations or entities from applying for, managing or operating any new charter schools, requiring State Education Department (SED) approval of plans and specifications and compliance with SED facility health, sanitary, and safety requirements. In addition, the term of charters issued will be. comprised of up to five instructional years. . . Several new measures are 'enacted to ensure greater accountability and transparency. Charter schools will be subject to audits of the state comptroller, and any' comptroller audits must be included in the charter school's annual report. In addition, the charter school annual report, which currently includes academic data, financial statements, and the charter school report card, mustbe made more widely and publicly available. A new component is added to the. annual report, requiring information on the charter school's efforts taken during . the current year, and a plan for subsequent years, to meet or exceed enrollment and retention targets of students witrydisabilities, ELLs, and ,FRPLs. The board of regent's annual report is also expanded to require a list of charter schools that closed in the previous year and the reasons for the closure. The board of regents is.also required to annually review and make available to school districts the best practices employed by charter schools. . Charter schools will be subject to the provisions of the general municipal law regarding code of ethics, including disclosure of interest, to the same extent as all public school districts. In addition, a charter school's board oftrustees must establish a process for monthly board meetings held at the charter school.

t.

I 1

I

I'

2

In addition, changes are made to the charter school law to provide that applicants may propose to establish schools to specifically servestudents who .. are in need of special assistance and support, such as students with disabilities' and English language learners. SED is required to develop a uniform application form for students applying to charter schools that will have to be made available by the charter school in the languages predominantly spoken in the community where the charter school is located. In addition, the commissioner of education is required to issue regulations to ensure that the enrollment lottery is conducted 'in an equitable manner and that the time and location of the lottery is publicized in a manner that is consistent with the open meetings law. -,

I
1

.

'

I

II,

Existing law:
Under Article 5,6 of the Education Law, rules governing charter schools are specified, including the total number of charters beinqissued, the process by which they are issued, the duration of such charters and various other requirements to establishing and operating charter schools.

Statement in Support:
In 1998, the Legislature approved a comprehensive charter school law, and several modifications were made to the law in 2007. In reviewing the impacts of this legislation, there have been instances of successes, but areas of concern have also been raised, This legislation 'seeks to provide for. a new charter issuance process, and address issues of concern regarding the operation and management of charter schools, 'as well as enacting several new enhanced transparency and accountability measures;

II

i " I
'

I

I
·1

i ,

Budget Implications:
This l:>illwould make New York more competitive for additional federal funding available in the Race to the Top grant pursuant to the American , Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 20Q9.

Effective Date:
Immediately, January 1, 2011. provided that sections 6,19,21 and 23 shall take effect on

3

NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(1)
BILL NUMBER: SPONSOR: Al1310 (Nolan)

Rules

TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend PURPOSE: To provide for the issuance of additional charters through a new competitive request for proposals process developed by the board of regents and the board of trustees of the state university of New York and to establish enhanced transparency and accountability measures for the operation and management of charter schools. SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: the education law, in relation to charter schools

This legislation provides for the establishment of a new process to issue charters. The board of regents and the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York (SUNY Trustees) are each authorized to develop a request for proposals process for 260 new charters that provides for thoughtful review of charter applications and ensures that growth in charter schools is targeted, planned, and geared toward highperformance standards. One hundred thirty of the new charters would be issued on the recommendation of the SUNY Trustees, of which no more than 57 may be for charter schools located in New York City. Of the additional 130 charters issued by the board of regents, no more than 57 may be for charter schools to be located in New York City. The first request for proposals pursuant to this process will be issued by August 1, 2010 for a maximum of 32 charters for each the board of regents and the SUNY trustees. The board of regents and the SUNY trustees must issue a new request for proposals on January 1, 2011, for 33 charters each, on January 1, 2012 for 32 charters each, and on January 1, 2013 for 33 charters each. Charter schools will have to meet enrollment and retention targets of students with disabilities, English language learners (ELLs), and students eligible for the free and reduced price lunch program (FRPLs) and undergo a rigorous public review process. A repeated failure to meet enrollment and retention targets could be grounds for revocation of a charter. The board of regents and the SUNY Trustees must develop a scoring rubric to grant priority to applications that best demonstrate several objectives, including increasing student achievement and decreasing student achievement gaps, increasing high school graduation rates and focusing on serving specific high school student populations, focusing on the academic achievement of middle school students, utilizing high quality assessments, using local instructional systems, partnering with low performing public schools to share best educational practices, demon-

strating the management and leadership techniques to operate a thriving, financially viable charter school, and demonstrating the support of the school district in which the proposed charter school will be located. New procedures are enacted for co-locations of charter schools in public school buildings in New York City. The chancellor would be required to develop a building usage plan for each co-located charter school, which would include information such as the actual allocation and sharing of classroom and administrative space, a proposal for the collaborative usage of shared resources, building safety, and communication and collaborative decision-making strategies. An expedited appeal may be made regarding the determination to locate or co-locate a charter school in a public school building and the implementation of and compliance with the building usage plan. In addition, capital improvements or facility upgrades in excess of $5,000 made to a co-located charter school will require a matching capital improv~ment in the co-located non-charter public schools. In addition to establishing a new standardized charter issuance process, certain changes to the management and operation of charter schools will apply to charters issued pursuant to the request for proposals process, such as prohibiting for-profit corporations or entities from applying for, managing or operating any new charter schools, requiring State Education Department (SED) approval of plans and specifications and compliance with SED facility health, sanitary, and safety requirements. In addition, the term of charters issued will be comprised of up to five instructional years. Several new measures are enacted to ensure greater accountability and transparency. Charter schools will be subject to audits of the state comptroller, and any comptroller audits must be included in the charter school's annual report. In addition, the charter school annual report, which currently includes academic data, financial statements, and the charter school report card, must be made more widely and publicly available. A new component is added to the annual report, requiring information on the charter school's efforts taken during the current year, and a plan for subsequent years; to meet or exceed enrollment and retention targets of students with disabilities, ELLs, and FRPLs. The board of regent's annual report is also expanded to require a list of charter schools that closed in the previous year and the reasons for the closure. The board of regents is also required to annually review and make available to school districts the best practices employed by charter schools. Charter schools will be subject to the provisions of the general municipal law regarding code of ethics, including disclosure of interest, to the same extent as all public school districts. In addition, a charter school's board of trustees must establish a process for monthly board meetings held at the charter school. In addition, changes are made to the charter school law to provide that applicants may propose to establish schools to specifically serve students who are in need of special assistance and support, such as students with disabilities and English language learners. SED is required to develop a uniform application 2 form for students

applying to charter schools that will have to be made available by the charter school in the languages predominantly spoken in the community where the charter school is located. In addition, the commissioner of education is required to issue regulations to ensure that the enrollment lottery is conducted in an equitable manner and that the time and location of the lottery is publicized in a manner that is consistent with the open meetings law. EXISTING LAW:

Under Article 56 of the Education Law, rules governing charter schools are specified, including the total number of charters being issued, the process by which they are issued, the duration of such charters and various other requirements to establishing and operating charter schools. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT:

In 1998, the Legislature approved a comprehensive charter school law, and several modifications were made to the law in 2007. In reviewing the impacts of this legislation, there have been instances of successes, but areas of concern have also been raised. This legislation seeks to provide for a new charter issuance process, and address issues of concern regarding the operation and management of charter schools, as well as enacting several new enhanced transparency and accountability measures. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: for additional federal pursuant to the American

This bill would make New York more competitive funding available in the Race to the Top grant Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. EFFECTIVE DATE: that sections

Immediately, provided on January 1, 2011.

6, 19, 21 and 23 shall

take effect

3

MlCAl{ C, J:,ASHER.. Director

THECln'O~NEW'YORK OFFICe OF "I'm: MA "(OR

Cll)'UaU l'I~ York, Nc:wYork 1Ca07 .... (7.1z) ~.es·n10 11l' W.,hluJ,tiln "y.Z\u~ MbllJ1)1, No;.,. '1(11rl( 1~:UO (511)447~200

St~~~Leg.isl"dv~ Affllirs

LEGlSLATlVE REFERENCE

. A. 11:31 0 - by Committe~ OD. 'Rules - at the request ofM. of 1\... Nolan and the Governor S.7990 - by M. of'S, Oppenheimer AN ACT to amend the education law •.in relation to charter schools

TlTLE

This bill responds to President Obama's call for bigh quality charter public schools as a critical component of tho fedel:1l1Race to the Top competition. by rucpantfu)g from 200 to 460' the nmnber of available cherters. By lifring the cap to 10% of all public schools in the State, the legislation will enable New York to qualify for the maximum number of points related to charter scbools and thereby bolster our :Round 2 application for up to S700 million. 50% of any grant received by New York would go to the State EdUcation Department to i.mpl~ent progrlU)1S outlined in the State's application, and 50% would be allocated to local scbool districts based upon Title I student enrollment, to belpsupport efforts to improve student performance, New York State was a finalist, but not a winner, in Round 1. Independen; research has repeatedly found lhat New York City's chaner schools dramatically outperform noncherrer schools serving the same mix of students. A recent study by a. research troup at SUmford l1ni\lcrsity~ whicb had previously oalled out weaknesses in charter scboots nationwide, identified New York's group of charter schools as a beacon. In. a January 10,2010 editorial, The New York Times discussed "why charter schools in New York City are outperforming charters etseohere" as well as their local "traditional-school counterparts.' "New York City has a rigorous mechanism for licensing charters as well (1.$ strong oversight ofpcrformanc;e- The city also gives charter operators free space. and provides them with administrative SIJPP0i'1 that they can more so easily get up and running and comply with state and federal educatiar; law: This afl.virQnlMnt has been a magnet for strong operators that /U!;IIl! been treated almost like pariahs in other states,' The legislation would also enact significnnt reforms to increase the acc.olllltabiUtyand transparency of New York's charter schools and ensure that charter schools recruit and serve special education students, English language learners (ELL)~ and students in need in proportions that reflect their communities. This Iegislatiou would also increase parental input and transparency Rtound co-location deeisioas aed provide for matching capitnl investments
foX" co-located non-charter schools.
I,

REASONs~o~SOP~ORT

Accordingly,

the Mayor urges the earliest possible favorable consideration oftbis proposal by the Legislature. Respectfully submitted, :MICAH C. LASHER Dir<:ctol"

SW: 5/28/10

A. 11310 (Rules) STATEMENT OF O~FOS:rrlON:
This legislation would more than double. the number of charter schools in. Now York State without provIding meaningful reform of charter school operations in the areas of accountability. equity and fairness. In addition this bill does not provide necessary protections agaiast the: abuse of power, fraud, misuse of pub He funds, orprotec:tion of'parent and student tights. Not only would it significantly increase pressure on local property taxes. particularly in districts like Albany and Buffalo that ate: already saturated with charter schools, but this proposal would be the largest unfunded Mandate in cd~c~t1on in recent histoxy. nus legislation amounts to a long term financial liability for local school districts in the pursuit of a non-recurring, onC time grant.

ill New York: state, We currently have 140 charter schools operating in 2009-10, se:rv.ing about 44,000 lcids. Traditional public schcols scat :&530million this year to charter schools via their tuition payments, 'Tuition payments come from a combioiltion of ~tate and local dollars, In tho 2009~10 school year, almost
50 percent or $263 million came from local r~Vc(l.ueor property taxes. ' . If the state legislature raises the charter cap to 460 we will more than double the number of schools, and increase the number of students 3nd overall costs to taxpayers, If school sizes remain consistent, New York will have 14S.000 ldds in chlU'tet schools and taxpayers will be!sending SZ billion to ohm;tcr schools'per year. If tho new ohm1.erschools are similarly distributed around the state - this would add an additional Sl billion cost to pr-operty tn:tpayek4sller year. This is an overall increase in costs which is more than twice the value: of Race t,~the TOP1 a one-time grant. Before the cap is addressed, the I3.Wmust be fixed to provider

"

significantly

school distri~ nod Iocnl pk'opexty bxp.ye\,s will continue to erelltjon of ;z.60addition'll. schools.

F~SS FOR STUD:ENl'S - Level the playing field to CIl5U1'C charter operators serve the same populatlon as regular public schools, including stndents with disabilitieS, students who MC Eoglish language learners and students most ll\ need. Fnirne~ in resources JJIC:3Jl~ churter schoolfnnding tAn~()t come ~t the expense ofrieigbborhood public schools. Under the pt'ovisio))S of thh; bUl, public
sb.ol,l.lc;ir:r

the burden of paying for

the

F~:ESS· FOR SCllOOl..S ~ Ensu.rcthat schools tire fairly funded. not disadvantaged or penalized by an influx of new operators. EveI)' child should have a quality public education in a. safe and healthy learning environment, whether they attend a charter school or a regularpublie. school. We must offer rclic:( to cities nnd community school districts ah;e:ldy over saturated with charter seb.oob:. '(his bill fails to 'Address the issu~ of ovcrsaturauOD in Slny menniud~l W1iY.
F AlENESS FOR TAXPAYERS ~Not all charter schools art; created equal. "Cbsrter corpoX':delP i!; fighting tooth ~nd nail to a.void prohibItions on conflict of i)Jt~~st that all other pubUc schools .adhe"e to. This bill does not p.rob.il>itsucb abuses by charter school boards, Kids must come before

profits.

NYSD1' SmONGLY

URG£S D£FEAT OF TIDS LEGlSLATION-

.

'.

STA'l'E OF NEW YORK DAVID

A. PATERSON

I GOVERNOR

I EXECUTIVE

CHAMBER

Statement from Governor David A. Paterson
• by New York State Office of the Governor

ALBANY, NY (05/28/201 O)(readMedia)-- "I am extremely pleased that an agreement has been reached to lift the cap on charter schools, and am confident that this legislation will greatly increase our competitiveness in the second round of Race to the Top. Agreement on this measure signals recognition by all of our State's leaders that for the sake of our children, our schools and our economy, we cannot afford to let these critical education dollars slip away. "Race to the Top provides an unprecedented opportunity to reform our schools and challenge an educational status quo that is failing too many children. I would like to thank Senate Conference Leader John Sampson, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Mayor Michael Bloomberg for not only acknowledging the importance of passing this legislation, but the importance of ensuring our children have access to quality education. I look forward to working with the State Education Department to create a competitive application that will secure these critical dollars for the future our children. " ### Additional news available at www.ny.gov/govemor 1 High resolution images available at www.ny.gov/govemor/mediaimages 1password: paterson 1New York State 1Executive Chamber 1press.office@chamber.state.ny.us 1212.681.4640 1518.474.8418

THE CITY OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE MAYOR

NEW YORK, NY 10007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 28, 2010 No. 235 www.nyc.gov STATEMENT OF MAYOR MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG AND SCHOOLS CHANCELLOR JOEL I. KLEIN ON THE ASSEMBLY PASSING LEGISLATION TO RAISE THE CAP ON CHARTER SCHOOLS "The agreement to raise the cap on charter schools in New York State from 200 to 460 is not just great news for the 40,000 plus children currently on waiting lists - it's also good news for all 1.1 million New York City students. Charter schools elevate the quality of our entire public education system by increasing competition and challenging all of our schools to do a better job for our kids, and that's the most important thing. "This bill also accomplishes other important things. For one, it boosts our chances of getting $700 million in 'Race to the Top' federal funds. The application deadline for 'Race to the Top' is next Tuesday, and the charter cap is one reason why New York State missed out in the first round. With our schools facing big budget cuts this year, we simply can't afford to leave hundreds of millions of dollars for education sitting on the table. "By working together, we preserved the key components of the nation's most successful system of charter schools. Both SUNY and the Regents will have 130 charters to issue under this agreement. We also preserved the City's role as a 'charter entity', maintaining the City's ability to endorse charter applications for the Regents' consideration and expanding this process to SUNY. Furthermore, these charters are open to every community in the state and City, with no insidious 'local caps'. And perhaps most important, we preserved the ability of the City to give charter students, parents and teachers that most precious of resources in New York: space. "Raising the cap on charter schools has been a top legislative priority for our Administration. In 2002, New York City only had 17 charter schools. Today, we have 99 - by this fall we'll have 125. Charter schools have been an important part of our efforts to tum around a once broken school system and close the racial achievement gap because 90 percent of charter school students are black and Hispanic. Last year, charter school students outperformed their peers in the rest of the school system by nine percentage points on the State's Reading and Math exams. "This legislation is the product of weeks of negotiations. It is not a perfect bill, but it is critically important that the Senate pass this legislation so we can submit the best possible 'Race to the Top' application and give parents better school choices. We want to thank the Assembly for passing this critical legislation - particularly Speaker Shelly Silver and Education Committee Chair Cathy Nolan."

- 30 Contact: Stu Loeser/Jessica Scaperotti (Mayor) David Cantor (DOE) (212) 788-2958 (212) 374-5141

2

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 28,2010

News Release

Assembly Approves Sweeping Education Reforms to Support New York State's Application for Race to the Top Funding
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Education Committee Chair Catherine Nolan today announced the passage of legislation to reform the state's charter school system. The legislation (A.11310) would raise the cap on charter schools from 200 to 460, helping to ensure that New York State will have one of the nation's most competitive applications for federal funding under the Race to the Top (RTTT) grant program in time for the June 1 deadline. This measure, in conjunction with a strong teacher evaluation system authorized earlier in the week and funding for long-term assessment of student achievement, will help ensure that New York State receives maximum RTTT funding. "These sweeping reforms will help put an end to divisive fighting over school space and give a meaningful voice in the process to traditional public school parents," said Silver (D-Manhattan). "The legislation also increases transparency by giving the State Comptroller auditing power over charter schools, while ensuring that they enroll and retain children with special needs. This measure will undoubtedly encourage the creation of more successful charter schools in New York State." "This bill will allow New York State to submit a competitive application for federal Race to the Top funding and increase our chances at receiving up to $700 million for our schools," said Nolan (D-Queens). "I would like to thank New York State Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch, New York State Education Commissioner David Steiner and Senior Deputy Commissioner John King for their leadership, cooperation and hard work." The legislation creates a new request for proposals process for the creation of 260 new charter schools. The new system favors applications which best respond to certain Race to the Top objectives such as increasing high school graduation rates and addressing student achievement gaps in reading/language arts and mathematics. Requests for proposals for new charter schools would be issued by the Board of Regents and SUNY trustees after undergoing a public review process. In addition, the legislation would: • • Institute a four-year period over which the 260 new charter schools would be created; Prohibit for-profit organizations from operating or managing any new charter schools;

2

• • •

Ensure that charter schools serve more children with disabilities, learners and free- and reduced-price lunch program participants;

English language

Require the chancellor to develop building usage plans for fair allocation and usage of space; Require matching capital improvements to the traditional public school portion of a building when such an improvement is made in excess of $5,000 to the co-located charter school; Authorize the State Comptroller to audit charter schools at his or her discretion; and Increase accountability by new disclosure and ethics provisions.

• •

The Assembly also passed legislation today that would provide financial support for a state longitudinal data system to measure long-term student achievement (A.11309). Earlier this week, the Assembly passed legislation enhancing the statewide evaluation system for teachers and principals (A.11171).
New York State Assembly

Strengthening NY's Educational System: Senate Passes Legislation To Ensure High Performing Charter Schools, Improve Teacher Evaluation To Improve "Race To The Top" Score
Posted by the NYS Senate Majority Press on Friday, May 28th, 2010

Working to improve New York's score in the Race to the Top, the Senate Democratic Majority passed legislation CS7990, S7991, S8001) to increase the charter school cap, improve teacher evaluation, and invest in date tracking systems. Combined with the increased cap and oversight of charter schools, the educational reforms passed by the Senate move New York one step closer to winning in the Race to the Top. "Nothing is more important than investing in our children and our future by improving our score for Race to the Top. Raising the charter cap, reforming charter schools, improving teacher evaluation, and investing in tracking educational outcomes will give New York the points we need to win," said Senate Majority Conference Leader John L. Sampson. Sampson continued, "I want to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Bill Perkins for his valuable insight, bold leadership of crucial charter school hearings, and absolute dedication to shaping the debate on charters to increase transparency, oversight, and educational opportunities for our children. I congratulate Senator Suzi Oppenheimer, Chair of the Senate's Education Committee, for her role in making this important reform package possible. And I also want to thank Governor Paterson, Speaker Silver, Mayor Bloomberg, Chancellor Tisch, Commissioner Steiner, and our partners in labor and the charter movement for working together to deliver for New York's children." "Few things incite such passion as the education of our children," Senate President Pro Tempore Malcolm A. Smith said. "Raising the charter school cap will put New York in a more competitive position to receive the much needed $700 million in federal Race to the Top funding. This legislation gives us the unique opportunity to offer parents educational opportunities for their children they might not otherwise have." "I am very pleased that we were able to reach agreement on reforms that will allow New York to submit a very competitive application for Race to the Top funding," said Senator Suzi Oppenheimer CD-Mamaroneck), lead sponsor oftoday's bills. "More importantly, it is my hope that these reforms will spur innovation in education, address the achievement gap, and better prepare our teachers and students for the challenges of the 21st century."

1

"We took a giant step forward today toward the goal of ensuring a quality education for all students," Senator Bill Perkins (D-Harlem) said. "Because of the reforms we instituted, New York has an inside track in the Race to the Top, a race with a $700 million purse that will help pay for the education of every child in school today." Charter School Legislation Summary: CapandRFP: ,. • • • Raises the cap on charter schools from 200 to 460 to be shared between the State University of New York (l30) and the Board of Regents (l30) through an RFP process. Applicants must meet the established emollment and retention targets of students with disabilities and English language learners; Demonstrate a commitment to address the student achievement gap in reading/language arts and mathematics; and Share best practices and innovations with low-performing public schools, among other RFP requirements.

Enrollment of Students with Disabilities, ELLs, and FRPLs: • • • Charters must meet or exceed enrollment and retention targets for students with disabilities, ELLs, and FFPLs. Charters must demonstrate at the time of renewal how they will meet those requirements, with repeated failure to meet those targets serving as cause for revocation of the charter. Authorizes the establishment of charter schools dedicated to serving students with disabilities and ELLs.

Oversight and Accountability: • Increased oversight of charter schools applies to their financial, operational and management programs, including the disclosure of conflicts of interest and the conducting and publicizing of monthly board of trustee meetings. Authorization of a State Comptroller audit. Requires the enrollment lottery process comply with the open meetings law and the submission of a uniform application created by the Commissioner in the predominant language in the community in which the charter is located. Charter schools would be subject to SED approval and required to meet SED health and safety requirements to the same extent as public schools. The five year term for charters would be comprised of five instructional years, and parent associations are to be established in New York City charters.

• •

• •

2

Co-Location: • Before co-location is permitted in a public school building, the Chancellor is required to provide notice and identify buildings where any charter may be co-located, including the rationale for the co-location selection. After co-location is selected, the Chancellor must develop a publically available building usage plan comprised of the actual allocation and sharing of classroom and administrative space; a proposal for the collaborative usage of shared resources; a justification of how the shared usage results in an equitable manner; and safety and security information. Requires the creation of a shared-space committee consisting of the principals, teacher representatives, and parents. Any capital improvement or facility upgrade to a co-located charter school in excess of $5,000 requires a matching capital improvement or facility upgrade in the non-charter public school.

• •

For-Profits: • • For-profit organizations are prohibited from applying for or operating any of the newly authorized charter schools. Those for-profit organizations already in existence have right of renewal to continue the management and operation of their current charter schools.

Teacher Evaluation Legislation Summary: • • Alters the teacher and principal evaluation system based in New York. The new system would use a four-tier annual review that is based in part on student performance data and would have an expedited tenured teacher disciplinary hearing process for those who consistently have the lowest scores on their evaluations. 40% of such performance evaluations would be based on student performance measures. The 40% student performance measure is divided between performance on state standardized tests and locally-designed student performance measures, which may include student portfolios, culminating projects, or other student work.

• •

Data Systems Legislation Summary: • • Provides $20.4 million to strength New York's pre-kindergarten through higher education student data system. Systems already in place provide the ability to track enrollment and assessment data for students in P-12 public schools.

3

This appropriation will provide the ability to match teachers with their students, to connect the P-12 data system with the data systems of SUNY and CUNY, and to fully analyze and use the data collected in order to improve student achievement.

Educational Partnership Organizations (EPOs): • • • Authorizes school districts to contract with Educational Partnership Organizations (EPOs) to assist in the turnaround of failing schools. An EPa is defined as a non-profit organization with a proven record of success in intervening in low performing schools, as determined by the Commissioner of SED. This legislation would be helpful not only in securing additional points in the Race to the Top application process, but also would allow school districts more options to comply with new federal Title I regulations.

4

.s
Cf,)

t:
t::

tl

t.tl
0 0
C'l C'l

~

......

0
....Q
~

;;)

3-.. QJ

r.£

.s tl
0 0

~
~"

Q
C/)

<t:

z Q
w
~
:::,(

w

.5

.0:: 0

~

>:J: IJ.I z
w
~ ~
C/)

..:::
~
$....,

0

>-~

~ $a....

z
w

g:

cS
~ ~

a

._§
~ ~

~

::s :...-

0
~~

THENEWYORKTIMES

NEW YORK WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 2010

THE NEW YORK TIMES NEW YORK FRIDAY,MAY28,2010

Deal Near" • To Approve Charter Plan
For Schools
By JENNIFER MEDINA

New York City officials and the State Assembly reached a tentative deal late Thursday to more than double the number of charter schools, a move that officials hope will give the state a better chance at receiving $700 million in federal grant money. If. approved, the measure 'would raise the number of charter schools by up to 260 over four years, bringing the totalnumber in the state to 460, according to officials who had been briefed on the legislation but spoke on the condition of anonymity because the language of the bill was still being drafted. In New York City, the number of charter schools would be capped at just more than 200,double the current number. The deal came after days of negotiations that divided charter school advocates, and city officials on one side, and the teachers' union and the Assembly on the other. Several members of the Assembly, including the speaker, Sheldon Silver, have been critical of charter schools, which are publicly financed but privately run. The final details of the legislation were being worked out late Thursday, with a vote not expected until early Friday morning. Officials from the city and . the State Assembly declined to comment.

i

I

The legislation :would have to be approved in the State Senate and receive the backing of Gov. David A. Paterson. This month the Senate passed its own bill t~ increase the cap on charter schools, but that version included fewer restrictions than detractors of charter schools had pushed for. With the June 1 deadline for the competitive federal grant money known as Race to the Top looming, state education officials were eager to ensure that both the Senate and the governor would sign on the deal as well. The measure being considered by the Assembly would prohibit any new charter school from bemg operated for profit, although it would allow those that already exist to remain open. The bill would also allow the state comptroller to audit charter schools, a move likely to draw ire from some charter school advocates. , In New York City, where most charter schools share a building with a traditional public school, any major improvements made to a charter school would also have to be made to the public school under the legislation being considered by the Assembly. The charter schools could be authorized by either the State Board of Regents or the State University of New York. But officials were uncertain whether the schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, would continue to be able to authorize charter schools in the city, as he has done for the past severalyears. In an effort to soothe longstanding disputes between charter schools and the traditional public schools they share space with, the legislation would also require schools to set up building councils to monitor conflict. But it was unclear how such councils would be different from similar committees already in place at schools in New York City.

THE NEW YORK TIMES NEW YORK SATURDAY, MAY 29,2010

'"

NEW YORK STATE VOTES TO ,DOUBLE CHARTER SCHOOLS
Hoping to Win Grant of $700 Million Cap to Increase to 460
By JENNIFER MEDINA

VICTORY FOR BLOOMBERG

The New York Legislature.voted on Friday to more than double 'the number of charter 'Schoolsin the state, handing Mayor Michael R.' Bloomberg a significant victory that he and education ~officials hope will give the state a chance of receiving $700 million .in federal grant money.' •, The measure would raise the maximum number of. charter schools to 460 from the current 200, a ceiling the state has almost reached. The increase would be phased in over the next four years; with more than. 60 expected to open each year. In Ne.wYorkCity, the number of charter schools' would be' capped at 214; the city has almost 100now.

The vote ended days of intense negotiations .between chatter school advocates and city offi- ' cials on one side and the teachers' unions and the Assembly on the other. Several members of the Legislature, mclU<Jjllgthe speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon. su, -yer, have been critical of the growth,of charter schools, which are publicly financed but privatei ly run. I Across the country, states hay~ been ·~oaxed into altering. thftit education laws to qualify for the federal education grant competition known as Race to the Top. Many states have increased the' number of charter schools, one of the ways to improve their chances of winning the aid, and the vote on Friday came at virtually the 11th hour. Tuesday is the deadline for the next round of , Race to the Top applicatlons, _ In another effort.' to improve 'New York's chances, the State Senate approved a separate bill on Friday to tie teacher evaluations to students' performance on standardized tests, as other states have done; the Assembly voted for the measure earlier this week. New York could obtain $700 million from the grant pool, money that would blunt the im, pact of state budget cuts and perContinued on Page A20

THE NEW YORK TIMES NEW YORK SATURDAY, MAY 29,2010

Hoping for Federal Aid, New, York'Votes To Raise Cap on Charter Schools to 460
FromPageAl

haps avert sam€!of the thousands of teacher layoffs that are expected this year. In New York City, both City Hall and the teachers' union, which has opposed the growth of charter schools, ultimately found enough to like in the legislation. Although more charter schools will be created, the bill increased oversight of the schools and added regulations on how they are formed and operated. In a statement, Mr. Bloomberg, an enthusiastic, supporter of charter schools, cautioned that while "it is not a perfect bill," it "preserved the key components of the nation's most successful system of charter schools." , The bill, which Gov. David A. Paterson is expected to sign, bars the opening of any for-profit charter schools; opponents of the schools say such operations can lead to abuses. Existing for-profit schools could remain open. Much of the deliberations centeredon creating space for charter schools in New York City. Mr. Bloomberg and his schools chancellor, Joel LKlein, have allowed' dozens of charter schools to move into buildings used by traditional public schools, often enraging teachers and parents there. A bill drafted in January to increase the number' of charter schools would have required the consent of parents at traditional schools before any charter school could move in. , That bill never came to a vote. The bill that was passed on Friday requires that, such shared schools set up building councils to allocate space and monitor conflict. But those councils would not have 'Veto power over the chancellor's decisions, Any improvements worth more than $5,000to a New York City charter school's space would also have to be .niade to the public school that shares the building.

The bill also allows the state comptroller to audit' charter schools, which charter school advocates had resisted. The bill imposes, for the first. time, a limit, on the number of charters in New York City. And it gives the state - the Board of Regents or the State University of New York, which both authorize charters - the power to decide • which neighborhoods or demographics the new schools would serve. Under current procedures, New York City officials have been effectively able to decide where charters should go, leading to complaints that some neighborhoods, like Harlem, had become

The bill increases oversight and rules out new for-profit operations:
saturated with them. "These sweeping reforms will help put an end to divisive fighting over school space and give a meaningful voice in the process to traditional public school parents," Mr. Silver saidin a statement. "This measure will undoubtedly encourage the creation of more successful charter schools in New York State.'" After negotiations that lasted through the night, the bill passed in the Assembly by a vote of 91to 43, and in the Senate by 45 to 15. Teachers' unions around the country. and their allies in state legislatures have fought the growth of charter schools whose teachers generally are not unionized - saying they take resources from traditional public schools without improving students' education.

But supporters of the schools say the freedom from many regulations and union work rules has allowed charters the flexibility to innovate and raise the performance of mostly poor, urban students whose neighborhood schools have not served them well. The weeks leading up to the vote were filled with feverish lobbying by teachers' unions, and by the city and charter school advocates, backed by wealthy hedge fund managers, oil the other side. Not everyone was pleased with the bill. The statewide teachers' union said that the measure did not go far enough to limit charter schools in some parts of the state. And Peter Murphy, the policy director of the New York Charter Schools Association, called the process of negotiating the bill, which was written in the wee hours of the morning, ,."governance at its worst," and said the bill banned for-profit charter school operators "for no sound reason." . One major criticism of charter schools is that they have not enrolled the students who struggle the most. The bill passed Friday will require them to enroll, and to retain, students who are- still learning English, have disabilities or receive free or reducedprice lunches, in "comparable" numbers to their local school districts. It was unclear how such rules would be enforced. "The idea was wliat reforms do we need so that charters serve the neediest kids," said Michael Mulgrew, the president of the city teachers' union, the United Federation of Teachers.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->