KIDCS Summary Revocation Documents REDACTED - 1

THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234
SENIOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR P-12 EDUCATION
May 4, 2011
Julio Cotto
Executive Director
Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter School
295 West 231st Street
Bronx, NY 10463
Members of the Board of Trustees - Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter School

(as listed on page 3 of this letter)
Dear Sirs and Madams:
Thank you for the material that you s ubmitted to the New York State Edu cation
Department in response to the remedial ac tion plan which was included in the March 24,
2011 Probation Order and Notice of Int ent to Seek Summary Revocation (“Order and
Notice”) for Kingsbridge Innov ative Des ign C harter School (“School”). Howev er, the
Department continues to have very serious concerns about the fiscal conditions and
leadership of the School as outlined in the Order and Notice.
Pursuant to the timeline provided in the Order and Notice, you were notified
yesterday that, after reviewing the material that was provided in response to the remedial
action plan, the Department has decided to c ontinue to pursue summary revocation of the
School’s charter and certificate of incorporation pursuant to Education Law §2855(3). The
grounds for the Department’s decision are set forth in the attached doc uments (NYS
Education Department Recomm endation for Summary Charter Revocation for Kingsbridge
Innovative Design Charter School (May 3, 2011) and Attachments A-E) . Pursuant to the
Order, the School remains on probation until May 17, 2011.
The Dep artment will present its recomme ndation for revocation before a Pane l
consisting of at least three me mbers of the Board of Regents, as set forth in §3.17 (a)(3) of
the Rules of the Boar d of Regen ts. The pr esentation shall ta ke place on M ay 16, 2011 at
11:40 a.m. – 12:40 p.m. at the State Education Departm ent, 89 Washington Ave nue,
Albany, New York. The Panel’s recommendat ion on revocation will then b e presented to
the full Board of Regents for final determinati on at the scheduled meeti ng of the Full Board
of Regents on May 17, 2011.
As stated in the Order and Notic e, the School has the opportunity to submit a written
response which pres ents the School’s position. The response may include supporting
affidavits, exhibits and other documentary ev idence (including any evidence that the
problems at issue hav e been cor rected), and ma y include legal arguments (§3.17(a)(2) of
Page 2
the Rules of the Board of Regents). Please s ubmit any written response in one
submission, no later than 5:00 p. m. on May 9, 2011, to the New York State Education
Department’s Office of Counsel, Education Building, Room 112EB, Albany, New York
12234 and by email to: legal@mail.nysed.gov. The subject line should read: “Kingsbridge
Innovative Design Charter School.” This May 4, 2011 letter and its attachments, together
with the Sc hool’s written response, if any, will be provided to the Panel of Regents prior to
the May 16, 2011 presentation.
By May 9, 2011, the School must also inform the Department, in writing, if it requests
the opportunity for oral argumen t before the Panel, pursuant to §3.17(a)(3) of the Rules of
the Board of Regents. The School may designate one or more representative(s) to provide
oral argument, and the School will have 25 minutes to present its posit ion. A failure to
submit a ti mely request for oral argument will result in the Board of Regents deciding
whether to revoke the School’s charter ba sed only on any written submissions and the
Department’s presentation to the Panel.
The date and time of the oral argument and/or consider ation of the revocation
application by the Board of Regents are subject to change wi thout further Order of the
Commissioner, and the School wil l be provided with written not ice by the Department of
any such changes.
The School has the option of voluntarily seeking an order from the Board of Regents
revoking the School’s charter and certificate of incorporation, and dissolving the corporation
pursuant to Education Law §219(3). For more information concerning the voluntary
revocation process please contact Cliff Chuang, Director of the Charter School Office at
(518) 474-1762.
Sincerely,
John B. King, Jr.
Attachments
Page 3

295 West 231 Street
Bronx, New York 10463
(917) 858-1191
info@kidcs.org
Mr. Julio Cotto, Executive Director Mr. Ed Montolio
Mr. John Torres, Board Chairperson Mr. Hector H. Lopez
Mr. Troiyle Sanon Mr. Jorge Chang
Ms. Nelly Evans

Ms. Dinamary Arvelo
Ms. Molly Lopez
Mr. Christian O. Guerrero
Ms. Nancy Rivera

.
NYS Education Department Recommendation for Summary Charter Revocation for
Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter School (May 3, 2011)
Background Information
Education Law §2855(1) provides that the Board of Regents may revoke a
charter school’s charter for grounds that include the following:
(b) Serious violations of law; or
(c) Material and substantial violation of the charter, including fiscal management.
Education Law §2855(3) provides that the Board of Regents may place a charter
school falling within the ab ove two provis ions on pr obationary status to allow the
implementation of a remedial action plan. The failure of a charter school to comply with
the terms and conditions of a remedial action plan may result in summary revocation of
the school’s charter. Section 3.16(a) of t he Rules of the Board of Regents delegates to
the Commissioner of Education the authorit y to plac e a schoo l on probationary status
and to develop and impose a remedial action plan pursuant to Education Law §2855(3).
The Kingsbridge Innovative Design Char ter School (“School”) was authorized by
the Board of Regents on January 12, 2010. The School was sc heduled to open in
September 2010 in New York City's Community School District 10 in the Bronx. Th e
school’s current enrollment is approximately 143 students in Kindergarten and Grade 1.
During the fall and winter of 2010- 11, the Stat e Educ ation Department
(“Department”) had ongoing communications with the School ( letters, emails, phone
conversations) regarding issues, complaint s and concerns that were brought to the
Department’s attention by a member of the School’s Board of Trustees, members of the
School’s staff and parents of students at the School. On March 9, 2011, Department
staff conducted a site visit to the School to assess the fiscal and educational soundness
of the School, collect data pertaining to t he formal information requests sent by the
Department to the Sc hool on January 14, 2 011 and February 17, 2011 (Attachment A),
and to meet with the Trustees, school staff, t eachers, parents, and ex ternal consultants
working with the School’s leadership. Th e site vis it included interviews with thes e
stakeholders, document review, classroom obs ervations, and attendance at a regularly
scheduled meeting of the School’s Board of Trustees. A repor t of this site visit is
attached (Attachment B).
On March 24, 2011 the Commissioner pl aced the Sc hool on pr obationary status
and imposed a remedial action plan. (Attachm ent C). The Proba tion Order and Notice
of Intent to Seek Summary Revocation of the School’s charter (“Order and Notice”)
provides background information on complaints and concerns that were brought to the
attention of the Department, t he interaction that the Depar tment had with the School on
these and other matters during the fall an d winter of 2010 and spring of 2011, and
1
includes examples of violatio ns of law and violations of the charter, including fis cal
mismanagement, that ultimately lead to the School being placed on probationary status.
The School was required to provide spec ific written information ev idencing the
implementation of the remedial action plan no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 29,
2011.
The School provided documents in a seri es of email communications with the

Department as a response to the Remedial Action Plan. The documents arrived in a
piecemeal fashion in dozens of emails th roughout the course of the weekend. The
School did not prepare a comprehensiv e or fo cused reply to the Probation Order, and
Department staff matched information submitted by the School to items in the Probation
Order to the best of their abi lity. The School identified so me documents as responding
to specific requirements of the R emedial Ac tion Plan, however some information was
provided without any indic ation of whic h of the specific requirements they were
connected to. A com plete set of the emai ls and doc uments subm itted by the Sc hool
and considered by the Departm ent in preparing the May 3, 2011 letter and this memo
will be provided to the Regents Panel prio r to the oral argument. The Department
reviewed and cons idered all do cuments provided by the Sc hool in response to the
remedial action plan, including those re ceived after the April 29, 2011 deadline but
before 9:00 p.m. Monday, May 2, 2011. A su mmary of the School’s response and the
Department’s assessment of w hether or not each of the remedial plan requirement s
was sufficiently addressed is attached (Attachment D).
In addition, on April 26, 2011, the Departm ent conducted a public meeting at the
School to afford parents, staf f and all other interested parti es to provide c omments and
information relevant to the School. The notice of that public meeting is attached
(Attachment E). Though no official count of attendance was taken, the multipurpose
room at the School was fille d, with appro ximately 1 00 to 150 community members in
attendance. Approximately 45 people m ade verbal public comm ents (limited to 2
minutes each) during the meet ing. A range of individuals, including parents, current and
former teachers and staff, current and form er board members, and other community
members spoke.
Reasons for the Department’s Recommendation for Summary Revocation
The Department’s recommendation to t he Board of Regents to revoke the

School’s charter is based on th e School’s insufficient and lim ited response to the three
categories of violations identified in the March 24, 2011 Order and Notice; Management
and Financial Controls, School Governance, and Educational Program.
Fiscal Management and Controls
The March 24, 2011 Order and Notice prov ides several examples of violations of
§5.1 of the School’s charter which provides t hat, “(t)he Charter School shall at all times
maintain appropriate managem ent and financial controls.” In response to the
2
requirements of the Remedial Ac tion Plan included in the March 24, 2011 Order and
Notice, the School provided s everal doc uments related to financial sy stems and
controls. Attachment D outlines the Department’s assessment of the sufficiency of the
School’s response in this category.
Despite the School’s submission of ma terials in response to the probationary

Remedial Action Plan fiscal it ems, the Department continues to have s erious concerns
about the fiscal stabilit y and ma nagement of the school. T hough there are a number of
issues, the three areas of greatest concern are described below.
1. The School has not provided evidence that demonstrates sufficient cash
flow to sustain operations in May and June 2011. Despite the School’s
consistent struggle with cash flow during it s first year of operation, the School did
not submit any information related to proj ected cash-flow for the months of May
and June 2011 by the 5:00 p. m. on Friday, April 29, 2011 deadline. Department
staff had to explicitly request this info rmation after the 5:00 p.m. April 29, 2011
deadline through phone calls to the school’s board chair and treasurer. The first
version submitted on Friday ev ening, pr ovided little to no detail about ho w the
School would maintain sufficient cash-f low to continue operations through the
end of the current academic year. After a second request, a revised version was
submitted on the evening of Sunday, May 1, 2011. The two versions submitted
varied widely in pres enting how the Sc hool would s ustain operations for the
remainder of the school year. The seco nd, more detailed ver sion noted the
School’s reliance on a $200,000 bridge financing lone to sustain operations
through mid-May 2011. As of 9:00 p.m. on Monday, May 2, 2011, the School had
not presented evidence that it has secured the br idge financ ing required to
sustain operations through the end of this school year.
2. The School does not present adequate plans for financial accounting and
controls. The School presents insufficient and c ontradictory organizational plans
for financial managem ent and control. In par ticular, the organizational structures
currently in place and/or proposed are not consistent with the approved charter, a
proposed revision, or the financ ial policies and procedures recently approved by
the School’s board. Given the number of challenges the School has alr eady
faced in terms of clarity about reporting structure at the st aff level and to the
School’s board, the Departm ent is gravely concerned about the lack of clarity,
specificity, and consistency in the propos ed organizational and co ntrol structures
going forward.
3. The School has not presented sufficient evidence of fiscal solvency

through the remainder of the five-year charter term. The Sc hool’s five-year
budget does not present a cl ear picture for solvenc y. The Department’s initial
analysis yielded several concer ns, includ ing revenue assumptions, particularly
those related to special educ ation, that are either inaccurate or unsupported,
3
facilities costs and instructional costs that appear to be significantly reduced from
what was projected in the original charter budget with little explanation, and lac k
of clarity about amortization costs. Based o n these factors, it is unclear whe ther
or not the School’s budget, as present ed, is solvent. Specifically, the
assumptions about special education revenue and lack of clarity about
amortization costs could have s evere ca sh-flow impacts on th e school’s Year 2
operations.
More detail about the insufficiency of the Sc hool’s response c oncerning the School’s
fiscal management and controls is included in Attachment D.
School Governance
Section 2.12 of the School’s charter and Education Law §2853(1)(f) state that the
Board of Trustees of a charter school, “s hall have final authority for policy and
operational decisions of t he school.” The Department continues to have serious
concerns about the governance and operational oversight of the School.
The School’s governing board has experienced significant turnover and instability
over the c ourse of the charter term. In all, only one of the seven initial founding board
members, the board c hair, remains on the boar d of trustees. The Schoo l has also had
instability in instructional leadership since the charter was approved in January 2010.
The School’s governing board and instructional leadership have made a series of
unfortunate operational and financial decis ions that hav e risked the health and viability
of the School’s chart er. During the summer of 2010, the School’s leadership made
decisions r elated to f acilities and student transportation that resu lted in signific ant
expenditures and delayed sc hool opening. Leadership c ontinued to make fiscal
decisions, outlined in the Site Visit Repo rt and Probation Order, which resulted in
restricted cash flow, dependence on short-term bridge loans, unpaid c ommitments to
employees and contractors and inappropriate fisca l controls. Over the last six weeks,
the School’s leadership has als o terminat ed employm ent of appr oximately half of the
professional staff in the building and limited benefits for employees.
The Sc hool’s governing boar d has expended a significant amount of time and
energy this year patching toget her short-term financial fixes for cash flow problems.
During interactions with the Departmen t, the School’s governing boar d has not
demonstrated an understanding t hat the School’s charter ma y be in jeopardy of
revocation; an understanding of their role in dec isionmaking or leadership of the current
state of the school’s financia l and operational sit uation; or the need for strengthened
governance or instructional le adership. Much ener gy has been expended on diverting
“blame” to former and current staff, rather t han strategically planni ng for improvement.
At no time has the c urrent School leadersh ip proposed a modified or re-structured
leadership or governance struct ure, including, but not limit ed to, the removal of current
leadership or transfer of leadership to another set of indi viduals. At no time has School
4
leadership shown initiative in reaching out for coaching or support for board
development or instructional leadership development.
The narrow focus on crisis management of the fiscal situation has left the current
school leadership unable to fully comprehend the m agnitude of the issues at play.
School stakeholders have expressed (via bot h written comment as well as through
verbal comment provided during the Apr il 26, 2011 public meeting conducted by the
Department at the School) their dissati sfaction with School leadership a nd
administrative decisionmaking.
Educational Program
The March 24, 2011 Order and Notice pr ovides s everal exam ples of how the
School is not operating in an educationally s ound manner and is in violation of §2.1 of
the charter agreement which provides that, “(t)he Charter School shall implement the
educational programs set forth in the Application…”
As outlined in Attachment D, the School has not sufficiently addressed the

violations related to its educ ational program. Specifically, while the school has provid ed
a description of the key elements of charte r design to be in place for September 2,
2011, no evidence of plans for how thes e elements will be im plemented have been
provided. In addition, while the School ha s now submitted a charter revisio n request
that describes four charter revisions that the School would like to implement (reducing
the daily schedule, reducing the total number of instru ctional days, changing the
School’s organizational structure, and cha nging the average number of students per
class in or der to accommodate a Collaborati ve Team Teaching class per grade), the
revision request does not provide sufficient information about the requested revisions or
information on how the School’s educational pr ogram will be impacted and/ or modified
to accommodate the r equested revisions. The School was also asked to provide, “(t)he
methodology used in conducing the search for a new instructional leader and chief fiscal
officer and the criteri a applied to selection, including the job description,” (Order and
Notice, Page 4, Number 12). No job descripti ons were provided and the information that
was provided by the School is insufficient to determine the lines of accountability for key
aspects of school operations.
Finally, though a number of parents have ex pressed their satisfaction with the
educational program provided by the School (via both wr itten comment as well as
through verbal comment provided during th e April 26, 2011 public meeting conducted
by the Department at the School), a number of parents and teachers have raised
concerns about both the adequacy of bas ic instruction and management of the
educational program at the sch ool. In particular, several parents and teachers (both
current and former) commented on the severe disruption to the education program
caused by the abrupt and sudden dism issal of five teachers and four other staff
members on Thursday , March 31, 2011. In two of six c lassrooms, both teachers were
dismissed, and parents and teachers both spoke of how difficult it was at this late stage
in the school year to adjust to new teachers and students.
5
More detail about the insufficiency of the School’s response concerning the
School’s educational program is included in Attachment D.
Conclusion
The Department does not make this re commendation for summary revocatio n of
the School’s charter lightly. We understand the significance of revoki ng the charter of a
school that has students in attendance. Many of the parents who have contacted the
Department or who at tended the April 26, 2011 pub lic meeting have spoken eloqu ently
and emotionally about the School, the option it provides to the children in the community
and the dedication of the t eachers and staff to their students. The Department’s
recommendation for summary revocation is based upon our sign ificant concern that the
fiscal, gov ernance a nd progra mmatic instabilitie s will u ltimately result in the Scho ol
becoming insolvent and incapable of operating during the course of a school year which
would disrupt the education of the students in attendance at that time and would h ave
serious repercussions for the st aff of the School as well. Closing a school at the end of
a school y ear is disruptive and difficult for a school community; closing a school in the
middle of a school year could be devastating.
Ultimately, it is the res ponsibility of the Department, as the administrative arm of

the School’s authorizer, the B oard of Regents, to assess t he capacity of the School to
operate in a fiscally and educ ationally sound and responsib le manner. Our assessment
in this c ase is that the School has not demonstrated sufficient capac ity to operate in a
fiscally and educational sound and responsibl e manner or to overcome the serious
violations of law, m aterial and substa ntial violations of its charter and fiscal
mismanagement. Therefore we hav e determined that it is in the best interests of the
students and school community that the charter be revoked.
We note that in the event that the Board of Regents may ultimately decide to
revoke the School’s c harter, the Department has been in contact with the NYCDOE to
ensure that all student s at the School will receive appr opriate educational placement s
for the 2011-12 school year. NYCDOE has assured t he Department that placements
will be found for all of the students.
6
Attachment “A”
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF INNOVATIVE SCHOOL MODELS
ROOM 475 EBA
Tel. 518/474-4817
Fax 518/474-7558
January 14, 2011
John Torres
Chairman, Board of Trustees
268 Van Cortlandt Park Avenue
Yonkers, New York 10705
Dear Mr. Torres:
During this fall and winter, staf f from the New York State E ducation Department (NYSED)
Office of Innovative School Mo dels has been in contact with Kingsbridge Innovative
Design Charter School (KIDCS or “the School”) by vi siting the school, through e-mail
correspondence, and by telephone conversations. As they do with all schools authorized
by the Board of Regents, staff have partner ed with KI DCS to as sess the educational and
organizational operations of th e school; and to ev aluate the extent to which the s chool
completed the procedures required for successful school launch.
Over the course of the last 36 hours, a number of significant issues have been brought to
the attention of NYSED staf f whic h require further inve stigation. Perhaps most
distressingly, many of these issues were not raised by KIDCS Board of Trustees, but by
outside concerned parties. Some of these issues call into question the fiscal health and
financial viability of the school.
This letter constitutes an official warning that the Kingsbridge Innovative Design Char ter
School’s c harter may be in j eopardy due to concerns r egarding governanc e, educationa l
soundness and fiscal soundness.
The New York State Education Department (NYSED) requests that responses to the
inquiries m ade below be addressed no later than Monday, January 24, 2011. Failure to
respond in a comprehensive and timely fashi on may result in probationar y action being
imposed, which may ultimately result in revocation of the school’s charter.
1. KIDCS is currently operating without an approved Board of Trustees. During a

conversation with NYSED staff on December 29, you indicated that the School had
identified and appoint ed severa l new trustees to the board. At that time, staff
advised you that t he School was required to seek approval from NYSED prior to
appointing trustees to the boar d. Further, staff requested that you provide complete
resumes, prospective board member ques tionnaires, signed statements of
assurances from each of these prospec tive trustees, and the minutes of the
meetings of the Board of Trustees at which these proposed appointment s were
discussed. To date, only partial pros pective board pac kages hav e been submitted
to NYSED. Please s ubmit a complete package for each applicant. Please be
reminded that the appointment of trustees is contingent upon approval from NYSED.
2. The school is currently operating w ithout a formal instructional leader . An e-
mail received by NYSED on January 13, 2011, i ndicates that the instructional leader
of the School, Ms. Francesca Weis, is no longer serving as pr incipal, effective
January 4, 2011. NYSED was not officially notified of this action prior to its
execution, nor was timely notic e provided thereafter. In addition the school has
provided conflicting information to NYSED c oncerning the selection of Mr. Fiorentino
as either t he new instruct ional leader or as a consultant. Please cla rify the
relationship between Mr. Fiorentino and the sch ool by providing a signed copy of the
contract for services. Who is providing supervision to KIDCS staff during this time of
transition?
3. School employees and familie s of child ren enrolled in the school have issued
multiple complaints against th e school and Board of Trustees. Many of these
complaints are currently outstanding and unre solved. Please pr ovide an update on
the status of the Boar d of Tr ustees investigation and r esolution of complaints dating
from November 7, 2010, and November 10, 2010.
4. Please provide copies of all minutes tak en at meetings of t he Board of Trustees
since the awarding of the charter. A request for this doc umentation was made
during the conversation with staff on December 29, 2010.
5. Please provide copies of all financial statements (inc luding quarterly financia l
reports) provided to the Board of Trustees since the awarding of the charter.
6. Please provide a listing of all non-NYSED revenues received by the School since the
awarding of the charter.
7. Please provide a listing of all contracts for services cu rrently in place for KIDCS.
The list should inc lude the name of the entity, the negotia ted services, the terms of
services, total contract value, and method of selection. In instances where trustees’
approval was required, please provide copies of trustee resolutions approving such
contracts.
8. Please provide an itemized li st of expenditures (electroni c files) dating from Augus t
2010 to date.
Final and complete responses to this inquiry must be received no later than Monday,
January 24, 2011. Please send the responses to J amal L. Young, Regio nal Associate,
Office of Innovative School Models, Charte r School Office, Ne w York State Education
Department, 55 Hansen Place, Brooklyn, Ne w York 11217. Mr. Young may be reached at
(718) 722-2731 or via e-mail at jyoung3@mail.nysed.gov.
Questions concerning this inquiry should also be directed to Mr. Young.
Sincerely,
Sally Bachofer
c: John B. King, Jr.

Erin O’Grady-Parent
Marc Sternberg
Leslie Templeman
Jamal Young
OFFICE OF INNOVATIVE SCHOOL MODELS

ROOM 471 EBA
Tel. 518/474-1762
Fax 518/474-3209
February 17, 2011
John Torres
Chairman, Board of Trustees
268 Van Cortlandt Park Avenue
Yonkers, New York 10705
Dear Mr. Torres:
Thank y ou for the material that y ou provided to Jamal You ng in response t o the January
14, 2011, letter to you from Sally Bachofer , Assistant Commissioner of the Office of
Innovative School Models at the State Education Department.
The purpose of this letter is to request some additional doc umentation pertaining to
Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter School’s cu rrent financial situation. Specifically , we
are requesting the following documentation:
• Month to month cash flow proj ections, indicating ac tual revenu es and expenses as of
January 31, 2011, and project ed revenues and expenses until the end of the current
fiscal year (June 30, 2011).
• Current FY 2011 budget approved by the school’s governing board.
• Any projected budget/fiscal information review ed or discussed by the school’s board for
beyond June 30, 2011.
Please for ward this documentation to Jamal L. Young, Regional Associate, Offic e of
Innovative School Models, Char ter School Office, New York State Education Department,
55 Hansen Place, Brooklyn, New York 11217. Mr. Young may be reached at (718) 722-
2731 or via e-mail at jyoung3@mail.nysed.gov Pleas e provide t his material to Mr. Young
no later than Thursday, February 24, 2011.
Questions concerning this request should also be directed to Mr. Young.
Sincerely,
Leslie E. Templeman
Assistant Counsel
c: Sally Bachofer
Cliff Chuang
Jamal Young
Attachment “B”
New York State Education Department Charter School Office
Year 1 Site Visit Report

Name of Charter School: Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter School

Date of Site-Visit: March 9, 2011 Date of Report: May 3, 2011
Members of Site- Jamal L. Young, Associate, NYSED Charter School Office
Visit Team: Cliff Chuang, Director, NYSED Charter School Office
Kalimah Geter, Associate, NYSED Charter School Office
The primary purpose for site visits conducted by the New York State Education Department (SED) to
charter schools authorized by the Board of Regents is to gather and document evidence about the school’s
performance, implementation of the educational and organizational program outlined in its charter, and
compliance with laws and regulations. On March 9, 2011, an SED team visited the Kingsbridge
Innovative Design Charter School, located at 295 West 231st Street, serving approximately 145 students
in grades K and 1. The school is in its first year of operation. During this visit, the team interviewed board
trustees, school administrators, faculty, consultants working with the school, and parents. Members of the
team also conducted observations in five of the six main classrooms (one classroom was on a field trip),
and attended a regularly scheduled board meeting in the evening of the day of the visit.
Three guiding questions serve as a lens to direct the review:
• Is the school faithful to the terms of its charter?
• Is the school educationally sound?
• Is the school fiscally sound and organizationally viable?
Observational findings from this site visit are presented in each of these areas below.
1. IS THE SCHOOL FAITHFUL TO THE TERMS OF ITS CHARTER?
MISSION OF THE SCHOOL

Mission The school is faithful to the mission, vision, and educational philosophy defined in
the current charter.
Findings
• The School has as its mission “to empower its students, families, faculty, and community to
become creative, collaborative, socially responsible leaders to meet the challenges of the 21st
century for a sustainable and equitable future.”
• In interviews conducted throughout the day, members of the school community (trustees,
administrators, faculty, and parents) reported KIDCS faced several challenges in implementing
the mission and educational philosophy.
o Trustees and parents stated the social constructivism and sustainable efficiency
philosophies were implemented unevenly due to several factors including financial
constraints, board policy, and administrative action (modified staffing model, adjusted
daily schedule, use of assessments and instructional materials, etc.).
o Trustees and administrators delineated, during interviews, the manner in which the larger
vision for the school (providing second language instruction, a distributed leadership
model between and instructional and operations leader, and democratic leadership
structures for parents and teachers) became circumscribed.
o In discussions with the SED team, KIDCS faculty conveyed limited clarity on the various
educational philosophies, which ranged from “arts infused integrated thematic
instruction” to “structure for each person” (intended to offer differentiated instruction
across “domains, skills and content”) (KIDCS Charter, pg. 48). Several acknowledged
that they were unaware of the school’s mission when they were hired.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Leadership/ The board of trustees implements the governance and leadership structure as defined
governance in the current charter.
Findings
• The board of trustees has failed to implement the governance and leadership structure as defined
in the approved charter.
• In the original charter, the school proposed a board of trustees comprised of seven members,
operating in a committee structure. The school proposed a building leadership structure of an
executive director and principal, in which the principal reported to the Executive Director (page
748 of charter). Effective January 4, 2011, the KIDCS board of trustees removed the
instructional leader. SED was notified of the change on January 13. On January 24, a consultant
began an engagement with the school to provide instructional leadership. SED informed the
school that the consultant could not supervise instructional staff. At the time of the visit, the
consultant reported that instructional leadership for the faculty was provided through
collaboration between a master teacher and the school’s social worker. This had been the core
responsibility of the school principal position (page 749 of charter). These modifications to the
instructional program were not approved by the Charter School Office and the Board of Regents.
• As of the time of the visit, a board of trustees of six members governed the school. The bylaws
require a minimum of five trustees. Interviews conducted at that time indicated the School was
operating outside of its approved committee structure. Based on ongoing communications with
the board chair, a review of board minutes, and correspondence with KIDCS, governance
decisions were made either by the full board or by the board chair and Executive Director.
Trustees who chaired the Hiring, Curriculum and Professional Development (HCPD) Committee
and the Finance, Facilities and Operations (FFO) Committee resigned in October and January,
respectively. At the time of the meeting, the Board had actively solicited replacements for these
vacancies. Five candidates for the board were presented for consideration at the meeting on
March 9.
• In all, only one of the 7 initial founding board members, the board chair, remains on the board of
trustees. Based on letters of resignation forwarded to SED, three departing trustees expressed
dissatisfaction with board leadership, particularly in relation to the failure to provide sufficient
transparency and disclosure of school operations and fiscal management.
• As of the time of the visit, the KIDCS board had not re-established the committee structure
outlined in the charter and the organization’s bylaws. A review of the monthly meeting minutes
indicates that considerable discussion has been directed to the resolution of the facility and long-
term financing needs of the school. Discussions on the academic performance of students is not
2
reflected in the minutes of meetings conducted in October or December.Nor was academic
performance discussed at the meeting attended by NYSED staff on March 9.
• The School has had instability in instructional leadership since the charter was approved by the
board of Regents in January 2010. The initial co-applicant and first proposed instructional leader
was not hired prior to the opening of the school. In the months following charter approval by the
Regents (February – April 2010), the school’s HCPD committee opted to open a formal search
process and offered the position of principal to another candidate. This candidate was
subsequently removed from the position in January 2011. The principal is no longer an ex oficio
member of the board of trustees.
• At a board meeting in April 2010, the new principal candidate was hired at a rate that
significantly exceeded the budget. The salary of the Executive Director was raised to equalize
their compensation, and to reflect their collaborative roles are co-leaders of the school. The
charter projected only a modest surplus of $1,145 in Year 1, prior to this modification. SED was
not formally notified of these actions by the trustees. No approval was issued by SED.
• KIDCS continues to face significant operational, instructional, and fiscal challenges, each of
which threaten its ability to fulfill the school’s mission, vision and educational program.

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM
Academic program The school implements an academic program, including pedagogical approach,
curriculum, assessment, and other unique elements of the educational philosophy
defined in the current charter.
Student services The school provides services for all students, including but not limited to those with
special education, English Language Learner needs and those eligible for the
federal free- and reduced-price lunch program, as defined in the current charter.
Enrollment The school’s student recruitment and enrollment process is faithful to that intended
in the charter and as defined by statute and regulation.
Findings
• The school design is based on the philosophy of social constructivism. KIDCS seeks to establish
a learning environment in which knowledge is constructed, or built, around the prior knowledge
of students and their interaction with the world around them. Cornerstones of this approach
include cooperative learning, design-based learning, inquiry-based teaching, and project/problem-
based learning. Several teachers reported that they were unaware of the school’s unique
educational philosophy when they were hired, and reported receiving limited and fragmented
professional development. Teachers also noted that until very recently, they received little
direction from school leadership in how to implement the education program as outlined in the
charter. The site visit team observed limited evidence of these practices during classroom
observations. Throughout the visit, most students were observed in large classroom settings
receiving direct instruction. Differentiated instruction was observed in only one classroom, where
one of the two teachers sat with a small group of students facilitating a guided reading session.
The remaining students in the room seemed to be engaged in independent activities, as the second
teacher rotated the room to keep students on task and to assist where necessary.
• Board members, administrators, teachers and parents noted that KIDCS provides a strong basis
for students to learn about the surrounding environment through lessons provided by a certified
3
park ranger. The lessons of the park ranger have been complemented by multi-disciplinary
instruction on the uses and impact of wood in the daily lives of the KIDCS community. In
addition, KIDCS provides a handwork class, based on the Waldorf education model, which
supports project-based learning by students.
• The educational program has diverged from the program proposed in the charter. KIDCS
presently operates without an instructional leader. The School proposed a lead teacher-assistant
teacher model, which was eliminated in favor of a co-teaching approach enlisting two lead
teachers.
• The original charter application proposes that the school will be assessment driven. Teachers,
however, lacked rich assessment data of student performance due to delays in obtaining and
issuing Fountas and Pinnell assessments earlier in the year. On the day of the visit, KIDCS
administrators reported that new assessment data was being analyzed in anticipation of reporting
student academic achievement results to the board of trustees.
• The original charter application planned for 185 days of instruction. It is unclear whether KIDCS
will be able to meet this requirement given that instruction did not begin until September 13,
2011 due to delays in construction and code compliance at 295 West 231st Street. A resolution
was passed at the March 9 board meeting to ensure the school provided a minimum of 180
instructional days due to the unusual amount of inclement weather this school year.
• School leadership acknowledged that the school is not providing world language instruction as
proposed in the original charter application.
4
2. IS THE SCHOOL EDUCATIONALLY SOUND?
STATE MANDATED ASSESSMENT

NYS testing Students at the school demonstrate Proficiency, or progress toward meeting
program proficiency targets on state standards, as measured by the NYS Testing Program
assessments in all subject areas and at all grade levels tested for accountability
purposes.
Accountability
goals The school meets, or shows progress toward meeting, NYS Testing Program goals.
AYP The school makes Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in the aggregate and for all
statistically significant sub-groups. The school is not identified for accountability
purposes (not designated as in Needs Improvement, Corrective Action, or
Restructuring).
Findings:
• Not applicable to KIDCS. The school is in its first year of operation, serving students in
Kindergarten and Grade 1. The students are not tested in the New York State Testing Program
and the school will not receive an AYP determination.
OTHER ACHIEVEMENT, IMPROVEMENT, AND ASSESSMENT MEASURES

Accountability The school meets, or shows progress toward meeting external assessment goals.
goals
Internal Students demonstrate progress on internal measurements linked with the school’s
measures of promotion or exit standards.
student
achievement
Accountability The school meets, or shows progress toward meeting internal assessment goals.
goals
Findings:
• At the time of the visit, no preliminary data on student achievement was available. KIDCS staff
reported that data analysis on recently obtained scores was ongoing, and that a report to the
trustees was forthcoming.
CURRICULUM
Implementation The school’s curriculum, as implemented in the classroom, consistently addresses the
of the skills and concepts that all students must know and be able to do to meet NYS
curriculum Learning Standards, and supports opportunities for all students to master these
skills and concepts.
Program The school has systems and structures in place to review, regularly and
evaluation systematically, the quality and effectiveness of the academic program.
5

TEACHING AND LEARNING

Instruction School-wide instructional practice is aligned with the school design and student
learning objectives; is consistent and effective; and, conveys clear expectations
to students.
Effective Teaching There is evidence of rigor, relevance, pacing, alignment of curriculum to state
standards, and student engagement.
Assessment and Teachers and school leaders use qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform and
instructional guide instructional planning and practice.
decision-making
Findings:
• According to the Executive Director, KIDCS has done extensive work to realign instruction with
the charter. Under its revised approach, KIDCS begins the day with a morning meeting focused
on a core virtue. On the day of the visit, the core virtue was compassion.
• Administrators, teachers, and parents described that students receive instruction around an
integrated core of subjects punctuated by thematic units. KIDCS schedules 90-minute blocks in
literacy, math and science each day. An example of thematic units and core integration is the
KIDCS’ instruction on wood and its uses in society. Parents and teachers described that students
work with pieces of wood, observe wood in its natural state in parks, identify wood in various
processed states as paper, as blocks within classrooms, and in the construction of buildings.
• KIDCS’ original charter application called for Core Knowledge instruction in social studies,
Saxon Math in mathematics, supplemented by Singapore Math, and Full Option Science System
(FOSS) in science. The charter application noted that Saxon math would be used to guide
instruction, and that Singapore Math would provide breadth and depth and mental math
strategies. At the time of the visit, KIDCS had not structured, planned or delivered instruction
using any of these curricula. Interviews with the school’s instructional consultant revealed that
KIDCS also failed to establish classroom libraries, textbooks, guided reading materials, balanced
literacy materials, and instructional resources for word study. Teachers reported that materials for
the FOSS Science were received in November, but only for kindergarten students. Kits for first
graders arrived just prior to the site visit. KIDCS staff reported recently receiving materials for
instruction in Singapore math. Saxon Math, according to KIDCS administrators, will not be
introduced to the curriculum until an unspecified time in the future. Teachers stated that guided
reading materials were received four school days prior to the site visit.
• Fountas & Pinnell assessments, according to the consultant, were issued late. DIBELS
assessments had not yet been given.
• KIDCS provided limited evidence of an effective co-teaching model. At the time of the visit,
classrooms were taught by two co-lead teachers, instead of one lead teacher and one assistant
teacher, as proposed in the charter application. It was unclear in some classrooms what roles each
teacher was intended to serve, and teachers noted that it was left up to them to decide whether a
co-teaching or lead-assistant model was employed in classrooms. At the time of the visit, efforts
were underway to provide teachers with coherent professional development and opportunities for
critical reflection to improve teaching.
• The school does not employ instructional coaches, as outlined in the charter application.
6
• Teachers stated that they held the responsibility of purchasing instructional materials and student
literature. In addition, teachers sought donations for instructional materials and student literature,
in the absence of the school supplying classrooms with vital instructional materials.
SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
Effective The school leader has the experience and skills needed to implement successfully
Leadership the school’s charter.
Leadership School leaders receive appropriate and timely professional development. Mentoring
Development or coaching programs are in place and effective.
• School The school is utilizing its School Leadership Team to implement school
Leadership Team improvement.
Instructional School leaders provide teachers with feedback and guidance that leads to improved
leadership instructional practice and student achievement.
Findings:
• School leadership of KIDCS has demonstrated limited capacity to deliver effectively the program
proposed in the charter application. Specifically, the board has sought the external assistance of a
consultant to provide instructional guidance for staff. According to two former trustees (including
the board treasurer), school leadership team has failed to produce timely and accurate financial
information for consideration by the board of trustees. Three board members cited this failing as
contributing to their resignations. Further, the operations team has failed to manage
systematically the bookkeeping, payroll, and benefits systems for staff.
• KIDCS has established limited structures for soliciting feedback and issuing guidance leading to
improved instructional practice. According to board members, the vice chair of the board
conducted a programmatic audit of gaps between the school program and the programs proposed
in the charter application; however, teachers were not interviewed as part of this audit. At the
time of the visit, KIDCS had not established individualized learning plans, as outlined in the
proposed charter application.
• Professional development was in the formative stages at the time of the visit. According to the
instructional team, curriculum alignment had been the priority in the weeks preceding the site
visit. The team claims the alignment work has been extensive and includes each subject.
However, the instructional leadership team also noted that staff had not received professional
development with respect to the philosophy of social constructivism and the establishment of a
learning environment in which knowledge is constructed, or built, around the prior knowledge of
students and their interaction with the world around them. Teachers have not received
professional development on cooperative learning, design-based learning, inquiry-based teaching,
or project/problem-based learning.
SCHOOL CLIMATE
Environment is The classroom and school environment is orderly, supports the goal of student
conducive to understanding and mastery of skills, and is consistent with the school’s mission.
learning Supervision is sufficient, respectful, and consistent.
Collaboration Administrators, teachers and staff communicate openly, positively and effectively.
Professional learning communities are in place and affect improvement efforts.
Findings:
7
• At the time of the visit, the site visit team observed that engagement and discipline were recurring
challenges for several teachers. Students in several classes consistently demonstrated inattention
to lessons and engaged in distracting behaviors with other students. In two classrooms observed,
students were observed roaming the rooms idle without direction provided from teachers. Most
students seemed to be noisily engaged in their own chosen independent activities and many
students were engaged in horseplay, using pencils as swords and play fighting, without re-
direction from teachers.
• Teachers identified the external instructional consultant as their current instructional leader. At
the time of the visit, the instructional leadership team (consultant, master teacher, social worker)
noted that evaluations were forthcoming, though communications to staff about this process had
not yet occurred. Several members of the school’s faculty have recently organized to establish a
union to represent their interests. Some teachers noted that the process of organizing has led to a
lack of collaboration and communication among faculty and between certain faculty members
and the administration. Additionally, based on a review of written complaints previously
submitted to SED, along with interviews with both staff and administrators, it was unclear to the
site visit team to what extent staff at the school were aware of the operational challenges facing
school.
PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Parent Strategies are being implemented to increase the involvement and contributions of
involvement parents.
• External/ Strategies are being implemented to increase the involvement and contributions of
community community partners.
partners
Findings:
• During interviews conducted on site, parents expressed strong support of the school. These
parents, however, expressed limited knowledge of the manner in which the school had failed to
implement the instructional and fiscal plans outlined in the original charter application. It was
unclear to the site visit team the means by which parents were selected to participate in interviews
with SED staff.
• Parents affirmed the quality and commitment of the teachers. Some parents noted significant
academic improvement with their children. Parents were pleased with the handwork class, the
park ranger, and the holistic study of wood. Further, parents believed that the school offered a
rigorous educational opportunity for their child. Parents did not express significant concerns over
the changes in instructional leadership over the course of the year. Parents cited the Community
Council as a mechanism for involvement in the governance of the school.
PROGRAM PLANNING AND EVALUATION

Organizational The school has realistic plans for program improvement, possible future expansion,
needs and adequate facilities based on evaluation and analysis of data, if applicable.
Academic pr ogram The school evaluates the impact of its academic programs on student achievement
needs and modifies its programs to ensure improvement.
Teacher Teacher evaluations linked to student performance have been put into place. The
evaluations system and data used must be consistent with State APPR system.)
Findings:
8
• KIDCS provided the site visit team with limited evidence that they had planned to meet
organizational needs or academic needs. At the time of the visit, preliminary achievement data
was still forthcoming; teachers had received limited professional development on the charter; and,
the school failed to provide instruction using the curriculum outlined in the charter.
• KIDCS sought to enter into a lease agreement with the firm Corlaton Realty beginning in 2010-
2011 for a 23,000 sq. foot facility at 3120 Corlear Avenue. This space, as initially proposed in the
charter, was sufficient for the proposed school growth plan through Year 3. The board chair has
continued to work with this developer and brought a term sheet before the board at the March
2011 meeting proposing a new agreement for 2011-2012. The new agreement with Corlaton
Realty proposed a modified financing agreement that would alleviate some fiscal strain on
KIDCS. Corlaton Realty pledged to provide significant financing assistance to relocate the
school. According to the terms of the new agreement, KIDCS would borrow $609,000 at 6
percent interest, payable at the end of the charter term in 2015. The School would also pay rent of
$30 per square foot on a triple net lease for one year. Rent would increase to $33 per square foot
in 2012.
• At the time of the visit, KIDCS had a plan to evaluate the academic performance of students.
Staff indicated they were confident that the results would affirm the merits of the KIDCS
approach. Preliminary data had not yet been presented to the board of trustees at the time of the
site visit.
• Formal administrator and teacher evaluations have not been developed. The method for
evaluating teachers was to include classroom observations by the consultant, school social
worker, master teacher, and executive director.
9
3. IS THE SCHOOL FISCALLY SOUND AND ORGANIZATIONALLY
VIABLE?

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Solvency and The school develops budgets that are realistic and in support of student academic
stability achievement.
The school demonstrates a history of positive net assets, adequate cash flow to
sustain operations and support the academic program, and consistently operates
within budget.
The school develops a budget that can be sustained by its enrollment.
Fiscal oversight The Board of Trustees and school leadership implement effective structures and
systems to enable responsible fiscal oversight of the school.
The Board of Trustees has an external company complete a yearly audit.
The Board of Trustees demonstrates long-term fiscal oversight through appropriate
planning processes.
Internal controls The school implements an effective system of internal controls over revenues,
expenses, and fixed assets, and exercises good business practices.
Findings:
• KIDCS has provided the State Education Department limited evidence of fiscal soundness. Over
the past several months, KIDCS has experienced a number of cash flow issues, which are further
described in the Probation Order sent to the school on March 25, 2011. In addition, the board of
trustees and operations staff failed to provide consistent projections of cash flow through the end
of the current fiscal year. The external consultants hired by the school a few days prior to the site
visit were in the process of systematically reconstructing the school’s books from the start of
school operations in spring 2010 forward.
• According to minutes of the trustees, from April through July 2010 new teachers were hired
according to job descriptions and pay rates exceeding the provisions of the charter. Whereas the
charter called for a lead teacher-assistant teacher model, the board shifted course and hired two
lead teachers to establish a more costly collaborative teaching model in each of their six
classrooms. Neither reviews of the minutes nor interviews with staff provided evidence of
financial contingency planning by the trustees to mitigate the impact of these new expenses.
According to board minutes, a fall fundraiser planned at New York University was cancelled by
the Executive Director due to poor preparation and “insufficient funds to pay for a freelance event
planner at a cost of $80K.” At the time of the visit, six KIDCS classrooms were staffed with two
lead teachers in each room.
• School budgets have not developed in a manner that was realistic and reflective of all revenues
and expenditures. In particular, KIDCS (at the suggestion of former board member Eduardo
Laguerre) contracted with the Blue Nail Construction Corp. The fee to remodel and equip the 295
West 231st Street location was $800,000. This unanticipated fee significantly influenced the
capacity of the school to make timely payments for payroll and benefits throughout the year.
• Rather, KIDCS trustees report that the decision to open the school in September 2010 was driven
by considerations of families impacted, staff hired, and the prohibitive difficulty of opening after
taking a planning year.
• Payroll taxes paid by the school are 282% higher than projected in the Year One charter budget.
10
• The School purchased a bus at a total cost (interest + principal) of $100,000 on a 60-month term,
coinciding with the term of the charter. The monthly payments on this obligation are $1,575.
• At the time of the visit, KIDCS’ fiscal oversight by the trustees was minimal. Based on an
analysis of resumes and questionnaires, the board of trustees, collectively, possessed little
expertise and insufficient access to information for sound collaborative planning or decision-
making.
• The School has consistently faced difficulties with respect to sound fiscal management. Internal
controls are not in place to ensure the sound management of revenues, expenses and fixed assets.
• The board has aggressively sought a variety of financing solutions from developers, banks,
foundations, and other sources. In particular, the Fund for the City of New York has provided
three separate loans to KIDCS to stabilize cash flows.
PARENT AND STUDENT SATISFACTION
Family satisfaction Through the use of parent and student (where appropriate) surveys, the school
demonstrates that families are satisfied with the school’s program
Student retention The school can document the numbers and reasons for student attrition.
Findings:
• The site visit team did not review data related to these indicators.
LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE

Board The Board of Trustee is responsible to the school community it serves.
Accountability
Decision making The school has a clear understanding of decision-making and communication that
and result in a common sense of purpose for all school constituencies.
communication
Roles and The school defines and delineates clear roles and responsibilities among board and
responsibilities staff.
Board oversight The Board of Trustees regularly and systematically assesses the performance of
school administrators against school-wide goals and makes effective and timely
use of the evaluations.
The Board of Trustees operates with a clear set of goals for the school, and has
developed a set of tools for understanding progress toward meeting those goals.
Board development Board members receive appropriate and timely professional development.
Personnel The Board of Trustees employs leaders who demonstrate effective leadership of the
school’s programs.
The school’s leadership establishes an appropriate professional climate, resulting in
a purposeful learning environment, reasonable rates of retention for effective
school leadership, staff, and teachers, and manageable levels of overall staff
turnover.
Findings:
• KIDCS provided limited evidence of board accountability. The board began Year 1 with three
committees (Facilities, Finance and Operations; Hiring, Curriculum, and Professional
Development; and Communications, Development and Grant Writing). The chairs of each of the
11
committees resigned. Two were critical of board leadership and school staff for their disclosure
of information.
• The roles and responsibilities of board members are not clearly defined. At the time of the visit,
the trustees did not have a secretary or treasurer, nor had committee chairs been replaced.
• Board members have alleged in complaints to SED that KIDCS may have violated the Open
Meetings Law of New York State by improperly entering into Executive Session and by making
binding decisions during those sessions, which should have been discussed before the public. A
complaint by a board member, dated November 10, further alleges the board failed to adhere to
its own procedures in appointing members; administering discipline to the instructional leader;
and, in issuing policy to staff.
• Two former board members allege a lack of financial transparency in the operations of the school.
Both resignations were submitted in January 2011. At the time of the visit, KIDCS was operating
without a treasurer, without a CFO, and without a functioning Finance, Facilities and Operations
(FFO) committee.
COMPLIANCE
Safety The school establishes and maintains a physically safe environment for students and
staff.
The school establishes a healthy environment ensuring civil rights for all.
Facilities The school provides facilities that meet applicable state and federal requirements,
are suited to its programs, and are sufficient to serve diverse student needs.
Staff qualifications Staff employed by the school meets all applicable state and federal qualifications
and standards.
Implementation of Activities are funded to recruit, place, and/or retain highly qualified staff.
Strategies to
recruit, place, and
retain qualified
staff
Findings:
• The site visit team did not make determinations in these areas during this site visit.
12
Attachment “C”
~~ i\\t~~ it~ oft...t~:e ~ t It t.e.a[ti'leftr ~
~'b1.1:cnton - ~ -D-l-lt
INTHEMATTER PROBATION ORDER

AND
of NOTICEOF INTENTTOSEEK
SUMMARY REVOCATION
KINGSBRIDGE
INNOVATIVE
DESIGNCHARTER
SCHOOL
EducationLaw §2855providesthat the Boardof Regentsmayplace a charterschoolon probationary

statusto allowthe implementationof a remedialactionplan for, amongother reasons,seriousviolationsof law
and/ormaterialand substantialviolationsof the school'scharter,includingfiscal mismanagement.Section3.16
of the Rules of the Boardof Regentsdelegatesthis authorityto the Commissionerof Education.
Pursuantto that authority,I find that the KingsbridgeInnovativeDesign Charter School ("School")
shouldbe placedon probationuntil at least May 17, 2011,in accordancewith the termsand conditionssetforth
in this decision,for serious violationsof law and ~bterial and substantialviolations of the School'scharter,
includingfiscal mismanagement. ~i
In addition,this ProbationOrder and Notice of Intentto Seek SummaryRevocationof the School's

chartershall serve as the noticeto the School'sBoar~ of Trusteesrequiredby §2855of the EducationLawand
§3.17(a)(1)of the Rulesof the Boardof Regents. 1
BACKGROUND
The KingsbridgeInnovativeDesignCharterf chool ("School")was authorizedby the Boardof Regents

on January 12, 2010. The Schoolwas scheduledto open in September2010 at 3120CorlearAvenuein New
York City'sCommunitySchool District10 in the Bron. The Schoolproposeda dual leadershipmodelin which
the co-applicantswouldbe responsiblefor operation~1
and instruction,respectively.
Duringthe summerand fall of 2010, staff from the Office of InnovativeSchool Models in the State
EducationDepartment("Department"), had severalrri~etingSand conversationswith the ExecutiveDirectorand
Chair of the Board of Trusteesof the School as the iSchoolpreparedto open for instructionon September7,
2010. Issues related to the acquisition of appropiate facilities for the school, completing renovationsto
facilities,obtainingthe necessarycertificatesof occupancyfor the facilities,and leasingor purchasingbusesto
transportstudents,amongotherswere discussedduringthistime. In fact,the schoolwas not able to open for
instructionon September7, 2010 as plannedbecaypethe necessarycertificationsfor the facilityhad not yet
been obtained. The School ultimatelyopenedfor ins~ruction on September17,2010 at 295 West 231stStreet,
Bronx.NY. ii
During the fall of 2010,the Departmentbegan receivingcomplaintsfrom a member of the School's
Boardof Trustees,membersof the School'sstaff,and parentsof studentsat the Schoolconcerninga varietyof
issues that included,but were not limitedto, allegedviolationsof Board of Trusteesprocedures,lapsed benefit
contractsfor School staff, inappropriatehandlingof contributionsto staff401(K) accountsand allegationsthat
the Schoolwouldn01:be able to makepayroll.
In November2010,a Departmentstaff membervisitedthe school to gather informationpertainingto

the ongoingfiscal and operationalissuesdescribedabove as well as to evaluatethe educationalsoundnessof
the School. Departrnentstaff met with the principaland severalteachers. Ongoingfinancialproblemswere
described during these meetings that includedan inabilityto purchaseinstructionalmaterials necessaryto
implementthe instructionalprogramdescribedin the Charter. Departmentstaff made several requestsof the
Schoolduring the fall of 2010and earlywinter of 2010-11for informationconcerningthe status of employees'
benefits contracts,the ability of the Schoolto make payroll,and the status of hiring an instructionalleader,
amongother issues.
On January 14, 2011,the AssistantCommissionerof the Office of InnovativeSchool Modelsin the

Departmentsent a letter to the Chairmanof the School'sBoard of Trustees("Trustees"). The letter outlined
several concerns about the School based on the communicationsbetweenthe School and the Department,
visits to the Schooland informationand complaintsreceivedby the Departmentfrom third parties. The letter
outlined responsesand informationthat the Departmentrequiredthe Schoolto provideto the Departmentby
January 24, 2011. The responsereceivedfrom the School was incompleteand raised additionalconcerns
aboutthe fiscal and educationalsoundnessof the School.
On February 17, 2011, the Departmentsent another letter to the Trustees requestingadditional
informationconcerningthe School'sfiscal condition. Thatadditionalinformationwas requiredto be providedto
the Departmentby February24, 2011. The requestedinformationwas not providedto the Departmentby the
deadline of February24, 2011. On February25, 2011,an email was sent to the Trusteesindicatingthat no
informationhad been received by the Department,that Departmentstaff was planningto visit the school on
March 9, 2011,and that the requestedinformationmustbe providedto the Departmentno later than 8:00 a.m.
on February28, 2011. Again,the responsereceivedfrom the Trusteeswas incompleteand continuedto raise
additionalconcernsaboutthe fiscal and educationalsoundnessof the School.
On March 9, 2011, Departmentstaff conducteda site visit to the School to assess the fiscal and
educationalsoundnessof the school,collectdata pertainingto the formal informationrequestsof January 14,
2011 and February 17, 2011, and to meet with the Trustees,school staff, teachers, parents,and external
consultantsworking 'Niththe school'sleadership. The site visit included interviewswith these stakeholders,
documentreview,classroomobservations,and attendanceat a regularlyscheduledmeeting of the School's
Boardof Trustees.
VIOLATIONS
1. Section 5.1 of the School's charter agreement with the Board of Regents provides that, "(t)he
Charter School shall at all times maintain appropriate managementand financial controls."
The Department'sreviewindicatesthat there are a lack of basicfinancialsystemsand controlsat the

Schooland seriousdeficienciesin the documentationof expenditures. This situationis fiscallyunsoundand a
materialand substantialviolationof the School'scharter. A school'sfinancialsoundnessis fundamentalto its
ability to operate an educationalprogram. To maintain this soundness,financial policies, practices and
proceduresmust be implementedand followedto ensure success. Examplesof fiscal unsoundness,fiscal
mismanagement and thatthe Schoolis in violationof this provisionof the charterincludes:
2
The School does not have a fiscal system in place that includes an appropriate system of
bookkeepingand financialrecordsmanagement.
The School is fiscallyunstable.The Schoolincurredsignificant,unbudgetedexpensesto secure and
build-outthl3school'scurrenttemporaryfacilityat 295 West 231st Street,Bronx,NY, withoutobtaining
financingto ensure adequatecash flow for ongoing operations,which are heavily dependentupon
short-term loan support from third parties borrowed against future per-pupil tuition revenue. The
Schoolhas failedto make consistentand p(operpaymentsof payrolltaxes, insurance,and benefitsfor
staff. In January2011,directpayrolldepositsfor severalstaffmemberswere reversedby the School's
payroll agent due to insufficientfunds. The School has routinelyincurredsubstantialfees for late
paymentsand/orfailureto maintainsufficientfundsto coverpayments.
To date,aft,erseveralspecificrequestsbythe Department,the Schoolhas been unableto providethe
Departmentwith a sound fiscal plan that includesprojectionson how build-outcosts for the school's
currentfacilitywill be coveredundercurrentfiscal projections.
The School has not establishedan escrowaccountfor dissolutionas required by §8.5 of the charter
agreement.
The School has not obtained tax-exemptstatus from the IRS, as required by §2853(1)(a) of the
EducationLawand §5.11 of the charter agreement,becauseof its delayin submittingthe application
to the IRS.
2. Section 2.12 01'the charter and Section 2853(1)(f)of the Education Law state that the Board of
Trustees of the! charter school "shall have final authority for policy and operational decisions of
the school."
There have been several resignationsfrom the Board of Trusteessince the summer of 2010, causing
concern to the Departmentabout the instabilityon the Board and the impact that had on the effective
managementand operationof the School. In October2010,the memberof the Board of Trusteeswho had
contacted the Depalimentwith complaints about alleged violations of the Board of Trustees procedures,
resignedfrom the Board. In January 2011,a memberof the School'sBoard of Trusteesresignedfrom the
Board,and in his resignationemail to the BoardChaircited concernsthat he, as a memberof the Board,had
beengiven misinformationand was excludedfrom decisionsabout budgetmatters. Appointmentsto fill some
vacancieson the Bo,ardof Trusteeshave been made in violationof §2.12 of the charter agreementwhich
requiresthe submissionof informationabouta prospectiveBoardmemberto the Departmentand approvalby
the Departmentprior to the Board memberbeing seated. In March 2011 another member of the Board of
Trusteesinformedthl~Chair of the Boardthat he would notbe seekingan additionalterm on the Board.
3. Section 2.4 of 'the charter agreement provides that, "(t)he Charter School shall implement the
educational prograrns set forth in the Application "
Examplesthat the School is not operatingip an educationallysound mannerand in violation of this

provisionof the Charterinclude: j
The School has been operatingwithoutan instructionalleadersince January4, 2011 when the
school'~isecondprincipalwas fired. At that time,the schooltransitionedleadershipand oversight
of the alcademicprogramto an externalconsultant.This highturnover(threeacademicleadersin
the school'sfirst five monthsof operations)raises concernsaboutthe Board of Trustees'ability
to effecjlivelyleadthe school.
The School does not employinstructionalcoachesand classroomsare not staffed using the
teachingmodeldescribedin the Application.
Curriculumand instructionalmaterialsas describedin the Applicationhave notbeen purchased.
.
1. Docume~talYevidencethat the School is currenton ALL payroll-relatedexpenses,includingsalary,
benefits,Insurance,taxes,and 401(K)contributionspromisedto employees;
2. A month-~o-mont~ cash-flowstatementthroughthe end of FY 2012 that indicatespositive cash-flow,
and specificdetailsabout!!! loans (shortor long term),draw-down,and payoffsthat occur duringthis
time period;
3. A balanced five-year budget for remainder of the charter term, including a detailed table of
assumption~; and line-itembudgetnarrativeto clarifyall revenuesand expenses,with specificdetails
on personnlel,contracts, that are related to implementationof the key elements of the charter
educationaldesign,as well as build-outcosts;
4. Documentaryevidenceof securedand executedloanagreementsor other arrangementto payoffbuild
out costs for Year 1 and Year 2 and through completion,the debt service paymentsof which are
sustainable'withinthe School'soperatingbudget;
5. A scheduleIforrelocationof the Schoolto 3120CorlearAvenue,inclusiveof outstandingitemsfor the
build out and a narrativeexplainingpotentialchallenges;
6. A copy of interimand final bookkeepingreportsto the Board of Trusteesas preparedby the firm of
Rios and McGarrigle,LLC.;
7. Actual balanlcesheetand incomestatementas of March 31, 2011 and projectedbalancesheet and
incomestatE~ment at June 30, 2011and June 30, 2012;
8. A managemlent and staffingplanto ensureadherenceto fiscal policiesand proceduresadoptedbythe
Board of '-rustees, including bookkeeping,fiscal records management, procurement, payroll
management,financialreportingto the Boardof Trustees,and the adequateseparationof duties;
9. A signedfull auditengagementletterfor FY11;
10. Documentaryevidencethat plansare in placefor all key elementsof charterdesignto be in placefor
Sept1, 2011,includingcurriculardesign,staffingdesign,schedule,instructionalmodel;
11. Formalcharter revision requestssubmittedto the Board of Regentsseeking approvalto modifythe
daily schedLlleand school calendarand any other materialor non-materialrevisionsto the School's
charter;
12. The methodologyused in conductingthe searchfor a new instructionalleader and chieffiscal officer,
and criteriaappliedto selection,includingthe job description;
13. A list indicatingwhetheror not currentstudentsintendto returnto the Schoolin Fall 2011, by grade
and CSD of residence;
14. A list of studentsindicatingfull enrollment(?25)for the 2011-12school-year,includingany waitlisted
students,bygradeand CSD of residence;
15. Documentaryevidencethat!!! parentsof studentsat the Schoolhave been informedof this remedial
action plan and the probationstatus of the Schoolin two formats:written communicationsent home
4
(on or beforeMarch30, 2011)and at leastone parentmeetingheld at the schoolon or beforeApril 15,
2011 (with at least one week's notice provided). The Schoolshould make arrangementsto provide
translationsto parents and/or guardiansfor whom a languageother than English is the primary
methodof communication; and
16. A plan for establishingand fundingan escrowaccountfor dissolution.
INTENTTO SEEK SUMMARYREVOCATION
The successor failure of the School rests ultimatelywith its Board of Trustees. It is the Board's
policies, oversightof their implementation,and leadershipthat will set the course for the remainderof the
School'scharterterm.
The period providedfor implementingthe remedialaction plan shall also constitutethe School's30-
day period under § 3.17(2)of the Rules of the Board of Regentsto remedythe problemsassociatedwith the
proposedrevocation"If the Schoolhas failed to implementany of the aboverequirementsto the Department's
satisfactionby April 29, 2011,the Departmentwill pursuesummaryrevocationof the School'scharter by the
Board of Regentspulrsuantto §2855(3)of the EducationLaw at the May 16-17,2011 meetingof the Board of
Regents,effectiveJune 30, 2011. After reviewof materialssubmittedby the School,the Departmentwill notify
the School of its decisionregardingthe intentto continueto pursuerevocationof the School'sCharter by May
3, 2011.
Pursuantto §3.17(a)(2)of the Rulesof the Boardof Regents,the Schoolhas the opportunityto submit
a written responseto this notice of intentto revoke,which presentsthe School'sposition. The responsemay
include supporting affidavits,exhibits and other documentaryevidence (including any evidence that the
problems at issue have been corrected),and may presentlegal argument. Any written response that the
School maychooseto submit mustbe receivedby the Departmentno later than 5:00 p.m. on May 6, 2011, at
the Office of Counsel,EducationBuilding,Room 148EB,Albany, New York 12234. By the same time the
School must also inform the Department,in writing, if it plans to requestthe opportunityfor oral argument
pursuantto §3.17(a)(3)of the Rulesof the Boardof Regents. A failureto submita timelyresponsewill resultin
the Board of Regentsdecidingwhetherto revokethe School'scharterwithoutbenefitof inputfrom the School.
Any oral argumentthat the School maychoseto requestshall take place on May 16 or 17, 2011 at
the State EducationDepartment,Albany,NewYork. The dates of the oral argumentand/orconsiderationof the
revocation application by the Board of Regents are subject to change without further Order of the
Commissioner,and the Schoolwill be providedwith writtennotice bythe Departmentof anychanges.
The School has the option of voluntarilyseeking an order form the Board of Regentsrevokingthe
School'scharter and certificate of incorporation,and dissolvingthe corporation pursuantto Education Law
§219(3}. I!
Attachment “D”
THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
CHARTER SCHOOL OFFICE

ROOM 471 EBA, 89 WASHINGTON AVENUE, ALBANY NY, 12234
Tel. 518/474-1762; Fax 518/474-3209; charterschools@mail.nysed.gov
May 3, 2011 Summary of Kingsbridge Innovation Design Charter School’s

Implementation of the Remedial Action Plan set forth in the March 24, 2011 Probation Order and
Notice of Intent to Seek Summary Revocation of the School’s Charter,
due to NYSED by 5:00 p.m. on April 29, 2011
Note: All items were submitted via electronic mail to and reviewed by NYSED Charter School Office
staff members Cliff Chuang and/or Jamal Young.
1. Documentary evidence that the School is current on ALL payroll-related expenses, including
salary, benefits, insurance, taxes, and 401(K) contributions promised to employees;
Over the course of the day on Friday, April 29, 2011, the School submitted a series of separate emails
containing documents in response to this item. After a follow-up phone call on Saturday, April 30,
2011, board treasurer Ed Montolio sent via email on Sunday, May 1, 2011 at 9:52 p.m., a summary
spreadsheet providing additional detail regarding 401K and other payroll-related expense payments.
Though the School submitted screenshots and copies of statements that demonstrated that wire
transfers and other financial transactions were completed or pending on Friday, April 29, 2011, due to
the piecemeal nature of the submissions, it was difficult to determine whether or not this remedial
action was successfully completed.
The School submitted copies of electronic contribution details confirmations from John Hancock
New York, their 401K provider, and Department staff were reasonably able to determine that back
401K payments from February through April 2011 have been made. However, at least one former
employee requested that any prior contributions deducted from her paycheck be sent directly to her
rather than deposited into her 401K account. As of Saturday, April 30, 2011, she had not yet received
funds due to her.
Remedial Action Item Sufficiently Addressed? No.
2. A month-to-month cash-flow statement through the end of FY 2012 that indicates positive cash-
flow, and specific details about all loans (short or long term), draw-down, and payoffs that
occur during this time period;
As of 5:00 p.m., April 29, 2011, the School provided month-to-month cash-flow statements (i.e.,
projections) for Year 2 of the School’s charter term (2011-12), but did not include any detail about
cash-flow between April 29, 2011 and June 30, 2011. Evidence from this two-month cash-flow time
period is critical for demonstrating that the school be financially viable through the end of the 2010-
11 school year.
After a follow-up phone call made by Cliff Chuang to John Torres, the School’s board chair, on
Friday evening, April 29, 2011, shortly after 5:00 p.m., the School submitted a separate Year 1 (2010-
11) cash-flow statement at 6:46 p.m. via email. However, this cash-flow did not provide specific
details about all loans, draw-down, and payoffs. After an additional follow-up phone calls made by
Cliff Chuang to John Torres, and then Ed Montolio, the School’s board treasurer, on the morning of
Saturday, April 30, 2011, the School submitted a spreadsheet (email from Ed Montolio at 9:52 p.m.
on Sunday, May 1, 2011) which contained a month-by-month Year 1 cash-flow statement, a summary
of weekly sources and uses between April 22, 2011 and June 30, 2011 and Liquidity-Model detail,
Page 1 of 10
along with a revised loan schedule. This spreadsheet contained information that differed substantially
from the one sent on Friday evening. A key revenue source identified in the second Year 1 cash-flow
statement (but omitted in the original submission) is a $200,000 bridge loan to be funded during the
week of May 6, 2011 in order for the school to be able to satisfy its obligations for that week and
beyond. Mr. Montolio notes in his 9:52 p.m. May 1, 2011 email that:
Additionally, we received an oral commitment from our Food Vendor, Fozan Pirzada of
Regina Catering, to provide a bridge loan of $200K until we received the funds from Corlaton
Realty. Per the term sheet, the Corlaton funds would be coming in mid June. As such,
entering into a bridge facility makes financial sense. Unfortunately, their rate of interest is
higher than most at 20% but we are hoping to knock that down a bit. The vendor has given
Julio and John a verbal commitment because of his obvious vested interest in keeping KIDS
viable.
However, it should be noted that 5-year budget narrative provided in the response to Item 3 indicates
that the school would be shifting to using NYCDOE food service for Year 2 and beyond. As of 9 p.m.
on Monday, May 2, 2011, the School had not yet been unable to confirm in writing that it had secured
this loan. Neither version of the Year 1 cash-flow statements budgets for possible end-of-year
reconciliation loss of revenue based on reduction of enrollment FTE in the last 2 months of school as
well as a correction of $16,624 related to over-projection of special education students at the 20%-
60% service level (see Item 3). In addition, it does not appear that moving expenses for relocation
(from the current school building to the building initially identified in the charter application, for fall
2011) are included in any cash-flow statement.
The Excel spreadsheet submitted by the School for Year 2 contained a number of calculation errors.
The School failed to include cell-to-cell formulas to ensure data integrity.
3. A balanced five-year budget for remainder of the charter term, including a detailed table of
assumptions and line-item budget narrative to clarify all revenues and expenses, with specific
details on personnel, contracts, that are related to implementation of the key elements of the
charter educational design, as well as build-out costs;
The School submitted a five-year budget spreadsheet, which included a high-level 5-year budget
projection with assumptions, a lending schedule, a staffing plan, along with three-page fiscal plan
narrative. The 5-year budget as presented provides for balanced surplus budgets in Years 1, 3, and 4
of the charter term, and deficit budgets in Year 2 and 5, with a projected ending cash balance of
$86,847 and $427,954 at the end of Years 2 and 5, respectively.
The School bases regular tuition revenue on 95% of approved enrollment (based on the School’s
April 1, 2011 bimonthly invoice, the School is at 94.2% of approved enrollment this year). However,
starting in Year 2, the School also budgets for significant revenues (more than 7%) based on the
enrollment of students with special needs who require significant service levels. The School utilizes
the following assumptions: “NY State Ed funding for Integrated Setting (<20%) is $4,789,
(20%<>60%) is $10,000, (>60%) is $19,000.” For example, in Year 2, the School projects enrolling
28 special education students in 2011-12, 8 at the <20% service level, 18 at the 20%-60% service
level, and 1 at the >60% service level: 8 *$4,789 + 18 *$10,000 + 1*19,000 = $237,312 (an example
of calculation error described in item 2 above). However, NYSED does not provide any direct special
education funding to charter schools. Rather, the New York City Department of Education
(“NYCDOE”) informed the Department that it provides supplemental special education funding (in
addition to the base charter tuition amount of $13,527 per pupil) as follows: $0 for the <20% service
level, $10,390 for the 20%-60% service level, and $19,049 for the >60% funding level. Recalculated,
8 *$0 + 18 *$10,390 + 1*19,049 = $206,069 (an example of calculation error described above). The
Page 2 of 10
School budgets similar levels of funding for Years 3 through 5, at $331,230; $404,537; and, $496,845
based on the inaccurate revenue assumptions. In addition, aside from budgeting for the additional
special education teacher in each CTT classroom at each grade level, it is unclear from the budget
presented if the School has provided for any other additional expenses that may result from serving
higher needs special education students.
Notwithstanding the inaccurate budget assumptions utilized or the Collaborative Team Teaching
(CTT) charter revision described in Item 11, the School has not provided sufficient explanation of its
ability to recruit and serve this number of special education students. It should be noted that the
School originally projected that it would enroll 8 students at the 20%-60% service level in Year 1
(FY11), but currently has billed for 0 students as this service level, and will be required to repay
NYCDOE $16,624 additional in funding that it received based on the over-projections earlier this
year. In March of 2011, the School submitted to NYCDOE a projection of 8 students at the 20-60%
service level for Year 2 (FY12), compared to the budgeted level of 18 such students in the revised 5-
year budget (which results in a $100,000 variance in budgeted revenue based on the School’s
assumptions; the projected surplus in Year 2 is $86,647). It is unclear whether the School submitted
these special education enrollment projections prior to deciding to revise its educational model to
include a CTT classroom. Nonetheless, the School has already conducted its lottery for admission for
2011-12, and has not provided sufficient supporting documentation that it has at least 18 students who
have or will have IEPs indicating 20%-60% service levels.
For Facility Operation and Maintenance, despite being housed in the same facility as originally
projected for much of the charter term (starting Fall 2011), the revised 5-year budget reduces
anticipated expenditures by $574,646 against the approved charter budget. The School did not
provide any narrative explanation for this variance. In particular, over the five-year term of the charter
when compared to the original charter budget, maintenance and repair costs reduced by $86,104;
security expenses are reduced by $188,915 and janitorial expenses were reduced by $179,394.
Amortization costs are not clearly broken out, and do not appear to align with the included lending
schedule (which itself does not clearly lay out the current financing arrangements being considered by
the School), so it is difficult to determine whether or not the projected amortization costs are
reasonable. In addition, it is unclear if depreciation expenses are included within the budget.
Additional concerns are noted about the adequacy of budgeted expense for the education program. In
particular, KIDCS recorded $71,077.50 in expenditures for classroom supplies and materials in Year
1. In the proposed five-year budget, classroom materials are budgeted at $20,000 in Year 2 and
$25,000 for each of the last three years. In its charter, the instructional materials budget for Year 1 is
$37,500. Projections grow to $56,250, $75,000, $93,750, and $112,500 in Years 2 through 5,
respectively. Whereas the original charter anticipated $337,500 in classroom supplies and materials
over the final four years of the initial charter term, this revision projects only $80,000. Put another
way, KIDCS proposes to add a high-needs special education population and augment its current
instructional program while spending 72% less on classroom supplies, with no explanation or plan
provided for this significant change.
The above discussion represents an analysis of the major concerns in the budget, although not an
exhaustive list of potential issues. However, when considering these factors, it is unclear if the
School’s budget over the 5-year charter term is solvent, or sufficiently meets the needs of the students
and staff.
4. Documentary evidence of secured and executed loan agreements or other arrangement to payoff
build out costs for Year 1 and Year 2 and through completion, the debt service payments of
which are sustainable within the School’s operating budget.
Page 3 of 10
The School submitted copies of three executed term sheets financing the build out costs for Year 1
and Year 2 as well as Years 3 and 4. It is unclear what the School’s plans for facilities are in Year 5.
The first term sheet (3 pages), dated March 31, 2011, signed by John Torres, the School’s board chair,
and Eric Chen, Director, Corlaton Realty, describes offering terms related to the School’s leasing of
3120 Corlear Avenue, Bronx, NY 10463. The agreement also provides for temporary financing of
$609,445 for Year 2 build-out costs at 6% annually over 15 years beginning on July 1, 2011, with
total annual payments of $61,714. (However, on page 2 of the document, there is an error stating that
the 2010-2011 financing cost to the School is $609,445, when this should be charged to the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2012). The agreement further provides $331,155 in financing for costs related to
additional build-out of the cellar level in Year 4 at 6% over 15 years beginning July 1, 2014, with
total additional annual payments of $33,534. The payments are in addition to the monthly rental
amounts noted in the document. The School further agrees to make a good faith effort to repay both
loans prior to the expiration of the charter.
The second term sheet (2 pages), dated April 8, 2011, signed by John Torres, the School’s board
chair, and John Morales, Bluenail partner, provides evidence of a restructured agreement with
Bluenail Design Build II Corporation to finance the build out costs for the school’s current temporary
Year 1 facility at 295 West 231 Street, Bronx, NY 10463. Under the terms of this agreement, Bluenail
“agrees to finance $216,225 @ 6% amortized over 15 years, with a lump sum payment within 4 years
before KIDSC charter expires in June 2015…” Estimated annual payments for this loan are $21,896.
The school must also pay a balance of $43,774 owed to sub-contractors by June 20, 2011.
The third term sheet (7 pages), dated April 28, 2011, signed by John Torres, the School’s board chair,
Ed Montolio, the School’s board treasurer, and Eric Chen, Director, Corlaton Realty provides
documentary evidence of secured and executed loan agreements in which Corlaton provides bridge
financing in the amount of $400,000 to the School at 6% annually over 15 years, with payments
commencing on July 1, 2011, and toil annual payments of $40,505. However, this loan will not close
and be funded until 6 weeks after execution (mid-June 2011). The loan is personally guaranteed by
John Torres.
Because amortization costs are not clearly broken out in the School’s 5-year operating budget as
described in Item 3 above, it is difficult to determine whether or not the debt service payments are
sustainable within the School’s operating budget.
5. A schedule for relocation of the School to 3120 Corlear Avenue, inclusive of outstanding items
for the build out and a narrative explaining potential challenges;
The School submitted a schedule for relocation to the 3120 Corlear Avenue facility. The narrative
does not provide details on the processes by which the plan will be fulfilled. For example, the first
outstanding item on the list is “building enclosure with residential windows.” NYSED interprets this
as a reference to the glass installation issue which plagued the location of the school at the beginning
of the 2010 school year. The narrative adds no information to this project. Nor is additional
information on this aspect of the plan included in the Project Plan developed by the architect.
Significant stages of the approval process are not scheduled until late July. The School has excluded
narrative statements to clarify the scheduling rationale. Potential challenges are listed, but not
explained.
Page 4 of 10
6. A copy of interim and final bookkeeping reports to the Board of Trustees as prepared by the
firm of Rios and McGarrigle, LLC.;
The School did not provide an interim copy of the bookkeeping reports to the Board of Trustees as
prepared by the CPA firm of Rios and McGarrigle, LLC. The interim report was requested by
NYSED during an oversight visit to the school on March 9, 2011 and again during ongoing
conversations with School trustees. According to board chair John Torres, the interim report was due
to the board of trustees on or about April 8, 2011, so that it might be discussed at the April meeting of
the KIDCS board. No interim report was made available to NYSED. A copy of the final report, a two-
page memo from Rios & McGarrigle, LLC to Julio Cotto and John Torres dated 4/30/2011 re: “Our
observations during the Bookkeeping engagement” was provided.
The Rios & McGarrigle memo noted 10 specific observations and corroborates NYSED concerns
noted in the Probation Order about the lack of basic financial systems and controls at the School and
serious deficiencies in the documentation of expenditures. For example, in observation 2, the firm
noted that “the school had not reconciled its bank statements to the activity on the folders where
paperwork for the month was kept, for the first eight months of the school year.”
The memo was also reviewed by the Office of Audit Services at NYSED. The Office noted that the
corrective actions described by the CPA firm represent needed fixes for very serious concerns, and
specifically highlighted the uncertainty regarding payroll and internal controls as significant concerns.
7. Actual balance sheet and income statement as of March 31, 2011 and projected balance sheet
and income statement at June 30, 2011 and June 30, 2012;
The School submitted an actual balance sheet and income statement as of March 31, 2011. The
School also submitted projected balance sheets for the periods ending June 30, 2011 and June 30,
2012, and a projected income statement for the period ending June 30, 2011. However, the School did
not provide a projected income statement for the period ending June 30, 2012.
Upon closer inspection of the projected balance statements, it is unclear whether appropriate
modifications and projections were made to accurately forecast the financial position of the School at
June 30, 2011 and June 30, 2012, respectively. For example, the total value of fixed assets and all
liabilities at June 30, 2011 and June 30, 2012 are identical, even though the School will have moved
from one facility to another (which should significantly affect the value of fixed assets) and
presumably made payments on a number of long-term liabilities. In addition, only one of the new
short and long-term liabilities presented as part of the response to Items 2 and 3 are included in these
projections.
Similar issues are noted in the two income statements (at March 31, 2011 and June 30, 2011)
provided. Little or no change was made in recognized income and expenses categories that should
increase when looking at 9 months vs. 12 months of revenues and expenses.
8. A management and staffing plan to ensure adherence to fiscal policies and procedures adopted
by the Board of Trustees, including bookkeeping, fiscal records management, procurement,
payroll management, financial reporting to the Board of Trustees, and the adequate separation
of duties;
The School submitted a 50-page document entitled “Financial Policies and Procedures Manual” and
dated February 2011. (SED staff member Cliff Chuang was present at the School’s April 25, 2011
Page 5 of 10
board meeting at which a resolution to adopt such a manual was passed). However, no management
and staffing plan was submitted to describe how the School will ensure adherence to this new set of
fiscal policies and procedures.
The absence of a management and staffing plan notwithstanding, the document itself is internally
contradictory and not aligned with either the School’s originally approved charter organizational
structure, currently operating structure, or proposed revised structure (see Remedial Action Plan Item
11). For example, the School-based fiscal staffing structure described on pages 1 and 50 are not
consistent within the document, nor is it consistent (and in places explicitly contradictory) with the
organizational structure described in Remedial Action Plan Items 11 and 12. The role of “Executive
Director” only appears on page 4 and 50, and the role of “Director of Business Operations/CFO” only
appears on page 4 and 5. The separation of duties charter on page 5, a critical aspect of internal
control, does not reflect past, current, or proposed staffing structure. Throughout the document, the
“Principal” and “Manager” are referenced. This contradicts the organizational structure proposed in
the charter revision request described in Remedial Action Plan Item 11—no Principal role is included.
It is also difficult to determine how this lines up with the school’s current search for a new
instructional leader and chief financial officer because no job descriptions are provided. Reference to
an Audit Committee is also made, even though such a commitment does not exist, is not proposed in
the revisions, and is not described in the original charter.
9. A signed full audit engagement letter for FY11;
The School submitted a 9-page audit engagement letter dated April 29, 2011 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2011 from MBAF-ERE CPAs LLC, signed by Marc Taub, partner. However, the letter is not
signed by an officer of the School, and it is unclear if the School has in fact accepted the engagement.
[Note: Above the unsigned School Officer signatory line at the bottom of page 9 is what appears to be
a typographical error reference “Imagine Me Leadership Charter School” instead of the Kingsbridge
Innovative Design Charter School.]
10. Documentary evidence that plans are in place for all key elements of charter design to be in
place for Sept 1, 2011, including curricular design, staffing design, schedule, instructional
model;
The School submitted an unpaginated, undated ten-page document entitled “Kingsbridge Innovative
Design Charter School Future Learning Environment” presented by Michael Fiorentino, M.S. , P.D.,
Fiorentino Support Services, for Implementation July 1, 2011,” along with an unpaginated, untitled
six-page document describing aspects of Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT). The first document
describes the “three premises that are found in researching the best-performing schools in the world,”
along with the school’s recent actions and philosophy in the areas of professional development,
materials purchased, and curriculum and instructional model.” It then describes the instructional
implementation plan, staffing design, and schedule rationale. The second (CTT) document begins
with an introductory statement: “In an effort to more thoroughly serve our community it has become
imperative we implement a Collaborative Team Teaching class for each grade level.” It goes on to
provide information which appears to be drawn from other sources about collaborative teaching
arrangements, instructional roles of co-teachers, a co-teaching self-evaluation checklist, and a
description of evaluation of co-teaching efforts.
The School provided a description of the key elements of charter design to be in place for Sept. 1,
2011. However, the School does not provide a clear plan for how it will ensure that these elements
will be implemented, e.g., a specific timeframe for the hiring of new staff, or when the extensive
Page 6 of 10
professional development as described will be conducted. In addition, the document does not describe
what aspects of the School's educational program will change given the reduction in overall
instructional time requested through charter revisions described in Item 11.
11. Formal charter revision requests submitted to the Board of Regents seeking approval to modify
the daily schedule and school calendar and any other material or non-material revisions to the
School’s charter;
The School submitted an unexecuted two-page letter re: “Charter Revision Request” dated April 26,
2011, along with an unpaginated nine-page document entitled “Resolution 2011.04.25.01 – Charter
Revision Request” passed on April 25, 2011 by the School's Board and signed by the School's Board
Chair, John Torres. The request and resolutions describes four revisions:
1) Reducing the daily schedule from 8:15 am - 5:00 pm to 8:30 am - 4:30 pm.
2) Reducing the total instructional days from 188 to 180 days.
3) Changing the School's Organizational Structure from Dual Leadership to Executive Director-
driven model.
4) Changing the average number of students per class to accommodate inclusive Special
Education Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT) class per grade.
For revision request 1, the letter indicates that the reason for the reduction in the daily schedule to end
at 4:30 pm is due to lack of transportation provided by NYCDOE after 4:30 p.m., rather than on
educational design factors. No explanation is provided for how the educational program will be
modified to accommodate the loss of 30 minutes of daily instructional time. No additional
information about the reasons for the change is provided within the Resolution document, nor is there
any information provided as to whether the lack of transportation is a change or a factor that the
School should have known at the time of its charter application.
For revision request 2, the letter indicates that the reason for the reduction of total instructional days is
due to a “late start in September, snow days, and facility emergency exit.” Again, this change is not
based on educational design considerations, and no explanation is provided for how the educational
program will be modified to accommodate for the loss of 5-11 instructional days. It is also unclear
whether the reduction in the total number of instructional days is a temporary revision for the 2010-11
school year due to first year operational challenges, or whether this will be the schedule for future
years. If the latter, it is unclear how the educational program will be modified to accommodate for the
loss of 5-11 instructional days. No additional information about the reasons for the change is provided
within the Resolution document.
For revision request 3, the letter indicates that the “Board determined that board [sic] requires one
person onsite responsible for day to day management of school operations. Furthermore, it determined
that it needed to distribute responsibilities across a cross-functional leadership team to ensure
collaboration, which was more complex to manage within a dual-leadership structure reporting to a
Board chair.” The resolution document (page 2 as printed) describes that two board consultants
“advised that the school move from a dual leadership model to a tiered leadership model.” No
additional explanation or detail is given for this change. The organizational structure proposed in this
revision request appears to contradict the structure implied by the hiring process for an instructional
leader and chief financial officer as described in the School’s submission for Item 13, where it
appears that the School’s board will directly hire these two positions. It also conflicts with the
structure that is outlined in the Financial Policies and Procedures Manual submitted by the School in
response to Item 8. Given the School’s extensive leadership struggles to date as described in the
March 9, 2011 Site Visit Report, there is insufficient information provided to assess whether the
proposed revision of leadership structure will support the School’s implementation of its educational
program.
Page 7 of 10
For revision request 4, the letter indicates that “In order to better serve the schools [sic] growing
Special Needs population, it determined that it needed to provide an increase in Special Education
instruction to students with greater mental health and learning disabilities.” It is unclear what
quantitative or qualitative analysis the school may have conducted to make the shift to CTT classroom
at each grade-level.
12. The methodology used in conducting the search for a new instructional leader and chief fiscal
officer, and criteria applied to selection, including the job description;
The School submitted an unpaginated four-page document with the heading “Kingsbridge Innovative
Design Charter School” and two parts, “Hiring Process for Instructional Leader” and “Hiring Process
for Chief Financial Officer.” The School did not submit job descriptions for either position.
Given the School’s difficulties in naming its first instructional leader—not hiring the listed co-lead-
applicant slated to become the instructional leader, and then needing to fire the person that was hired
in her stead—the methodology does not provide sufficient details about how the hiring process will
ensure that an appropriate individual is hired who is able to lead the implementation of the
educational model of the School. Given the change in organizational structure, the lack of a specific
job description makes it very difficult to determine how this new position will intersect with the
Executive Director position. The process also appears to indicate that the final candidates will
negotiate directly with the board on salary and benefits, and will be hired by the majority approval of
the board. This appears to contradict the revision request presented in Remedial Action Plan Item 11
where the Executive Director is described as the sole-report to the board. There is also no job
description for the Chief Financial Officer position, and a similar board-negotiation and approval
process is described, which again contradicts the single-board-report structure. Ultimately, there
continues to be a lack of clarity about who is accountable to whom for key aspects of school
operations.
13. A list indicating whether or not current students intend to return to the School in Fall 2011, by
grade and CSD of residence;
The School submitted an Excel spreadsheet with two worksheets, one for kindergarten and one for 1st
grade, listing the names of currently enrolled students and whether or not they plan to return to the
School in fall 2011. Based on this submitted data, of the 70 listed kindergarten students, two are not
planning to return and one is unsure. Of the 71 listed 1st graders, two are not returning and two are
unsure.
Remedial Action Item Sufficiently Addressed? Yes.
14. A list of students indicating full enrollment (225) for the 2011-12 school-year, including any
waitlisted students, by grade and CSD of residence;
The School submitted an Excel spreadsheet with six worksheets total, with a projected enrollment
worksheet and a waitlist worksheet for each grade level to be served in 2011-12 (K, 1st and 2nd).
Based on this submitted data, 75 students names are listed as enrolled for each grade level, for a total
of 225 students. The K, 1st and 2nd grade waitlists contain 43, 3, and 3 student names respectively. The
data submitted does not indicate whether the families of each student listed have confirmed their
intention to enroll at the School in 2011-12, or if only an offer of admission has been extended by the
School.
Page 8 of 10
Remedial Action Item Sufficiently Addressed? Yes.
15. Documentary evidence that all parents of students at the School have been informed of this
remedial action plan and the probation status of the School in two formats: written
communication sent home (on or before March 30, 2011) and at least one parent meeting held at
the school on or before April 15, 2011 (with at least one week's notice provided). The School
should make arrangements to provide translations to parents and/or guardians for whom a
language other than English is the primary method of communication;
The School submitted a copy of a one-page letter dated March 28, 2011 addressed to “KIDS Parents,”
also translated into Spanish, informing parents of the School’s probationary status and the potential
for revocation of the charter. The letter also indicates that the board would be briefing parents at the
Community Council meeting scheduled for March 30, 2011, and that they would also provide an
update for parents on April 14, 2011, a day following a board meeting.
Parents were not provided one week’s notice for the first briefing held on March 30, 2011. The
School also did not provide evidence that the second meeting for parents on April 14, 2011 was
actually held. The School did not provide evidence that all parents of students at the School were
informed, such as parent response slips, mail delivery receipts or attendance sheets for the parent
briefings.
It should be noted that the Department subsequently held an open public meeting at the School on
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 from 5 p.m. to approximately 7:30 p.m.
16. A plan for establishing and funding an escrow account for dissolution.
In response to Item 3, the School submitted a five-year budget for the remainder of the charter term.
Within this document, the School budgets for the funding of $25,000 into a dissolution escrow
account in Year 2 of the charter term, and $50,000 in Year 3. However, section 8.5 of the School’s
current charter contract reads as follows:
8.5. Escrow Account for Dissolution. The Charter School agrees to establish an escrow account
of no less than $75,000 to pay for legal and audit expenses that would be associated with a
dissolution should it occur. The School may provide for the full amount in its first-year budget, or
provide for a minimum of $25,000 per year for the first three years of its charter
term. The School's failure to provide for the full amount by the end of the third year of its charter
term shall be deemed a material violation of the charter.
While the School’s funding plan does provide for funding of the dissolution escrow account in the full
amount of $75,000 by the end of Year 3 of the charter term, it does not align with the contractual
requirement to provide for a minimum of $25,000 per year for the first three years of its charter.
Page 9 of 10
May 3, 2011 Summary Table of Kingsbridge Innovation Design Charter School’s
Implementation of the Remedial Action Plan set forth in the March 24, 2011 Probation Order and
Notice of Intent to Seek Summary Revocation of the School’s Charter,
due to NYSED by 5:00 p.m. on April 29, 2011
Remedial Remedial Action

Action Item Item Sufficiently
Addressed?
1 No
2 No
3 No
4 No
5 No
6 No
7 No
8 No
9 No
10 No
11 No
12 No
13 Yes
14 Yes
15 No
16 No
Page 10 of 10
Attachment “E”
89 WASHINGTON AVENUE, ALBANY NY, 12234

Notice of Public Meeting regarding the

Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter School, Bronx, New York
at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Multipurpose Room at the Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter School
295 West 231st Street, 1st Floor, Bronx, New York 10463
To: Parents, Staff (current and former), Public and Nonpublic Schools in the Same
Geographic Area as the Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter School, Bronx,
New York; New York City Department of Education; and All Other Interested Parties
From: Charter School Office, New York State Education Department
Re: Notice of Public Meeting to be held at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 26, 2011 in the
Multipurpose Room at the Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter School, located at
295 West 231st Street, 1st Floor, Bronx, New York 10463.
Date: April 18, 2011
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that New York State Education Department (NYSED) will be holding a
public meeting at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 26, 2011 in the Multipurpose Room at the
Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter School, located at 295 West 231st Street, 1st Floor,
Bronx, New York 10463. NYSED officials will listen to public comment about any and all
issues pertaining to the Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter School.
The Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter School is currently under a probationary order, and
NYSED officials will not comment on any possible future action at the meeting. The
probationary order can be found at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/psc/PublicNotices.htm.
If you cannot attend this public meeting but would like to submit public comment for consideration,
no later than Thursday, April 28, 2011, please email charterschools@mail.nysed.gov, fax 518-474-
3209, or write to the Charter School Office, New York State Education Department, 89 Washington
Ave., 465EBA, Albany, NY, 12234. If you have questions, please email
charterschools@mail.nysed.gov or call 518-474-1762.
89 WASHINGTON AVENUE, ALBANY NY, 12234

Aviso de Reunión Pública

Asunto: Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter School
Bronx, New York
a las 5:00 p.m. del martes, 26 de abril, 2011
Salón de Uso General (Multipurpose Room) del Centro Escolar
“Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter School”
295 West 231st Street, 1st Floor, Bronx, New York 10463
To: Padres; Personal Escolar (actuales y anteriores); Escuelas Públicas y No-Públicas

Situadas en la Misma Área Geográfica de “Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter
School,”Bronx, Nueva York; Departamento de Educación de la Ciudad de Nueva
York; Otros Grupos Interesados.
From: Oficina de Escuelas “Charter” (Charter School Office), Departamento de Educación,
Estado de Nueva York (NYSED)
Re: Aviso de Reunión Pública a las 5:00 p.m. del Martes, 26 de abril, 2011 en el Salón
de Uso General (“Multipurpose Room”) del centro escolar “Kingsbridge Innovative
Design Charter School,” situado en el 295 West 231st Street, 1st Floor, Bronx,
New York 10463.
Date: Abril 18, 2011
FAVOR DE HACERSE INFORMAR que el Departamento de Educación del Estado de Nueva

York (NYSED) celebrará una reunión pública a las 5:00 p.m. el martes 26 de abril de 2011 en el
Salón de Uso General (“Multipurpose Room”) del centro escolar “Kingsbridge Innovative
Design Charter School,” localizado en el 295 West 231 Street, 1er piso, Bronx, Nueva York
10463. Los funcionarios de NYSED estarán presentes para escuchar los comentarios públicos
con referencia a “Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter School.”
“Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter School” está actualmente bajo una orden probatoria, y
durante esta reunión los funcionarios de NYSED no harán comentarios con respecto al futuro de
este centro escolar. La orden probatoria se puede encontrar en:
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/psc/PublicNotices.htm.
Si usted no puede asistir a esta reunión pública pero quisiera contribuir su opinión para
consideración de todos, favor de enviar un correo electrónico antes del jueves 28 de abril de
2011, dirigido a charterschools@mail.nysed.gov , o enviar una carta por fax al #518-474-3209, o
escribir a la oficina, Charter School Office, NYSED, 89 Washington Avenue, 465EBA, Albany,
NY, 12234.
Para cualquier pregunta que Ud. tenga, escriba por correo electrónico a:
charterschools@mail.nysed.gov o llame al teléfono 518-474-1762.

KIDCS Summary Revocation Documents REDACTED - 1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

KIDCS Summary Revocation Documents REDACTED - 1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234

SENIOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR P-12 EDUCATION

Members of the Board of Trustees - Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter School

Dear Sirs and Madams:

John B. King, Jr.

Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter School

Mr. Julio Cotto, Executive Director Mr. Ed Montolio

Mr. John Torres, Board Chairperson Mr. Hector H. Lopez

Mr. Troiyle Sanon Mr. Jorge Chang

Ms. Nelly Evans

Ms. Molly Lopez

Mr. Christian O. Guerrero

Ms. Nancy Rivera

(b) Serious violations of law; or

The School provided documents in a seri es of email communications with the

Reasons for the Department’s Recommendation for Summary Revocation

The Department’s recommendation to t he Board of Regents to revoke the

Fiscal Management and Controls

Despite the School’s submission of ma terials in response to the probationary

3. The School has not presented sufficient evidence of fiscal solvency

As outlined in Attachment D, the School has not sufficiently addressed the

Ultimately, it is the res ponsibility of the Department, as the administrative arm of

January 14, 2011

Dear Mr. Torres:

1. KIDCS is currently operating without an approved Board of Trustees. During a

Questions concerning this inquiry should also be directed to Mr. Young.

c: John B. King, Jr.

OFFICE OF INNOVATIVE SCHOOL MODELS

February 17, 2011

Dear Mr. Torres:

Questions concerning this request should also be directed to Mr. Young.

Name of Charter School: Kingsbridge Innovative Design Charter School

1. IS THE SCHOOL FAITHFUL TO THE TERMS OF ITS CHARTER?

MISSION OF THE SCHOOL

STATE MANDATED ASSESSMENT

OTHER ACHIEVEMENT, IMPROVEMENT, AND ASSESSMENT MEASURES

TEACHING AND LEARNING

PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

PROGRAM PLANNING AND EVALUATION

PARENT AND STUDENT SATISFACTION

LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE

INTHEMATTER PROBATION ORDER

EducationLaw §2855providesthat the Boardof Regentsmayplace a charterschoolon probationary

In addition,this ProbationOrder and Notice of Intentto Seek SummaryRevocationof the School's

The KingsbridgeInnovativeDesignCharterf chool ("School")was authorizedby the Boardof Regents

In November2010,a Departmentstaff membervisitedthe school to gather informationpertainingto

On January 14, 2011,the AssistantCommissionerof the Office of InnovativeSchool Modelsin the

The Department'sreviewindicatesthat there are a lack of basicfinancialsystemsand controlsat the

Examplesthat the School is not operatingip an educationallysound mannerand in violation of this

INTENTTO SEEK SUMMARYREVOCATION

CHARTER SCHOOL OFFICE

May 3, 2011 Summary of Kingsbridge Innovation Design Charter School’s

Remedial Action Item Sufficiently Addressed? No.

Remedial Action Item Sufficiently Addressed? No.

Remedial Action Item Sufficiently Addressed? No.

Remedial Action Item Sufficiently Addressed? No.

Remedial Action Item Sufficiently Addressed? No.

Remedial Action Item Sufficiently Addressed? No.

Remedial Action Item Sufficiently Addressed? No.

Remedial Action Item Sufficiently Addressed? No.

9. A signed full audit engagement letter for FY11;

Remedial Action Item Sufficiently Addressed? No.