Summary of Findings and Recommendations Proposal to Authorize Ascend Charter Schools to Operate the Proposed Central Brooklyn Ascend Charter School 4 and Central Brooklyn Ascend Charter School 5 September 30, 2018 Charter Schools Institute State University of New York 41 State Street, Suite 700 Albany, New York 12207 (518) 445-4250 www.newyorkcharters.org 1
Executive Summary The board of trustees of Ascend Charter Schools ( Ascend or the education corporation ), a not-forprofit charter school education corporation authorized by the State University of New York Board of Trustees (the SUNY Trustees ) to operate seven schools, seeks the authority to operate two additional charter schools to be located in public or private facilities in Central Brooklyn. The education corporation submitted the proposal for authority to operate Central Brooklyn Ascend Charter School 4 ( Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 ) and Central Brooklyn Ascend Charter School 5 ( Central Brooklyn Ascend 5 ) to the SUNY Charter Schools Institute (the Institute ) in response to the Institute s Request for Proposals (the RFP ) (available at http://www.newyorkcharters.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018-request-for-proposals_final.pdf), released on behalf of the SUNY Trustees on January 2, 2018. The proposed new schools will each open in September 2019 with 224 students in Kindergarten and 1st grade, will add one grade per year, and ultimately serve 672 students in Kindergarten 5th grade during their first charter term. The schools will fill all seats that become available through attrition in all grades throughout the school year. Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 will replicate the highly effective instructional program implemented at all Ascend schools. The education corporation will contract with Ascend Learning, Inc. ( Ascend Learning or the network ), a New York not-for-profit charter management organization ( CMO ) based in Brooklyn to support Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 with administrative leadership, financial oversight and bookkeeping, recruitment and human resources needs, curriculum and instructional leadership, data and assessment support, and facility identification and acquisition. The network will focus on creating efficiencies and facilitating the sharing of lessons and best practices among Ascend schools while allowing school leaders the autonomy take ownership of their individual schools. The network will work collaboratively with each school team to ensure high quality standards and value added services, which include ensuring a robust talent pipeline. The network contracts with Ascend for services for the following seven SUNY authorized charter schools in Brooklyn, some of which came under SUNY authorization through merger: Brooklyn Ascend Charter School; Brownsville Ascend Charter School; Bushwick Ascend Charter School; Canarsie Ascend Charter School; Central Brooklyn Ascend Charter School; Cypress Hills Ascend Charter School; and, Central Brooklyn Ascend Charter School 3 (opening fall 2019). As applicable, information regarding the academic performance, student discipline, and renewal history for each school is presented in the Education Corporation Overview in Appendix A. The Institute finds that the proposal for Ascend s authority to operate Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 rigorously demonstrates the criteria detailed in the Institute s 2018 RFP, which are consistent with the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended, the Act ). The proposed schools will replicate the high performing program at other Ascend schools. 2
Based on the proposal, as amended by the applicant, and the foregoing: The Institute recommends that the SUNY Trustees approve the proposal to authorize Ascend Charter Schools to operate Central Brooklyn Ascend Charter School 4 and Central Brooklyn Ascend Charter School 5. 3
Findings Based on the comprehensive review of the proposal and interviews of the applicant and the education corporation board of trustees, the Institute makes the following findings. 1. The charter schools described in the proposal meet the requirements of Article 56 of the New York Education Law (as amended) and other applicable laws, rules, and regulations as reflected in (among other things): the inclusion of appropriate policies and procedures for the provision of services and programs for students with disabilities and English language learners ( ELLs ); the required policies for addressing the issues related to student discipline, personnel matters and health services; an admissions policy that complies with the Act and federal law; and, the inclusion of an analysis of the projected fiscal and programmatic impact of the school on surrounding public and private schools. 2. The applicant has demonstrated the ability to operate each school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner as reflected in (among other things): the provision of an educational program that meets or exceeds the state performance standards; the articulation of a culture of self-evaluation and accountability at both the administrative and board level; the student achievement goals articulated by the applicant; an appropriate roster of educational personnel; a sound mission statement; a comprehensive assessment plan; the provision of sound start-up, first-year, and five-year budget plans; a plan to acquire comprehensive general liability insurance to include any vehicles, employees, and property; evidence of adequate community support for, and interest in, each charter school sufficient to allow each school to reach its anticipated enrollment; the inclusion of descriptions of programmatic and independent fiscal audits, with fiscal audits occurring at least annually; the inclusion of a school calendar and school day schedule that provide at least as much instruction time during the school year as required of other public schools; and, the inclusion of methods and strategies for serving students with disabilities in compliance with federal laws and regulations. 3. Granting the proposal is likely to: a) have a significant educational benefit to the students expected to attend the proposed charter schools; b) improve student learning and achievement; and, c) materially further the purposes of the Act. This finding is supported by (among other things): a strong commitment to serving at-risk students with multiple programs to address the needs of students struggling academically, students with disabilities, and ELLs; 4
the inclusion of a robust professional development program for instructional staff prior the start of each school year and throughout the year; an organizational structure that provides ample instructional leadership to develop the pedagogical skills of all teachers; and, a deep commitment to high academic and behavioral expectations to produce exceptional outcomes. 4. The proposed charter schools would meet or exceed enrollment and retention targets, as prescribed by the SUNY Trustees, of students with disabilities, ELLs, and students who are eligible applicants for the federal Free and Reduced Price Lunch ( FRPL ) program as required by Education Law 2852(9-a)(b)(i). 5. The applicant has conducted public outreach for each school, in conformity with a thorough and meaningful public review process prescribed by the SUNY Trustees, to solicit community input regarding the proposed charter schools and to address comments received from the impacted community concerning the educational and programmatic needs of students in conformity with Education Law 2852(9-a)(b)(ii). 6. The Institute has determined that the proposal rigorously demonstrates the criteria and best satisfies the objectives contained within the RFP, and, therefore, constitutes a qualified application within the meaning of Education Law 2852(9-a)(d) that should be submitted to the New York State Board of Regents (the Board of Regents ) for approval. The Institute developed the RFP in a manner that facilitate[d] a thoughtful review of charter school applications, consider[ed] the demand for charter schools by the community, and s[ought] to locate charter schools in a region or regions where there may be a lack of alternatives and access to charter schools would provide new alternatives within the local public education system that would offer the greatest educational benefit to students, in accordance with Education Law 2852(9a)(b). The Institute also posted the draft RFP for public comment and responded to same. The Institute conducted a rigorous evaluation of the proposals under consideration including academic and fiscal soundness and legal reviews. In addition, the Institute engaged independent consultants to evaluate the academic, fiscal, and organizational soundness of the schools based on the criteria set forth in the RFP. Pursuant to its protocols, the Institute conducted interviews with the applicant, the Ascend board of trustees, and key network leadership. Background and Description The first Ascend school, Brooklyn Ascend Charter School ( Brooklyn Ascend ), received its original charter from the NYC Chancellor on January 15, 2008, and received a full-term five year renewal in March 2013. The school merged with the SUNY authorized Canarsie Ascend Charter School ( Canarsie Ascend ) effective July 1, 2016. Brooklyn Ascend opened its doors in the fall of 2008 initially serving students in Kindergarten 2nd grade. The education corporation now operates seven SUNY authorized schools, with one school, Central Brooklyn Ascend Charter School 3 ( Central Brooklyn Ascend 3 ) scheduled to open in fall 2019. 5
The education corporation seeks to open two additional schools in response to continued demand among families in the proposed districts of location (CSDs 17, 18, and/or 22). The education corporation wishes to provide and additional high quality educational option to families in the East Flatbush (including Erasmus, Farragut, Rugby-Remsen Village), Flatbush, and Prospect Lefferts Gardens neighborhoods of Central Brooklyn, from which the schools intend to draw the majority of their student population. Mission, Philosophy and Key Design Elements Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 share the same mission as other Ascend schools: To equip every student with the knowledge, confidence, and character to succeed in college and beyond. Our liberal arts curriculum invites students on an intellectual adventure, igniting their natural curiosity. In a warm and supportive community, students build a strong foundation of critical thinking skills, academic habits, and moral integrity and graduate as independent young adults, prepared to think on their own, thrive on their own, and engage the world as informed, responsible citizens. Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 will replicate the following key design elements, which they identify as critical to the school s succes: 1. Ascend s common core curriculum. All Ascend schools will teach students to master a rigorous, sequential, Common Core Learning Standards-aligned college preparatory curriculum composed of carefully selected commercial instructional programs and Ascend s own program in the humanities. The curriculum will have four principal aims: early literacy, close reading skills and writing, strong conceptual understanding of math, and the establishment of domain knowledge in the social and natural sciences that is a requirement for reading comprehension. 2. Strong student culture. In response to high suspension rates and data indicating that the no excuses approach was ineffective, Ascend implemented a new approach to student culture in its schools called Responsive Classroom. This research-based approach minimizes punitive measures and emphasizes individual agency and community. Responsive Classroom structures feature behavior consequences proportional and aligned to student infractions. 3. Professional Development. Ascend s philosophy holds that the quality of teachers planning and development, as well as the quality of collaboration within a school, have signifiant effects on student achievement. To that end, the schools design incorporates teacher planning and development meetings, the aim of which is to develop teachers content knowledge. Ascend also provides its teachers with ongoing coahcing, weekly workshops, a summer institute, and leadership pathways. Calendar and Schedule Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 will offer a minimum of 180 days of instruction each school year. The first day of instruction for the 2019-20 school year will be on or around September 1, 2019, and 6
the last day will be on or around June 30, 2020. Subsequent school years will follow a similar calendar. The school day will begin each morning at 8:00 A.M. and end at 4:00 P.M. four days per week with an abbreviated schedule on Fridays to allow for teacher professional development. Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 will provide students with a minimum of 910 hours of instruction per year, an increase over the state minimum of 900 hours mandated by Education Law 2851(2)(n) and 8 NYCRR 175.5 for 1st 6th grade and provided at the majority of schools within the New York City Department of Education ( NYCDOE or the district ). Academic Program All Ascend schools implement a rigorous liberal arts curriculum that features inquiry-based instruction delivered in the context of a school culture that promotes independence and agency. Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 will implement the same academic program currently in place at all schools in the Ascend network, called the Ascend common core curriculum. Ascend Charter Schools undertook a significant revision to its existing academic program in 2015 in response to its schools low performance on the first version of standardized exams aligned to the Common Core Learning Standards. This new version of the curriculum incorporates changes to the curricular materials used in classrooms, new instructional methodologies, and adjustments to the time allotted for various instructional activities including assessments. The performance of each school in the network has improved since they revamped the curriculum such that they are now meeting or exceeding targets for measures included in the existing schools Accountability Plans. Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 will implement the curriculum for specific subject areas as follows: English Language Arts ( ELA ) (Reading and Writing) Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 will offer lower school students (Kindergarten 2nd grade) 825 minutes of weekly ELA instruction that incorporates multiple complementary curricular programs grounded in, among other topics, phonics, grammar, reading, and writing. Ascend s ELA program will include a guided reading component, during which small groups of students receive literacy support targeted to their individual reading levels. Additionally, the curriculum will incorporate social studies instruction via a shared text component that highlights historical texts and supports the development of students discussion skills. Mathematics Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 will offer lower school students 405 minutes of weekly mathematics instruction as well as an additional 10-20 minutes of math routines, which build automaticity and fluency in computation skills. The mathematics curriculum will be based on the on the Cognitively Guided Instruction ( CGI ) approach, which focuses primarily on word problems. In addition, the mathematics program will draw heavily from Singapore Math, a curriculum that uses visual representations to develop students conceptual understanding of numerical values and operations. Science Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 will offer lower school students 135 minutes of weekly science instruction. The science curriculum will come from a Common Core aligned MacMillan-McGraw Hill program called A Closer Look, which focuses on scientific inquiry. Additionally, in response 7
to teacher input, the network has added to the science curriculum several internally-developed and project-based units aligned to Next Generation Science Standards. Spanish Spanish is an optional program that four of Ascend s nine individual school sites currently implement. Should Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 opt to offer Spanish, the curriculum in Kindergarten 1st grade will be based upon the Sube program, in which students receive Spanish instruction in a full immersion environment. In 2nd 5th grade, the Descubre curriculum exposes students to Spanish language literature as well as activities focused on cultural awareness. Specials (Physical Education, Health, Visual Arts, Music, and Dance) In addition to the academic subjects noted above, Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 will offer students instruction in several specials classes including physical education, visual arts, music, and dance. The schools will develop the curricula for these courses internally. Starting in 5th grade, Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 will also provide health classes to students. Existing School Performance Please see Appendix A for information regarding the academic performance, student discipline, and renewal history of the schools. Governance The by-laws of Ascend Charter Schools indicate that the education corporation board will consist of no fewer than five and no more than 21 voting members. The current members of the board of trustees are set forth below. 1. Stephanie Mauterstock (Chair and Interim Treasurer) Ms. Mauterstock is an educational consultant. Previously she was the chief operating officer for Students for Education Reform, an organization developing college students into grassroots organizers who fight for educational justice in their communities. She was previously chief operating officer at Manhattan Charter School. Having inherited a failing school, she managed its turnaround and growth, wrote the school s renewal application, and secured a full five-year charter renewal in July 2010. She previously worked for Edison Schools, Inc. where she served as a grants compliance manager and later as a strategy and market research analyst. Ms. Mauterstock began her career as a program officer at the Institute of International Education. She holds a bachelor of arts in economics and international relations from Tufts University. 2. Kathleen Quirk (Vice Chair) Ms. Quirk is pursuing an MBA at Duke s Fuqua School of Business. She was formerly chief operating officer of Cambridge Leadership Associates ( CLA ), where she focused on management operations and refining CLA s business development strategies to meet clients needs. Prior to joining CLA, Ms. Quirk worked for the NYCDOE as special assistant to NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein and later as associate director of knowledge management. In these roles, she managed the 2006-07 district-wide winning application for the Broad Prize in 8
Urban Education and also worked closely with NYCDOE s governing body, the Panel for Education Policy. She previously held positions at the University of California Berkeley in student affairs and served as an AmeriCorps volunteer in an elementary school in West Oakland, California. Ms. Quirk has been an active member of the New York City Coro Leadership Center and an onsite support staff member for a volunteer community in Bedford Stuyvesant. Ms. Quirk is a former Coro Fellow in New York City and holds a bachelor of arts in English from the College of the Holy Cross. 3. Shelly Cleary (Trustee) Ms. Cleary is a senior vice president at the Community Development Trust ( CDT ), a community development real estate investment trust, where she leads CDT s Charter School Lending Program. Ms. Cleary developed and secured funding for the company s charter school lending platform and is responsible for marketing and structuring of all charter school program transactions. Prior to developing the charter school lending platform, Ms. Cleary was CDT s senior vice president. In her 15-year tenure at CDT, Ms. Cleary has held various positions within the Debt Group with increasing levels of responsibility and has originated over $200 million of affordable housing debt. Before joining CDT, Ms. Cleary held positons in housing finance at the National Equity Fund, a syndicator of Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits, and at the Community Preservation Corporation, a regional construction leader that specializes in affordable housing. Ms. Cleary began her career in the Education Department at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago. She has a bachelor of arts in art history from the University of Virginia and a master of public administration from the Humphrey Institute of Public Policy at the University of Minnesota. 4. Amanda Craft (Secretary) Ms. Craft is a recruiting research analyst at Bridgewater Associates, an investment company that oversees $120 billion in international investments for diverse clients including foreign governments, university endowments, and charitable foundations. After graduating from Columbia University with a bachelor s degree in Russian language and literature, Ms. Craft served as a regional recruitment fellow for Teach For America ( TFA ) in New York City. Later, she served as the managing director of strategy in TFA s human assets department. At the TFA summer institute, Ms. Craft worked as director of data management devising systems for improving corps member training. Ms. Craft has also taught business English in St. Petersburg, Russia. In the New York community, she has worked for eight years as a youth group coordinator of the Village Church. She lives in Brooklyn. 5. Kwaku Andoh (Trustee) Mr. Andoh is managing director and associate general counsel at JPMorgan Chase & Co. Mr. Andoh s practice focuses primarily on mergers and acquisitions, and his transaction experience includes mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures including cross-border transactions in a wide range of industries, investments in early stage companies, as well as complex asset-backed financings and private placements of equity and debt securities. Mr. Andoh began his career with the firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton in New York, where he practiced for seven years focusing primarily on international financings, private placements, and mergers and acquisitions for a diverse group of clients. He served on the Stanford Law Review as a notes editor. Mr. Andoh holds a bachelor of arts in economics from Gustavus Adolphus College, a master of arts in economics from Boston University and a juris doctorate from Stanford Law School. 9
6. Christine Schlendorf (Trustee) Ms. Schlednorf is a principal at the architectural firm Perkins Eastman with more than 15 years of experience in creating educational spaces. She has been responsible for numerous public and private school projects in the United States and overseas including Mott Haven Campus in the Bronx, a 2,200-student campus containing two high schools, one intermediate school, one charter school, and a performing arts center. Prior to joining Perkins Eastman, Ms. Schlendorf was an architect with the firm Louise A. Agnes AIA of Northport, New York. She holds a bachelor of architecture from Syracuse University. 7. Rev. Oral Walcott (Trustee) Since 2003, Rev. Walcott has served the Beulah Church of the Nazarene as Sunday school teacher, youth pastor, pastor of discipleship and special events, and executive pastor. He has 13 years experience as a claims professional at a leading insurance company in Barbados. Rev. Walcott serves on the board of directors of Healing for the Soul Ministries and as secretary and director of Project CHANGE, a rehabilitative program designed for inmates of Her Majesty s Prison in Barbados. He was one of the chief architects of the program and co-authored Project CHANGE s handbooks and curriculum. He is a professional chartered property and casualty Underwriter. Rev. Walcott and his wife Nicole are the proud parents of two Brownsville Ascend students. Rev. Walcott received a diploma in management studies in human resources management from Nazarene Bible College and Barbados Institute of Management and Productivity, and he holds a bachelor of science in business, management, and economics from SUNY Empire State College as well as a master of science in organizational leadership from Quinnipiac University. 8. Nadine Slyvester (Trustee) Ms. Sylvester joined Ascend's board of trustees in July 2018. Ms. Sylvester is the director of internship services and employment placement at Year Up, a nonprofit organization that helps disadvantaged young adults attain higher education and succeed in their professional lives. In her role, Ms. Sylvester oversees internship and employment placements and leads Year Up s alumni engagement strategy. Previously, Ms. Sylvester worked as a program coordinator for Cypress Hills Local Development Corp., through which she provided counseling and crisis management services to at-risk youth seeking to complete high school or GED programs. A native of Central Brooklyn, Ms. Sylvester is an active leader in her community, serving as a team leader for New York City s largest volunteering network, New York Cares, and as a member of Brooklyn s Community Board 17. Ms. Sylvester holds a bachelor s degree in history and social work from New York University and a master s degree in social work from Fordham University. She is the proud parent of an Ascend student. Facilities The education corporation has indicated that it intends to locate Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 in the East Flatbush, Flatbush, and/or Prospect-Lefferts Gardens neighborhoods of Brooklyn, in CSD 17, 18, and/or the northern section of CSD 22. Ascend has not yet confirmed specific facilities for Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5, but it has identified several buildings that may be suitable. Ascend's team of real estate professionals is currently engaged in discussions about lease terms, as well as architecture and design efforts to plan facility renovations meeting the standards of other schools in Ascend's real estate portfolio. Presently, all Ascend schools are located in private space. 10
Fiscal Impact The fiscal impact of each Central Brooklyn Ascend proposed charter school on the district is summarized below. Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 or 5 (A) (B) (C Charter Year Expected Number of Students Basic Charter School Per Pupil Aid Projected Per Pupil Revenue (A x B) Year 1 (2019-20) 224 15,307 3,428,768 (D) (E) Other District Total Project Revenue (SPED Funding from Funding, Food District to Service, Grants, Charter etc.) School (C+D) 1,081,455 4,510,223 (F) (G) New York City School District Budget* Projected District Impact (E/F) 25,600,000,000 0.018% Year 5 672 15,307 10,286,304 1,554,191 11,840,495 25,600,000,000 (2023-24) *The NYCDOE budget was derived from the NYCDOE s website: http://schools.nyc.gov/aboutus/funding/overview. 0.046% The Institute reviewed the charter schools proposed startup and fiscal plans for each year of the proposed charter terms and supporting evidence, as well as the education corporation s budgets for the other schools it operates. The Institute also reviewed the Business Plan and fiscal information of both Ascend and the network to determine capacity to support additional schools in New York. The Institute sought clarification on both the Business Plan and, given the education corporation s fiscal condition, on the proposed budgets. In order to determine Ascend s fiscal soundness, the Institute conservatively directed Ascend to use chartered enrollment numbers, even though Ascend schools typically operate in the upper range of enrollment once operating. Ascend inflated revenue at a slower pace than experienced in New York City while expense projections were matched to historic levels and salary projections were revised upward. The Institute also reviewed the private space lease obligations of Ascend. Public accounting for the unpaid rent for the leases lists the rent as a debt obligation rather than a future operating expense, which has a negative impact on Ascend s financial statements. The Institute also reviewed the education corporation s and the network s days of cash on hand in relation to the SUNY standard of one month of cash on hand. Knowing that this has been an issue monitored by the Institute, the network secured grants from the New Schools Venture Fund to shore up cash on hand. Despite future projections of cash surpluses, the Institute finds a delicate balance between sufficient cash on hand and enough money for operating expenses still exists. The network and Ascend are aware, however, that revenue grows as elementary and middle school enrollment grows, but then high school programming consumes more funds than high school programs generate. For this reason, Ascend has incorporated an annual cash set aside item into its school budgets to grow cash on hand and anticipate future increased high school costs. At the end of the Institute s review, and after specific discussions with Ascend, the network and outside fiscal consultants hired by Ascend, the Institute made a determination of fiscal soundness for Ascend s two school expansion. The Institute will continue to closely monitor the audits and quarterly financial reporting of Ascend going forward and will raise any concerns with Ascend as it expands. The Institute finds the budgets and fiscal plans to be sound, and sufficient startup funds will be available to the new charter schools. The education corporation s financial profile is available on the SUNY Fiscal Dashboard at www.newyorkcharters.org/progress/fiscal-dashboard/ and in Appendix B. 11
Notification and Public Comments The Institute notified the district as well as public and private schools in the same geographic area of the proposed school about receipt of the proposal, and the proposal was posted on the Institute s website for public review. The NYCDOE scheduled a public hearing pertaining to the proposal for April 9, 2018 and provided a summary of public comments to the Institute, which has been compiled in Appendix D. The Institute carefully reviews and considers all public comments received prior to finalizing its recommendation. The Institute has received no independent public comments on the proposal to date. Preference Scoring Education Law 2852(9-a) requires authorizers to establish and apply preference criteria to applications meeting both statute and authorizer standards. The purpose of the criteria is to prioritize proposals in the event that the number of proposals meeting the SUNY Trustees requirements exceeds the maximum number of charters to be issued in 2018. The RFP identified the minimum eligibility requirements and preference criteria required by Education Law 2852(9a), as described in greater detail below. The Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 proposal met the eligibility requirements, as evidenced by the following: the proposal was sufficiently complete, i.e., it included a Transmittal Sheet, Proposal Summary and responses to all RFP requests as prescribed by the Institute; the proposal included a viable plan to meet the enrollment and retention targets established by the SUNY Trustees for students with disabilities, ELLs, and students who are eligible to participate in the FRPL program (as detailed in Request No. 15); and, the proposal provided evidence of public outreach that conforms to the Act and the process prescribed by the SUNY Trustees for the purpose of soliciting and incorporating community input regarding the proposed charter school and its academic program (as detailed in Request No. 3). As the Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 proposal submissions met the eligibility criteria, the Institute s evaluation continued with a full review of the proposals, an interview of the application team and board of trustees, and requests for clarification and/or amendments to the proposal. The review process then continued with an evaluation of the proposal in relation to the 10 Preference Criteria contained in the RFP for which proposals can earn credit as described in the RFP s Preference Scoring Guidance. In the event of a tie for the last charter, both proposals will be rejected unless one applicant agrees to withdraw his or her proposal for consideration in a subsequent RFP. The preference criteria, which in addition to eligibility criteria and the overall high standards established by the SUNY Trustees, include the demonstration of the following in compliance with Education Law 2852(9-a)(c)(i)-(viii): increasing student achievement and decreasing student achievement gaps in reading/language arts and mathematics; 12
increasing high school graduation rates and focusing on serving specific high school student populations including, but not limited to, students at risk of not obtaining a high school diploma, re-enrolled high school drop-outs, and students with academic skills below grade level; focusing on the academic achievement of middle school students and preparing them for a successful transition to high school; utilizing high-quality assessments designed to measure a student's knowledge, understanding of, and ability to apply critical concepts through the use of a variety of item types and formats; increasing the acquisition, adoption, and use of local instructional improvement systems that provide teachers, principals, and administrators with the information and resources they need to inform and improve their instructional practices, decision-making, and overall effectiveness; partnering with low performing public schools in the area to share best educational practices and innovations; demonstrating the management and leadership techniques necessary to overcome initial startup problems to establish a thriving, financially viable charter school; and, demonstrating the support of the school district in which the proposed charter school will be located and the intent to establish an ongoing relationship with such school district. The proposed schools both earned a score of 24 preference points out of a total of 45. Based on the scores and the other information and findings set forth herein, the Institute recommends that the SUNY trustees approve the authority of Ascend Charter Schools to operate Central Brooklyn Ascend Charter School 4 and Central Brooklyn Ascend Charter School 5, which will not exceed the statutory limit of 28 charters permitted in New York City by Education Law 2852(9)(a). Conclusion and Recommendations Based on its review and findings, the Institute recommends that the SUNY Trustees approve the proposal to grant Ascend Charter Schools the authority to operate Central Brooklyn Ascend Charter Schools 4 and 5 to open in September, 2019. 13
Differencebetweenschoolsanddistrictscores:2012-13through2016-17 DifferencebetweenELASchoolandDistrictScores APPENDIX A Education Corporation Overview BrooklynAscendCharterSchool BrooklynDistrict18 2014 2015 2016 2017 BrownsvileAscendCharterSchool BrooklynDistrict23 2014 2015 2016 2017 BushwickAscendCharterSchool BrooklynDistrict32 2014 2015 2016 2017 CanarsieAscendCharterSchool BrooklynDistrict18 2016 2017 CentralBrooklynAscend Brooklyn District 22 2017 0 10 20 30 Districtdifferenceforeachyearbrokendownbyschoolanddistrict(inNYC,theIns tuteusesthecsd).thesecharts compareaschool'sperformancetothatofthedistrict.eachbarrepresentsthedifferencebetweentheschool's performanceandthedistrict's.aposi veresult(showingthebartotherightofzero)indicatestheamountbywhichthe schooloutscoredthedistrict.anega veresult(withthebartothele ofzero)ilustratestheamountbywhichtheschool performedlowerthanthedistrict.ascoreofzeroindicatesthattheschoolperformedexactlyevenwiththedistrict.school scoresreflecttheachievementofstudentsenroledforatleasttwoyearspertheschools'accountabilityplans. 14
Differencebetweenschoolsanddistrictscores:2012-13through2016-17 DifferencebetweenMathSchoolandDistrictScores BrooklynAscendCharterSchool BrooklynDistrict18 2014 2015 2016 2017 BrownsvileAscendCharterSchool BrooklynDistrict23 2014 2015 2016 2017 BushwickAscendCharterSchool BrooklynDistrict32 2014 2015 2016 2017 CanarsieAscendCharterSchool BrooklynDistrict18 2016 2017 CentralBrooklynAscend Brooklyn District 22 2017 0 10 20 30 Districtdifferenceforeachyearbrokendownbyschoolanddistrict(inNYC,theIns tuteusesthecsd).thesecharts compareaschool'sperformancetothatofthedistrict.eachbarrepresentsthedifferencebetweentheschool's performanceandthedistrict's.aposi veresult(showingthebartotherightofzero)indicatestheamountbywhichthe schooloutscoredthedistrict.anega veresult(withthebartothele ofzero)ilustratestheamountbywhichtheschool performedlowerthanthedistrict.ascoreofzeroindicatesthattheschoolperformedexactlyevenwiththedistrict.school scoresreflecttheachievementofstudentsenroledforatleasttwoyearspertheschools'accountabilityplans. 15
ELA Growth and Achievement: 2014-15 through 2016-17 70 2017 HighGrowth HighAchievement 2016 HighGrowth HighAchievement MeanGrowthPercen le 60 50 40 LowGrowth 30 LowAchievement LowGrowth LowAchievement 70 2015 MeanGrowthPercen le 60 50 40 30 LowGrowth LowAchievement -2 0 2 StandardizedMeanScaleScore Thesechartscompareaschool sabilitytogrowstudentachievementwithaschool'sabsolutestudent performance.schoolslocatedintheupperrighthandquadrantofeachchartshowstrongresultsin helpingstudentsmakelearninggainswhileatthesame mehelpingstudentsachievestrongabsolute scoresonstateasesments.schoolsinthelowerrighthandquadrantshowstrongabsolutescoresbut lowergrowth.becausethestudentgrowthpercen leusesthepreviousyear sscalescoreasa baseline,itbecomesmoredifficultforaschooltomaintainstrongoveralgrowthscoreswhenstudents alreadyposthighabsolutescores. Thesechartsareproducedbycomparinggrowthasmeasuredbythestate sstudentgrowthpercen le toitsoveralachievementasmeasuredbyscalescorestandardizedtothestatewidegradelevelmean overeachyearforwhichdataareavailableduringthecharterterm.thegrowthaxis(labeledmean GrowthPercen le)representsthestatewidemediangrowthscore.theachievementaxis(labeled StandardizedMeanScaleScore)representsthestatewidemean-centeredachievementlevelforeach gradeservedbyeachschool. 16
Math Growth and Achievement: 2014-15 through 2016-17 80 2017 HighGrowth HighAchievement 2016 HighGrowth HighAchievement MeanGrowthPercen le 70 60 50 40 LowGrowth 30 LowAchievement LowGrowth LowAchievement MeanGrowthPercen le 80 60 40 2015 HighGrowth HighAchievement LowGrowth LowAchievement -2 0 2 StandardizedMeanScaleScore Thesechartscompareaschool sabilitytogrowstudentachievementwithaschool'sabsolutestudent performance.schoolslocatedintheupperrighthandquadrantofeachchartshowstrongresultsin helpingstudentsmakelearninggainswhileatthesame mehelpingstudentsachievestrongabsolute scoresonstateasesments.schoolsinthelowerrighthandquadrantshowstrongabsolutescoresbut lowergrowth.becausethestudentgrowthpercen leusesthepreviousyear sscalescoreasa baseline,itbecomesmoredifficultforaschooltomaintainstrongoveralgrowthscoreswhenstudents alreadyposthighabsolutescores. Thesechartsareproducedbycomparinggrowthasmeasuredbythestate sstudentgrowthpercen le toitsoveralachievementasmeasuredbyscalescorestandardizedtothestatewidegradelevelmean overeachyearforwhichdataareavailableduringthecharterterm.thegrowthaxis(labeledmean GrowthPercen le)representsthestatewidemediangrowthscore.theachievementaxis(labeled StandardizedMeanScaleScore)representsthestatewidemean-centeredachievementlevelforeach gradeservedbyeachschool. 17
ELAandMathEffectSizeDotPlots:2012-13through2016-17 ELAEffectSizebyYearandSchool 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Target:0.3 Higherthanexpectedtoalargedegree -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ELAEffectSize MathEffectSizebyYearandSchool 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Target:0.3 Higherthanexpectedtoalargedegree -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 MathEffectSize Thechartsilustratethecompara veeffectsizeperformanceateachschoolacrostheedcorpbyeach yearforwhichdataareavailablethroughoutthecharterterm.schoolsperformingatorabove0.3are mee ngsuny'sbenchmarkforthemeasure.schoolsperformingatorabove0.8areperforminghigher thanexpectedtoalargedegreeincomparisontoschoolsenrolingsimilarlevelsofeconomicaly disadvantagedstudents. 18
ELAandMathEffectSizeSca erplots:2013-14and2014-15 2014 4 MathEffectSize 2 0 Target:0.3-2 Target:0.3-2.0-1.5-1.0-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 2015 4 MathEffectSize 2 0 Target:0.3-2 Target:0.3-2.0-1.5-1.0-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 ELAEffectSize Thechartscompareaschool selaandmatheffectsizesovereachyearforwhichdataareavailable duringthecharterterm.aneffectsizemeasuresschoolperformanceincomparisontootherschools statewideenrolingstudentswithsimilarpropor onsofeconomicdisadvantage.schoolswithanela ormatheffectsizethatislesthan0performedlowerthanexpectedbasedontheeconomic disadvantagesta s c.schoolspos nganeffectsizegreaterthan0butlesthan0.3perform aboutthe sameasthecomparisonschools.schoolswithanelaormatheffectsizegreaterthan0.3(suny s performancetargetforthemeasure)outperformedsimilarschoolsstatewidetoameaningfuldegree, whileschoolswitheffectsizesgreaterthan0.8perform higherthanexpectedtoalargedegree. 19
ELAandMathEffectSizeSca erplots:2015-16and2016-17 5 4 2016 MathEffectSize 3 2 1 Target:0.3 0-1 -2-3 Target:0.3-2.0-1.5-1.0-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5 2017 4 3 MathEffectSize 2 1 Target:0.3 0-1 -2-3 Target:0.3-2.0-1.5-1.0-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 ELAEffectSize Thechartscompareaschool selaandmatheffectsizesovereachyearforwhichdataareavailable duringthecharterterm.aneffectsizemeasuresschoolperformanceincomparisontootherschools statewideenrolingstudentswithsimilarpropor onsofeconomicdisadvantage.schoolswithanela ormatheffectsizethatislesthan0performedlowerthanexpectedbasedontheeconomic disadvantagesta s c.schoolspos nganeffectsizegreaterthan0butlesthan0.3perform about thesameasthecomparisonschools.schoolswithanelaormatheffectsizegreaterthan0.3(suny s performancetargetforthemeasure)outperformedsimilarschoolsstatewidetoameaningfuldegree, whileschoolswitheffectsizesgreaterthan0.8perform higherthanexpectedtoalargedegree. 20
Suspensions:AscendCharterSchools'outofschoolsuspensionrate,inschoolsuspensionrate, andthedistrictoveralsuspensionrate. BrooklynAscendCharterSchool 3.3 5.8 6.3 BrownsvileAscendCharterSchool 1.0 4.2 4.8 2015 BushwickAscendCharterSchool 2.6 4.0 4.8 CanarsieAscendCharterSchool 4.6 5.8 6.8 CentralBrooklynAscendCharterSchool 2.1 2.4 9.1 BrooklynAscendCharterSchool 2.5 2.6 BrownsvileAscendCharterSchool 1.9 6.9 2016 BushwickAscendCharterSchool 3.5 5.5 CanarsieAscendCharterSchool 0.0 0.5 CentralBrooklynAscendCharterSchool 3.0 7.8 BrooklynAscendCharterSchool 2.1 3.4 BrownsvileAscendCharterSchool 6.3 7.2 2017 BushwickAscendCharterSchool 4.6 CanarsieAscendCharterSchool 0.0 0.2 CentralBrooklynAscendCharterSchool 3.8 5.3 %ofstudentssuspended AlthoughCSDandschoolsuspensionratesarepresentedonthesamegraph,adirectcomparisonbetweentheratesisnot posiblebecauseavailablecsddataincludeskindergartenthrough12thgradesandschooldataincludesonlythegradesserved bytheschool.thepercentagerateshownhereiscalculatedusingthemethodemployedbythenycdoe:thetotalthenumberof studentsreceivinganoutofschoolsuspensionatany meduringtheschoolyearisdividedbythetotalenrolment,then mul pliedby100. Duringtheschoolyears2014-15through2016-17,AscendSchoolsexpeled0students. 21
EnrolmentandReten ontargets ED 83.8% 84.1% Brooklyn Ascend Charter School Enrolment ELL SWD ED 1.1% 5.3% 14.3% 15.8% 83.1% 90.0% Reten on ELL 86.7% 89.5% SWD 93.9% 90.1% ED 84.7% 91.4% Brownsvile Ascend Charter School Enrolment ELL SWD ED 1.2% 4.8% 11.2% 90.0% 19.9% 86.5% Reten on ELL 100.0% 88.4% SWD 84.8% 87.5% ED 85.1% 93.9% Bushwick Ascend Charter School Enrolment ELL SWD ED 21.6% 15.4% 87.1% 20.3% 16.2% 91.2% Reten on ELL 87.5% 93.4% SWD 90.0% 91.9% Thechartilustratesthecurentenrolmentandreten onpercentagesagainsttheenrolmentand reten ontargetsforeachopera ngschoolintheeduca oncorpora on.asrequiredbyeduca onlaw 2851(4)(e),aschoolmustincludeinitsrenewalapplica oninforma onregardingtheeffortsithas, andwil,putinplacetomeetorexceedsuny senrolmentandreten ontargetsforstudentswith disabili es,ells,andfrplstudents.thisanalysisisbasedonthe2016-17enrolmentandreten on datasuppliedtotheins tutebythenetwork. 22
EnrolmentandReten ontargets ED 71.4% 85.6% Enrolment ELL 0.9% 4.4% Canarsie Ascend Charter School SWD ED 12.2% 89.5% 14.3% 92.3% Reten on ELL 100.0% 90.7% SWD 93.3% 93.0% ED 87.1% 76.2% Central Brooklyn Ascend Charter School Enrolment ELL SWD ED 3.2% 15.2% 84.0% 12.6% 16.1% 93.3% Reten on ELL 0.0% 93.1% SWD 79.4% Thechartilustratesthecurentenrolmentandreten onpercentagesagainsttheenrolmentandreten ontargetsforeachopera ngschoolintheeduca on corpora on.asrequiredbyeduca onlaw 2851(4)(e),aschoolmustincludeinitsrenewalapplica oninforma onregardingtheeffortsithas,andwil,putinplace tomeetorexceedsuny senrolmentandreten ontargetsforstudentswithdisabili es,ells,andfrplstudents.thisanalysisisbasedonthe2016-17enrolment andreten ondatasuppliedtotheins tutebythenetwork. 93.7% 23
Educa oncorpora onpersistenceinenrolment 2016-17 86.0% 2015-16 85.7% 2014-15 87.7% 24
EDUCATION CORPORATION SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS School Local District Co-located? Chartered Enrollment Brooklyn Ascend Charter School Brownsville Ascend Charter School Bushwick Ascend Charter School Canarsie Ascend Charter School Central Brooklyn Ascend Charter School Cypress Hills Ascend Charter 166 School Central Brooklyn Opening Ascend Charter CSD 19 Fall 2019 School 3 224 Grade Span for 2018-19 CSD 18 No 1,277 K-11 CSD 23 No 1,028 K-8 CSD 32 No 889 K-8 CSD 18 No 616 K-5 CSD 22 No 413 K-4 CSD 19 No K-1 N/A 25
APPENDIX B Fiscal Dashboard 26
27
28
29
APPENDIX C Basic Identification Information Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 Lead Applicant(s): Management Company: Partner Organization: Location (District): Student Pop./Grade Span at Scale: Opening Date: Stephanie Mauterstock Ascend Learning, Inc. None CSD 17, 18, or 22 Kindergarten 8th September 2019 30
APPENDIX D Summary of Public Comments Received During the SUNY Public Comment Period through September 24, 2018 On or about March 19, 2018, in accordance with Education Law 2857(1), the Institute notified the NYCDOE as well as public and private schools in the same geographic area of the proposed school about receipt of the proposal to establish Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5. The notice reminded the district that the New York State Commissioner of Education s regulations require the school district to hold a public hearing within 30 days of the notice for each new charter application. A redacted copy of Central Brooklyn Ascend 4 and 5 s proposal was also posted on the Institute s website for public review at: http://www.newyorkcharters.org/request-forproposals/2018-request-for-proposals-round-1-spring-cycle/central-brooklyn-ascend-4-charterschool/. The district scheduled a public hearing pertaining to the proposal for April 9, 2018, and provided a summary of comments from that hearing to the Institute: One person attended the hearing to learn more about where the schools would be located. The attendee was neither for nor against the proposed new schools. The Institute received no independent public comments pertaining to the proposal. 31