Summary of Findings and Recommendations...Proposals_FINAL.pdf) released on behalf of the SUNY Trustees on January 2, 2018. DREAM Mott Haven proposes to open in August 2019 with 81

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Proposal to Authorize DREAM Charter School

to Operate the Proposed DREAM Charter School Mott Haven and

DREAM Charter School Hunts Point

September 30, 2018

Charter Schools Institute State University of New York

SUNY Plaza 353 Broadway

Albany, NY 12246 (518) 445-4250

www.newyorkcharters.org

SUNY Charter Schools Institute ■ Summary of Findings and Recommendations ■ DREAM Charter School Mott Haven & Hunts Point 1

http://www.newyorkcharters.org/

Executive Summary The board of trustees of DREAM Charter School (“DREAM” or the “education corporation”), a not-for-profit charter school education corporation authorized by the State University of New York Board of Trustees (the “SUNY Trustees”) to operate one school, seeks the authority to operate two additional charter schools to be located in public or private facilities in New York City Community School District (“CSD”) 7 and CSD 8 in the Bronx. The education corporation submitted the proposal for authority to operate DREAM Charter School Mott Haven and DREAM Charter School Hunts Point (“DREAM Mott Haven” and “DREAM Hunts Point”) to the SUNY Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”) on June 25, 2018, in response to the Institute’s Request for Proposals (the “RFP”) (available at: http://www.newyorkcharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2018-Request-for-Proposals_FINAL.pdf) released on behalf of the SUNY Trustees on January 2, 2018. DREAM Mott Haven proposes to open in August 2019 with 81 students in Kindergarten, will add 162 students in two grades most years, and ultimately serve 648 students in Kindergarten – 4th grade and 6th – 8th grade during its first charter term. DREAM Hunts Point proposes to open two years later in August 2021 and follow the same growth cycle. DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point will fill all seats that become available through attrition in all grades throughout the school year. DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point will replicate the highly effective instructional program implemented at DREAM, which opened in 2008 in CSD 4 in Manhattan. As applicable, information regarding the renewal history, academic performance, and student discipline for the school is presented in Appendix A. DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point will contract with the charter management organization (“CMO” or the “network”) Harlem RBI Incorporated, doing business as “DREAM,” a New York-based Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, for support in multiple areas including finance, development, talent, and student recruitment. The Institute finds that the proposal for the education corporation’s authority to operate DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point rigorously demonstrates the criteria detailed in the Institute’s 2018 RFP, which are consistent with the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended, the “Act”). Based on the proposal, as amended by the applicant, and the foregoing:

The Institute recommends that the SUNY Trustees approve the proposal to authorize the DREAM Charter School education corporation to operate DREAM Charter School Mott Haven and DREAM Charter School Hunts Point.


http://www.newyorkcharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2018-Request-for-Proposals_FINAL.pdf

http://www.newyorkcharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2018-Request-for-Proposals_FINAL.pdf

Findings Based on the comprehensive review of the proposal and interviews of the applicants and the education corporation board of trustees, the Institute makes the following findings. 1. Each charter school described in the proposal meets the requirements of Article 56 of the New

York Education Law (as amended) and other applicable laws, rules, and regulations as reflected in (among other things):

• the inclusion of appropriate policies and procedures for the provision of services and

programs for students with disabilities and English language learners (“ELLs”); • the required policies for addressing the issues related to student discipline, personnel

matters, and health services; • an admissions policy that complies with the Act and federal law; and • the inclusion of an analysis of the projected fiscal and programmatic impact of the

schools on surrounding public and private schools. 2. The applicants have demonstrated the ability to operate each school in an educationally and

fiscally sound manner as reflected in (among other things):

• the provision of an educational program that meets or exceeds the state performance standards;

• the articulation of a culture of self-evaluation and accountability at both the administrative and board level;

• the student achievement goals articulated by the applicant; • appropriate rosters of educational personnel; • a sound mission statement; • a comprehensive assessment plan; • the provision of sound start-up, first-year, and five-year budget plans; • a plan to acquire comprehensive general liability insurance to include any vehicles,

employees, and property; • evidence of adequate community support for, and interest in, the charter schools

sufficient to allow each school to reach its anticipated enrollment; • the inclusion of descriptions of programmatic and independent fiscal audits, with fiscal

audits occurring at least annually; • the inclusion of a school calendar and school day schedule that provide at least as much

instruction time during the school year as required of other public schools; and, • the inclusion of methods and strategies for serving students with disabilities in compliance

with federal laws and regulations.

3. Granting the proposal is likely to: a) have a significant educational benefit to the students expected to attend each proposed charter school; b) improve student learning and achievement; and, c) materially further the purposes of the Act. This finding is supported by (among other things):

• an extended school year that includes over 1,150 hours of instruction, or 16% more than

the state minimum of 990 for 7th-12th grades and 27% more than the requirements for Kindergarten – 6th grade;


• assistance from the CMO as a partner organization, which will provide the proposedschools with substantial support including instructional leadership, operations, humanresources, talent development, and information technology; and,

• a rigorous curriculum and co-teaching instructional practices currently implemented atDREAM Charter School that have resulted in strong student outcomes and asubsequent full-term renewal from the Institute, which enables DREAM to operatethrough June 30, 2023; and, a strong commitment to continue its successful practicesserving the most at-risk students with multiple programs to address the needs ofstudents with disabilities and ELLs.

4. The proposed charter schools would each meet or exceed enrollment and retentiontargets, as prescribed by the SUNY Trustees, of students with disabilities, ELLs, andstudents who are eligible applicants for the federal Free and Reduced Price Lunch(“FRPL”) program as required by New York Education Law § 2852(9-a)(b)(i).

5. The applicants have conducted public outreach for the schools, in conformity with athorough and meaningful public review process prescribed by the SUNY Trustees, tosolicit community input regarding the proposed charter school and to address commentsreceived from the impacted community concerning the educational and programmaticneeds of students in conformity with Education Law § 2852(9-a)(b)(ii).

6. The Institute has determined that the proposal rigorously demonstrates the criteria andbest satisfies the objectives contained within the RFP, and, therefore, is a “qualifiedapplication” within the meaning of Education Law § 2852(9-a)(d) that should besubmitted to the New York State Board of Regents (the “Board of Regents”) forapproval.

The Institute developed the RFP “in a manner that facilitate[d] a thoughtful review of charter school applications, consider[ed] the demand for charter schools by the community, and s[ought] to locate charter schools in a region or regions where there may be a lack of alternatives and access to charter schools would provide new alternatives within the local public education system that would offer the greatest educational benefit to students,” in accordance with Education Law § 2852(9-a)(b). The Institute also posted the draft RFP for public comment and responded to same.

The Institute conducted a rigorous evaluation of the proposal under consideration including academic and fiscal soundness, and legal reviews. In addition, the Institute engaged independent consultants to evaluate the academic, fiscal, and organizational soundness of the schools based on the criteria set forth in the RFP. Pursuant to its protocols, the Institute, as well as Trustee Joseph Belluck, Chairman of the SUNY Trustees’ Charter Schools Committee, conducted interviews with the applicants, the board of trustees, and key leadership from DREAM.

Background and Description

The existing DREAM Charter School, originally authorized by the Board of Regents, opened its doors in 2008 initially serving students in Kindergarten – 1st grade. The school, which became a SUNY -authorized school on June 8, 2017 through a transfer application submitted to the Institute, currently serves 686 Kindergarten – 10th grade students and will grow to serve students in


Kindergarten – 12th grade, with a projected total enrollment of 866 students at the end of its current charter term. The school is located in privately leased space at 1991 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10029 in CSD 4 in Manhattan. DREAM Charter School earned a full-term renewal on December 12, 2017, and the current charter term enables the school to operate through June 30, 2023. DREAM seeks two additional schools to replicate the highly effective academic program currently in operation. The applicants propose opening these schools in the first and third most at-risk communities for a child to grow up in all 59 communities of New York City; Mott Haven (CSD 7) and Hunts Point (CSD 8) are among the highest in crime, unemployment, teenage pregnancy, and other risk factors. The schools will be supported by the CMO, which will provide substantial instructional leadership and operational support. Mission, Philosophy, and Key Design Elements DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point will share the mission of DREAM:

DREAM’s mission is to prepare students for high-performing high schools, colleges and beyond through a rigorous academic program that develops critical thinkers who demonstrate a love of learning, strong character, and a commitment to wellness and active citizenship. DREAM Charter School inspires all students to recognize their potential and realize their dreams.

DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point will implement the following key design elements: • An innovative curriculum that emphasizes critical thinking and questioning. DREAM Mott

Haven and DREAM Hunts Point will provide a comprehensive liberal arts education that prepares students for active, engaged citizenship. Staff members deliver rigorous inquiry-based instruction to teach children to think critically and imaginatively as well as to grapple with big ideas across all subjects.

• A co-teaching model that reduces the teacher-to-student ratio and integrates special needs

students into the general school population. All DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point classrooms will have co-teaching teams in which two educators share instructional responsibility, resources, and accountability for a single group of students. Co-teaching is designed to improve instruction and meet the needs of all students, including those with special needs, in a general education classroom. A content-specialist teacher will lead middle school classrooms with co-teaching support from learning specialists during core-content blocks.

• A robust data cycle that uses data to inform all aspects of teaching and learning. DREAM Mott

Haven and DREAM Hunts Point will use regular analysis of grade level cohorts’ interim and unit assessment performance to consistently inform classroom instruction. Use of these interim assessments will enable teachers to identify gaps in student understanding and barriers to learning. Quarterly, teachers will analyze data and create action plans with grade teams to identify standards in need of reteaching.


• A whole child approach to teaching and learning that deeply integrates health, wellness, music, and the arts into the overall school program. DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point will prioritize health, wellness, art, and music for students. As part of health and wellness, students will participate in baseball, soccer, swimming, basketball, yoga, and recess. Starting from the earliest grades, every student will be exposed to both music and art and in middle school chose a focus area.

• An extended day that maximizes learning hours. DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point

will use an extended school day to maximize instructional hours and increase student achievement. Students will have access to tutoring, sports, and clubs every day after school and the schools will also offer all its students summer programming that focuses on literacy and enrichment.

• An active family engagement program that fosters parent/guardian participation, leadership,

and advocacy. DREAM’s family engagement team is extremely active and is made up of a full-time director, manager, family support coordinator, and interns. In addition to family-teacher conferences, DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point will engage families through home visits, workshops, community gatherings, and special events. Parents run elections and officers serve yearly terms as representatives of the DREAM Family Action Council.

• A focus on teacher motivation, development, and retention. DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM

Hunts Point will support teachers as they develop their practice. Coaches observe and meet with teachers on a regular basis to provide actionable feedback. Additionally, the schools will use teacher observation rubrics to give normed feedback to teachers five times per year in the areas of culture of learning, essential content, academic ownership, and demonstration of student learning. Moreover, teachers will participate in weekly grade team meetings and three hours of professional development every Friday.

Calendar and Schedule

DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point will offer at least 180 days of instruction each year. At DREAM Mott Haven, the first day of instruction for the 2019-20 school year will be on or around August 26, 2019, and the last day will be on or around June 19, 2020. DREAM Hunts Point will open two years later with the first day of instruction for the 2021-22 school year on or around August 20, 2021, and the last day will be on or around June 24, 2022. Subsequent school years at each school will follow a similar calendar. The school day will begin each morning at 8:00 A.M. and end at 4:00 P.M. DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point will provide students with a total of over 1,150 hours of instruction per year, an increase over the state minimum of 900 hours for 1st – 6th grade and 990 hours for 7th -12th grade mandated by Education Law § 2851(2)(n) and 8 NYCRR § 175.5, and provided at the majority of schools within the New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE” or the “district”).


Academic Program

The school’s academic program is as follows:

• English language arts (“ELA”) (Reading and Writing)DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point ELA curricula for elementary and middle schoolgrades will incorporate thematic units in each grade drawing from The Wheatley Portfoliocurriculum maps. Texts read within the thematic units will provide an interdisciplinaryconnection between content and in middle school the themes serve as a consistent threadintegrated into the humanities curriculum. The schools will use Wilson’s Fundations for phonicsinstruction and the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project for writing and reading.

• MathematicsTo develop students’ in-depth mathematical understanding, DREAM Mott Haven and DREAMHunts Point will use an inquiry-based mathematics curriculum built on the belief that scholarsneed to develop their own problem-solving strategies. In the elementary grades, the mathcurriculum is rooted in Cognitively Guided Instruction, which builds students’ intuition andnumber sense. In the middle grades, the Math in Context curriculum uses realistic, real-worldcontexts that engage students and employs various representations of mathematical conceptsthat encourage retention and flexible thinking. The schools intend to supplement thecurriculum with resources from EngageNY and purposeful problem solving exercises.

• ScienceDREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point inquiry-based science program will utilize FOSSresources, which are aligned to the New York State science scope and sequence. Students willexplore science concepts through real-world, hands-on experiences. Each unit focuses on twoof the schools’ integrated themes and challenges students to apply science content to theirpersonal lives and across subjects. Students will learn to support their viewpoints with evidenceand use inquiry as a driving force for exploring the natural world.

• Social StudiesDREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point students will study social studies not to memorizefacts and dates, but to explore, debate, and understand the concepts that underlie importanttime periods and events in history. The schools’ middle school curriculum is organized inintegrated unit themes and the content for each grade combines global history, United Stateshistory, and geography. The design of the curriculum motivates students to make connectionsbetween events that occurred across geographies and time periods.

Existing School Performance

Please see Appendix A for information regarding the renewal history, academic performance, and student discipline for the school

School Culture and Discipline

The applicants believe that school culture rooted in the whole child, and family support ultimately propels student success and development. The culture of DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts


Point will be rooted in cultivating trust, input, and clear expectations among staff, families, and students. DREAM expects scholars to exhibit behaviors that align with these core beliefs: ● Diversity: We believe in inclusion and we recognize the unique strengths of all people. ● Respect: We show respect for ourselves and seek to understand and honor other’s perspectives. ● Effort and Enthusiasm: We work hard and persevere through challenges. ● Achievement: We have a relentless drive to fulfill our potential and reach our goals. ● Mindfulness: We are aware of our needs as learners and our impact on the community. ● All within a Team: We believe in the power of collaboration and community. The founders of DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point recognize that mistakes and negative choices are expected parts of childhood development, and will work to help scholars learn that poor choices have consequences and good choices lead to positive rewards and opportunities. As a member of the school community, all scholars who choose to undermine the mutually agreed culture will be offered a path to restore trust and learning. Organizational Capacity DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point will receive support from the network, including from the executive director, chief education officer, chief financial/administrative officer, chief talent officer, and chief of staff. The chief education officer will lead the newly established academic oversight function at the network, supported by a managing director of schools who directly manages school principals and three additional directors focused on family and community engagement, programs, and strategy and impact. The network will add these positions to provide internal oversight over academics at all three schools and ensure the qualities in place at DREAM replicate effectively to the new schools. In addition to instructional leadership, the network will provide DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point with significant support services, including information technology, talent development, human resources, fundraising, communications, building maintenance, security, utilities, and insurance. At the school site, principals will supervise teachers with support from the network. Governance The DREAM School’s by-laws indicate that the education corporation board will consist of no fewer than three and no more than 25 voting members. The current members of the board of trustees are set forth below. 1. Richard Berlin (Chair)

Mr. Berlin is the executive director of DREAM (formerly Harlem RBI), a community-based not-for-profit serving more than 2000 kids in East Harlem, the South Bronx, and Newark with team-based programming to provide comprehensive, enriching experience for young people. Mr. Berlin received his bachelor of arts in political science from the University of Wisconsin, his master of science in government from the London School of Economics and Political Science, and certificates in not-for-profit management from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Business.


2. Michele Joerg (Vice Chair)

Ms. Joerg is a former teacher trainer and teacher. She holds a bachelor of science in biology and philosophy from the University of Scranton, a masters in teaching from Marywood University, and a masters in educational administration and supervision from Fordham University.

3. Ashish Doshi (Treasurer)

Mr. Doshi was a founding team member and is a current investment analyst for Soroban Capital Partners, an equity hedge fund. Mr. Doshi received his bachelor of science in economics from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

4. Claudia Zeldin (Secretary)

Ms. Zeldin is a partner at Growth for Good and an accomplished professional consultant with 30 years of marketing and management experience with a strong expertise in strategic planning, fundraising, and business development, market analysis, communications, and branding. She is the managing trustee of her family’s small foundation and a member of Philanthropy New York, having co-chaired its Family Foundation Peer Trustee Network.

5. Jonathan Gyurko (Trustee)

Mr. Gyurko is the founder and CEO of EdCERT, which offers online professional development, certification, and related services to college and university professors. He was a co-founder and board advisor of University Prep Charter High School (authorized by SUNY) and the director of charter schools for the NYCDOE. Mr. Gyurko holds a bachelor of arts in English literature from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a master of public administration in education policy, and a doctorate in politics and education from Columbia University.

6. David Kirsch (Trustee)

Mr. Kirsch is a managing director and senior analyst at Mudrick Capital Management, L.P., where he is responsible for analyzing distressed credit and equity opportunities across a diverse range of industries. He holds a bachelor of science in economics from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

7. Jonathan Schmerin (Trustee)

Mr. Schmerin is a principal in the real estate finance and development department of The Georgetown Company, LLC. He holds a bachelor of arts in economics from the University of Pennsylvania and a master’s degree in real estate finance from New York University.

8. Brad Visokey (Trustee) Mr. Visokey is a director of U.S credit trading at Barclays PLC. He received his bachelor of science in finance from Georgetown University and his masters in business administration from New York University.

Facilities DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point plan to seek co-location in NYCDOE facilities in CSD 7 and CSD 8, respectively. DREAM indicates that it has been in discussion with the district about potential availability; however, space limitations may prevent co-location. If public space is not


available, DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point will request rental assistance, and secure a private facility. DREAM has already begun to pursue this contingency plan and has engaged DBI Consulting, with whom it has worked successfully in the past, to search for private spaces in CSD 7 and CSD 8. Fiscal Impact The fiscal impact of each of DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point on the district is summarized below.

DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G)

Charter

Year

Expected Number of Students

Basic Charter

School Per Pupil Aid

Projected Per Pupil Revenue

(A x B)

Other District Revenue

(SPED, Food Service,

Grants, etc.)

Total Project Funding

from District to Charter

School (C+D)

New York City

School District Budget

Projected District Impact (E/F)

Year 1 (2019-20) 81 15,307 1,239,867 389,749 1,646,616 25,600,000,000 0.006%

Year 5 (2023-24) 648 15,307 9,918,936 6,546,554 16,465,490 25,600,000,000 0.065%

*The NYCDOE budget was derived from NYCDOE’s website: http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/funding/overview. The dates for DREAM Hunts Point are 2021-22 for Year 1, and 20-26-27 for Year 5. Institute finds that the fiscal impact of each proposed school on the district, public charter, public district and nonpublic schools in the same geographic area will be minimal. In the event that a school opens with a slightly larger enrollment, the Institute has determined that the fiscal impact of the proposed school on the district, public charter, public district and nonpublic schools in the same geographic area will also be minimal. The Institute, by using the same district budget for both schools, is being conservative in terms of impact because it is likely that the NYCDOE budget will increase over time when the second school opens. The Institute reviewed the charter schools’ proposed start-up and fiscal plans for each year of the proposed charter term and supporting evidence as well as the education corporation’s budgets for the other school it operates. The Institute also reviewed DREAM‘s Business Plan and fiscal information to determine its capacity to support two additional schools in New York. The Institute finds these budgets and fiscal plans to be sound, and sufficient start-up funds will be available to the new charter schools. The education corporation’s financial profile is available on the SUNY Fiscal Dashboard at www.newyorkcharters.org/progress/fiscal-dashboard/ and in the Appendices to this report.


http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/funding/overview

http://www.newyorkcharters.org/progress/fiscal-dashboard/

Notification and Public Comments The Institute notified the district as well as public and private schools in the same geographic area of the proposed schools about receipt of the proposal, and the proposal was posted on the Institute’s website for public review. The district scheduled a public hearing for October 1, 2018. The Institute carefully reviews and considers all public comments received prior to finalizing its recommendation. A summary of public comments on the proposal is provided in Appendix D. Preference Scoring Education Law § 2852(9-a) requires authorizers to establish and apply preference criteria to applications meeting both statute and authorizer standards. The purpose of the criteria is to prioritize proposals in the event that the number of proposals meeting the SUNY Trustees’ requirements exceeds the maximum number of charters to be issued in 2018. The RFP identified the minimum eligibility requirements and preference criteria required by Education Law § 2852(9-a), as described in greater detail below. Each of the DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point proposals met the eligibility requirements, as evidenced by the following: • the proposal was sufficiently complete, i.e., it included a Transmittal Sheet, Proposal Summary,

and responses to all RFP requests as prescribed by the Institute; • the proposal included a viable plan to meet the enrollment and retention targets established by

the SUNY Trustees for students with disabilities, ELLs, and students who are eligible to participate in the FRPL program (as detailed in Request No. 15); and,

• the proposal provided evidence of public outreach that conforms to the Act and the process prescribed by the SUNY Trustees for the purpose of soliciting and incorporating community input regarding the proposed charter school and its academic program (as detailed in Request No. 3).

As the DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point proposal submissions met the eligibility criteria, the Institute’s evaluation continued with a full review of the proposals, an interview of the application team and board of trustees, and requests for clarification and/or amendments to the proposals. The review process then continued with an evaluation of the proposals in relation to the 10 Preference Criteria contained in the RFP for which proposals can earn credit as described in the RFP’s Preference Scoring Guidance. In the event of a tie for the last charter, both proposals will be rejected unless one applicant agrees to withdraw his or her proposal for consideration in a subsequent RFP. The preference criteria, which in addition to eligibility criteria and the overall high standards established by the SUNY Trustees, include the demonstration of the following in compliance with Education Law §§ 2852(9-a)(c)(i)-(viii): • increasing student achievement and decreasing student achievement gaps in reading/language

arts and mathematics; • increasing high school graduation rates and focusing on serving specific high school student

populations including, but not limited to, students at risk of not obtaining a high school diploma, re-enrolled high school drop-outs, and students with academic skills below grade level;

• focusing on the academic achievement of middle school students and preparing them for a successful transition to high school;


• utilizing high-quality assessments designed to measure a student's knowledge, understanding of, and ability to apply critical concepts through the use of a variety of item types and formats;

• increasing the acquisition, adoption, and use of local instructional improvement systems that provide teachers, principals, and administrators with the information and resources they need to inform and improve their instructional practices, decision-making, and overall effectiveness;

• partnering with low-performing public schools in the area to share best educational practices and innovations;

• demonstrating the management and leadership techniques necessary to overcome initial start-up problems to establish a thriving, financially viable charter school; and,

• demonstrating the support of the school district in which the proposed charter school will be located and the intent to establish an ongoing relationship with such school district.

The proposed schools both earned a score of 28 preference points out of a total of 45. Based on the scores and the other information and findings set forth herein, the Institute recommends that the SUNY trustees approve the authority of DREAM Charter School to operate DREAM Charter School Mott Haven and DREAM Charter School Hunts Point, which will not exceed the statutory limit of 28 charters permitted in New York City by Education Law § 2852(9)(a). Conclusion and Recommendations Based on its review and findings, the Institute recommends that the SUNY Trustees approve the proposal to grant DREAM Charter School the authority to operate DREAM Charter School Mott Haven, to open in August 2019, and DREAM Charter School Hunts Point, to open in August 2021.


0

1

Target: 0.3

40

60

Target: State Median

Comparave Measure:District Comparison. Eachyear, the percentage ofstudents at the school in atleast their second yearperforming at or aboveproficiency in ELA will begreater than that of studentsin the same tested grades inthe district.

Comparave Measure:Effect Size. Each year, theschool will exceed itspredicted level ofperformance by an effectsize of 0.3 or above in ELAaccording to a regressionanalysis controlling foreconomically disadvantagedstudents among all publicschools in New York State.

Comparave GrowthMeasure: Mean GrowthPercenle. Each year, theschool's unadjusted meangrowth percenle for allstudents in grades 4-8 will beabove the state's unadjustedmedian growth percenle inELA.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN GOAL

TestYear

CompGrades

District%

School%

2015 3-7

2016 3-8

2017 3-8

2423

3932

4733

TestYear

TestGrades Effect Size

2015 3-7

2016 3-8

2017 3-8

0.36

0.75

1.01

TestYear School Mean Growth

2015

2016

2017 56.2

52.6

55.3

0

50

100

Target: 75

Dream Charter School Manhattan CSD 4

APPENDIX AEducation Corporation Overview


0

1

Target: 0.3

40

60

Target: State Median

Comparave Measure:District Comparison. Eachyear, the percentage ofstudents at the school in atleast their second yearperforming at or aboveproficiency in mathemacswill be greater than that ofstudents in the same testedgrades in the district.

Comparave Measure:Effect Size. Each year, theschool will exceed itspredicted level ofperformance by an effectsize of 0.3 or above inmathemacs according to aregression analysiscontrolling for economicallydisadvantaged studentsamong all public schools inNew York State.

Comparave GrowthMeasure: Mean GrowthPercenle. Each year, theschool's unadjusted meangrowth percenle for allstudents in grades 4-8 will beabove the state's unadjustedmedian growth percenle inmathemacs.

MATHEMATICS ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN GOAL

TestYear

CompGrades

District%

School%

2015 3-7

2016 3-8

2017 3-8

4828

4928

5830

TestYear

TestGrades Effect Size

2015 3-7

2016 3-8

2017 3-8

1.12

1.16

1.54

TestYear School Mean Growth

2015

2016

2017 63.6

57.3

51.4

0

50

100

Target: 75

Dream Charter School Manhattan CSD 4


Science: ComparaveMeasure. Each year, thepercentage of students atthe school in at least theirsecond year performing at orabove proficiency in sciencewill exceed that of studentsin the same tested grades inthe district.

SCIENCE ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN GOAL

District % School %

2015

2016

2017 82

88

98

66

79

50

100

Target: 75

Dream Charter School

2015 2016 2017

Enrollment ReceivingMandated Academic Services

Tested on State Exam

School Percent Proficient onELA Exam

District Percent Proficient 7.6

10.5

86

132

7.2

17.9

84

141

4.4

6.0

67

111

2015 2016 2017

ELL Enrollment

Tested on NYSESLAT Exam

School Percent'Commanding' or MakingProgress on NYSESLAT

19.4

31

33

26.1

23

29

48.1

27

34

The academic outcome data about the performance of students receiving special educaon services and ELLs above is not edto separate goals in the school's formal Accountability Plan.

The NYSESLAT, the New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test, is a standardized state exam.

"Making Progress" is defined as moving up at least one level of proficiency. Student scores fall into five categories/proficiencylevels: Entering; Emerging; Transioning; Expanding; and, Commanding.

SPECIAL POPULATIONS PERFORMANCE

Manhattan CSD 4

66


2015 2016 2017

% of students suspended

2015 2016 2017

002

Expulsions: The number of students expelledfrom the school each year.

Enrollment

Economicallydisadvantaged

English languagelearners

Students withdisabilies

Retenon

Economicallydisadvantaged

English languagelearners

Students withdisabilies

DREAM Charter School's Enrollment and Retenon Status: 2016-17 District Target School

33.4

12.7

91.1

24.0

13.6

88.2

93.9

92.7

96.1

92.0

92.8

91.9

School ISSRate

School OSSRate

District OSSRate

2015

2016

2017

3.4

3.1

5.8

6.4

2.1

10.5

12.2

Although Community School District ("CSD") and school suspension rates are presented on the same graph, a direct comparisonbetween the rates is not possible for three primary reasons. Available CSD data includes Kindergarten through high schoolgrades and school data includes only the grades served by the school. CSD data are not available that show mulple instancesof suspension of a single student, the overall number of suspensions, the duraon of suspensions, or the me of year when theschool administered the suspension. CSD data showing the difference between in-school and out-of-school suspensions are notavailable. The percentage rate shown here is calculated using the method employed by the New York City Department ofEducaon ("NYCDOE"): the total the number of students receiving an in school or out of school suspension at any me duringthe school year is divided by the total enrollment, then mulplied by 100.

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

89.3

94.1

95.1

Persistence in Enrollment: The percentage ofstudents eligible to return from previous year

who did return

DREAM Charter School Manhattan CSD 4


BALANCE SHEETAssets

Current Assets 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17Cash and Cash Equivalents ‐ GRAPH 1 ‐ 676,231 846,559 1,080,875 1,213,776 Grants and Contracts Receivable ‐ 69,736 73,319 142,202 405,149 Accounts Receivable ‐ 201,073 ‐ 24,560 ‐ Prepaid Expenses ‐ 39,182 95,794 23,076 183,069 Contributions and Other Receivables ‐ ‐ 107,580 103,000 241,347

Total Current Assets ‐ GRAPH 1 ‐ 986,222 1,123,252 1,373,713 2,043,341 Property, Building and Equipment, net ‐ 230,840 167,658 96,158 36,908 Other Assets ‐ 317,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 Total Assets ‐ GRAPH 1 ‐ 1,534,062 1,360,910 1,539,871 2,150,249

Liabilities and Net AssetsCurrent Liabilities

Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses ‐ 62,531 83,916 146,562 112,123 Accrued Payroll and Benefits ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Deferred Revenue ‐ 25,575 ‐ ‐ ‐ Current Maturities of Long‐Term Debt ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Short Term Debt ‐ Bonds, Notes Payable ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Other ‐ 57,062 112,229 ‐ 306,763

Total Current Liabilities ‐ GRAPH 1 ‐ 145,168 196,145 146,562 418,886 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 141,750

Total Liabilities ‐ GRAPH 1 ‐ 145,168 196,145 146,562 560,636

Net AssetsUnrestricted ‐ 1,188,399 1,097,604 1,100,393 1,499,613 Temporarily restricted ‐ 200,495 67,161 292,916 90,000

Total Net Assets ‐ 1,388,894 1,164,765 1,393,309 1,589,613

Total Liabilities and Net Assets ‐ 1,534,062 1,360,910 1,539,871 2,150,249

ACTIVITIESOperating Revenue

Resident Student Enrollment ‐ 4,647,539 6,748,796 6,157,572 6,946,687 Students with Disabilities ‐ 1,122,979 ‐ 1,414,375 1,797,349 Grants and Contracts

State and local ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 970,523 Federal ‐ Title and IDEA ‐ 208,220 239,160 1,003,649 ‐ Federal ‐ Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ NYC DoE Rental Assistance ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Food Service/Child Nutrition Program ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total Operating Revenue ‐ 5,978,738 6,987,956 8,575,596 9,714,559

ExpensesRegular Education ‐ 6,242,003 6,338,237 9,157,383 6,961,834 SPED ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,177,172 Regular Education & SPED (combined) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total Program Services ‐ 6,242,003 6,338,237 9,157,383 10,139,006 Management and General ‐ 938,812 1,518,648 1,840,720 1,437,440 Fundraising ‐ 103,749 132,389 108,469 163,222

Total Expenses ‐ GRAPHS 2, 3 & 4 ‐ 7,284,564 7,989,274 11,106,572 11,739,668

Surplus / (Deficit) From School Operations ‐ (1,305,826) (1,001,318) (2,530,976) (2,025,109)

Support and Other RevenueContributions ‐ ‐ 13,585 29,420 2,201,726 Fundraising ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Miscellaneous Income ‐ 921,827 763,604 2,730,100 19,687 Net assets released from restriction ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total Support and Other Revenue ‐ 921,827 777,189 2,759,520 2,221,413

Total Unrestricted Revenue ‐ 6,700,565 6,435,876 11,109,361 12,138,888 Total Temporally Restricted Revenue ‐ 200,000 1,329,269 225,755 (202,916) Total Revenue ‐ GRAPHS 2 & 3 ‐ 6,900,565 7,765,145 11,335,116 11,935,972

Change in Net Assets ‐ (383,999) (224,129) 228,544 196,304 Net Assets ‐ Beginning of Year ‐ GRAPH 2 ‐ 1,772,893 1,388,894 1,164,765 1,393,309

Prior Year Adjustment(s) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Net Assets ‐ End of Year ‐ GRAPH 2 ‐ 1,388,894 1,164,765 1,393,309 1,589,613

DREAM CHARTER SCHOOL

Opened 2008‐09 (Transfer from NYCDOE to SUNY 2017‐18)

SCHOOL INFORMATION

L‐T Debt and Notes Payable, net current maturities

APPENDIX BFiscal Dashboard



Functional Expense Breakdown

Personnel Service 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17 Administrative Staff Personnel ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Instructional Personnel ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Non‐Instructional Personnel ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Personnel Services (Combined) ‐ 4,855,643 5,353,645 6,287,186 5,968,310 Total Salaries and Staff ‐ 4,855,643 5,353,645 6,287,186 5,968,310 Fringe Benefits & Payroll Taxes ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,131,836 Retirement ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Management Company Fees ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,837,088 1,657,105 Building and Land Rent / Lease ‐ 403,150 294,873 ‐ 1,741,750 Staff Development ‐ 91,531 58,375 98,054 65,472 Professional Fees, Consultant & Purchased Services ‐ 1,253,744 1,486,440 2,090,022 514,380 Marketing / Recruitment ‐ 14,884 10,992 12,270 6,208 Student Supplies, Materials & Services ‐ 373,923 430,420 416,030 294,222 Depreciation ‐ 84,810 109,710 81,329 59,250 Other ‐ 206,879 244,819 284,593 301,135

Total Expenses ‐ 7,284,564 7,989,274 11,106,572 11,739,668

ENROLLMENT 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17Original Chartered Enrollment ‐ 344 396 449 497 Final Chartered Enrollment (includes any revisions) ‐ 344 396 449 497 Actual Enrollment ‐ GRAPH 4 ‐ 344 396 449 497 Chartered Grades ‐ K‐6 K‐7 K‐8 K‐8Final Chartered Grades (includes any revisions) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Primary School District: 0Per Pupil Funding (Weighted Avg of All Districts) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Increase over prior year 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

PER STUDENT BREAKDOWN

RevenueOperating ‐ 17,380 17,646 19,099 19,546 Other Revenue and Support ‐ 2,680 1,963 6,146 4,470 TOTAL ‐ GRAPH 3 ‐ 20,060 19,609 25,245 24,016

ExpensesProgram Services ‐ 18,145 16,006 20,395 20,400 Management and General, Fundraising ‐ 3,031 4,169 4,341 3,221 TOTAL ‐ GRAPH 3 ‐ 21,176 20,175 24,736 23,621 % of Program Services 0.0% 85.7% 79.3% 82.5% 86.4%% of Management and Other 0.0% 14.3% 20.7% 17.5% 13.6%

% of Revenue Exceeding Expenses ‐ GRAPH 5 0.0% ‐5.3% ‐2.8% 2.1% 1.7%

Student to Faculty Ratio ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Faculty to Admin Ratio ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Financial Responsibility Composite Scores ‐ GRAPH 6

Score 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.1

Working Capital ‐ GRAPH 7

Net Working Capital 0 841,054 927,107 1,227,151 1,624,455 As % of Unrestricted Revenue 0.0% 12.6% 14.4% 11.0% 13.4%Working Capital (Current) Ratio Score 0.0 6.8 5.7 9.4 4.9Risk (Low ≥ 3.0 / Medium 1.4 ‐ 2.9 / High < 1.4) N/A LOW LOW LOW LOWRating (Excellent ≥ 3.0 / Good 1.4 ‐ 2.9 / Poor < 1.4) N/A Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Quick (Acid Test) RatioScore 0.0 6.5 5.2 9.2 4.4Risk (Low ≥ 2.5 / Medium 1.0 ‐ 2.4 / High < 1.0) N/A LOW LOW LOW LOWRating (Excellent ≥ 2.5 / Good 1.0 ‐ 2.4 / Poor < 1.0) N/A Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Debt to Asset Ratio ‐ GRAPH 7

Score 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3Risk (Low < 0.50 / Medium 0.51 ‐ .95 / High > 1.0) N/A LOW LOW LOW LOWRating (Excellent < 0.50 / Good 0.51 ‐ .95 / Poor > 1.0) N/A Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Months of Cash ‐ GRAPH 8

Score 0.0 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.2Risk (Low > 3 mo. / Medium 1 ‐ 3 mo. / High < 1 mo.) N/A MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUMRating (Excellent > 3 mo. / Good 1 ‐ 3 mo. / Poor < 1 mo.) N/A Good Good Good Good

Fiscally Strong 1.5 ‐ 3.0 / Fiscally Adequate 1.0 ‐ 1.4 /Fiscally Needs Monitoring < 1.0

N/A Fiscally Strong Fiscally Strong Fiscally Strong Fiscally Strong

SCHOOL INFORMATION ‐ (Continued)

SCHOOL ANALYSIS



‐

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17

Dolla

rs

For the Year Ended June 30

Cash, Assets and Liabilities

Cash Current Assets Current Liabilities Total Assets Total Liabilities

‐

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17

Dolla

rs


Revenue, Expenses and Net Assets

Revenue Expenses Net Assets ‐ Beginning Net Assets ‐ Ending

GRAPH 2GRAPH 1

This chart illustrates total revenue and expenses each year and the relationship those subsets have on the increase/decrease of net assets on a year‐to‐year basis. Ideally subset 1, revenue, will be taller than subset 2, expenses, and as a result subset 3, net assets ‐ beginning, will increase each year, building a more fiscally viable school.

This chart illustrates the breakdown of revenue and expenses on a per pupil basis. Caution should be exercised in making school‐by‐school comparisons since schools serving different missions or student populations are likely to have substantially different educational cost bases. Comparisons with similar schools with similar dynamics are most valid.

This chart illustrates to what extent the school's operating expenses have followed its student enrollment pattern. A baseline assumption that this data tests is that operating expenses increase with each additional student served. This chart also compares and contrasts growth trends of both, giving insight into what a reasonable expectation might be in terms of economies of scale.

This chart illustrates the relationship between assets and liabilities and to what extent cash reserves makes up current assets. Ideally for each subset, subsets 2 through 4, (i.e. current assets vs. current liabilities), the column on the left is taller than the immediate column on the right; and, generally speaking, the bigger that gap, the better.

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

-

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Enrollm

ent

Operating Expenses


Enrollment vs. Operating Expenses

Program Expenses Management & Other

Total Expenses

Enrollment

GRAPH 4

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Dolla

rs

For the Year Ending June 30

Revenue & Expenses Per Pupil

Rev. - Reg. & Special ED Rev. - Other Operating

Rev. - Other Support Exp. - Reg. & Special ED

Exp. - Other Program Exp. - Mngmt. & Other

GRAPH 3



Comparable School, Region or Network: All SUNY Authorized Charter Schools (Including Closed Schools)

‐

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17

Debt

Working Cap

ital


Working Capital & Debt to Asset Ratios

Working Capital ‐ School Working Capital ‐ Comparable

Debt Ratio ‐ School Debt Ratio ‐ Comparable

WORKING CAPITAL RATIO ‐ Risk = Low > 3.0 / Medium 1.4 ‐ 2.9 / High < 1.4DEBT TO ASSET RATIO ‐ Risk = Low < 0.50 / Medium 0.51 ‐ .95 / High > 1.0

This chart illustrates the percentage expense breakdown between program services and management & others as well as the percentage of revenues exceeding expenses. Ideally the percentage expense for program services will far exceed that of the management & other expense. The percentage of revenues exceeding expenses should not be negative. Similar caution, as mentioned on GRAPH 3, should be used in comparing schools.

This chart illustrates working capital and debt to asset ratios. The working capital ratio indicates if a school has enough short‐term assets to cover its immediate liabilities/short term debt. The debt to asset ratio indicates what proportion of debt a school has relative to its assets. The measure gives an idea to the leverage of the school along with the potential risks the school faces in terms of its debt‐load.

This chart illustrates a school's composite score based on the methodology developed by the United States Department of Education (USDOE) to determine whether private not‐for‐profit colleges and universities are financially strong enough to participate in federal loan programs. These scores can be valid for observing the fiscal trends of a particular school and used as a tool to compare the results of different schools.

This chart illustrates how many months of cash the school has in reserves. This metric is to measure solvency – the school's ability to pay debts and claims as they come due. This gives some idea of how long a school could continue its ongoing operating costs without tapping into some other, non‐cash form of financing in the event that revenues were to cease flowing to the school.

GRAPH 7

‐20.0%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17

Percentage


% Breakdown of Expenses

Program Services ‐ School Program Services ‐ ComparableManagement & Other ‐ School Management & Other ‐ ComparableREV. Exceeding EXP. ‐ School REV. Exceeding EXP. Comparable

GRAPH 5

‐2.00

‐1.50

‐1.00

‐0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.002012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17

Score


Composite Score

Composite Score ‐ School Composite Score ‐ ComparableBenchmark

Fiscally: Strong = 1.5 ‐ 3.0 / Adequate = 1.0 ‐ 1.4 / Needs Monitoring < 1.0

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.002012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17

Months


Months of Cash

Cash ‐ School Cash ‐ Comparable Ideal Months of Cash

GRAPH 8

GRAPH 6


APPENDIX C

DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point

Basic Identification Information

Lead Applicant(s): Richard Berlin

Management Company: Harlem RBI Incorporated d/b/a DREAM

Partner Organization: None

Location (District): DREAM Mott Haven: CSD 7 DREAM Hunts Point: CSD 8

Student Pop./Grade Span at Scale: Kindergarten – 8th

Opening Date: DREAM Mott Haven: August 26, 2019 DREAM Hunts Point: August 20, 2021


APPENDIX D

Summary of Public Comments Received During the SUNY Public Comment Period through September 26, 2018.

On or about July 17, 2017, in accordance with Education Law § 2857(1), the Institute notified the district as well as public and private schools in the same geographic area of the proposed school about receipt of the proposal to establish DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point. The notice reminded the district that the New York State Commissioner of Education’s regulations require the school district to hold a public hearing within 30 days of the notice for each new charter application. A redacted copy of DREAM Mott Haven and DREAM Hunts Point applications were also posted on the Institute’s website for public review at: http://www.newyorkcharters.org/request-for-proposals/2018-request-for-proposals-round-2-fall-cycle/dream-charter-school-hunts-point/.

The district scheduled a public hearing pertaining to the proposal for October 1, 2018.

The Institute has not received any independent public comments relating to the proposal to date.


http://www.newyorkcharters.org/request-for-proposals/2018-request-for-proposals-round-2-fall-cycle/dream-charter-school-hunts-point/

http://www.newyorkcharters.org/request-for-proposals/2018-request-for-proposals-round-2-fall-cycle/dream-charter-school-hunts-point/

Documents

Summary of Findings and Recommendations...Proposals_FINAL.pdf) released on behalf of the SUNY Trustees on January 2, 2018. DREAM Mott Haven proposes to open in August 2019 with 81