Charter Schools V BPS Report

Western New York Charter Schools
Buffalo Area Charter

School Efficacy
A Researched Response to the Buffalo Teachers Federation Study
Principal Researcher: Danielle Hawkins, Business Teacher & Treasurer of the
Charter School for Applied Technologies Teachers Association
5/26/2014

1
REPORT

On May 1, 2014, the Buffalo Teachers Federation (BTF) unveiled a study that attempted
to demonstrate that local charter schools are not producing higher levels of student
achievement than the Buffalo Public School district and that the local Buffalo area charters
who (sic) are having some success do so because of their selected population. The study was
released strategically close to the May 6, 2014 Buffalo School Board of Education Elections,
in which some candidates described themselves as advocates for both district and charter
public school students and, therefore identifying themselves as charter-friendly. These
candidates were opposed by the BTF. Thus, a report that casts doubt upon charter school
efficacy could have the effect of weakening charter-supporters standings.

The main proposition of the BTFs study is that area charter schools discriminate against
a variety of student groups, including students who are economically disadvantaged, have
limited proficiency in English, who are economically disadvantaged. The study provided no
proof of the above mentioned discrimination except for the total percentage of students
classified as participants of these student demographic groups throughout the Buffalo
Public School district as compared to the total percentage of the same at local charter
schools. It also purported that charter schools suspend students at a disproportionate rate
to their BPS counterparts.

As evidence of academic failure the study presented summaries of fourth and eighth grade
Math and English Language Arts scores on state assessments for the 2010-2011 and 2011-
2012 academic years, several student performance reports for the New York State English
as a Second Language Achievement Test, several student performance reports on Regents
exams, and several total cohort reports in secondary ELA and Math.

Interestingly, the data supplement distributed to the media contained only data for charter
schools without any comparison data from the Buffalo Public School District. Some of the
findings statements defy understanding of statistical significance, such as: 5 of the 15 or
33% of the Charter Schools had between 70%-87% of their students fail one of more of the 4
th

or 8
th
grade State assessments and, again, with no comparisons to Buffalo Public School.

Discrimination The BTF studys main message centers around considering local charter
schools as a cohesive unit that purposely controls the makeup of their student populations.

That assertion is false in two fundamental ways:

1. Charter schools, by law, follow a blind lottery process for enrollment. The
recruitment and enrollment process for charter schools is tightly controlled by State
law and is highly public. Any community member can attend enrollment lotteries
conducted by individual charters schools, and are publicly announced. These
lotteries must be conducted shortly after April 1
st
of each year. Any member of the
public can check schools websites and verify the dates, times and locations of this
transparent process. It is not until this process is concluded that charter schools
learn their student demographics. As this report will cover, there are also additional
constraints, beyond the blind lottery, that public school districts exert over students
with learning disabilities.

2
2. Each school, public or charter, has specific program, demographic, and cultural
characteristics that make it unique. Comparing charter school demographics to the
Buffalo Districts as a whole is an invalid comparison, as the data included in this
report will show. It will clearly show that selecting to compare charters as a unit to
the district averages requires data manipulation that makes such comparison
invalid.

Local charter schools do not have anything in common with one another, other than
independent governance. Unlike district schools, charters do not have common
administration, common design, common curriculum, etc. Comparisons and studies that
attempt to consolidate them into a single entity from which to draw conclusions are
inheritably flawed and should not be used. If a person is familiar with one charter school,
he or she knows and understands the characteristics of that single charter school. If it is
highly effective, that does not mean all charter schools are. Likewise, if it is not performing
at high levels that does not indicate that all charters are failures. In fact, charter schools are
given a limited amount of time to outperform district schools and, if they fail to do so, they
are closed. Several charters have been closed in the greater Buffalo area for not
significantly outperforming their district school counterparts. At the same time, some
district schools may significantly underperform and are not held to the same consequence.

A review of the data included will show that, following the same logic, there are many
Buffalo district schools with demographics very different from district averages and,
therefore, should be considered as discriminating against certain groups as well.

A more valid comparison of student demographics would consist of comparing
individual charter schools to similar individual district schools based on common
demographic criteria. This is the approach utilized in this report.

Methodology: In order to create a more appropriate comparison, this report uses the most
recent School Report Card data provided by the New York State Education Department
(2012-13 school year). All schools are compared separately across demographic categories.

The picture that emerges is as follows:

3
Free and Reduced Lunch

The BTF study claimed: 9 of 15 or 60% of the Charter schools reporting have fewer
students than Buffalo who were eligible for free lunches (with two (2) having less than
35% eligible for free lunches!) while in the Buffalo Public Schools 72% of the students
qualify for free lunches.

Free and reduced lunch is the widely used benchmark to determine the percentage of
economically disadvantaged within a student population. In 2012-2013, 81% of all Buffalo
Public School students were deemed eligible for a free or reduced price lunch. If comparing
to the Buffalo district average, 18 out of 57 (32%) Buffalo Public Schools have fewer
students who qualify for free and reduced lunch than their district as a whole. In the same
year, 8 out of 16 (50%) local charter schools had notably higher percentages of students
who qualified, 2 local charters had the same percentage as the district, and an additional 3
schools fell within 5 percentage points of BPS. It is also worthwhile to note the two schools
in Buffalo with the lowest percentage of students qualifying for free or reduced lunch are
not charter schools.

In sum, based on the data published by the State, area charter schools have similar
percentages of students who qualify for free and reduced price lunches as compared
to the Buffalo City Schools district average.

Above
the BPS
Average
68%
Below
the BPS
Average
32%
BPS
District Schools
Above
the BPS
Average
63%
Below
the BPS
Average
38%
WNY
Charter Schools

4
Free and Reduced Lunch

Rank Name of school %
72
Aloma D. Johnson Fruit Belt Community
Charter School 100
72 South Buffalo Charter School 100
71 PS 82 96
70 PS 61 AT 171 95
67 Enterprise Charter School* 94
67 WEST HERTEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 94
67 FRANK A SEDITA SCHOOL #30 94
63 STANLEY MAKOWSKI EARLY CHLDHD CTR 93
63 DR CHARLES R DREW SCIENCE MAG-#90 93
63 GRABIARZ-CAMPUS SCHOOL #79 93
63 INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL 93
61 BUILD ACADEMY 92
61 BUFFALO ELEM SCH OF TECHNOLOGY 92
57 Buffalo United Charter School 91
57 HARVEY AUSTIN SCHOOL #97 91
57 NATIVE AMERICAN MAGNET 91
57 LOVEJOY DISCOVERY SCHOOL #43 91
51 DR MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR MULTICUL 90
51 COMMUNITY SCHOOL #53 AT #4 90
51 HARRIET ROSS TUBMAN ACADEMY 90
51 PS 17 90
51 WATERFRONT SCHOOL 90
51 Global Concepts Charter School 90
49 Westminster Community Charter School* 89
49 PS 27 HILLERY PARK ACADEMY 89
47 King Center Charter School 88
47 MARVA J DANIEL FUTURES PREP SCHOOL 88
44 Community Charter School 87
44 ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL AT 44 87
44 PS 66 NORTH PARK ACADEMY 87
38 HIGHGATE HEIGHTS 86
38 DR LYDIA T WRIGHT SCH OF EXCELLENCE 86
38 PS 59 DR CHARLES DREW SCI MAGNET 86
38 DR A PANTOJA COMM SCH EXCLLNCE -#77 86
38 LORRAINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 86
38 HERMAN BADILLO COMMUNITY SCHOOL 86
35 PS 69 HOUGHTON ACADEMY 85
35 PS 65 ROOSEVELT ACADEMY AT 71 85
35 BILINGUAL CENTER 85
33 PS 74 HAMLIN PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 84
32 D'YOUVILLE-PORTER CAMPUS 84
30 LAFAYETTE HIGH SCHOOL 83
30 MATH SCIENCE TECH PREP SCHOOL-SENECA 82
25 RIVERSIDE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 82
25 Buffalo Academy of Science Charter School 81
25 BURGARD VOC HIGH SCHOOL 81
25 Health Sciences Charter School 81
25 DR GEORGE BLACKMAN ECC 81
25 SOUTHSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 81

BUFFALO PUBLIC SCHOOLS 81
24 PS 81 80
21 EAST HIGH SCHOOL 79
21 INTER PREP SCH-GROVER CLEVELAND #187 79
21 Charter School for Applied Technologies 79
19 MCKINLEY VOC HIGH SCHOOL 77
19 Western NY Maritime Charter School 77
17 BENNETT HIGH SCHOOL 76
17 Oracle Charter School 76
15 MIDDLE EARLY COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOL 75
15 EMERSON SCHOOL OF HOSPITALITY 75
14 BENNETT PARK MONTESSORI SCHOOL 74
13 PS 42 OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING CTR 72
11 HUTCHINSON CENTRAL TECH HIGH SCHOOL 69
11 SOUTH PARK HIGH SCHOOL 69
10 BUFFALO ACADEMY-VIS & PERF ARTS 67
8 LEONARDO DA VINCI HIGH SCHOOL 66
8 PS 84 66
7 West Buffalo Charter School 65
6 Tapestry Charter School 62
5 FREDERICK OLMSTED #156 51
4 DISCOVERY SCHOOL 45
3 Elmwood Village Charter School 42
2 FREDERICK OLMSTED #64 AT #78 40
1 CITY HONORS SCH-F MASTEN PK 31

5
Economically Disadvantaged Students

The State School Report Card contains an additional category for the identification of
students living at or near poverty lines. The free and reduced lunch data contained in the
report card is derived from a report each school is required to file by October 1 of each
year. It represents how many families have filed an application for school lunch with the
school by this deadline and had it approved. Free and reduced lunch data, therefore, is
reliable but not a complete picture. For example, the 2012- 2013 school report card data
indicates 65% of West Buffalo Charter Schools students qualified for free and reduced
lunch. In reality, 91% of their students ended up qualifying for free and reduced lunch.

Such a large discrepancy between the reported number and the actual percentage is not
typical. It is more common that the difference between the two data points falls between 0
and 5 percentage points. The same could happen for district schools. Therefore, the data
reported for free and reduced lunch included in this report is strictly based on what has
been published in order to be fair to all schools involved.

The School Report Card, however, publishes an economically disadvantaged category that
takes into consideration historical trends and updated reporting. In 2012-2013, 82% of
Buffalo Public School students were classified as economically disadvantaged. If comparing
to the district average, 19 of 57 (33%) Buffalo schools have fewer economically
disadvantaged students than their district as a whole. In the same year while 38 (67%) had
percentages greater than or equal to BPS average. By the same token, 6 out of 16 (38%)
local charter schools had a fewer students classified as economically disadvantaged than the
district average and 10 (63%) had percentages that were greater than or equal to that of
BPS.

Again, based on the data published by the State, area charter schools have similar
percentages of students who are classified as economically disadvantaged as
compared to the Buffalo Public Schools district average.

Above
the BPS
Average
62%
Below
the BPS
Average
38%
WNY
Charter Schools
Above
the BPS
Average
67%
Below
the BPS
Average
33%
BPS
District Schools

6
Economically Disadvantaged Students

74
Charter School 100
73 PS 61 AT 171 99
72 BUILD ACADEMY 97
68 PS 82 96
54 PS 17 93
51
DR A PANTOJA COMM SCH EXCLLNCE -
#77 92
41
Buffalo Academy of Science Charter
School 89
40
PS 74 HAMLIN PARK ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL 88
35
INTER PREP SCH-GROVER CLEVELAND
#187 85
31
MATH SCIENCE TECH PREP SCHOOL-
SENECA 84
18 PS 81 79
12
HUTCHINSON CENTRAL TECH HIGH
SCHOOL 71
9 PS 84 68

7
Students with Disabilities

BTF study claimed:

For 2011-2012 Buffalo had 20% of its students classified as students with special
needs12 or 86% of the Charter Schools only had between 6%-13% of their students
classified as students with special needs. The remaining 3 only had between 14%-16%
(still much less than Buffalo) of their students identified as students with special
needs.
In 2012-2013, 7 charter schools had a classification rate at or below 13%. 8 had
between 14% and 16%.

If there is an area in which it is especially inappropriate to compare charter school data
with that of public schools it is the percentage of classified students with disabilities.
There are five factors that render any such comparison invalid:

1. First, it ignores the fact that charter schools cannot control their enrollment
demographics. If it is merely a matter of increasing the number and, thus, the
percentage of labeled students with disabilities at charter schools, all charters
should be allowed under the law to give preference to students with IEPs. As they
cannot, this argument castigates charter schools for something over which, by law,
they have no control. Charter schools are not allowed to use special education (or
ELL status, good or bad academic background, gender, economic background,
behavior record, or any other criteria) in accepting a student.

2. Second, the Buffalo Public School District retains control over the Committee on
Special Education and the student designation. In other words, after receiving a
student with a specialized IEP, the charter school needs to get BPSs approval to
offer any services or modify the IEP. Charter schools have been in the situation
where BPS has opted, for economic reasons, to insist that a child be serviced at his
or her home district school where the specific program is already in place.

3. Third, no single school has the complete array of special education services that a
district can provide. Buffalo has many schools that have percentages of students
with disabilities that match that of a charter school. In order to be fiscally
responsible, districts place certain special education services at specific locations.
Because charter schools control neither the enrollment nor the CSE, conclusions
drawn by comparing the districts SWD percentages with those of charter schools
are invalid.

4. Charter schools have some structural advantages that allow them to be more
flexible in providing instruction. Without some of the restrictions that the district
has, charters do not have to refer as many students to special education because
they have the ability to provide appropriate intervention services without having to
label a child. Charter schools percentages are bound to be lower when considering a
lower rate of referral.

8
5. Fifth, it is not responsible to imply that charter schools should strive to have the
same percentage of students with IEPs as Buffalo. That would call upon charter
schools to reach for a negative goal. Buffalo Public Schools percentage is too high.
There is no justification for 21% of students to be labeled with disabilities. The
classification rate for New York State, by comparison, is a more reasonable 15%.

There is no reasonable justification for the overrepresentation of special education
students within the Buffalo Public School District. Often, large urban districts are unable to
meet struggling students specific needs under the general education umbrella. In most
cases, a student must be referred and labeled before he/she can get the individualized
services and instruction needed. This reactive paradigm can leave well-meaning teachers
and administrators with no choices other than to wait until they fail and then refer
students who could and should be helped in a mainstream classroom for special education
services.

Charter schools were created precisely to offer more flexible instructional delivery
strategies, including response to intervention (RTI), that are able to prevent over-
representation of the special education population. Therefore, besides being beyond
charter schools control, it cannot be assumed that a lower percentage of students with
IEPs indicates a failure on behalf of charter schools.

In 2012-2013, 21% of Buffalo Public School students were identified as students with
disabilities. When comparing to this district average, 31 (54%) Buffalo schools have greater
than or equal students with disabilities (SWD) percentage than the district as a whole. In
the same year, 1 out of 16 (6%) local charter schools had a greater percentage of SWD.
More importantly, 26 (46%) BPS district schools have a smaller percentage of students
with disabilities than the district average. Fifteen (94%) charter schools had percentages
lower than the districts.

In sum, charter schools are in control of neither their enrollment nor of the final
decision on special education placement once a child with disabilities is accepted. No
single school, district or charter, can have the entire array of special education
services the district offers. Most importantly, charter schools by design do not aspire
to match the special education rates reported by Buffalo. These percentages are
pedagogically unsound and inherently disproportionate. Charter schools, by
contrast, seek alternative intervention strategies to avoid over identification of
students with disabilities.

9
15
21
15
10
14
12
13 13
15
5
13
15
14 14 14
22
15
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
% of students with disabilities

10

Students with Disabilities

72 PS 84 90
70 PS 82 31
61 PS 17 27
54 BUILD ACADEMY 24
44 PS 81 22

39 PS 61 AT 171 20
17
Charter School 15

12
Students with Limited English Proficiency

The BTF study claimed: 9 of 15 or 60% of Charter Schools enroll 1% or less ELL students,
and 4 of 15 or 2% to 5% ELL students. i.e. 87% of charter schools reporting enroll 0-5% ELL
students while the 2011-2012 Buffalo Public School ELL enrollment is 11%.

The data shows that students with limited English proficiency tend to cluster in specific areas,
programs, and schools within Buffalo. As such, use of the district average (12%) for comparison
purposes is misleading. No schools within the district match this average and in fact, 41 (72%)
Buffalo schools had a percentage lower than the district average, while only 16 (28%) were above.
While it is true that in 2012-2013 there were 7 (44%) charter schools whose population contained
1% or less LEP students and 6 (38%) between 2% and 5%, these numbers are not so different
from the 29 (51%) BPS schools that enrolled 1% or less LEP students or the 7 BPS schools who
enrolled between 2% and 5%.

Charter schools were created to provide a public education choice to families. In terms of districts,
charter schools open where there is a demand for said choice. High functioning districts do not see
a call for the opening of charter schools, as most families do not tend to seek out an educational
alternative when they feel well served at their district school. The data seems to suggest that ELL
students feel well served at schools such as Lafayette, International, and Hermn Badillo. In order
for area charters to pursue having the same percentage of ELL students as the district as a whole,
it would require all charters to have the ability to give preference to ELL students in enrollment
and/or purposely creating strategies targeting those schools and aiming at enticing students and
families to leave schools they currently prefer. The former is not currently permissible under the
law and the latter is not the purpose for which charters were created.

In sum, the vast majority (72%) of Buffalo district schools enroll lower percentages of ELL
students than the district as a whole. Seven (44%) area charter schools have 1% or less ELL
students compared to 29 (51%) district schools that also enroll 1% or less ELL students.
Even though charter schools cannot control the number of ELL students applying and being
accepted under the lottery, the data shows that in a valid school-to-school comparison, area
charter schools serve ELL students at the same level as district schools.

13
Limited English Proficiency

57 PS 84 13

43
Charter School 3
Rank Name of School %
1 ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL AT 44 **
1 Westminster Community Charter School* **
1 King Center Charter School **
1 HIGHGATE HEIGHTS **
1 BUILD ACADEMY **
1 DR LYDIA T WRIGHT SCH OF EXCELLENCE **
1 Buffalo United Charter School **
1 PS 74 HAMLIN PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL **
1 PS 61 AT 171 **
1 HARVEY AUSTIN SCHOOL #97 **
1 PS 82 **
1 COMMUNITY SCHOOL #53 AT #4 **
1 HARRIET ROSS TUBMAN ACADEMY **
1 MARVA J DANIEL FUTURES PREP SCHOOL **
1 Health Sciences Charter School **
1 Oracle Charter School **
1 DR GEORGE BLACKMAN ECC **
1 PS 66 NORTH PARK ACADEMY **
1 MIDDLE EARLY COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOL **
1 PS 17 **
1 BENNETT PARK MONTESSORI SCHOOL **
1 GRABIARZ-CAMPUS SCHOOL #79 **
1 PS 81 **
1 PS 69 HOUGHTON ACADEMY **
1 PS 65 ROOSEVELT ACADEMY AT 71 **
1 PS 27 HILLERY PARK ACADEMY **
1 LOVEJOY DISCOVERY SCHOOL #43 **
1 LORRAINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL **
1 CITY HONORS SCH-F MASTEN PK **
1 DISCOVERY SCHOOL **

14

Suspension Rates

The BTF study claimed: One staggering statistic is that unlike Buffalo Public Schools
where the overall suspension rate is 18% (2011-2012), 7 out of 13 charter schools
reporting have shown suspension rates from 27% to 52% for the same period!

The BFT was perhaps most misguided with regards to the information presented about
charter school suspension rates. The intention seems to be to indicate that charter schools
are suspending and expelling students at exorbitant rates that are irresponsible and
disproportionate with the district average.

When examining 2012-2013 data, only 2 of the 16 (12.5%) charter schools reporting had
suspension rates that fell within the range outlined above. During this school year, 20% of
all students within BPS were suspended (a student is counted once regardless of the
number of times suspended). In the same year, only 3 (19%) charter schools had
suspension rates above this average while the majority, 13 (81%), were equal to or lower
than it. By comparison, 21 (37%) Buffalo Public Schools had suspension rates above the
district average.

In sum, the data shows there are fewer charter schools (25%) than district schools
(46%) with suspension rates equal or above the district average and more charter
schools (75%) than district schools (54%) with suspension rates lower than the
district average.

B
P
S

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

S
c
h
o
o
l
s
,

4
6
%

B
P
S

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

S
c
h
o
o
l
s
,

5
4
%

W
N
Y

C
h
a
r
t
e
r

S
c
h
o
o
l
s
,

2
5
%

W
N
Y

C
h
a
r
t
e
r

S
c
h
o
o
l
s
,

7
5
%

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Above or Equal to the BPS Average Below the BPS Average
Suspensions
BPS Average = 20%

15
Suspensions

67 BUILD ACADEMY 41
44
Charter School 20

37 PS 61 AT 171 17
21 PS 17 11
20 PS 81 10
9 PS 82 2
1 PS 84 0

16
Academic Achievement

When it comes to academic achievement, the BTF study chooses not to make comparisons
of charter school achievement levels to those of Buffalo City Schools. This is an interesting
departure from the methodology used for every other category of the BTF study.

Using the strategy of painting all charter schools with the same brush, the study starts by
making this statement about national trends: The fact is, charter school reports coming
out from the University of Minnesota, CREDO, NEA, AFT, and Education Justice News
clearly show that charter schools do not, on average, show greater levels of student
achievement, as typically measured by standardized test scores, than public schools, and
many even perform worse.

It is not surprising that the BTF chooses to mention the studies conducted by national
teacher unions. It is somewhat surprising, however, that it mentions the study conducted
by Stanford Universitys Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) because this
study disproves BTFs main assertion. The press release that accompanied the CREDO
1

report is entitled: Charter Schools Make Gains, According to 26-State Study. It also quotes
CREDOs Director stating: The results reveal that the charter school sector is getting better
on average and that charter schools are benefiting low-income, disadvantaged, and special
education students.

The CREDO study supports the same premise of this report. Nationally, most charter
schools are benefiting students, and some fall short from the goal. The difference with
district schools is that when a charter school does not outperform its home school district,
it gets closed. By contrast, individual district schools may fail their communities for
decades and are not held to the same level of accountability. This fact, in and on itself,
should counter the BTF studys veiled, but not documented or data-supported, assertion of
local charter failure in school achievement.

In keeping with the more valid practice of comparing schools to schools and not charters to
entire districts, we propose that further research could avoid this pitfall and produce valid
and reliable comparisons. A correct way to conduct this study would be to match each
individual charter school with a comparable district school serving the same student
grades and similar demographics. A strategy such as this cannot perfectly align each school
with an exact counterpart as all of the demographic categories can not be matched
perfectly. Nevertheless, this approach would yield much better data comparisons with an
apples-to-apples result.

A model for school pairings can be found on pages 17-18. In some cases a charter school is
matched with more than one BPS district school. This may be because of the grades
serviced (for example, a K-12 charter school would be matched with both a K-8 and HS
district school) or because there were two schools with demographics that closely aligned
the charters and were, thus, both worth examination as possible comparison schools.

1
http://credo.stanford.edu

17
Academic Achievement, cont.

The BTF study is curiously silent about graduation rates. The 2012-2013 data reflects that
area charters achieved a combined 84% graduation rate compared to Buffalos 49%. We
contend in this report, however, that charter school to district comparisons do not yield the
best picture. When controlling for similar demographics, charter schools far outperform
district schools.

For example, according to the 2012-2013 graduation rate data (2008 four-year total
cohort) the area charter school with the highest graduation rate has the same rate as City
Honors, 98%. However, City Honors has an economically disadvantaged index of 32% to
that charter schools 84%. That 84% is identical to the percentage of economically
disadvantaged students at Lafayette and Riverside High Schools. Both of these district
schools achieved 23% and 27% graduation rate, respectively. This is even more impressive
considering City Honors is a selective school that is able to administer an admissions test to
chose its students, and no charter school has this ability.

It could also be noted that all Buffalo Public high schools with a graduation rate above 65%
are in fact selective and require either an exam or audition prior to admission. If a student
is unable to test-in to a selective high school within the Buffalo Public School district, he or
she has at best a 64% chance of graduating within four years.

Rank Name of School Graduation Rate
1 CITY HONORS SCH-F MASTEN K 98

18
G
r
a
d
e
s

s
e
r
v
e
d

N
a
m
e

o
f

s
c
h
o
o
l

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
l
l
y

D
i
s
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
d

A
f
r
i
c
a
n

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

L
a
t
i
n
o

W
h
i
t
e

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

w
i
t
h

D
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

L
i
m
i
t
e
d

E
n
g
l
i
s
h

P
r
o
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

F
r
e
e

o
r

R
e
d
u
c
e
d

L
u
n
c
h

A
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e

S
u
s
p
e
n
s
i
o
n

K-8 Enterprise Charter School*
96 55 35 3 15 10 94 91 24
K-8 BUFFALO ELEM SCH OF TECHNOLOGY
96 59 6 10 17 35 92 91 23
K-8 DR LYDIA T WRIGHT SCH OF EXCELLENCE
89 92 4 3 17 ** 86 92 7
K-8 Buffalo United Charter School
92 91 6 2 14 ** 91 97 17
K-8 Westminster Community Charter School*
65 97 0 0 11 ** 89 96 1
K-8 HIGHGATE HEIGHTS
87 93 2 3 17 ** 86 92 25
K-8 DR LYDIA T WRIGHT SCH OF EXCELLENCE
89 92 4 3 17 ** 86 92 7
K-8 Elmwood Village Charter School
41 22 16 48 13 2 42 94 1
K-8 DISCOVERY SCHOOL
43 8 8 80 19 ** 45 95 2
K-6 Community Charter School
95 89 5 1 13 2 87 94 16
K-8 DR MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR MULTICUL
95 93 3 1 25 1 90 92 24
K-8 BUILD ACADEMY
97 92 3 2 24 ** 92 90 41
K-6 King Center Charter School
94 95 1 1 15 ** 88 92 8
95 93 3 1 25 1 90 92 24
K-8 BUILD ACADEMY
97 92 3 2 24 ** 92 90 41
K-5 South Buffalo Charter School
78 25 18 55 14 1 100 94 11
K-8 LORRAINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
82 20 13 61 27 ** 86 92 14
K-8 SOUTHSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
83 18 15 59 28 2 81 92 17
K-4
Charter School
100 89 7 0 15 3 100 94 20
95 93 3 1 25 1 90 92 24
K-8 BUILD ACADEMY
97 92 3 2 24 ** 92 90 41

19
G
r
a
d
e
s

s
e
r
v
e
d

N
a
m
e

o
f

s
c
h
o
o
l

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
l
l
y

D
i
s
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
d

A
f
r
i
c
a
n

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

L
a
t
i
n
o

W
h
i
t
e

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

w
i
t
h

D
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

L
i
m
i
t
e
d

E
n
g
l
i
s
h

P
r
o
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

F
r
e
e

o
r

R
e
d
u
c
e
d

L
u
n
c
h

A
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e

S
u
s
p
e
n
s
i
o
n

K-8 NATIVE AMERICAN MAGNET
93 37 16 9 16 33 91 93 12
K-8 INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL
94 32 8 16 11 55 93 94 8
K-3 West Buffalo Charter School
91 30 13 20 22 28 65 0 0
K-12 Charter School for Applied Technologies
84 30 29 33 12 4 79 93 14
HS LAFAYETTE HIGH SCHOOL
84 27 27 9 18 67 83 84 21
HS RIVERSIDE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
84 41 26 12 21 28 82 77 32
K-8 PS 27 HILLERY PARK ACADEMY
85 25 12 56 28 ** 89 91 21
K-12 Tapestry Charter School
63 52 8 36 14 1 62 94 11
K-8 DISCOVERY SCHOOL
43 8 8 80 19 ** 45 95 2
82 20 13 61 27 ** 86 92 14
HS LEONARDO DA VINCI HIGH SCHOOL
67 40 18 38 12 2 66 91 9
K-10 Global Concepts Charter School
82 22 10 66 5 9 90 98 11
82 20 13 61 27 ** 86 92 14
K-8 SOUTHSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
83 18 15 59 28 2 81 92 17
HS MCKINLEY VOC HIGH SCHOOL
79 60 18 14 18 9 77 80 24
HS Health Sciences Charter School
83 80 6 11 13 ** 81 89 16
HS BURGARD VOC HIGH SCHOOL
82 80 6 6 22 8 81 80 54
HS Oracle Charter School
81 80 9 8 14 ** 76 88 41
HS BURGARD VOC HIGH SCHOOL
82 80 6 6 22 8 81 80 54
HS Western NY Maritime Charter School
78 59 16 21 15 2 77 91 43
HS MCKINLEY VOC HIGH SCHOOL
79 60 18 14 18 9 77 80 24
7-12 Buffalo Academy of Science Charter School
89 82 5 10 10 3 81 93 15
HS RIVERSIDE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
84 41 26 12 21 28 82 77 32
8-12
MATH SCIENCE TECH PREP SCHOOL-
SENECA
84 85 6 7 19 4 82 86 21

20
Leveled Playing Field

There is an area in which local charter schools totally agree with the BTF study, and that is
that there should be a leveled playing field for charters and district schools on which to
perform.

For charter schools, that would include receiving 100% of the state revenue per child
instead of 67%. If charters receive 100% of each student, what is the justification for
receiving 2/3 of the State allocation per child?

Charter schools are supposed to receive what districts spend two years previous based on one
of two State fund sources districts get. However, since 2010, charter schools funding formula,
deficient as it may be, has been ignored and charters have been provided funding amounts
frozen at the 2010 levels. For the 2014-2015 school year, charter schools are being promised a
modest increase, outside the formula, which is still not comparable to what districts will
receive.

Of course, charter schools would be glad to provide for all necessary programs, transport
all of our students, and conduct our own Committee on Special Education process if we
were to receive the same allocation as districts. Last April, the University of Arkansas
School Choice Demonstration Project published its study entitled Charter School Funding:
Inequity Expands
2
. This study demonstrates that, besides independent governance, there is
only one more characteristic that all charters share: charters need to outperform districts,
with fewer resources, or get closed. A true level playing field should include the same level
of funding and the same consequences for both district and charter school when failing.

2
http://www.uaedreform.org/wp-content/uploads/charter-school-funding-report.pdf

Charter Schools V BPS Report

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Charter Schools V BPS Report

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Western New York Charter Schools

Buffalo Area Charter

Potrebbero piacerti anche