TO THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION STATE OF NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ROSS GLOBAL ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL, Petitioner, -against- OTICE OF PETITION NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, Respondent. PLEASE TAKE NO TICE that you are hereby required to appear in this appeal and to answer the allegations contained in the petition. Your answer m ust conform to the provisions of the regulations of the Commissioner of Education relating to appeals before the Commissioner of Education, copies of which are available from the Office of Counsel, New York State Education Department, State Education Building, Albany, New York 12234. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that if an answer is not served and filed in accorda nce with the provisions of such rules, the statements contained in the petition will be deemed to be true statements, and a decision will be rendered thereon by the commissioner. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that such rules require that an answer to the petition must be served up on the petitioner, or if the petitioner be rep resented by cou nsel, upon the counsel, within 20 days after service of the appeal, and that a cop y of such answer must, within five days after such service, be filed with the Office of Counse l, New York Sta te Education Department, State Education B uilding, Albany, New York 12234.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
the DOE's concerns at any point, and were understandably shocked with the sudden and
premature publication of DOE's recommendation that the school be shut down
3. In addition, the DOE's report is riddled with conclusory statements not based in
evidence and had the DOE followed its required process, it would have had the proper
information in front of them to make an appropriate decision on renewal with regard to RGA
4. More importantly, the Chancellor's recommendation against giving any type of
renewal -- not even a "short-term renewal" -- is plainly contradicted by DOE's own standards for
renewal. The principal reason given in support of the Report's recommendation is that RGA
finished at the bottom of the list of charter schools for last year. But that ignores RGA's history:
it opened with an admirable first year (which was not graded), it improved during its second year
(with a B grade), and it improved even more in its third year (with an A grade). In
recommending against renewing RGA's charter, the Report relies principally on the low test
scores for last year -- the school's one difficult year out of five -- resulting in RGA being given
an F grade. However, it significantly omits the fact that the F grade was adjusted to a C grade in
accordance with DOE's policy to drop a school's score only two levels due to the higher
standards imposed last year on the grading of the students' tests. Since RGA's grade for the
previous year was an A, its grade for last year was a C. Thus, the average of its grades for the
past three years -- a B, an A and a C, is a 13: ` Certainly, not a grade that should result in non-
renewal, especially with the flexibility that is required by the DOE's own standards and past
practice.
Sign i f ican t ly , as no ted be low, there are m any reasons fo r the low tes t scores tha t year , ch ie f amon g them the fac ttha t 49% o f the te s t ta ke r s we r e n e w to the scho o l , d ue to the a d d i t io n o f n e w g r a d e s a n d in f lux o f n e w s tud e n tsThus, a lmost ha l f o f the chi ld ren tak ing the tes ts had on ly been a t the schoo l fo r one year Had the DOE fo l lowed i tsRen ewa l p rac t ices and prov ided R GA the i r r ight fu l oppor tun ity to comm ent, it would have been ab le to take thesefacts under considerat ion
Education & Human Development ("Steinhardt School"), as well as its good record of
compliance 3
7. As DOE's staff learned during the review process, and more particularly during
their site visits, despite whatever concerns they had about last year, RCA has made a dramatic
turnaround led by an experienced principal and vice-principal dedicated to a professional
administration of the school, many new teachers committed to stay, stronger involvement by
RCA's Institutional Partner, the Ross Institute, a more disciplined environment after last year's
disruption, and a motivated student body with the backing of enthusiastic PTA and parents who
desperately want the education offered by RGA for their children
THE PARTIES
8, Petitioner RCA is a charter school organized and incorporated pursuant to Article
56 of the New York Education Law. It is located on the Lower East Side, at 420 East 12 t h Street,
New York, New York, It is open to students from all of New York City, and its student body
includes children from all five boroughs. Thus, many of them have to commute long distances
on public transit to attend RCA, and they do so eagerly and voluntarily. Presently, 95% of the
students are minority, 67% of them are eligible for free lunch programs based on household
incomes, and 16% of them are classified as special education students. There are actually 23
students who come from homeless families who attend RCA.
The f ina l vers ion o f the DOE Rep or t pers is ts in suggest ing tha t RG A w as g iven "no t ices o f de f ic iency and le t te rso f concern" Ro ss A f f i d , Ex 1 , a t 9 How ever , the DO E w i thd rew , as no t ed i n a f oo t no t e o f the DO E repor t , theNot ice of De f ic iency, bu t , am azingly , DOE st i ll has th is le t ter in i t s Repo r t The le t ter o f concern that w as issuedconc erned issues that were n ot substant ia l and we re qu ick ly resolved In a ddi t ion, the le t ter issued by the StateEducat ion Depa r tment was respond ed by RC A on June 30, 2009 h ighl ight ing the inaccura te s ta tements , but RCAdid not again have a response f rom the Depa r tment A copy O f the June 30, 2009 response is a t tached as Exh ib i t I
arts, science, and social studies. The curriculum highlights project-based learning and problem
solving through interdisciplinary projects, which also provide the students with many
opportunities to interact and work together. The academic program and approach to curriculum,
instruction, and assessment have proven successful over the school's first four years of
operation? The curriculum also provides RCA students with many embedded opportunities for
cultural enrichment, including programs devoted to Chinese language, wellness and health,
technology and media, and the arts.
18 RCA develops and fosters student engagement in learning through rich curricular
experiences, individualized attention for all students, meaningful infusion of media and
technology, and performance-based assessment through which the students' work becomes part
of the curriculum and learning experiences, in addition to providing evidence of how well
students are meeting learning goals and performance targets. To enable individualized attention
for all students, RCA provides small class sizes of 20 to 24 students and a longer school day that
runs from 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., with early dismissal on Fridays. RCA offers inclusion and
support programs for new learners of the English language and for students with special learning
needs. Indeed, as indicated above, 16% of RCA's students are "special needs" students with
Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). RCA serves students with low to severe intellectual
disabilities, providing services for students with classifications of LD (Learning Disability)
Speech and Language Impairment, MR (Mental Retardation), ED (Emotional Disturbance), ASD
(Autism), Hearing Impairment, OH! (Other Health Impairment), and exceptionally gifted. For
example, RCA has one student classified with Autism who is gifted in math and studying college
5 It i s notab le that ROA has recent ly p laced 1 7% of i ts graduates in the e l i te spec ia l ized h igh schools in the C i ty, thehighest percentage of any charter school
5) Resources evident -- SMARTboards, laptops. The building itself is well-
outfitted
6) Ross culture is evident in conversation with community.
7) Arts integration -- Alignment with art classes and subject/content area
8) Ross curriculum in effect -- students generally on-task.
9) Coaches to support teachers and target teacher needs.
10) Establishment of PTA itself
11) Improved curriculum systems in school.
12) Strong leadership team in place and working cohesively.
13) Interactions positive between teachers, students, staff, and parents.
14) Caring culture throughout the building. Observed among students in
hallways and classrooms.
The DOE staff did not report "weaknesses," only "areas for improvement":
1) Continue to improve data systems to track learning, analyze trends and track
student progress.°
2) Use data to differentiate instruction to ensure students are making progress.
3) Use data to support teachers in using the data to improve classroom practice.
4) Establish systems to set strategic priorities (goal setting) for whole school,
individual teachers and their development.
See Alvarez Affid., Ex. 1 RGA's administration, its Board and parents were understandably
elated with this news. Coupled with other positive communications and the lack of any
significant negative feedback, they expected that there would be no problem with the school's
charter being renewed. Despite the obligations of the DOE staff to provide the draft report and
the preliminary decision, as required by their own procedures, as noted above, and otherwise
6 In teres t ing ly , the DO E s taf f acknowledges that there we re data sys tems in p lace a nd jus t wanted them improved_There w ere be ing improved subsequen t ly The s ta f f 's f ina l Repor t , however , asser ts e r roneous ly tha t there were nodata sys tems in p lace_ R oss A f f id , Ex I , a t 3
inform the children's parents that their school was being shut down and that they could attend a
meeting that very week to be held at nearby school (not RCA) for information on how to transfer
their children to other schools for the next year. If this occurred, any chance RCA would have to
respond would be mooted by parents' moving their children to other schools, as well as by the
teachers' leaving for positions at other schools.
40. At the same time the DOE staff was meeting with the RCA's principal, and after a
brief "head's-up" call from Mr. Sternberg, Chancellor Klein called her to the same effect. Mrs.
Ross responded by asking for a copy of the DOE Report and requesting a meeting with the
Chancellor and the RCA Board to discuss it. Within an hour, still without providing either the
school or Mrs. Ross with a copy of the DOE Report, DOE issued to the press and public an
announcement of its recommendation of the closing of a number of public schools and the non-
,renewal of RCA, the only charter school on the press-announced list. At the same time,
someone on the DOE staff leaked information on the closing of RCA by way of an email to a
contact at the Community Education Council of District 1 ("CECI") — a local opponent of
charter schools and RCA in particular. 7 Predictably, reporters and camera crews descended on
the school that afternoon to ask the children and parents corning to pick them up how they felt
about the school being closed — their first notification of DOE's decision. Many children were
reduced to tears, and their parents were shocked and angry about the way they were told.
41 According to DOE's procedures, it was supposed to have first provided RCA with
a "draft report" and give the school "two weeks in which to respond with factual corrections."
Ross Affid., Ex. 4, at 16. Only after that procedure was a final version of the Report to be
submitted to the New York State Education Department. Id. Yet again, DOE violated its own
These ac t ions , in issu ing a press re lease prem ature ly and leak ing in format ion regard ing i ts ac t ions to CEC 1, o f theDO E s ta f f v io la te the i r own C ode o f C onduct , which requires them to keep the i r ac t ions conf ident ia l un t i l f ina l andto avo id communica t ions wi th th i rd par t ies See DOE Handbook, p 16 .
in support of the School. 8 Had there been notice that a decision not to renew was being
considered, many more individuals would have appeared and spoken favorably about the School.
63 On top of the lack of required notice, the DOE staff never requested, as they are
required to do by their Handbook, any "clarifications" from RCA that may have responded to
any concerns of the staff or the Chancellor about renewal of the charter. RCA could have
responded to the specific concerns that have finally been disclosed in the Report and either
rebutted them or, if they were well-taken, suggested remedies or appropriate conditions to the
renewal of the charter.
64. Furthermore, although the Chancellor was expected to issue a formal
determination by August 15, 2010, the determination not to renew RGA's charter was not made
until December 17, 2010, more than four months after that deadline.
65. The DOE's clear violations of its own procedures for the renewal process, as
articulated in its own Handbook, substantially prejudiced RCA's rights and require that the
Report be rejected
THIRD CLAIM FOR REVIEW
(Arbitrary & Disparate Treatment)
66. DOE has treated RCA's application for renewal of its charter differently than it
has for other similarly situated charter schools. These very same recommendations that were
approved by the Board of Regents. In practice, the DOE has repeatedly granted renewals to
charter schools in situations similar to or less compelling than RGA's, and DOE's decision to
recommend against RCA's renewal is arbitrary and amounts to disparate treatment
8 In seek ing to rebu t the s t rong, a lmos t un iversa l suppor t o f the parents , the DO E s taf f re fers to un ident i f ied e mai ls i tasser ts i t rece ived f rom parents vo ic ing compla in ts about the school These emai ls , wh ich are not even quoted,undoubtedly come f rom las t year , when the school was exper ienc ing i ts d i f ficu lt t rans i tion to i ts new space
67xamples of such disparate treatment include the following:
Charter
School
Renewal Decision Based on Comparison to RCA
Pen insu la
Prepara toryChar te r S c hoo l
In December o12009,Peninsular Preparatory
Charter School rece iveda three year renewalwith cond i t ions
Enter ing renewal on ly 65 7% ofstudents scored pro f ic ient on theEL A assessmen t . In Ma th , wh i le theSchoo l achieved 82% pro f ic iency , itonly matched the Ci ty average of82% and fai led to surpass i ts localdis tr ic t at 86 4%n addi t ion,Peninsu la scored an "F" and "C" onits only two Progress Reports uponenter ing renewal As fo r s tudentprogress, Peninsula only scored anI I 9 out o f 55 on i t f i r s t ProgressRepor t and a "C" on i ts second.
RCA scored bet ter byDOE's own s tandards ini ts f i rs t two studentprogress reports, scor ing aB and A on the ProgressRepo r t w i th As in s tudentprogress for each yearR CA on ly had one yearwhere academic data waslo w
South BronxCharter Schoolfor I n t e rna t iona lCul tures an dArts
I n De ce mbe r o f2 0 0 9 ,South Bronx Char terSchool for In ternat ionalCu l tu res and Ar tsreceived a three yearrenewal.
This l im i ted renewa l was due tomixed academic results and a largeamo unt 'o f debt incurred in thecharter 's f i rs t term
Whi le RCA o n ly ha s o n eyear o f m ixed academicresults, it has ne ver hadf inancial instabil i ty orsubstant ia l debt concerns
Opportuni tyChar te r School
In December of 2008,Oppor tun i ty Char te rSchool rece ived a twoyear renewa l w i thcondi t ions
Upon renewal Oppor tun i ty Char terSchoo l on ly had 9% and 143% ofstudents scoring prof ic ient on theELA and M ath assessments In th isdecis ion making process, there wasfour years of poor per formance,Oppor tun i ty Char te r Schoo l 'srenewal repor t c i tes and NYCDOE
accepted the fol lowing as chal lengesfor the School :
•After i ts second year o foperat ion, the school was movedto a new space in Comm uni tySchoo l Dis t ric t 3 The schoo lcites this move as a m ajorchal lenge in i ts f i rs t charteringp e r i o d "ppor tun i ty Char te rSchool Renewal Repor t
•On the 2007-08 ProgressReport the school 's Peer Indexwas 2,55, lower than any othermidd le sch oo l in the c i ty . "
S im i la r to RCA ,Opportunity also c i ted, asdid i ts renewal report, thedi f fi cu l ty o f cha ngingschool locat ions as a factorthat can impact studentachievement.n fact,DOE there , un like fo r
RGA , took th is fac tor in toaccount in ma k ing i tsdeterminat ion.
Fu t u re Le a d e rInst i tu te C harterSchool
In January of 2010,Future Lead er Inst i tuteCharter School receiveda three year renewalconsis tent with the termof i ts renewalappl icat ion.
The sch oo l on ly rece ived a "B , " "C"and "B" on i ts Progress repor ts w i thonly a 26 9 /55, "3" and "C" onstudent progress
Again, RCA scored bet terin i ts f i rs t two ProgressReports as to studentprogress and experienced
on ly one year - 2009 - o fpoor academicperformance.
70. In accordance with the standards set forth in the DOE Handbook, RGA clearly
qualifies for a short-term renewal or renewal with conditions. It)
71. The DOE Handbook defines a Short-Term Renewal as follows:
In cases where a school has demonstrated mixed academic success with its
students, yet demonstrates the capacity to improve on those results and
implement a stronger program upon renewal, a short term renewal may be
granted Short term renewals are granted when there is evidence that a
school has significantly improved but there is insufficient data to support a
full-term renewal. Reasons for a short-term renewal may include the
school not meeting the goals in its charter, substantial staff and leadership
turnover, inconsistent record of financial oversight and debt management
or violations of the terms of the charter.
72. Furthermore, as indicated above, DOE is supposed to be more flexible in passing
on a school's application for its first renewal -- RGA's exact situation. As its Handbook states,
at page 5: "The renewal criteria for schools in their first chartering period may be interpreted
more flexibly and short-term renewals may be granted to schools that meet some, but not all of
the criteria A short term renewal should be received by schools as a call to make significant
improvements."
73 RCA has met most of its charter goals as approved by DOE despite the
difficulties of the move and turnover last year — the only year of its five years of existence in
which it had poor test scores RCA is clearly entitled to a short term renewal of its charter, in
accordance with DOE's own standards. Leadership, with the support of its own institutional
' 0 A "Renewal wi th Cond i t ions" is war ran ted when:In some cases , when a school has dem ons t rated m ixed academic resu l ts or organizational v iab il i ty , renewal
i s con t ingen t u pon change s t o t he p rospec t i ve app l ica t i on o r new cha r t e r. Th is m ay be a m anda t ed c hange t ocur r icu lum, leadership , o r board governance s t ruc ture tha t wi l l y ie ld improved academ ic outcomes d ur ing the nextchar ter ing pe r iod I f a school has de mons t rated success , for examp le, ac ross mos t areas except for one, the renew alcondi t ions may inc lude pu t t ing the school on probat ion unt i l that par t icu lar area is improved
Office of School Improvement and Community Services (NYC)55 Hanson Place, Room 400
Brooklyn, New York 11217
RE: Response to SED's Third Year Comprehensive Monitoring Report
Dear Lisa:
On behalf of the Ross Global Academy Charter School ("RGA"), we want to thank you for your
recent visit to our school. We write to respond to your May 26, 2009 Third Year Comprehensive
Monitoring Report, in which you note areas of strength, non-compliance, and concern.
The Board of RGA is concerned about some of the findings in the Report because we believe not
only that we have demonstrated compliance in the areas noted by the State Education
Department (the "Department"), but that the Report contains several inconsistencies. This letter,
together with the matrix and correction notes, serves as the Board's response to the areas of non-
compliance and concern raised in the Department's May 26, 2009 correspondence. Additionally,
we have attached a copy of our Parent Compact that was first written in August of 2006. (See
Exhibit 1.) We look forward to a corrected Report.
Areas of Non-Compliance:
1. Fingerprint Clearance: The State Education Department was provided with evidence (see
Exhibit 2) of fingerprinting for all staff members mentioned in its Report. We will resubmit thesedocuments. Szeli and Buxton are consultants and Mulhern was a substitute. The clearances for
these three will be provided as well.
2. Teacher Certification: RGA is in compliance with the certification requirements pursuant
to the Charter School law. Under Section 2854, a charter school is permitted to have the lesser
of 5 or 30% of its teachers as uncertified if such individuals meet certain other criteria.
Presently, RGA employs only three uncertified teachers. One of the three non-certified faculty
members is a TFA graduate whose certification was incorrectly reported by the NYSED TEACH
application.
3. Recent Charter Amendments: The Report notes that: (1) RGA is currently serving grades
kindergarten through grades three and grades six through eight; (2) RGA is serving 318 students
versus the 440 approved in the initial charter; and (3) RGA has eliminated its afterschool and
Saturday programs. On May 18, 2009, our authorizer submitted and the Board of Regents
approved retroactive amendments to RGA's charter to address each of these areas, namely, to:
(1) postpone plans to serve high school grades until the proposed first renewal period, beginning
in the 2011-2012 school year, due to insufficient facility space; (2) decrease enrollment from the
projected 500 students to 414 students, at full growth in the 2010-2011 school year as a result of
the grade reconfiguration; and, (3) eliminate all after-school and Saturday school programs due
to lack of participation and fiscal concerns. The Board of Regent's May 18, 2009 Agenda and
Committee Report detailing RGA's proposed amendments to its charter are attached. (See
Exhibit 3.) Accordingly, RGA is in full compliance with its currently approved charter.
4. $1,000.00 Teacher Conference Stipend: The Report notes that this is not being done as
we maintained in our Charter. However, our professional development budget is $160,000
annually. Teachers receive three weeks of professional development during the summer and
weekly support both in class and in professional development meetings. While we are not
providing the $1,000 stipend as specified, RGA is clearly meeting this important need and
simply modified this aspect of professional development, a minor change given the larger
responsibility of operating a school.
5. Chinese Language Instruction: The Report alleges inconsistent implementation of our
Chinese language program. There were two brief periods during the year in which Chinese
instruction was interrupted. Our Chinese teacher's last day was September 18, 2008. From
October 12, 2008 through February 6, 2009, a substitute taught Chinese culture through the
integration of technology and ELA literacy. Another teacher, Ms. Chang, began teaching
Chinese on Monday, February 9, 2009 and was released on Thursday, February 12, 2009. On
March 9, 2009, Ms. Graham officially commenced her permanent assignment as the Chinese
teacher. Although there have been brief periods of interruption in Chinese instruction, we have
consistently tried to implement a strong and successful Chinese language program pursuant to
our charter.
Areas of Concern:
1. The Staffing of Nurses: The Report raised concern over the fact that we did not have a
nurse at both of our School's locations. While we understand the Department's concern, neitherour charter nor the law requires that school nurses be staffed at each school site. To the contrary,
all that is required is that each school district's board of education or, in our case, our board of
trustees, employ one or more school nurses. Our lawyers pointed us to N.Y. Educ. Law § 902;
44 Educ. Dep't. Rep. 129 (2004), which indicates that there was no requirement that a school
district staff each of its schools with a full-time nurse. Based on our student population and
medication concerns employing one school nurse at our 52 Chambers Street location is sufficient
to meet the School's needs at this time. This arrangement was made in consultation with the New
York City Department of Health.
2. Alleged Educational Deficiencies: The Report takes issue with three components of our
educational program: (1) classroom management, (2) professional development and support, and
(3) teacher competency. The issue of classroom management as it is presented in the Report
came as a surprise, given that there was no mention of it during the debriefing meeting.
Furthermore, there are aspects of the Comprehensive Monitoring Feedback Report ("CMFR")
that seem to contradict the finding that classroom management was a notable concern in many
classrooms. (See Exhibit 4.) For example, RGA received 11 "yes's" in the following
Monitoring Items: Transitions smooth and efficient, Positive teacher feedback observed, and
Time on task was well spent. In addition, ongoing professional development has occurred since
August in the areas of classroom management and school culture. Specifically, we have run the
following programs: Responsive Classroom, I Understand, Connected and Respected, Character
Counts, and Love and Logic. (See Exhibit 4.) Through these programs, RGA has researched
and designed a school-wide classroom management program that specifically meets the needs of
our students.
In regard to your concern for our teachers' professional development and support, we find this
observation directly in conflict with your findings of strength, namely that "professional
development has been sought by administrators, through networking, to meet the on-going needs
expressed by the instructional staff' and that "school leadership offers continuous professional
feedback to instructional staff, and teachers agree that the feedback received is beneficial in
moving instructional practice forward." After discussing your visit with our faculty, it became
apparent that several teachers felt their voices were being steered in a negative direction. A
teacher's statement has been provided to reflect teachers' understandings of the conversation,
and is attached hereto. (See Exhibit 5.) Additionally, in the first paragraph of the Summary of
Findings Team Member Report the Department states that, "despite the distance between the
schools, information sharing and collaboration were evident between the two." This statement is
more consistent with our experience and contradicts the area of concern presented above.
Finally, with regard to teacher competency, the CMFR provides that our teacher's strength in
content knowledge was displayed. The CMFR also indicates that our teachers' instructional
strength was satisfactory at all grade levels and subject areas. (See Exhibit 4.) These findings
directly contradict the concerns noted in your Report.
3. 2008 Budget and Financial Matters: In your Report, you mention the $20,000.00 sum
with which we closed the 2008 fiscal year, and you caution us to pay close attention to fiscal
matters to ensure the ongoing fiscal strength of the school. While it is true that we ended the
2008 fiscal year with less than $20,000.00, we are confident that RGA will continue to thrivefinancially and maintain its ability to pay its bills and grow as planned. As with any new charter
school, RGA expected and planned for the uneven nature of Charter School cash flow at its
inception. To handle this natural issue that results from bi-monthly per pupil payments and the
uneven nature of charitable giving, the School secured a line of credit to ensure that its bills are
paid and that the school remains financially solid. We are confident that RGA will continue to
thrive financially and maintain its primary objective, namely, to provide a high quality education
to inner-city students.
With regard to the significant changes in the Budget outlined in the Department's Matrix, the
School is operating consistent with the charter approved by the New York City Department of
Education ("DOE") and the State Education Department, as well as our annual budgets and
forecasts. We have a .78% variance from our approved budget to our actual expenditures for the
2007-2008 school year. With specific regard to the significant changes, we should point out that
in our approved charter, it was entirely clear that Ross Institute, RGA's institutional partner,
would provide a minimum of $632,500 in loans or loan guarantees, and $842,500 of planning
and design support, for total anticipated loans of $1,475,000. One significant unanticipated cost,
however, was incurred as a result of the DOE's decision to locate RGA within Nest+M, which
resulted in $425,187 of legal expenses for RGA before our doors opened. Our institutional
partner fortunately underwrote that cost.
4. Fundraising Goal: Your Report expresses concern over the fact that the stated
fundraising goal of $300,000.00 was allegedly unknown to the School's fiscal and operationsteam. To the con trary, the fiscal team is well awa re of the School's projected fundraising goa lsas these are set forth in the School's budget prepared by them . In addition, the statement appe arsmore targeted than noteworthy since this matter is of little significance. The RGA Board is astrong, well-functioning Board and will continue to communicate its goals in a clear and
effective man ner as it has in the past.
Finally, SED's remarks regarding the School's complaint process inaccurately state that the
Board of Trustees has received no formal complaints from parents during the current school
year. To the contrary, we have shared the parent com plaints received by the Board w ith SED,and they are attache d to our response as an Exhibit. (See Exhibit 14.) RGA continues to addressparent com plaints in a timely and effective way pu rsuant to the processes outlined in our 2008-2009 Student Family Handbook.
In sum, we believe that the areas of non -compliance noted in your Report w ere not issues wherewe w ere out of com pliance. As stated, we have com plied with all of the areas you raise in yourReport, either by way of docum entary evidence or through app roved amendm ents to our charter.The remaining concerns, while important, are contradicted by the findings made in both yourMay 26 t h Report and in the C MFR . As such, we believe that the overall outcome of your thirdyear visit demonstrates that RGA is succeeding in its mission to provide quality education to adiverse student population through the use of innovative and global teaching techniques. Welook forward to working together to continue achieving success for our students.
Thank you for your time and consideration to this matter. If you need any additionalclarifications, please do not hesitate to reach out to any o r all Board mem bers.
Sincerely,
Ross Globa Academy C hat er School52 Chambers Street