Dear SUNY board and SUNY Charter Institute:
I urge you to reject the application of Success Academy to
open two charter schools in District 2 on the following grounds:
1. Attrition and push-out rates: This charter chain has a
very high student and teacher attrition rate, as referenced in news articles
and its NYS report cards [annual teacher attrition rates of 38%, 56%,
19%, 50% and 26%.] It also has a documented
history of pushing out high-needs students.
And yet the new charter law explicitly says that charter schools should
demonstrate an effort to recruit and retain at –risk children. This is
not a model which deserves replication elsewhere in the city.
2. Evidence of excessive compensation and proposed
charter management fees: Ms. Moskowitz receives an annual salary in excess of
$379,478, in addition to benefits worth more than $24,000, amounting to a total
compensation package of $403,660, according to the latest available (2009)
submission to the IRS by the Success Charter Network.
Governor Cuomo has inveighed against excessive salaries
for district superintendents who receive far lower salaries, and has proposed
capping superintendents’ salaries at $175,000 a year in districts with fewer
than 10,000 students. According to the SUNY charter website, the Success chain
of charters has fewer than 3,000 students.
The Governor has also created a task force to investigate
excessive compensation levels at not-for-profits that receive taxpayer support
from the state, and in January, signed an executive order to limit spending
for executive pay at state-funded service providers, including a $199,000
salary cap.
In addition, Ms. Moskowitz has applied for an increase in her management fees to 15%. These fees are twice the average for a NYC CMO (7%) and close to the average of
for-profit NYC EMOs (17%). New charters run by EMOS are now banned by law, as I’m sure you are aware.
Her excessive compensation and proposed hike in fees reveals a lack of fiscal
prudence with taxpayer funds, and she should not be rewarded with permission to
expand her network until these other matters are fully resolved.
3. Overwhelming parent and community opposition: At
District 2 hearings about this application, scores of local parents and
community members spoke out and have signed petitions opposing these
applications. To my knowledge, not a single elected official representing
the district supports these proposals and many have submitted comments against
them. The Community Education Council in District 2 passed a resolution
in opposition to these applications, as well as Manhattan Community Boards 5,6,
and 8.
The
new charter law was written expressly so that authorizers would have to take
community input into consideration when making a decision. According to
SUNY Charter Institute’s own RFP Guidance Handbook:
“SUNY’s proposal review process must generally ‘consider the demand for charter schools by the community,’ per Education Law § 2852(9-a)(b)…applicants will also be required to show evidence of community interest in and support for the school.”Approving this charter would appear to violate the intent of the law.
4.Likely
impact on overcrowding, class size and the city’s C4E commitments: The
co-location of two more charter schools in D 2 would likely lead to more
overcrowding in a district that is already extremely overcrowded, and would
prevent the district’s schools from reducing class sizes to optimal levels as
set out in the city’s legally-mandated Contracts for Excellence plan. The
DOE’s utilization rates assumes class sizes of 28 in grades 4-8, rather than
its C4E goal of 23 students per class in these grades, in the plan that was
submitted by the city and approved by the State Education Department in
2007.
Already,
average class sizes in the district have risen above the goals in the plan, and
are likely to increase even more if additional co-locations are approved in the
district. See the charts below:
And
yet class size reduction is one of very few reforms that have been shown to
narrow the achievement gap, and one of only four cited by the Institute ofEducation Sciences that have been proven to work through rigorous evidence to
improve learning for all students, no matter their background.
4. Potential impact on disabled students: As NY State Senator Liz Krueger points out, two of the schools that are officially “underutilized” on the DOE’s
list of possible co-locations for Success Academy house disabled students:
the School for the Deaf on E. 23 St, and the middle school for
students with autism wthin the Julia Richman complex. And yet the DOE’s
utilization formula does not take into account the special needs of this
populations, widely recognized by state and city regulations and
guidelines pertaining to space.
5. Safety : I also want to echo the concerns of Sen.
Krueger about the inability of SUNY to ensure proper safety without knowing in
advance where this school will likely be sited. As she writes:
New York State Education Law Section 2853(3) states that in New York City "all charters authorized...shall be obliged to comply with the department's health, safety and sanitary requirements applicable to facilities to the same extent as non-charter public schools in each such city school district." It is simply impossible to ensure that these requirements are met if siting information is not included in the charter application for authorization. Moreover, since there is no mechanism at the state level to address any negative impacts on children's safety, sanitation, or health after a charter has been approved, it is absolutely imperative that these issues be thoroughly examined and addressed during the authorization process.
Conclusion: In the interests
of good governance, fiscal prudence, educational equity, and safety, I urge you
to reject the applications of to establish two new Success Academy charter
schools in District 2.
Sincerely, Leonie Haimson, Executive Director, Class Size Matters
3 comments:
Thank you for your analysis, Leonie!
CM Mendez, AM Glick, Sen Duane and Kruger submitted a letter urging the state not to approve the application. CECD2 also has resolutions against it.
You are 100% correct. The real sad part is nobody really cares and I am afraid the application will be accepted and once again the children,educators and parents of our city will be ignored and their education hampered.The Unfortunate part is the politicians who know nothing about education are allowed to make this decision.
I felt sick to my stomach when it was revealed that no one from the SUNY charter board attended the public hearing on May 1st nor would they be reading the testimony of the parents that spoke against the Success Academy application. The only ones who spoke in favor of the application were Success Academy employees and residents of OTHER districts.
Post a Comment