The Board Of Regents Does Right By Kids And Taxpayers In Rejecting Early Charter Renewals by Lisa Eggert Litvin

In a pointed response to NY's Board of Regents, the NY Post recently wrote that "you'd have to be nuts" not to fast-track renewals of a number of charter schools. Actually, the opposite is true.

As background, NY's byzantine charter school rules authorize the SUNY Charter Schools Committee, a group of four men (3 lawyers and a businessman), to decide whether to renew many of NY's charter schools. NY's highest education body, the Board of Regents (a 17-member diverse group, including many life-long educators), is relegated to merely reviewing the SUNY Committee's recommendations and giving feedback. Ultimately the SUNY Committee has final say.

Over the past months, the SUNY Committee recommended that a total of 19 schools be pushed ahead for early renewal. The Board of Regents responded that these requests were premature, and that to ensure full accountability, a school's renewal should be assessed in the year when its current term would expire, so that the most up-to-date data can be used.

The Board of Regents was right to advise against the rush. In fact, the data submitted by the SUNY Committee shows problems so deep running through these schools that the discussion should turn to whether the model used by these charter networks is even sustainable.

While the 19 schools are attaining high scores on the state's standardized English and math tests, far too many of these schools are experiencing financial losses, negative assets, high suspension rates, and under enrollment.

Specifically, over 40% of the fast-tracked schools are unable to cover their expenses, and are operating at a loss. In addition, over a quarter of the schools have been managed in a such a way that they report having negative net assets. Rather than pushing fast-track renewals of these financially stumbling schools, the SUNY Committee should be assessing whether these schools are financially viable and are worthy of taxpayer funding.

Further, despite the claim of extensive wait lists, every one of the 19 recommended schools has failed to meet its target enrollments for struggling children, i.e. children with disabilities, English Language Learners, and economically disadvantaged children. This dereliction should be challenged, not rewarded with early renewal.

Making matters even more profound, the suspension numbers are strikingly high, and against the trend in education to reduce suspensions and end the "suspension-to-prison" pipeline. The average suspension rate of these schools -- none of which includes high school students -- is a stunning 10%, with some schools as high as 20%, and even k-3 schools with rates of 12% and 14%.

Several of the schools on the list have made headlines, for all the wrong reasons. Success Academy Fort Greene is infamous for its "got-to-go" list of troublesome children. The situation at that school is so dire that the local Community Education Council asked that the school be reviewed and that its authorization be revoked if needed.

Success Academy Harlem 3's problems were brought into the spotlight via a NYC Comptroller's audit, which found a number of issues, including double payments to Success Academy's management corporation and billing for more special education services than it may have provided. Alarmingly, the audit also found that over 65% of the school personnel sampled at Harlem 3 hadn't had their criminal background checks completed before starting work.

So was the Board of Regents "nuts" to say no to fast tracking these schools? No, the Board rightly looked out for the best interests of the children and the taxpayer and said hold off. Unfortunately, the SUNY Committee can still move forward with its ill-advised renewals, to the detriment of everyone else. Perhaps it is time to consider whether to remove renewal powers from the SUNY Committee and give full authorizing power over charters to the far more appropriate and qualified Board of Regents

**************************************************

GENERAL SUPPORT

NY Post article: http://nypost.com/…/unions-are-sabotaging-the-fragile-peac…/

Schools submitted for early renewal (submitted in March 2017),
https://www.regents.nysed.gov/co…/regents/files/417p12a5.pdf

1.Success Academy Bronx 1
2.Success Academy Bronx 2
3. Success Academy Crown Heights
4. Success Academy Fort Greene
5. Success Academy Harlem 2
6. Success Academy Harlem 3
7. Success Academy Harlem 4
8. Success Academy Harlem 5
9. Success Academy Prospect Heights
10. Success Academy Union Square
Schools submitted for early renewal (submitted in July 2017),https://www.regents.nysed.gov/co…/regents/files/717p12a1.pdf
1.Bronx Charter School for Better Learning
2.Success Academy Bensonhurst
3.Success Academy Bergen Beach
4.Success Academy Bronx 3
5. Success Academy Bronx 4
6.Success Academy Hell’s Kitchen
7.Success Academy Rosedale
8.Success Academy Springfield Garden
9.Success Academy Washington Heights

Members of the NY Board of Regents: https://www.regents.nysed.gov/members
Members of the SUNY Charter Schools Committee:

http://www.newyorkcharters.org/suny/suny-trustees/
"Got to go" list: https://www.nytimes.com/…/at-a-success-academy-charter-scho…
Local Community Education Council asking for a review and possible revocation of Success Academy Fort Greene:https://www.dnainfo.com/…/stop-success-academies-from-openi…
Audit of Success Academy / SA Harlem 3:https://comptroller.nyc.gov/…/audit-report-of-success-acad…/ (Executive Summary)
https://comptroller.nyc.gov/…/uploa…/documents/FK15_092A.pdf (full Audit report -- see page 9 for duplicate payments to the Success Academy network. See page 20 for billing for special education services that the school may not have actually provided to the children. See page 36 for failure to complete criminal background checks.
Here's where the percentages come from. All info is based on the most recent year of data provided in the SUNY report for each school. And the specific numbers and data are listed in “Detailed Support” document:

Schools operating at a loss (8 out of 19 = 42%):
1.Bronx Charter School for Better Learning
2.Success Academy ("SA") Fort Greene
3.SA Harlem 2
4.SA Harlem 3
5.SA Harlem 4
6.SA Harlem 5
7.SA Union Square
8.SA Bronx 3

Schools with negative net assets (5 out of 19 = 26%)
1.SA Crown Heights
2.SA Fort Greene
3.SA Union Square
4.SA Hells Kitchen
5.SA Rosedale

Schools that have met enrollment targets for all categories of ED, ELL, SED:
None

Suspension numbers specifically cited:
SA Fort Greene (k-3): 14.8%
SA Bergen Beach (k-2): 12%

Additional suspension numbers are in the Detailed Support document

About the Author: 

Lisa Eggert Litvin, Esq.

Hastings-on-Hudson Board of Education President (my piece is written by me and doesn't represent my BOE)
Hastings-on-Hudson PTSA Emerita