2009-10 Annual Report on the Operation of
Charter Schools in Connecticut

Table of Contents

Introduction/Background Information
The Current Charter School Landscape
Accountability
School Performance
Charter Schools Facilities
Demographic Information
Recommendations
Conclusion

1
1
3
4
5
6
8
9

i

 Introduction/Background Information
Enabling Legislation: Connecticut General Statutes (C.G.S.) Sections 10-66aa to 10-66gg.
The State Charter School Grant: In 1996, the General Assembly passed legislation establishing
charter schools in Connecticut. It was the belief of the legislature and the Governor that charter
schools could serve as a catalyst for innovation in the state’s public schools. It was also anticipated
that charters could serve as another effective vehicle to reduce the racial and economic isolation of
Connecticut’s public school students. The funds to operate charter schools are provided through the
state charter school grant.
Fiscal Year
FY 00-01
FY 01-02
FY 02-03
FY 03-04
FY 04-05

Amount
$14,000,000
$14,665,000
$15,568,000
$16,421,250
$19,820,480

Fiscal Year
FY 05-06
FY 06-07
FY 07-08
FY 08-09
FY 09-10

Amount
$22,469,000
$29,832,500
$35,274,700
$41,654,700
$48,081,000

Distribution of Funds: The statute awards state charter schools an annual amount equal to $9,300
for each student enrolled for FY 2009-10. The payments are made in quarterly installments in July,
September, January and April.
Use of Funds: Charter schools can use state charter school grant funds for any costs associated with
the operation of a school, including the acquisition and maintenance of suitable facilities.
The Current Charter School Landscape
The relatively small size of both charter schools and classes within charter schools, innovative
instruction by a carefully selected staff and the high degree of parental involvement, have enabled
charter schools to provide a unique educational environment. While, by law, the State Board of
Education (SBE) gives preference to charter applicants that will serve students who reside in priority
school districts, charter schools are found in many school districts, urban, suburban and rural. A total
of 10 school districts host 18 charter schools. In total, 85 school districts or about 50 percent of all
school districts in Connecticut have students enrolled in charter schools. Below is a list of current
charter schools, their host district and school districts served.
Charter School

Host District

Districts Served

Achievement First Bridgeport Academy

Bridgeport

Bridgeport

Achievement First Hartford

Hartford

Hartford

Amistad Academy

New Haven

New Haven, North Haven

The Bridge Academy

Bridgeport

Bridgeport, Stratford, Waterbury

Hartford

Avon, Bloomfield, Bristol, East Hampton,
East Hartford, Enfield, Farmington,
Glastonbury, Hartford, Hebron,
Manchester, Meriden, Middletown, New
Britain, Newington, Plainville, Rocky Hill,
Somers, West Hartford, Wethersfield,
Windsor

Charter School for Young Children on
Asylum Hill

1

 Charter School

Host District

Districts Served

Common Ground

New Haven

Ansonia, Bethany, Branford, Bridgeport,
East Haven, Hamden, Meriden, Milford,
New Haven, Orange, Shelton, Stratford,
Wallingford, Waterbury, West Haven

Elm City College Preparatory School

New Haven

New Haven

Winsted

Avon, Barkhamsted, Bloomfield, Canaan,
Canton, Granby, Harwinton, Litchfield,
New Hartford, Norfolk, Plymouth,
Salisbury, Sharon, Simsbury, Thomaston,
Torrington, Winchester

Explorations

Highville

Hamden

East Haven, Hamden, Middletown,
Milford, New Haven, North Haven,
Wallingford, West Haven

Integrated Day

Norwich

Bozrah, Brooklyn, Canterbury, East Lyme,
Franklin, Griswold, Ledyard, Lisbon,
Montville, Norwich, Plainfield, Preston,
Sprague, Voluntown, Windham

New London

Groton, Ledyard, Montville, New London,
North Stonington, Old Lyme, Preston,
Waterford

Jumoke Academy

Hartford

Bloomfield, East Hartford, East Windsor,
Enfield, Farmington, Glastonbury,
Hamden, Hartford, Manchester, New
Britain, South Windsor, Vernon,
Wethersfield, Windsor

New Beginnings Family Academy

Bridgeport

Ansonia, Bridgeport, Derby, Stratford

Odyssey

Manchester

Andover, Coventry, East Hartford, East
Windsor, Hampton, Hartford, Manchester,
South Windsor, Vernon, Wethersfield,
Windham, Windsor Locks

Park City

Bridgeport

Bridgeport, Stratford

Side by Side Community School

Norwalk

Bridgeport, Darien, Greenwich, Norwalk,
Stamford, Stratford, West Haven, Westport

Stamford Academy

Stamford

Bridgeport, Norwalk, Putnam, Stamford

Trailblazers Academy

Stamford

Norwalk, Stamford

Interdistrict School for Arts and
Communication (ISAAC)

Source: Public School Information System (PSIS), October 2009

2

 In the 2009-10 school year, six state charter schools had their charters renewed for an additional five
years by the SBE. The schools whose charters were renewed include:
Name of School
Common Ground High School

District
New Haven

Renewal Term
5 years

Explorations Charter School

Winsted

5 years

Highville Charter School
Interdistrict School for Arts and
Communication (ISAAC)
New Beginnings Family Academy

Hamden

5 years

New London

5 years

Bridgeport

5 years

Odyssey Community School

Manchester

5 years

The renewal of a school’s charter encompasses a rigorous application process, a public hearing
presided over by a SBE member and a site visit conducted by Connecticut State Department of
Education (CSDE) consultants and staff members from local school districts and other charter
schools.
In the 2009-10 school year, 18 charter schools served 5,170 students.
Accountability
Accountability is one of the cornerstones of the national charter school initiative. Connecticut’s
charter school law and the accountability plan administered by the CSDE require charter schools to
demonstrate their success and compliance with the law in exchange for autonomy from local boards
of education. While the majority of Connecticut charter schools have proven to be successful models
of alternative public education, there have been some that have struggled and some that have closed
their operations.
Since 1999, five state charter schools have closed:
 Village Academy’s (New Haven) charter was revoked by the SBE in the first week of school in
1999-00 due to the schools failure to comply with health and safety laws;
 Ancestors Community High School (Waterbury) relinquished its charter to the SBE at the end
of school year 2000-01, citing insufficient funds to operate the program;
 Charter Oak Preparatory Academy (New Britain/Hartford) relinquished its charter to the SBE
on February 1, 2002, citing insufficient funds to operate the program;
 Brooklawn Academy’s charter (Bridgeport/Fairfield) was not renewed by the SBE in 2003 due
to its failure to demonstrate sufficient student progress; and
 Cross Cultural Academy of Arts and Technology relinquished its charter to the SBE on May
25, 2007, citing insufficient funds to operate the program.
Like state charter schools, local charter schools are chartered by the SBE. However, local charter
schools are funded by the district, not by the state. Based on a mutual agreement with the CSDE, one
local charter school, Coventry Science Center Charter School, returned its charter before the 1999-00
school year. Two local charter schools in Hartford (Breakthrough and Sport Science Academy)
transitioned to magnet schools in 2002-03. The nonviability of the local charter concept is largely
based on funding entirely appropriated by the local school district.

3

 In December 2010, the CSDE developed and presented a Results-Based Accountability (RBA) report
card on charter schools to the General Assembly’s Appropriations Committee. Charts detailing
school performance and enrollment trends follow.
School Performance
Percentage of students at or above goal in mathematics and reading in Grades 3-8
Percent at/above Goal CMT

Charter schools are improving in the percentage of students at or above goal for both reading and
mathematics. While charter schools have lagged behind statewide averages, they have demonstrated
increases of several percentage points in the percent of students at or above goal in both reading and
math. Comparatively, the students statewide demonstrate a more modest increase of approximately
two percentage points. Such greater improvements are noteworthy given that the majority of charter
schools’ students reside in the state’s priority school districts which serve academically high-risk
students.
Percentage of Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport resident students at or above goal in
reading in both charter schools and the city’s public schools (noncharters)

Note: These data reflect students in tested grades only (Grades 3-8). Resident students from these
three cities are chosen as they are the only urban areas with at least two charter schools serving
significant numbers of city students from which to base valid comparisons.
4

 Since charter schools overwhelmingly serve poor and minority students, the most valid way to base
comparisons is by comparing “like-students” with similar academic risk factors of urban
communities. In this case, the performance of city resident students who opted for charter schools
were compared to those who remained in the city public school systems. City resident students who
attend charter schools outperform students in the city public schools in reading and mathematics (not
shown), and have increased percentage at/or above goal at a greater rate between 2009 and 2010 in
both subject areas.

Charter School Facilities
Until the close of the 2001 legislative session, facility costs represented a major financial burden for
charter schools. The legislature addressed this issue, in part, by providing charter school building
project grants up to $500,000 per school for state charter schools renewed by the SBE in the
preceding fiscal year. Nine of 10 eligible charter schools applied and received such construction
grants. While the grant was limited to 10 of 14 state charter schools, it presented an important
acknowledgement by the legislature that financial support to facilities is crucial for charter schools.
In the 2005 special session, the general assembly authorized $10 million in bonding for the fiscal
years 2006 and 2007. The new bill, unlike its predecessor, did not limit eligibility to schools whose
charters had been renewed and did not limit the number or size of grants to a single school. On
August 18, 2006, the Bond Commission approved the release of the first $5 million in grants under
this program. In September 2006, the CSDE approved $5 million in grants under this program to
allow charter schools to make general improvements to school buildings and repay debt incurred for
prior school building projects. On May 30, 2008, the Bond Commission approved the release of the
second $5 million in grants and in July 2008, the CSDE approved $5 million in grants. This program
allowed charter schools to make general improvements to school buildings and repay debt for school
building projects.
In the 2007 special session, the general assembly adopted Public Act 07-7, which authorized $10
million in bonding for fiscal years 2008 and 2009. On August 17, 2010, the Bond Commission
approved the release of $2,529,154 of the $5 million in grants. On September 9, 2010, the CSDE
requested the Bond Commission approve the remaining balance of $2,470,846 in grants. Recognizing
the ongoing need to maintain charter school facilities, the General Assembly made the charter school
facilities grant permanent in the 2010 legislative session. Under prior state law, the grant was
available only for FY 08 and FY 09. Grants remain subject to available bond authorizations.
In addition, the general assembly created a pilot school construction grant that will provide a grant to
one state charter school to buy and renovate a building for use as a charter school facility. Amistad
Academy applied for this grant November 30, 2005. The CSDE approved the application. The
renovation of the building is scheduled to be completed August 1, 2011.

5

 Demographic Information
The following tables represent charter school demographic information taken from the most current
data available.
Charter Grantees 2009-10
State Charter School
Achievement First Bridgeport Academy
Achievement First Hartford Academy
Amistad Academy
The Bridge Academy
Charter School for Young Children on Asylum Hill
Common Ground
Elm City College Preparatory School
Explorations
Highville
Integrated Day
Interdistrict School for Arts and Communication (ISAAC)
Jumoke Academy
New Beginnings Family Academy
Odyssey
Side by Side Community School
Park City Prep
Stamford Academy
Trailblazers Academy

Actual
Enrollment
235
415
744
260
185
155
547
80
300
330
180
432
360
180
232
240
131
164
5,170

Final Payment as of
April 2010
$2,185,500
$3,859,500
$6,919,200
$2,418,000
$1,720,500
$1,441,500
$5,087,100
$ 744,000
$2,790,000
$3,069,000
$1,674,000
$4,017,600
$3,348,000
$1,674,000
$2,157,600
$2,232,000
$1,218,300
$1,525,200
$48,081,000

Information taken from the final charter school grant calculation dated April 2, 2010.

Charter Student Data 2008-09
State Charter School
Achievement First Bridgeport Academy
*Achievement First Hartford Academy
Amistad Academy
The Bridge Academy
*Charter School for Young Children on Asylum Hill
Common Ground
Elm City College Preparatory School
Explorations
Highville
Integrated Day
Interdistrict School for Arts and Communication-ISAAC
Jumoke Academy
New Beginnings Family Academy
Odyssey
Park City Prep
Side by Side Community School
Stamford Academy
Trailblazers
TOTAL
*Charter school opened in the 2008-09 school year.
**2008-09 Strategic School Profiles (latest data available).
6

2008-09
Grade Levels
5-6
K-1,5
K-2, 5-11
7-12
PK-K
9-12
K-9
10-12
PK-8
PK-8
6-8
PK-8
K-8
4-8
6-8
PK-8
9-12
6-8

2008-09
Actual
Enrollment
160
53
641
260
136
150
509
85
300
330
180
412
358
175
220
229
131
150
4,479

**Minority
Percentage
98.7
100.0
98.1
98.5
66.9
83.2
99.0
7.1
98.3
28.8
62.6
100.0
98.3
53.4
98.2
74.7
94.7
96.0
80.9

 Other Charter School Demographic Indicators 2008-09
**Percentage of
Free/Reduced Lunch

**Percentage of Special
Education Students

71.9
64.4
57.6
72.1
***39.50
67.7
66.8
29.4

8.1
6.5
3.7
12.6
3.7
16.8
5.1
25.9

63.3
20.6
63.2
48.5
75.1
33.7
54.5
45.0

0.3
8.8
10.4
2.9
5.0
8.4
5.4
10.5

Stamford Academy

85.5

16.0

Trailblazers Academy

72.0

20.0

State Charter School
Achievement First Bridgeport Academy
*Achievement First Hartford Academy
Amistad Academy
The Bridge Academy
*Charter School for Young Children on Asylum Hill
Common Ground
Elm City College Preparatory School
Explorations
Highville
Integrated Day
Interdistrict School for Arts and Communication (ISAAC)
Jumoke Academy
New Beginnings Family Academy
Odyssey
Park City Prep
Side by Side Community School

*Charter school opened in the 2008-09 school year.
**2008-09 Strategic School Profiles (latest data available).
***The data on the 2008-09 Strategic School Profile was reported by the Charter School for Young Children on
Asylum Hill incorrectly as zero. The correct figure is 39.5%.

Charter Enrollment Growth
2008-09
Grade
Levels

State Charter School
Achievement First Bridgeport Academy
5-6
*Achievement First Hartford Academy
K-1,5
Amistad Academy
K-2, 5-11
The Bridge Academy
7-12
*Charter School for Young Children on Asylum Hill
PK-K
Common Ground
9-12
Elm City College Preparatory School
K-9
Explorations
10-12
Highville
PK-8
Integrated Day
PK-8
Interdistrict School for Arts and Communication-ISAAC
6-8
Jumoke Academy
PK-8
New Beginnings Family Academy
K-8
Odyssey
4-8
Park City Prep
6-8
Side by Side Community School
PK-8
Stamford Academy
9-12
Trailblazers
6-8
TOTAL
*Charter school opened in the 2008-09 school year.
7

2008-09
Actual
Enrollment

2009-10
Grade
Levels

2009-10
Authorized
Enrollment

Change

160
53
641
260
136
150
509
85
300
330
180
412
358
175
220
229
131
150
4,479

5-7
K-2, 5- 6
K-3, 5-12
7-12
PK-1
9-12
K-10
10-12
PK-8
PK-8
6-8
PK-8
K-8
4-8
6-8
PK-8
9-12
6-8

235
415
744
260
185
155
547
80
300
330
180
432
360
180
232
240
131
164
5,170

75
362
103
0
49
5
38
5
0
0
0
20
2
5
12
11
0
14
701

 Total charter school enrollment and the number of students on charter school wait lists

While enrollment has grown from 4000 to 5170 between 2007-08 and 2009-10, an increase of 29%,
the number of students on wait lists has increased 42% between 2007-08 and 2009-10. The number
of students on wait lists in 2009-10 exceeded the number enrolled in 2009-10 by 116 students.
Essentially, charter school enrollment would double if there were enough space and state subsidy to
accommodate all on the wait list as of 2010.

Recommendations
Outlined below are a series of recommendations pursuant to Section 10-66gg of the C.G.S. which
require, within available appropriations, the Commissioner of Education to annually provide to the
joint standing committee of the general assembly having cognizance of matters relating to education
a report on the operation of the charter schools, including: (1) an assessment of the adequacy of
funding pursuant to Section 10-66ee; (2) the adequacy and availability of suitable facilities for such
schools; (3) recommendations for any statutory changes that would facilitate expansion in the number
of charter schools; and (4) a compilation of school profiles pursuant to Section 10-66cc.
1. Adequacy of Funding
The SBE voted on June 2, 2010, to approve the proposal to form an Ad Hoc Committee to
study education cost sharing and school choice funding including charter schools.
At its February 2, 2011, the SBE voted to table the recommendations from the Ad Hoc
Committee. Therefore, funding proposals associated with charter schools are not included in
this report.
2. Adequacy and Availability of Suitable Facilities
Pursuant to Public Act 10-111, the general assembly made the charter school facility grant
permanent. Under prior state law, the grant was available only for FY 08 and FY 09.
Grants remain subject to available bond authorizations. This grant assists state charter
schools in financing school building projects, general improvements to school buildings
and repayment of debt incurred for prior school building projects.
In the fall of 2009, the CSDE requested that the Bond Commission authorize the release of $5 million
in grants under the program. On August 17, 2010, the Bond Commission approved the release of
8

 $2,529,154 of the $5 million in grants. On September 9, 2010, the CSDE requested the Bond
Commission approve the remaining balance of $2,470,846 in grants.
3. Statutory Changes:
On November 4, 2009, the SBE voted to support a legislative proposal to amend C.G.S.
Section 10-66gg to require the Report on the Operation of Charter Schools in Connecticut
to be submitted every two years concurrent with the beginning of the state biennial budget
cycle.
The Connecticut General Assembly did not act on this statutory change in the 2010 legislative
session. The SBE resubmitted the proposal for the 2011 legislation session. The statute
requires that this report address four issues, three of which result in potential increases to the
state appropriation. The legislature does not ordinarily address such funding issues during the
second year of the biennium but is open to such adjustments prior to the start of a biennium.
For this reason, CSDE proposes that the submission of this report be scheduled every two
years concurrent with the beginning of the state biennial budget cycle.
4. A Compilation of Strategic School Profiles:
The 2008-09 Strategic School Profile for each charter school is included in the following link.
These are the most current profiles available:
http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/profiles/about.htm

Conclusion
In 2009-10, state charter schools in Connecticut served 5,170 students and their families. Charter
schools are successfully meeting the needs of those seeking educational programs or settings not
provided by their district schools. In spite of steadily growing enrollments, there continues to be long
waiting lists of more than 5,286 students according to the 2009-10 annual reports. The public demand
for charter schools in the public school system in Connecticut remains strong.
In most cases, charter school CMT scores (at Goal) rose between 2009 and 2010. Achievement
results for charter schools that specifically serve high-risk populations vary from year to year. In
comparing city residents in charter schools and their host districts, charter schools perform much
better from school to school, including some that serve specifically high-risk populations.
Financial resource limitations are a challenge to maintaining charter schools in Connecticut. The
Federal Start-Up Grant for charter schools has supplemented the financial means of these schools.
However, the term of the start-up grant expires following the first three years of the charter school’s
operation. Only two of the 18 state charter schools remain eligible for federal start-up grants in the
2009-10 school year: Achievement First Hartford and the Charter School for Young Children on
Asylum Hill. In spite of financial resource limitations, CSDE solicited applications for new state and
local charter schools based on changes in state law eliminating the requirement that the SBE may
only issue charters within available appropriations.
The recommendations in this report serve as a statement of the evolution of the charter school
program. The general assembly has recognized this demand by funding charter schools at a higher
level and providing greater equity in school construction. Despite these strides, there are
opportunities to expand the reach of charter schools and attract more students to the program. As
9

 detailed in the Charter School RBA report card, city resident students who attend charter schools
outperform students in the city public schools in reading and mathematics, and have increased
percentage at/or above goal at a greater rate between 2009 and 2010 in both subject areas. These
results are noteworthy given that the majority of charter school students reside in the state’s priority
school districts, which serve academically high-risk students.
As a result of these positive academic outcomes, enrollment demand for charter schools has increased
29 percent between 2007-08 to 2009-10. The number of students on wait lists in 2009-10 exceeded
the number enrolled in 2009-10 by 116 students further demonstrating high demand for charter
schools. Through greater investment both in the operations and facility needs of charter schools, the
successes documented in Connecticut will continue.

10