An article by Karen Matthews in Huffington Post says that Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio plans to charge rent to well-resourced charter schools, a pledge he made during his campaign. Most charters in New York City are co-located in public schools, where they pay nothing for their use of public space and they take away much-needed classroom space from regular public schools.
Charter schools in New York City take up a majority of media space, yet serve only 6% of the city’s students.
Some charter executives receive large salaries. More than a dozen are paid more than the Chancellor of the public school system, who oversees 1.1 million students.
Critics note that more than a dozen New York City charter school executives are paid more than current New York City Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott’s $212,614. Harlem Village Academies chief Deborah Kenny earns $499,146. Eva Moskowitz, a former City Council member and founder of Success Academies, earns $475,244.
Moskowitz, with 6,700 students, has the city’s largest charter chain. She hopes to add more schools next year.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I hope that Mayor De Blasio gives the money made by collecting rent from the charter schools to the public schools!
LikeLike
Excellent!
LikeLike
let’s begin by actually collecting rent, then deciding how it should be disbursed. regardless, the new mayor is moving in the ‘left’ direction.
LikeLike
No, it’s not a “left” direction but the “correct” direction. Actually, he’d just be a good capitalist by charging rent, otherwise he’d be a commie pinko socialist for giving away public space to lazy blood suckers.
LikeLike
These people have used taxpayer money to finance private businesses. Frankly I can’t believe this is legal.
LikeLike
This is very commonplace. Look up Tax Increment Financing or better yet, read a book called Free Lunch, by David Cay Johnston. The practice, in general, is called “capturing the subsidy.”
LikeLike
Thanks. Actually now that I think of it I can think of many examples.
LikeLike
Maybe we can use the money to put our public school children in classrooms rather than trailers. Hope springeth eternal, now that the Emperor is finally crawling back into his brownstone.
LikeLike
Charter schools should pay rent. They are exclusive private schools and put out anyone who doesn’t conform. Please don’t tell me that’s not true. I have two sstudents currently from a local charter and over the past few years have had more than 10 students placed in my classroom after they were “counseled out”. I could write a book about the horror stories these students and their families tell!
LikeLike
Please write this book. I think someone should write about the terrible damage that these schools can cause to a child.
LikeLike
ynda Costagliola: I agree with sarah5565.
It is your choice, but you can’t have a voice if you don’t use it.
😎
P.S. Or contact the owner of this blog about a posting that details what you know first-hand. Again, just my dos centavitos worth…
Your call.
LikeLike
There is absolutely no Missouri reporter interested in whether it is legal for the appointed board of the st. Louis schools, to trade a building…for….KIPP to allow its students’ test scores to be a part of slps overall test scores which affect accreditation, or lack thereof. I do not understand how they can do this, and not include the scores of charter schools which are performing badly…….the post dispatch editorial explains…..if you believe it does….tell me I should read it again. http://www.kippstl.org/news/editorial-new-schools-collaboration-offers-hope-for-transfer-discussion
LikeLike
I think the fairer thing to do would be to impose a brief moratorium on co-locations until a better formula is developed to determine what constitutes underutilized space, paying particular attention to the issue of educating kids with disabilities. There’s definitely excess capacity in DOE schools somewhere–hardly any DOE facilities have been taken off line, even though half were built before 1949 and a considerable number are more than 100 years old; 77 brand-new school buildings have opened since 2008; and system-wide enrollment is down by about 100,000 from its peak. Of course where the excess space is and where it is needed or wanted don’t always align.
If the plan to charge rent does come to pass, I trust the DOE will also take a long look at underutilized schools and close and consolidate them as needed.
LikeLike
Genuine question: Do non-charter public schools pay rent for their buildings?
LikeLike
Why should public schools pay rent? That’s like saying that firemen should pay rent to use fire trucks.
LikeLike
Governments might want to think about the cost of occupying any space. This is often a problem when there are no costs associated to occupying space.
I don’t know how space allocation works at NYU, but it is typically badly done in the academy. Does your department chair do the legendary practice of putting trash in office trash cans to deceive the dean into thinking the office is productively occupied?
LikeLike
Charter schools are not public schools. They don’t play by the same rules. They reject students who do not conform and don’t allow parents to be part of their community. Charter schools displace students and do not service all. If they’re going to act like private schools, I say pay up or get out!
LikeLike
Are Stuyvesant High School in NYC and Thomas Jefferson High schools in Virginia public schools? Your concerns apply to them with even more force than the run of the mill charter school.
LikeLike
The schools you mentioned are touted as specialized schools with entrance exams. Charters profess to be public. They have no entrance exams and “counsel” studentsout who do not conform.
LikeLike
Is it your position that charter schools would be public schools if they only had explicit standardized entrance exams like TJ a High School?
LikeLike
NYC High schools can pick and choose who they wish to admit, by the logic employed by the anti-choice folks here, this makes our High Schools private schools. See how easy it is to pour water on this absurd assertation?!
As for charters, they are not allowed to force students to test in, they must hold blind lotteries for applicants within their districts. They also can not by law charge tuition. They are public schools who serve their districts. Anyone who claims that charters are not public schools have no credibility as its an obtuse statement that holds no truth.
LikeLike
Simply put: Public schools are not allowed to “counsel out” students who do not conform. Charters do it all the time. Charter schools are not public schools as they do not play by the same rules.
LikeLike
Public schools are allowed to have admission tests?
LikeLike
Yes, most if not all NYC High Schools have admissions testing, most middle schools do as well. The high performing schools can not seat everyone in their ‘zones’ and have long wait lists, yet they are not deemed private nor criticized for ‘creaming’. This is the fact that makes the anti choice claim a complete double standard.
Here is a summary of the admissions policy at MS51 where our new mayor sends his children, the last sentance is quite relevant:
Admissions: Restricted to students who attend District 15 elementary schools. Students must have test scores of at least level 3 and 4 on the 4th grade ELA and math tests. Applicants are also asked to provide a copy of their 4th- and 5th-grade report cards and undergo a brief interview. One incoming 6th grade class is reserved for the french dual language program to accomodate applicants from the french immersion program at PS 58. There are many more applicants for the school than seats available.
http://insideschools.org/middle/browse/school/667
LikeLike
Great question. If the people who wish to charge charters rent want to be credible and not live a double standard, they must also demand rich non charters to pay rent. Schools like PS321, 29 & 58 in Brooklyn have millions in their PTAs kitty, but they somehow avoid the ‘rent tax’. Yet public schools like Success Academy should pay rent because ‘they can afford it’. The rent issue is a blatant double standard and anyone supporting it while opposing non charters having to pay it are hypocrates.
LikeLike
Important to remember a few things about this issue. First, state law mandates that charters located in public space lease it “at cost.” I wrote about this here (shameless plug: http://www.alternet.org/education/despite-common-sense-proposals-ny-mayoral-candidate-deblasio-charter-school-corporation).
Second, though charters only educate 6% of the kids in NY, several times that many are in schools co-located with charters. Thousands more are on waitlists (notorious and unreliable as they may be). Some public schools, in competition with charters, adopt practices and policies charters use. This is all to say that the effects of charters are outsized given the number of kids they enroll.
LikeLike
Owen, the author of the article you site is misquoting state law. Charters are only mandated to pay for space when they actively negotiate a contract directly with a school district for it, not when they are given DoE approved space in empty schools. You can find the law here (last few sentances at the bottom are where you want to read):
http://law.onecle.com/new-york/education/EDN02853_2853.html
In laymens terms, the Office of General Services lists vacant and unused space in schools on an annual basis. Charters can apply for this empty space via the Dept of Ed with no rent or cost requirement in the law. A charter can also negotiate a contract directly with a school district or public university system for space in their buildings and this is where the services would be provided ‘at cost’. The difference is that this is a ‘contract’ with the existing school they move into, when a charter is awarded vacant space they are not in contract with the co-located school.
I hope this helps you better understand the law, it is sad to see the author of that article misquote the law, however, alternet is a far leftwing media source and the article clearly had an anti-charter bias so its no shock he took some artistic liberties with the truth.
LikeLike
That biased, far-left AlterNet author happens to be me, and I don’t believe I was taking liberties with the truth. I did read that law in its entirety — in fact, I linked that very page in the piece. I’m a little baffled that you asked me to read the “last few sentances [sic] at the bottom,” since those were the ones I quoted from. To wit:
“A charter school may contract with a school district or the governing body of a public college or university for the use of a school building and grounds, the operation and maintenance thereof. Any such contract shall provide such services or facilities at cost.”
The provision requiring the state and city to publish a list of vacant spaces doesn’t stipulate that these should be made available at no cost to charter schools. Regarding facilities, though, the law states, seemingly unequivocally, “A charter school may own, lease or rent its space.” If the authors intended for there to be an option to occupy vacant space, it seems like they should have included it here. I see no mention of whether charter “actively negotiate” contracts in the law.
When I spoke to the district and the New York City Charter Center for my crazed leftist AlterNet screed, they had a different take, to be sure, but it wasn’t exactly what you just described. They acknowledged the part of the law I quoted, but argued that the “at cost” part set a maximum cost, not a minimum — basically, that it was a guarantee that charters wouldn’t get bilked or overcharged. I’m aware they publish the list of “vacant space,” but the law doesn’t specify that the vacant space be lent out to charters for free.
The “vacant space” claim seems absurd on its face, though. As plenty of aggrieved co-located traditional schools will tell you, the “empty space” isn’t all cobwebbed broom closets before the DOE decides to co-locate a charter there. These are political and contentious decisions–the idea that charters are merely utilizing fallow ground is ill-informed.
As for contracts, all charters sign 5-year operating agreements with the DOE, though apparently these aren’t lease agreements, since their location is in the words of charter advocates “at the will of the chancellor”. They DO pay a nominal $1 yearly rent, though somehow this doesn’t qualify as a lease agreement either. Maybe it’s a case of following the letter of the law at the expense of its spirit. (I’m quoting from this report, prepared by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools: http://www.publiccharters.org/data/files/Publication_docs/2011%20NAPCS%20Facilities%20Report%20-%20Making%20Room%20for%20New%20Public%20Schools_20110513T104057.pdf)
I divine two things from this jumbled mess. First, the law is shoddily written. It doesn’t give clear enough guidance on leasing of public space– but what it does say, in my admittedly “far-left” and kneejerk anti-charter perspective, is that NY charters should “own, lease or rent” their space, and if doing so in district space, do so “at cost.” Second, Bloomberg’s reading of the law was unique to New York City and basically unprecedented. The chancellor’s and his 2003 decision to use the “vacant space” to co-locate charters rent-free was something of a sea change in charter policy. Whether it’s a creative interpretation of the law, a willful misreading or something else is unclear. And that’s why it’s the subject of an ongoing lawsuit.
LikeLike
Owen, you still have misquoted things in your article. The law does not ‘mandate’ that charters ‘lease space at cost’. What you need to understand is the reality of the term ‘may’ when discussing rent/lease/at cost. in both statues it says the charter may rent or lease as well as may contract with a district for services. May, much like ‘shall’ in legal contracts often is not found to be imperative or manditory. A charter may pay rent does not mean that the charter has been mandated to pay rent. The charter may contract with the district at cost doesnt mean they have been mandated to contract with the district. In your article you claim the law ‘requires’ them to pay for facilities, that simply is not the case.
Let me also point out some incorrect information in your article, not thru fault of your own though. The IBO data you cite showing co locatedcharters receive $600 more is utter bunk. If you open the IBO study you will see it charges charters for, you guessed it……RENT in the form of a subsidy cost (so by the IBOs logic, charters are already paying rent)! They do so at a market rent as well of roughly $2,600 per pupil. The study also does not include the funding for pensions and healthcare for zoned schools. How is pension liabilities a vanishing cost in the IBO report? Its called accounting gimmicks. In reality, charters receive around $13.5k per child, as the IBO study states before it starts adding up a bunch of really make believe numbers. Also in reality zoned schools receive over $20k per student yet the IBO study shows that number to be just $16.5k ish. Now you can be criticized for not studyng the IBO numbers to learn this yourself but I can generally understand people taking for what its worth a report from an office like the IBO. That being said you should really take time to study the funding gap that gives zoned schools on average $6,500 per pupil more in funding then co-located charters when you add in all of the real costs. Here is a link to a report from Save our States about the fundamentally flawed methodology
http://www.scribd.com/doc/173211810/NYC-School-Funding-White-Paper-FINAL
LikeLike
Again, I think the law is poorly written. It has holes wide enough for a hundred some-odd charters to squeeze through. Perhaps “mandate” is a strong word for how the law describes lease arrangements, but it remains the case that the letter of the law fails to outline any way in which unused public space can be lent to charters for free. It simply doesn’t provide for this–the practice is purely the whim of the chancellor. The law does, however, explain how charter schools contracted with the city can lease space: at cost.
If co-located charters aren’t in active contracts with the city, what exactly allows them to operate schools in the city’s space? What legal document regulates their use of this space? I’m genuinely curious about this. It’s incredible to me that there isn’t some binding agreement between city and charter regarding space, how it’s used, and when and to whom the charter can make out its annual $1 rent check.
Again, all this is precisely why the law needs to be reviewed in the court. It’s contentious, yes, but the explanation you provided just isn’t to be found in the law itself.
LikeLike
The PAVE charter school was co-located in PS 15 in Red Hook, Brooklyn in 2008. It took away 10 needed classrooms from this good school. It stayed there as an aggressive and unwanted tenant for four years. The city paid $45 million for a new building for PAVE. this charter was founded by Spencer Robertson, the son of a billionaire named Julian Robertson, who gave $10 million to some of Mayor Bloomberg’s pet projects.http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/spencer-robertson-founded-pave-academy-qualified-article-1.322399
Here is an account written by a teacher and a parent at P.S. 15:
http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2012/09/we-fought-invasion-of-ps-15-real-life.html
Can anyone explain why Robertson didn’t pay rent or pay for space for his vanity project?
LikeLike
Diane, Robinson did not pay rent because PAVE is a public school and public schools do not pay rent. Why doesnt PS15 pay rent?
As for your claim that PAVE took away 10 ‘needed classrooms’, do you have any factual data to back up this claim?
The process for being awarded empty space in schools is highly vetted and rigorous. The General Services office lists vacant space in schools for which charters can apply for. Classrooms being used can not fall under the ‘vacant’ category.
However, may zoned schools cheat to protect space they do not use. When Success Academy Cobble Hill applied for the basement of the building it is in, a floor that had been empty for the better part of a decade, the two existing schools principles had teachers hold makeshift classes in the empty rooms to make it look as if the rooms were being used. This was a total deception meant to block the charter and a dishonest one at that.
LikeLike
Thank you MS for a great and truthful post! Our Reading Lab, Tech Center, Reading Partners classroom, art and music rooms (2) and Science Labs (2) were deemed “empty space” by the DOE. These rooms are used daily by many, many children and staff, including for after school programs and clubs. We have been fighting co-location in our school as well as charters actively getting parents to sign up only to have most of the children “counseled out” because they didn’t “conform”. We intend to keep up the good fight to save our school. We hope our new mayor and chancellor will help restore our budget, staff and services.
LikeLike
Diane, PS 15’s enrollment had shrunk from 685 in 1992 to 422 in 2004 to 358 in 2007, the year before the co-location with PAVE. The DOE’s space utilization “blue book” lists the building capacity as 676, with a “target” capacity (which is based on K-3 classrooms of no more than 20 kids and grade 4-5 with no more than 28) of 551. The review of the school on the highly respected and objective InsideSchools website lists the school’s “downside” as “Enrollment needs to increase.”
As you have noted many times, public schools belong to the entire public, not to any particular subset or interest group. The affected school is obviously in the best position to understand its needs and should have a large say in what happens to its space, but not the final say. There clearly was and is underutilized space at PS 15, and the same situation exists in many facilities around the city, especially where gentrification and/or the Great Reverse Migration has led to a large drop in the population of school-aged children.
Since there seems to be far less conflict between the hundreds of DOE schools that are co-located, perhaps whatever they’re doing differently should be captured in a best practices document and put into place when charters co-locate in DOE facilities. And it should be noted that there are benefits to being co-located with a charter: any DOE-financed physical upgrades made to the charter portion of the school need to be matched dollar for dollar in the non-charter portion, and co-locations may prevent the most severely under-enrolled district schools from being closed outright.
LikeLike
Tim,
The enrollment levels do not provide a rationale for giving public space for free to a billionaire, nor for spending millions of public funds to give the billionaire a school to have as his personal hobby. The invasion of PS 15 by the billionaire Robertsons was wrong and you should be embarrassed to defend it.
By the way, the new city Chancellor, Carmen Farina, is president of the Friends of PS 15 and lives in the neighborhood. I don’t think she will forget what the DOE did to that good school by co-locating a billionaire’s charter in it.
LikeLike
Diane, PAVE isnt even in the PS15 building anymore. PS15 got its way and PAVE is now gone. Why are you still upset over it?
http://new.pentagram.com/2013/02/new-work-pave-academy-charter-school/
Look how amazing that school looks. I wonder what the anti choice movement will come up with now to attack PAVE since its moved to its own space and no longer ‘steals’ vacant space from a half full PS15 building.
LikeLike
Diane, you are conflating two completely separate issues. I know there is plenty of excess capacity in a large number of DOE schools, and I believe it should be granted rent-free to charter schools or new/growing/relocating DOE schools. This includes schools like Castle Bridge, which is co-located with a traditional district school, e.g.
Setting up a new division/department to somehow means-test charter schools to determine whether or not they should be charged rent (and how much) is so preposterously far afield from the DOE’s core mission that it doesn’t merit serious consideration, in my opinion.
I will say this, though, now that I’ve seen MS make the ridiculous claim that Success schools educate the same proportions of special ed, free-lunch eligible, and ELL students as their district counterparts: I would strongly support, and indeed encourage de Blasio and Farina to enact, a rule that would completely bar from DOE space any operator who does not let new kids into their school up until the terminal grade, for K-8 schools, and up until 10th grade for high schools. These are the rules that DOE schools, even the selective high schools and all unzoned/lottery schools, have to follow.
When fully operational, the Success network will operate a K-12 system where the last entry point will be the very first day of 3rd grade. If I were in charge, forget penny-ante stuff like making them pay rent: I would put an immediate end to any future Success schools in the pipeline and phase out any Success school currently using DOE space until they permanently changed their admissions procedures.
LikeLike
Tim,
“When fully operational, the Success network will operate a K-12 system where the last entry point will be the very first day of 3rd grade.”
To what do you base this claim upon? What makes you think this statement is correct?
LikeLike
Sure, MS, here’s a link to the network’s “how to apply” page, which states: “Though Success Academy schools will all eventually serve Kindergarten through 8th grade, our schools only accepts [sic] applicants through 3rd grade.” http://www.successacademies.org/how-to-apply/
As a Success parent, surely you are aware that the first day of school is the final entry point for new kids every year, and that kids who leave during the year aren’t replaced.
Finally, a quick glance at the EIS’s for co-located Success middle schools and high schools makes it perfectly clear that those facilities are open only to children who graduate from the feeder elementary schools–there is no access at all for anyone else.
It’s a pretty neat trick! It allows the network to lock in the benefits that attrition can have on test scores while simultaneously claiming there isn’t room for new kids from the outside. It’s unfortunate that SUNY has completely dropped the ball on this, but that doesn’t mean the DOE has to. The most popular and oversubscribed high schools in the city–Stuy, ElRo, Townsend Harris, etc. –they fill seats lost to attrition up until 10th grade. The most popular and oversubscribed K-5s, K-8s, and middle schools? Same deal. Success? Nope. And it’s got to change.
LikeLike
Thm, thanks for the link, it does say that they are only accepting applications up to 3rd grade but it does not say that is a permenent facet for the school. It soudns right as most SAs are only in their infancy and go to 3rd grade. The SA we are in is only K-2 at this point so they can not accept applicants for future grades that do not exist. No where on the link you provided does it say that SAs permenent plan is to stop accepting applications from 3rd grade. It would be all but impossible in reality given turnover ratios, if they stopped at 3rd grade by 12th grad a group of 25 kids would be down to a handful and unsustainable in practice. So we can comclude that the SA linke you provided does not back the claim that you are making. I am not saying you are incorrect, but the data you provide simply doesnt back your claim.
You also discuss some EIS data, can you provide that for review as well? Thanks
LikeLike
MS, yes, many Success schools are incubating and only offer K-2 or K-3. However, the original schools have stuck to the K-3 entry, despite high attrition rates in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades. It’s clear that this is going to be the ongoing model, whether or not they’ve gone to the trouble of labeling it as “permanent” on the website.
Here is the EIS for the proposed Success high school in Manhattan. Not only does it affirm the permanence of the K-3 entry structure and the lack of entry points for non-Success kids, it states Success may not even promote all of its own kids to the high school. I wonder if Success has made this clear to parents at the existing feeder schools.
Click to access SuccessHSatNormanThomas_vFINAL1.pdf
To repeat: Success plans to operate a network of K-12 schools where the final entry point will be the very first day of 3rd grade. This despite high attrition rates in its upper elementary and middle school grades, and what looks to be a culling of its own students before starting high school. Don’t just take it from me: ask your principal, ask HQ, ask Eva.
LikeLike
Tim, It is not clear that only accepting 3rd grade apps is an ‘ongoing model’ as you claim. It seems this is your opinion but it clearly is not a stated fact based on the SA’s application page. You do not have the available data to make the claim that SA plans on capping applications on the first day of 3rd grade as a system wide plan. In fact the language of SAs application page clearly hints that they will open application up to later grades by stating that eventually they will extend to 8th grade. This seems more then logical given they are in their infancy and do not have later grades to apply into at this time.
As for high attrition rates in 3rd-5th grades in existing SAs, can you cite those rates? My understanding is that their attrition rates are lower at those SAs then the co-located schools. It would also be next to impossible to have a high school wtih these alleged high attrition rates. Perhaps you could provide some data showing these attrition rates? Also, can you prove those leaving are the students who underperform?
Reading threw the EIS it only speaks to the plans for high school for the lower SAs currently located in Harlem, to me this reads as a preference not a policy. The report does not explicitly say that the SA HS in Manhattan would not accept outside students, yet it does clearly state that the schools purpose is for the children in SA’s in Harlem. This is not that out of the ordinary, surely you are farmiliar with Hunter College system in Manhttan? They are not chartered but also public and they give preference to children who attend their lower schools and matriculate up thru the system. It does seem possible that some SA students in Harlem may not be able to get into the SA HS in Manhattan if seats are not available. That would be a big problem and all the more reason to allow the system to expand.
LikeLike
As a SA parent of a SA scholar, I am really unconcerned with HS. I think the system in NYC is amazing for HS and with my childs advanced education from SA he will allow for a multitude of excellent choices for HS citywide depending on what direction my child wants to go. I can honestly say we may not chose to go to a SA HS if we were accepted, we may find another option more viable.
For me the key is getting thru 8th grade as the middle school system in NYC is a bit disheartening. At the very least to get thru 5th grade as our local zoned school is a failure in our view, that is why we left it for SA.
LikeLike
MS, imo you’ve crossed the line between healthy skepticism and outright denial, so this will be my final word on the topic.
Again, your network loves to tout its user-friendliness and open lines of communication, so if you don’t believe the evidence I’ve presented here, I strongly encourage you to simply call or email your school, the network’s central administration, or even Eva herself. Heck, last year they got back to a non-Success parent like me in a matter of days when I emailed to ask whether a proposed Success K-8 opening in my home district would be accessible to kids after the first day of 3rd grade (the answer? You guessed it–no.).
While I believe that kids who leave invariably tend to be lower scorers than those who stay, I will retract my comment about the impact of attrition on test scores. Attrition is relevant to Success’s claim that families are desperate for quality choices, and the corollary that this demand justifies rent-free co-locations. Failing to backfill empty seats undermines these arguments entirely; failing to admit any new kids after the first day of third grade completely undermines the networks claim that they are public schools, period.
You can do the attrition look-up yourself at the state report card site: https://reportcards.nysed.gov/
LikeLike
Tim, thanks for the link to the attrition rates, I look forward to reviewingto see if your claims match the data. That being said I am not being dishonest, I just want to see a claim supported with factual data and in this case it isn’t. You may be right but at this time you can not say that SA blocks entry system wide at 3rd grade for good as a policy decision that is in place for good. While it is the case for the school at this time, that is only due to the fact that they only go to 3rd grade or lower in the majority of their locations, in fact half do not even go to 3rd grade yet. However, I have shot off an email to the school to get thier view on things. I personally dont see how they could field a HS from kids that start at 3rd grade with no new entry and high attrition rates, there simply would not be enough kids left. I base this on simple logic and what I am reading. I can see how you come upon your opinion but it doesnt seem to hold water with the data we have.
Clearly the Manhattan HS is meant for SA students in Harlem as a choice for HS and clearly they will have a prefered entrance right, this is not out of the ordinary fro school systems at the high school level in this city.
LikeLike
So Ive reviewed the data from the link Tim provided, it does not give you attrition rates so I had to extract the enrollment figures from the annual report cards. Only the Harlem SAs have reports going back a solid 3 years as the Bronx, Manhattan and Brooklyn schools are only in the K-2 stages at this time. So we can focus on SA Harlem 1-5 alone. Here is what I found using the data from 2009-2012:
In 2009 SAHarlem had 451 kids in K, in 2012 they had 593 in 2nd a growth rate of 31%
In 2009 SAH had 485 kids in 1st grade, in 2012 they had 507 kids in 3rd grade, a growth rate of 4.5%.
In 2010 SAH had 288 kids in 2nd grade, in 2012 they had 307 kids in 4th grade, a growth rate of 6.6%
.
What this data does not tell us is the attrition rates of the original set of children who start, it is possible that attrition is very high, but so to is the addition of new children. That being said, it is very clear that their attendance as a whole is growing and at a faster rate as the school matures. This also does not answer the theory of the school blocking new entry after 3rd grade forever. But what it does do is show that if SA has an attrition problem it is not hurting their student population as demand far outweighs any possible attrition.
LikeLike
MS, attrition is measured by looking at a particular grade or cohort of children, not the total school enrollment. Of course a school’s total enrollment will rise as it expands from a K-1 into a K-2, K-3, K-4, etc.
The first Harlem Success school, e.g., had 73 2nd graders in 2008. In 2009 they were down to 62, meaning that even if they did add new third-graders at the start of the year, it wasn’t nearly enough to offset attrition. (This drop and its timing also support the contention that Success counsels out kids at the end of second grade/beginning of third, before they’ll take the NYSED math/ELA tests.)
The cohort lost more children in 2010, down to 59; in 2011, it went down to 47, and in 2012, down to 40. In total, this cohort lost 45% of its students to attrition in 4 years. Three years of steep losses and no new children added. Harlem 2? 91 2nd graders in 2010, 82 3rd graders in 2011, 72 4th graders in 2012.
One other note: in a couple of previous posts you have insinuated that what Success is doing is no different from the process at Hunter College Elementary/High school, and that Hunter’s process is typical for schools in New York City. Neither assertion is true. Hunter admits 50 kids per class for K-6 (almost none of these kids leave, and they are admitted to the HS program automatically), but the overwhelming majority of its HS students (225 per grade) test in for entry at 7th grade. Furthermore, while Hunter is a public school, it is not a DOE school, nor is it housed in DOE space. As I stated before, all the selective/lottery DOE schools accept new students to fill vacant spots every year until the terminal grade for K-5 and K-8 schools and until 10th grade for high schools.
Please do let us know when your network has confirmed its permanent, ongoing policy of not accepting any new children after the first day of third grade.
LikeLike
Tim, I am looking at a specific cohort, my data is for the entire system of SA schools tracking each grade as they progress from K-3 in the Harlem system. You are cherrypicking one specific SA, so if you chose to cheerypick lets look at that school in total. Here is their report card.
Click to access RC-2012-310300860897.pdf
As you can see in 2009-10 it had 145 children in K. In 2010-11 that group of 145 had risen to 156 1st graders, and in 2011-12, the last year on record, you see they have 183 2nd graders. Now as I mentioned this doesnt tell us how many of the orignal 145 kindergardners in 2009-10 are part of the 183 2nd gradres in 2011-12 but clearly they are not losing their student base. Lets now look at the 1st graders from 2009 as they went up to 3rd grade, we see they went from classes of 125 1st to 130 2nd to 135 3rd graders. Again, we cant tell attrition rates but clearly the classes are growing as they get older. Also note that K in 2010-11 started at 135 and went up to 140 1st graderson 2011-12, again, growing class . If you believe they have an attrition problem then why are their classes growing year over year in these grades?
You then claim that they counsel out at the end of 2nd grade/beginning of 3rd grade. Ok, lets look at the data on kids who passed from 2nd grade to 3rd grade in the Harlem system over the years:
In 2009 SAH had 485 kids in 1st grade, in 2012 they have 507 kids in 3rd grade. So if they councel out children between the end of 2nd grade and beginning of 3rd why are their more children in their 3rd grades now then at any point in their history?
Now lets look at those who started in 2nd grade starting in 2009:
In 2009 SAH had 288 kids in 2nd grade, by 2012 they have 307 kids in 4th grade. Again, if they are counceling out, why do they have more 4th gradres in 2011-12 then they had 2nd gradres in 2009-10?
It is abundantly clear that SA does not have an attrition problem based on their growth figures. It is possible they are losing kids but picking up more then they lost. Regardless, I would not make a claim that they have an attrition problem when the data I link to support it shows something completely different.
LikeLike
MS, that must have been an awful lot of trouble to look all of that up, and especially to compile the cumulative numbers for the Success schools in Harlem, but unfortunately they have no relevance to what we are discussing. We aren’t talking about attrition across the network or a group of schools, and as you as a Success parent know, parents apply to individual schools.
What would be relevant is if you could find a Success school with a cohort that was larger in fourth grade than it was in third. If you find one, let me know. And of course do post when Success gets back to you.
LikeLike
MS, surely by this point you’ve heard back from Success. Please just check in one last time to let us know they’ve confirmed their current and future admissions policy is that the first day of third grade is the last and final entry point for any new students. Thanks!
LikeLike
Hello, MS? Are you there?
LikeLike
Half-million dollar salaries? That alone should spell it out for you.
LikeLike
I see no problem in principle with Charter Schools being charged rent for space they occupy. However, such a move will force them to either demand more money based on imputed rent calculations or start to charge students. My guess is that Mayor de Blasio will nix this. If he wants to close Charters, then that is what he should try to do without playing silly games.
LikeLike
If they are charged rent, they should receive an increase in state funding for the exact amount the rent charge is, that is the only way it could be legally allowable.
Currently charters are given funding only for operating costs, not facility costs, this is why they do not pay for the facilities, the state gives the facilites costs to the zoned school. If you wanted to be truly fair, you could divide up the costs of managing the building and divide it between the schools and they would get funding for the amounts in question. This would end up forcing the zoned school to receive less money however, as they currently pay 100% of these costs, if they paid say 50%, they would have their funding reduced and that money would go to the charter to cover their portion of the costs.
Of course, this is if you wanted to be fair about it. But something tells me if funding was cut from the zoned school and raised for the colocated charter school the anti choice folks heads would explode.
LikeLike
It is illegal to charge public schools rent, charter schools in NYC are public schools. THey deserve the space they colocate as much as non charter schools do. To charge rent based on how rich a charter is is blatant discrimination and will get smoked by the first judge it sees. The unions have already tried to force Success Academy to pay rent thru frivilous lawsuits and the NYState courts have tossed the attacks out.
If you could somehow force a public charter school to pay rent you must also force the state to give them the money to pay said rent.
CHarters are already severely underfunded , they are given 13.5k per student while non charter schools get over 20k per child. Rent is just a ploy to attack charters and it is against state and federal law.
LikeLike
I really don’t know where you get your info. Anyone who is serious about educating children knows CS do NOT provide an education to ANY child that walks in. PS are seriously underfunded. Class sizes have gone through the roof. Discrimination? Let’s discuss the horror stories of current and former students and parents and CS.
LikeLike
Is accepting every student who walks in the door a defining characteristic of a public school?
LikeLike
I’m not going to get into this with you as you seem to be pro CS. HOwever, several years ago a colleague and I attempted to register our “children” in several charters around NYC. Mine got through without a hitch. My friend was told “someone will get back to you”. One CS principal offered to speak to me on a Sunday and interview my child. (Discrimination in high gear!) So, accepting any student who walks through the door is just ONE of many characteristics of a public school.
LikeLike
I am generally in favor of allowing students to have a large number of options.
In this case, I think it is important to define what folks mean by public schools. If a public school must accept everyone who lives in a neighborhood, than there are a number if magnet schools that must not be public schools. If you want a definition of public schools that will include these schools, the definition of public school needs to be based on something else.
LikeLike
TE:
You would think!
LikeLike
Charters like high schools in NYC have an admissions policy. FOr HSs they test (something the anti choice movement hates) and pick the best students from the test results. Charters do not require tests, they have blind lotteries. You should watch the award winning documentary ‘The Lottery’ about Success Academys lottery process. It is heartbreaking seeing the thousands of families who do not get seats via the lottery cry in fear and destitution at knowing their child has to go back to their failing zoned school knowing a chance at the best education in this country has been missed for the year.
Public charter schools also receive almost $8,000 less in state funding per student then non cahrter schools, so if you believe non chartered schools are underfunded then you must really think that public charter schools are getting completely ripped off. Now toss in the illegal ‘rent tax’ discrimination attempt and you see what charters are up against.
As a parent of a high performing charter school that is one of the best overall schools in the entire state, seeing the anti choice movement take power in NYC is very troublesome. Everything that we have worked for to have a great education option for our children in this city is now at great risk as the new power class wants us to go back to the old failing ways that forced parents like us out of the cities generations ago!!!
LikeLike
Teachingeconomist, The anti choice movement can not show any legitimate logic that would define non profit charter schools like Success Academy are not public. The school must hold blind lotteries, can not charge tuition, is funded on a per pupil basis by the states Board of Regents and is held to very strict oversight from the BoR as well as the Dept of Ed in the form of annual audits and financial statement submissions as well as tax retunrs that are open for the public to review.
The only real difference between charters and non charters are that they are non union and that is really what this is all about!
LikeLike
There are some other differences that might be talked about involving the regulatory oversight of charter schools verses traditional public schools. I have argued here that at least some of these differences are reasonable given a parents ability to choose a school and the small scale of charter school operations, but people of good will could differ on the required extent of regulation. For example, I think that virtual for profit schools are probably a bad idea in densely populated regions, perhaps acceptable in sparsely populated places. Organizations offering virtual classes, like The Art of Problem Solving, seem like a very good idea and should be seen as a substitute to live classes.
LikeLike
For the record, out here in the ‘burbs, the few charter schools that exist not only have to pay for their own space, but they must also FIND their own space. Suburban parents would not even consider putting two schools in the same building, or giving away public property to a private entity. And when charters in the ‘burbs find space, they lease it (Evergreen Charter School in Hempstead), or raise funds to build their own schools (Roosevelt Children’s Academy in Roosevelt). And no one balks at this. And funny, it’s these smaller, single location schools that are paying their own way without a peep, while the multimillion dollar charter franchises are whining and throwing tantrums because they don’t want to lose their free ride and fat executive salaries. You want to open a charter? Fine. Find your own space, and pay for it. Don’t expect my public school kids to give up their cafeteria, gym, library, and science labs because YOU don’t want to pay for your own.
LikeLike
For a whole host of reasons, I don’t think this is a useful comparison. The first reason is the sheer size and scale of the NYC DOE, which allows it to operate scores of buildings that operate significantly under their physical capacity. Suburban districts would move quickly to close, sell, or consolidate such facilities.
Enrollment patterns are also far more predictable and slow-moving in the suburbs, especially “mature” suburbs like the ones within 50 miles of New York City. Zoning laws mean there’s no chance of an explosion in growth, and losses tend to happen incrementally. Even if overall enrollment in the city schools appears to have plateaued, there has been extreme volatility in some districts. Gentrification can cause a spike in enrollment in some places, huge losses in others.
I agree with you that there is probably room for improvement in how co-locations happen, but it’s undeniable that there is room in many schools, and many, many harmonious co-locations between DOE schools.
LikeLike
A magnet school is not in the same category as a charter. The district’s responsibility is to provide a free and appropriate education to all children. Whether this is at a comprehensive school or a magnet school doesn’t matter if they are both operated by the district. A private entity does not have the responsibility that the state does. The rent they pay is the cost imposed on the home district for education of the students they can’t educate in the space the charter wants to use. It’s the opportunity cost.
Talking about selective enrollment in a vacuum is myopic. We might as well say that public schools give up their public status on a course by course basis by having prerequisites. The fact that a student who doesn’t qualify for Honors Algebra II has to take regular Algebra II doesn’t make the school nonpublic.
If a charter operator would take Dr. Ravitch’s district level challenge, the issue would go away except they’d have to come up with something for all those other kids.
LikeLike