2026 SUNY RFP for New Charter Schools: Updates & Insights with Keegan Prue

Keegan Prue, the SUNY Charter Schools Institute’s Managing Director for Strategy and Communications, joins the podcast to break down the 2026 Request for Proposals (RFP) for new charter schools. He explores the new provisions to this year’s RFP, explains the rationale behind the updates, and offers insights into the proposal review process. Keegan also shares practical advice for applicants looking to position themselves for success. 

Transcript

Keegan Prue, Managing Director for Strategy and Communications at the SUNY Charter Schools Institute, joins the podcast to unpack the newly released 2026 RFP for new charter schools. Keegan highlights the key changes to this year’s application, offers a behind-the-scenes look at the proposal review process, and shares practical advice for applicants. 

Mike Lesczinski, Director of Strategy and Communications:

Welcome to the Season 4 premiere of the SUNY Charter Schools Institute’s More Great Seats for Kids podcast. Over the past three seasons, we’ve explored a variety of topics from the autonomy for accountability bargain that sets the foundation for New York Charter Law to renewal, school evaluation visits, and spotlights and individual schools. This season, we intend to go even deeper to the policies and best practices that are strongest schools use to deliver on their mission to ensure more great seats for kids. But before we get to today's episode, I want to encourage you to subscribe to the show on iTunes, Spotify, wherever you get your podcasts, and leave us a review. This will help others in educational space find us. And if you're on social, you can connect with us on our LinkedIn page to search SUNY Charter Schools Institute. and join our community of educational influencers. We can also be found on Twitter, our handle is @SUNY Charters. Find us, follow us, share our content, and of course, engage in this there. Finally, you can join our bimonthly newsletter by visiting your website, NewYorkCharters.org. All right, now on to the show. 

Mike Lesczinski, Director of Strategy and Communications:

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the More Great Seats for Kids Podcast. I'm your host, Mike Lezinski, Director of Strategy and Communications at the Institute. As I mentioned in this intro, this is the premiere episode of season four of our podcast. Past seasons have been between three to five episodes, but we're hoping for a few more this year, and we have a bunch of exciting topics lined up that we're looking to explore. That being said, though, really excited for today's ep. Our guest is Keegan Prue, the Institute's Managing Director for Strategy and Communications. Keegan's here to discuss the Institute 2026 request for proposals for new charter schools, which will be released in early December. We plan to release this podcast alongside the RFP, so if you're listening to this, you can hop over now to our website at newyorkcharters.org to access it. But Keegan is here today to discuss some of the key updates to this year's RFP. He'll offering some insights into our proposal review process, as well as some practical advice for applicants that will help position yourself for success. 

So, Keegan, welcome to the show. 

Keegan Prue, Managing Director of Strategy and Communications:

Thanks, Mike. Excited to talk about new apps. It's one of my favorite things we do at the Institute. 

Mike Lesczinski, Director of Strategy and Communications:

Absolutely. All right, so let's just kick things off by giving a brief introduction to our listeners about who you are, about yourself, about your role, at the institute. 

Keegan Prue, Managing Director of Strategy and Communications:

Yeah, so I'm the Institute's Managing Director of Strategy and Communications. I've been with the Institute for about eight years, and when I started with the Institute, my first role here was as a program analyst on the new applications team. So I worked with our director for New Charters, supporting the entire request for proposals process and have really been involved in new apps ever since, for a couple of years, I directly managed our new application staff and, as I said, really just enjoy this process, love engaging with applicant groups who have exciting ideas that will bring innovation to the charter space in New York. So, I'm excited to dig in. 

Mike Lesczinski, Director of Strategy and Communications:

All right, so let's start with the 2026 RFP. There are a couple updates to the process. What's up with the, why behind those updates? 

Keegan Prue, Managing Director of Strategy and Communications:

Sure. So, let's go through each of these changes, and they are also articulated and kind of outlined in the RFP. So, there's more content there, if it's helpful for folks to take a look. But the first shift is the applicant group intro calls. And so, this is something we've always done informally. We've taken the opportunity to get to know applicant groups as they're in the planning stages. And we wanted to build this in in a more structured way just to ensure we have that first touch point where it's an opportunity for us at the Institute to learn about your model and your work and an opportunity for you to get some support from Institute staff as well. So, it's technical assistance around what to expect from the RFP process, and what types of things you should be thinking about. It's just always helpful to establish that relationship early and we think it helps us get to know you and you get to know us in our expectations as well. So that's the first shift and applicant group should be looking to schedule those in December if you haven't done that already if you're planning to come in for the 2026 RFP. So that's the first shift. The second shift a little bit bigger is the intent to apply package process. So, we've always asked for an intent to apply form. But this year we're asking for an intent to apply package. And the purpose of this shift is to provide an earlier checkpoint in the process. where applicant groups will get an opportunity to show off the work you've been doing, demonstrate your capacity and some of those meat and potatoes, parts of the application, things like the academic program, your evidence of community outreach and demand, your draft budget, your board members. And it all is an additional point to get some feedback from the SUNI reviewing team earlier in the process. So, for groups who make it through the intent to apply package and are invited to submit a full proposal, you'll receive some high-level comments to support your ongoing development because there will be a gap of time between submitting your intent to apply package and submitting the full proposal. Our hope is that additional feedback and support will help applicant groups who are invited to submit the full proposal to have a sense of what to be thinking about and refining and you during that period between submitting the intent to apply and the full proposal and business plan. And then for groups who are not invited to submit a full proposal, you'll also receive a written description of what parts of the RFP were not addressed and your intent to apply package, and the institute team is always happy to engage in further discussion. So, again, that'll give some additional support for groups who perhaps their intent to apply package didn't show a full level of readiness, but you'll have some takeaways to think about for perhaps a future application. The other purpose of the intent to apply package, and we would love to hear feedback on this from applicant groups as we go through the process, is we know that charter proposals in New York State are a huge undertaking. There's a lot that goes into them. It takes months, if not years of work. And so our hope is by having this initial submission with, again, an additional two months then between those groups being invited to submit a full application if they are invited before they submit that full application. We hope it'll create a little bit more equitable access, given the heavy lift we know is required. So that's the intent to apply package. The third shift, a little bit less significant, but equally important, is budgets and CSP funds. And so, the shift here is we're asking applicant groups, if you are choosing to submit a startup budget that includes startup CSP funds, to also submit a second version of that budget that does not reflect CSP funds. And the purpose here is really to ensure that schools are enacting really conservative fiscal planning, startup CSP funds that are administered by NI said, are competitive process. So, groups cannot assume they'll automatically be available. So, this, along with the shifts everybody's very aware of right now in terms of demographic enrollment changes, led us to make sure we were just ensuring applicants have really prudent conservative financial planning in place because we know that helps schools set off on the right foot. And the last change is just enhanced ask around community need, demand, and impact analysis. And again, this sort of speaks to the shifts in demographics and enrollment that everybody is very aware of right now. We want to demonstrate that there's an ongoing community engagement and clear, robust evidence of demand. We know this is really key for successful applications. And so, the institute really is looking for applicants to provide robust database analysis to show that the community they want to serve is likely to be able to support the proposed enrollment and evidence that your community engagement efforts have yielded a really robust number of families or caregivers who are interested in applying if approved. Again, this is because we know getting off on the right financial foot is critical for school success. So, we're really looking to see that there's that core group who's going to be able to support the proposed enrollment, that a school wants to enact. That's just incredibly important. It's foundational to a school. And so that's what we'll be looking for is really database analysis that might include census data, demographic trends, NSI has some great data tools on their website that can support this, but that's the type of analysis we'll be looking for. 

Mike Lesczinski, Director of Strategy and Communications:

Great, I appreciate that, because my next question was going to be about the what you know, is compelling the evidence for the come to community demand. 

Keegan Prue, Managing Director of Strategy and Communications:

Sure, this is a really common question and it's a great one from applicant groups. So, in terms of evidence of demand, the strongest applications provide a really robust amount of evidence that shows there is a specific commitment and demand from families interested in applying, with numbers robust enough to demonstrate that you're going to be likely to meet your proposed enrollment. So if you're proposing to, for example, open a school that's serving students in kindergarten in first grade with an enrollment of 150 students, a really strong presentation of evidence might be providing at least 150 signatures from families who have children who are going to be in those grade bands, who are interested in applying to your specific school, not just any school, not just supporting school choice, but saying, this is the school, this is the school model, this is the school name, this is what it's, you know, sort of envisioning to do in its mission, and that folks are willing to sign on to say, we'd be interested in putting in an application to this specific school and this specific community. And of course, this is also bolstered by other evidence, which we'll consider that might be other sort of more general signatures of support from community members and leaders, letters of support, and so forth. But again, the strongest evidence really shows that there is that core group of families, caregivers, who are interested in applying to your specific school with a likelihood of meeting your proposed enrollment. 

Mike Lesczinski, Director of Strategy and Communications:

Appreciate that. Thank you. You've obviously been involved in New App's process for several years now. In SUNY’s experience, what are some of the key through lines, or characteristics of proposals, that are ultimately recommended for approval? What are some of the most common growth areas for proposals that do not advance in the process? 

Keegan Prue, Managing Director of Strategy and Communications:

Sure, so some of the key strengths we look for are first, just a really strong articulation and evidence about why this school is needed in this particular community. And that, again, stems from your community outreach. We're looking not to just sort of see general trends, but specifics around what you've learned from the community, through your engagement process, and how that's informed your school model. And one thing I should clarify is we don't necessarily expect applicants to incorporate all feedback from the community that's up to you. That's your choice is the applicant group. But what we do expect to see is a really clear explanation of what you learned as you were engaging with community members, what you incorporated, what you're not incorporating, and why for each of those. We understand there's different school models. It ultimately has to be up to the applicant group, but we're really looking for that explanation of what you've learned and why you believe this type of school is right for this community that you hope to serve. So that's the first thing is that strong articulation and evidence about why this school in this community. The second piece, which we always talk about, is clear alignment among all sections of the proposal, or what we often say internally, does this proposal sort of hang together? So, some instances there is, does the budget align to the academic program? So, if you were proposing maybe a SEM school or a project-based learning school, does your proposed budget incorporate the types of staff, materials and so forth that are going to make sure that you can enact that program effectively. Does the staffing model align to the budget? Does the staffing model align to the academic program? So again, it's really testing for do all these pieces speak to each other and go together? Because again, if you're proposing maybe a PBL school or an arts focus school or a Montessori school, and the budget, the staffing model, don't really align with what we'd expect to see for that. That would certainly be, you know, a bit of a red flag. So, the third piece then I'd speak to is just robust evidence of demand from community, and especially prospective families, this goes back to the question you just asked. We really look to see a strong presentation here of concrete signatures, petitions, interest forms, etc., that show that specific support both from community members and specific evidence that there are families and caregivers with students who would consider applying if approved. So those are sort of the key strengths we're looking for. 

There's certainly other things, but those are some top of mind. And then in terms of growth areas that we commonly see in proposals, certainly the converse of the above, right? If there's a vague description of need or a vague description of why this particular school model fits with a community's aspirations, that would be something we'd want to see more specific answers on. Lack of alignment across sections, again, you know, proposing maybe an art school or a Montessori school, and then other sections like the organizational chart, budget, etc., don't align with that model. That certainly would be cause for concern, a lack of specific evidence of demand. Again, everybody knows. There are certainly more challenges in terms of demographics and enrollment. So, looking to see that you're going to be able to meet that enrollment to set off on the right, sort of fiscal standing to be in a strong position for opening. And then a couple more I would just add on in terms of growth areas. I think first is making sure that there's a board, a proposed founding board where individuals are really invested and understand their governance function, having a really strong startup board is obviously critically important and the strongest applicants bring that to the table, right? When we're maybe in a capacity interview or meeting those proposed board members, it's clear that those folks are invested, really understand the mission, and understand how their role as board members is to really hold the school later accountable, support the school leader, and enact that oversight function. The other growth area I would just quickly speak to is the strongest applications don't just explain what they're going to do but really speak to the how. So, for instance, if a school's planning to implement a really well-reg regarded curriculum, that's standards line, research-based, et cetera, say something like illustrative math, that's a strong choice on its own. But what we're really going to be looking to see is, does the application describe the systems and structures that would help leaders and teachers implement that curriculum with integrity? Because we know it's one thing to have a really strong curriculum or social emotional learning program. But it's another thing to be able to implement that really well. So, we're looking to see what are the systems and structures described within the proposal that would help make sure those are implemented at a really high level with integrity to what the intent of those curricula are. It's very similar with features like steam or PBL or CTE or arts programming, really strong applications explain how these features would show up across the academic program versus less strong applications where we might see these types of features kind of minimally developed or invoked more as buzzwords. It becomes pretty clear quickly if this is sort of an authentic, you know, SEM or PBL or CTE school, or is this sort of just the buzzword of the moment where other pieces of the application don't really speak to that. that element. 

Mike Lesczinski, Director of Strategy and Communications:

That makes a lot of sense. Thank you. It definitely brings some clarity to the process for applicants. I want to shift gears for a second. So, if an applicant got the opportunity to switch seats with the institute for a day and see the behind the scenes of the app review process, what's something that might surprise them? 

Keegan Prue, Managing Director of Strategy and Communications:

Yeah, so I think something that might be surprising for applicants is just the rigor of the process and the diversity of perspectives that we have the benefit of bringing into our analysis. We know that starting a school is a really complex undertaking schools are incredibly complex organizations. And so, every application we read gets a really rigorous analysis from an academic perspective, for f fiscal viability, operational viability, legal compliance, and governance. And that means when we conduct a proposal review analysis meeting, we often have a dozen or more individuals with deep expertise in different areas of running effective schools, providing their analysis. And this includes individuals who have worked in and run and advised countless charter schools, both in New York and across the country. And those discussions are always both a great learning opportunity, but also I think it sort of expressed the very best in charter authorization, which is that we're bringing these diverse perspectives together in service of really ensuring that we're only advancing the strongest applications that are likely to result in increased opportunity for students across New York State. So that obviously means our process is extremely rigorous, probably no surprise to anybody over more than 500 applications SUNY's reviewed in our history, the first-time approval rate for first-time applicants is less than 20%. So that's a pretty high bar. But ensuring schools start off on the right foot helps create a stronger sector. And so, we also have many examples of groups who maybe weren't proved the first time, but who learned from the process and were approved on a second or even third application. So, I think that would be maybe a surprising or just interesting peep behind the curtain is just the depth of analysis we do. And the really diverse range of perspectives we're fortunate to be able to bring to bear in doing that analysis of each application we receive at SUNY. 

Mike Lesczinski, Director of Strategy and Communications:

Right. So really appreciate it. Finally, last question. We know innovation is a key purpose of charter schools. But an applicant might, might wonder, what does innovation mean to an authorizer? Is there such a thing as to outside the box? 

Keegan Prue, Managing Director of Strategy and Communications:

Yeah, it's a great question. We get to speak to applicant groups all the time and sometimes they have those really innovative ideas, and I can certainly feel sometimes there's that hesitance to say, you know, is this too crazy? And one thing we love to say at, SUNY, we're model agnostic and what that means, basically, is we truly believe it's up to an applicant group to bring what they're passionate about, interested in, and what they think that their community, that they want to serve, will make them to bring something that they think will make a meaningful impact for that community. regardless of what the model might be. And SUNY's portfolio is full of innovative schools. We have schools who serve students with autism, Montessori micro charter, schools that offer CTE programming, transfer high schools for overage under credited students, arts, basketball schools, and that's just a partial list. So, I hope it's clear from that that SUNY welcomes and encourages innovative thinking. That was really one of the key purposes of the creation of charter schools. And so, we love to see those innovative ideas. We also definitely recognize that innovation means different things to different communities. Sometimes having a really strong school that's a safe place for kids to go and that offers really excellent academics. That can be innovative in a community that maybe doesn't have the highest quality school options for families at that moment. So, it really sort of depends on the community and that's something we hope that applicants will learn as they do that community engagement piece is, you know, what's an innovation that might be meaningful to the community? So, if you are thinking about an idea, maybe you're an applicant who's in the early planning stages, maybe not applying in 2026, but looking, you know, for two years from now or three years from now, please reach out. We always welcome the opportunity to connect with the applicant groups, even in those early planning stages. If you have innovative ideas, we can at least offer some questions, considerations that can help guide you as you develop, and we love to engage in those conversations. So please reach out. 

Mike Lesczinski, Director of Strategy and Communications:

Well, that's it for today's show. Big thanks to Keegan once again. If you like this episode, please remember to give us a review on iTunes. Additionally, and if you are a potential applicant looking for our just release 2026 RFP, it's now available on our website, NewYorkCharters.org. I'll post a link to that RFP page in the show notes as well as linked to our resources for applicants’ page, which provides a complete review of our process as well as additional resources. Thanks again for joining us.