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 4th or 8th 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 1st 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


63%


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.


62%


38%

WNY Charter Schools


67%


33%

BPS District Schools

6

Economically Disadvantaged Students



73 PS 61 AT 171 99

72 BUILD ACADEMY 97

68 PS 82 96















54 PS 17 93







































18 PS 81 79









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










































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





















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.

BP

S D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

ls, 4

6%

BP

S D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

ls, 5

4%

WN

Y C

har

ter

Sch

oo

ls, 2

5%

WN

Y C

har

ter

Sch

oo

ls, 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






























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 CREDO1 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

Gra

de

s se

rve

d

Nam

e o

f

sch

oo

l

Eco

no

mic

ally

Dis

adva

nta

ged

Afr

ican

Am

eri

can

Lati

no

Wh

ite

Stu

de

nts

wit

h

Dis

abili

tie

s

Lim

ite

d E

ngl

ish

Pro

fici

en

cy

Fre

e o

r R

edu

ced

Lun

ch

Att

en

dan

ce

Susp

en

sio

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


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 Aloma D. Johnson Fruit Belt Community Charter School

100 89 7 0 15 3 100 94 20


K-8 BUILD ACADEMY 97 92 3 2 24 ** 92 90 41

19

Gra

de

s se

rve

d

Nam

e o

f sc

ho

ol

Eco

no

mic

ally

Dis

adva

nta

ged

Afr

ican

Am

eri

can

Lati

no

Wh

ite

Stu

de

nts

wit

h

Dis

abili

tie

s

Lim

ite

d E

ngl

ish

Pro

fici

en

cy

Fre

e o

r R

edu

ced

Lun

ch

Att

en

dan

ce

Susp

en

sio

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


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


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 Expands2. 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

Documents