Advocacy Toolkit Supplement: School Closings

Advocacy Toolkit

School Closing
Supplement

Fight to Defend Your School from the
Misguided Policy of School Closure

CAPE: Concerned Advocates for Public Education GEM: Grassroots Education Movement

~Parents and Teachers Working Together to Protect
and Preserve Public Education~

www.grassrootseducationmovement.blogspot.com,
gemnyc@gmail.com
www.capeducation.blogspot.com,
capeducation@gmail.com

Know Your Rights
x For a complete overview of the Change in School Utilization Law and Process, as
well as for tips on how to advocate, YLHZWKH3RZHU3RLQWHQWLWOHG³&KDQJHVLQ
6FKRRO8WLOL]DWLRQ1DYLJDWLQJ'2(3URFHVV3ROLF\DQG3XEOLF,QIRUPDWLRQ´7KLV
PowerPoint should be available wherever this supplement is found. For a copy,
email: capeducation@gmail.com
x How to find PEP bylaws, notices, and documents:

http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/leadership/PEP/default.htm
x &KDQFHOORU¶V5HJXODWLRQVA190 (SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN SCHOOL

UTILIZATION AND PROCEDURES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL
BUILDINGS HOUSING MORE THAN ONE SCHOOL):
http://docs.nycenet.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-341/A-
190%20%20.FINAL.pdf

x There are two options to fight a DOE/PEP decision:
1. Article 78: for an example see the Supreme Court Decision regarding Change
in School Utilization Law: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28988592/Mulgrew-
BoardofEd001
2. Appeal to the State Education Commissioner: for more information visit
http://www.counsel.nysed.gov, for an example of an appeal filed by parents on a
co-location issue email capeducation@gmail.com
x How to FOIL- CR D-110 Freedom Of Information Law Procedures:
http://docs.nycenet.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-84/D-110__1-9-03.pdf

Outreach
x Seek out support from other advocacy groups: A complete list can be
found in the Advocacy Toolkit.
x Contact local policy makers and ask for their support: A complete list can
be found in the Advocacy Toolkit and in the ³Changes in School Utilization:
1DYLJDWLQJ'2(3URFHVV3ROLF\DQG3XEOLF,QIRUPDWLRQ´3RZHU3RLQW
x Contact your CEC. Ways your CEC can support you:

¾ CECs and SLTs of affected school "co host" the local hearing on the closing that the Office of
Portfolio Planning will organize.
¾ CECs can help negotiate the format of the hearing, request data and material, and help set rules
and protocol, as your partner in this hearing
¾ CEC's hold monthly meetings that must offer the public time to speak. You can use this time to
raise issues and gather support from CEC members and any meeting attendees.
¾ CEC meetings may also be a good place to meet the "faceless bureaucrats" with whom you may
want to engage- the folks at the Office of Portfolio Planning who are making the decision about
your school;; or the employees at the Division Of School facilities that do the walk throughs and
plan the space sharing arrangement that OPP cooks up;; sometimes Deputy Chancellors and even
the Chancellor may agree to attend a district CEC meeting- it may be worth a try.
¾ In addition to asking for speakers at their meetings, CEC's can also request information from the
Dist Sup or the DoE's OFEA or other departments at DoE.
¾ CEC'c can also possibly help you FOIL documents.
¾ Your CEC may be able to help you organize and hold meetings to discuss strategy, build coalitions,
prepare actions to bring attention to your situation.
¾ CEC's may be able to help spread the word or raise awareness of your issue, promote meetings
and make other announcements either via their email mailing list or even possible by US Mail.
¾ CEC's may be able to help with copying and distributing flyers.
¾ CECs can pass resolutions that state your issues and defend your position that you can then use to
gather more support- ie: from your community board, local electeds and community groups. *see
the appendix for a copy of a resolution on a co-location from CEC 1.
¾ If you can garner the support of your CEC, you may find that members have skills, contacts and
ideas that can be of great value to your cause.

Assess the Current Situation at Your School
Compile Important Data About Your School:
x Demographics
x Performance 'DWDWHVWVFRUHVJUDGUDWHVDWWHQGDQFHUDWHV«
x History

Assess the Need for Closure

Compile Important Data Regarding Closure:
x What progress have you made? What do you offer your students?
x What will be the impact on students? (break down by student populations)
x What will be the impact on neighboring schools?
x What is proposed to replace your school? Who will that school/schools serve? What
evidence is there that this school or these schools will better serve your students?
x What investment, interventions, or support has been offered to your school?

Assess the Closure Decision

Create Documentation to Present to the Public, Policymakers and for
Hearings:
x Create a presentation *see appendix for an example
x Create a response EIS *see appendix for an example

A School Closing Case Study: Tips from one of last
\HDU¶VVFKRROVVODWHGIRUFlosure
__________________________________________
1. The most important thing is a school's internal organization. The more united the school community
is, the easier it is to fight. This means that many people need to take on roles, in order for each person
to feel a part of something larger and so that no one feels left out on a limb.

2. Meet daily or as often as possible. Form teams with responsibilities. Pay for advertisements in local
newspapers and engage in a variety of outreach efforts.
3. Hold protests and vigils. One example: a candlelit circle around the building with posters and
candles.
4. Have the NYCLU phone number handy, if not a legal observer, when planning any events to ensure
your rights are protected.

5. Examine data closely and reach out to many elected officials and community groups.
Educate, Organize, Mobilize
Use the Advocacy Toolkit to:
x Start a Community-based School Advocacy group
x Inform the public
x Take steps to protect your school
The Toolkit contains useful information including contact information for:
9 Policymakers
9 The Media
9 Other Advocacy Groups
9 Important Links and Blogs

APPENDIX
__________________________________________
1. CEC Resolution Sample (from a co-location)
2. Response EIS and Response EIS Parent Letter (a
co-location example) *These were the only examples close to a response
EIS available. In these µUHVSRQVHs¶, PS 15 simply pointed out flaws in the EIS. An
improved strategy would be to fully create your own EIS, not only pointing out the
flaws, but addressing the impact and information in each section that the DOE will more
than likely leave out.
6/73UHVHQWDWLRQ³7KH&DVHIRU&ROXPEXV´ *see
PowerPoint wherever you find this supplement or email capeducation@gmail.com for a
copy
1DUUDWLYH5HVSRQVH3RZHU3RLQW³&ROXPEXV´
Jackie Bennett, UFT *see PowerPoint wherever you find this supplement
or email capeducation@gmail.com for a copy
5. Jamaica High School PowerPoint *see PowerPoint wherever you

find this supplement or email capeducation@gmail.com for a copy.
_______________________________________________________________________
For other useful documents such as;; a sample petition,

form letter, and press release, please see the full
Advocacy Toolkit!

1. CEC Resolution Sample:

Corlears Complex (M056), 220 Henry Street-Room 134, New York, N.Y. 10002, (212)587-4094, Fax
(212)587-4257, CEC1@schools.nyc.gov;;

Lisa Donlan-President, Co 1st Vice President Corinna Lindenberg, Co 1st Vice President Monse Santana, Edward Primus-2nd Vice President,
Andrew Reicher-Treasurer, Sally Lee-Secretary, Wally Acevedo-Member, Daniel Becker ± Member Daniella Phillips ± District 1 Community
Superintendent
Resolution of the Community District Education Council (CEC) for Community
School District One
Whereas, the CEC had a presentation by the Office of Portfolio Planning at its regularly scheduled
Calendar Meeting on September 30th concerning the expansion of Girls Preparatory Charter School
Middle School (GPCS) in District One schools and;
Whereas, the CEC held a public session for the Office of Portfolio Planning at its regularly scheduled
Calendar Meeting on November 18, 2009 for the purpose of hearing from the public concerning the
expansion of GPCS into District One schools and;
Whereas, the CEC has heard and considered and analyzed these comments and other information
resulting in the following 100 Reasons Why GPCS Should Not Expand in District One Schools:
Office of Portfolio Planning Process
1. It has only recently come to the attention of CEC One that the Office of Portfolio Planning (OPP) was
addressing the space needs for each District.
There has been no parent, community member or Community Education Council for District One (CEC)
representatives involved in this process, nor was there any communication as to how District needs
were to be communicated to DoE .
2. The CEC has only recently been made aware that the Office of Portfolio Planning wrongly reduced the
district space needs to: a) moving the District Office and b) accommodating the wish of Girls Prep
Charter School (GPCS) to expand to middle school grades as the only space needs in the District.
In fact, OPP was made aware at the September 2009 CEC calendar meeting that there were other
pressing space needs in the District that, in a comprehensive plan, might take priority over the proposed
(but not yet approved) expansion of Girls Prep Charter.

3. Until a community-‐based comprehensive review of the space needs of the entire District is
communicated to the Office of Portfolio Planning, the CEC rejects the consideration of any scenarios
that are not part of a such a comprehensive space needs review for the entire District.
4. The seemingly politically motivated rush to expand charters, combined with a failure to communicate
with community members or any elected District representatives at the initial stages of the process has
resulted in a piece-‐meal, flawed and misguided approach to our Districts needs.
5. This flagrant and systemic failure to consult with the public is typical of the self-‐proclaimed
Department of Education, whose arrogance and complete disregard for the intent of the State Law to
give voice to the District communities, has resulted in a failed planning process built around a
unreasonable March 1st deadline in order to guarantee implementation for next fall.

6. The District Planning Committee has never undertaken a formal or open Space Needs Assessment to
determine the actual, historical and prioritized space needs of the district as determined by community
residents, parents and families of current and future students, teachers, staff and other educators and
administrators who do not sit on the planning committee.
Girls Prep Charter School
7. In June 2007 Girls Prep Charter School (GPCS) and PS 188 agreed to work within a designated
footprint, based on a revised-‐down charter limited to two sections per grade and terminating in 5th
grade.
8. In August 2009 Girls Prep tried to start a middle school program that was not in their charter or part
of the original footprint by admitting 3 classes of twenty-‐five 5th grade students for Sept. 2009, hiring a
middle school principal and 3 middle school teachers despite only having a charter for one class of 25,
and only room for one class in their negotiated new space in PS 188. We do not know how many or
what percentage of those seventy-‐five 5th grade girls were District One students.
9. There are a number of elevator equipped barrier free/handicapped accessible buildings in District
One (MS/HS 509 (Martha Valle High School); PS 188; PS137 (housing PS 184); PS 134 (also housing PS
137); and PS 142). It is preferable that a school serving a high proportion of special needs students, since
physical disability is highly correlated with a special education designation, be placed in these scare
barrier free resources.
10. District One enrollment has grown at a more rapid rate than most districts in the city.
11. District schools will be forced to give up reduced size classes, pre-‐K programs, cluster rooms and
intervention spaces, if the DOE continues to give more space to charter schools within our buildings.
12. ŶĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐŽĨĞŶƌŽůůŵĞŶƚƚƌĞŶĚƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŽ͛ƐůƵĞŽŽŬϮϬϬϳ-‐8 to 2008-‐9 shows District One

growing faster than any other district in the entire city ʹ by far -‐-‐ at 4.1%in PS buildings. The same
growth rate also held true in 2006-‐200, 4.1%.
Thus, from 2006-‐2008 the enrollment in PS buildings in District One grew by 8.1% the most by far of any
district. (Second fastest growth was D11 at 5; Third, D 31 at 4.9%; Fourth, D2 at 4.2%)

D1 enroll PS` MS HS Total
2007 8,306 2,965 1,805 13076
2008 8,650 2,929 1,824 13403
increase 344 -‐36 19 327
%
increase 4.142% -‐1.214% 1.053% 2.501%

13. District One Kindergarten class sizes are up 22% since 2007, possibly the biggest gain in the city,
when in 2007 the average Kindergarten class size was 16.1.
14. ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚKŶĞ͛ƐŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂůůǇƐŵĂůůĐůĂƐƐƐŝǌĞŝŶ<ŝŶĚĞƌŐĂƌƚĞŶŚĂƐŶŽĚŽƵďƚĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞŐƌĞĂƚ
gains made by district schools over the past decade.

15. The process employed by DoE and SUNY to renew the GPCS charter raises questions of
transparency and opportunity for public input.
SUNY Charter Schools Institute, in a notice pursuant to ed law 2857(1), gave notice that the Board of
Regents approved the charter renewal application made on Sept 16th, 2008 for: Girls Preparatory
Charter School of New York: Located at 333 East 4th Street, 5th floor, New York, NY, NYC CSD1; charter
renewal commencing March 23 2009, and terminating July 31, 2010: proposed final enrollment /grades
served-‐ 248 students/K-‐5.
SUNY Trustees approved this application, received on March 9, 2008, on June 9, 2008.
On September 17, 2009 SUNY Trustees announced that Girls Prep had applied for a 5 year charter
renewal commencing on July 2, 2010, with a proposed 1st year enrollment/grades/served-‐268
students/K-‐5; proposed 5th year enrollment /grades served-‐525 students/K-‐8.
/ŶƚŚĞĐŚĂƌƚĞƌƌĞŶĞǁĂůĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕'W^ƐƚĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚŝƚ͗͞ƉůĂŶƐƚŽŽƉĞŶĂDŝĚĚůĞ^ĐŚŽŽůŝŶƵŐƵƐƚϮϬϬϵ͙
to serve grades K-‐ϴĂƚĨƵůůĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ͙͘ĂƚĨƵůůĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ͕ĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞϰƚŚǇĞĂƌŽĨƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚĐŚĂƌƚĞƌƚĞƌŵ'ŝƌůƐ
Prep will serve 437 students in grades K-‐8, including approximately 242 students in grades K-‐4 and 195
students in grades 5-‐ϴ͖͟
The DoE charter hearing announcement failed to alert the public to the actual issue requiring public
ŝŶƉƵƚ͗ƚŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚŐƌŽǁƚŚĂŶĚĞǆƉĂŶƐŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĐŚĂƌƚĞƌƐĐŚŽŽů͕ĐĂůůŝŶŐŝƚŽŶůǇĂ͞ƌĞŶĞǁĂů͕͟ĂƐŝĨƚŚĞ
currently chartered school size and configuration would be maintained and not expanded.
16. The timing of the hearing required parents and community members to sign up between 4-‐ 4:30
pm, excluding a large number of people who could not be at the school during these normal business
hours from signing up to speak.
17. By only allowing the signed up speakers to speak from 5:00-‐5:30 pm, a large number of speakers
who did sign up were not able to speak in that short window.

18. There was no representative of SUNY Charter Schools Institute present at the hearing, nor was
there any recording or transcription of the hearing, thus invalidating the very premise of the hearing and
renewal process in itself.
19. NYS Charter Law indicates that the purpose of creating new charter schools across the state is,
among other goals, to:
ͻ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞƐƚƵĚĞŶƚĂĐŚŝĞǀĞŵĞŶƚ͕
ͻ/ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐĨŽƌĂůůƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͕ǁŝƚŚĂŵĞŵƉŚĂƐŝƐŽŶĂƚ-‐risk students,
ͻWƌŽǀŝĚĞĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŚŝŐŚƋƵĂůŝƚǇĐŚŽŝĐĞƐ͘
20. District One students showed the most improvement since 2002 of any of the other largest 64
counties in the state by offering universal pre -‐K, smaller classes, excellent intervention services, and an
experienced and effective teaching force. (Chart A)
21.Comparing Girls Prep Charter School to Earth School (PS 364) and Children's Workshop School (PS
361), two district schools listed among the 40 peer horizon schools on the DOE progress report for GPC
2007-‐08, (defined as having similar demographic populations), shows there is no significant difference in
achievement.

22. Girls Prep Charters makes claims for projected 8th grade results, yet such claims regarding any
future 8th grade success are not valid given that the school serves students only through 5th grade
currently.
23. In the charter application Girls Prep cites ƚŚĞEzĞƉƚŽĨŝƚǇWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͗͞ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚWƌŽĨŝůĞƐΗďĂƐĞĚŽŶ

data from the 2000 census, including percentage of HS/College graduation per census tract, using 9 year
old data to compare the success of District One schools to prepare students for High school and college
success. Such an extrapolation is akin to statistical malpractice and should be disregarded since the
current District One resident are sure to have a completely different set of graduation rates from that of
9 years ago and the correlation between current residency and district of primary or secondary
schooling is unknown.
24. GPCS claims that it is the only school in District 1 that has effectively closed the achievement gap for
African-‐American and Latina students.
District One school data as reported to NYS and the Federal DOE can not be parsed to arrive at a
comparable apples-‐to-‐apples comparison, since the GPCS results are skewed by removing all BOYS, any
students identified as Emotionally Disturbed, any students who would require CTT or Self Contained
classes, and any ELL students, or to reflect that the majority of the GPCS students are not district
residents.
25. GPCS results are based on one year of tests for two groups of fewer than 50 students, which is
neither statistically significant nor comparable to the aggregated results of almost a thousand District
students.
26. In terms of closing the achievement gap, the definition that we use is a gap referred to the
observed disparity on a number of educational measures between the performance of groups of
students, especially groups defined by gender, race/ethnicity, ability and socioeconomic status. The
achievement gap can be observed in a variety of measures, including standardized test scores, grade
point average and dropout rates.
Looking at the achievement gap between African-‐America, Hispanic and White subgroups we see that in
fact District One schools have closed the achievement gap:
ELA
Subgroup 2006-‐2007 2008-‐2009

performance index Performance index
African American 135 159
Hispanic 139 162
White 184 193

27. The difference in 2006-‐2007:
·∙ There is a 49 point gap between African American students and their White student counterparts
·∙ There is a 45 point gap between Hispanic students and their White student counterparts
In 2008-‐09:
·∙ The gap is decreased by 15 points between African American students and their White student
counterparts
·∙ The gap is decreased by 14 points between Hispanic students and their White student
counterparts
Math
Subgroup 2006-‐2007 2008-‐2009

performance index Performance index
African American 139 159
Hispanic 149 174
White 185 195
28. The difference is in 2006-‐07 :

·∙ There is a 36 point gap between African American students and their White student counterparts
·∙ There is a 46 point gap between Hispanic students and their White student counterparts.
In 2008-‐09:
·∙ The gap is decreased by 26 points between African American students and their White student
counterparts
·∙ The gap is decreased by 21 points between Hispanic students and their White student
counterparts

29. In 2009 for ELA, students in District 1 scoring at a level 3 and 4 in ELA is 62.6%, and the percentage
scoring at a level 3 and 4 in Math is 73.3%

30. The District One student population is largely (80.1 % percent on average) Title One, 23% percent
special education (on average), and over 12% ELL (on average).
31. Most of the schools that DoE has identified as a possible site for Girls Prep requested expansion are
serving a much more significant proportion at risk students more consistently than Girls Prep does.
32. In the charter renewal application, Girls Prep Charter School makes frequent reference to their
current success to justify the requested expansion. Yet based on the very small sample size of test
scores that the Charter has recorded it is difficult to compare Girls Prep Charter with District One as a
whole.
33. This comparison is made even more difficult given that the GPCS demographics demonstrate they
are serving no ELL students, no boys, and a large under-‐representation of special education, poor and
temporary housing students.
34. The District One Schools of Choice policy has allowed students and families to select any school in
the district siŶĐĞϭϵϵϭ͕ƐƵĐŚƚŚĂƚƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐĐĂŶĐŚŽŽƐĞƚŽĞŶƌŽůůƚŚĞŝƌĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶŝŶĂŶǇƐĐŚŽŽůŝŶ
ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚKŶĞƚŚĂƚďĞƐƚŵĞĞƚƐƚŚĞŝƌĐŚŝůĚ͛ƐŶĞĞĚƐ͘
35. While centralization of the admissions policy under mayoral control has replaced the original
diversity-‐based lottery with a blind lottery, with no mechanism for increasing diversity, the CEC and
other community members are looking to institute a socioeconomic based controlled choice plan that
would serve more students equitably.
36. There are currently 13 diverse and varied middle schools in District One for students to choose
among.

37. The application process for charter schools differs tremendously from the long established District
One admissions process and therefore can not contribute to the community goals for diverse and
equitable admissions. The expansion of GPCMS to three sections of grades 5-‐8th (adding one new
section of 25 students per grade) risks pulling students, particularly high performing female students,
from existing programs, leaving a gender imbalance in our remaining middle schools.
38. In the charter renewal application Girls Prep Charter claims the school deserves to grow, based on
both the success with which it serves its students and the demand for more seats as evidenced by their
wait list and ratio of applications to seats.
39. The GPCS Charter renewal application focuses on demand for seats as a central justification for
wanting to expand, claiming that there is a 7:1 ratio of demand for seats/ available seats, when in fact
most of the students enrolled at GPCS are from out of district and indeed Girls Prep captured less than
4% of incoming district Kindergarten students last year.
40. The incoming Kindergarten class is only 53% District One zoned residents, despite the legal mandate
for 100% priority to district students that Girls Prep finally obeyed and implemented in the last
admissions cycle.
41. Fewer than 27 Kindergarten students from District One chose Girls Prep out of an incoming class of
698 Kindergarteners.
42. Currently enrolled students in Girls Prep are made up of only 43% in-‐district students
43. GPC mailed glossy post cards mailed to every student in ATS by the Charter last spring as part of the
nearly $77,000 they spent on marketing and recruitment in 2009, yet
Is still only 43% in district.

44. The two local peer horizon schools mentioned above (PS 361 and PS 364) demonstrated equally
ŝŵƉƌĞƐƐŝǀĞĚĞŵĂŶĚĂŶĚ͞ǁĂŝƚŝŶŐůŝƐƚƐ͟ŝŶƚŚĞůĂƐƚ<ĂĚŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐĐǇĐůĞ͗
-‐ Earth School (PS 361) received 294 applications for 60 K seats, = a 5:1 ratio, and wait list of 234 for K
alone;
-‐ CWS garnered 212 applications for 45 seats, for a nearly 5:1 ratio and a wait list of 167 for
Kindergarten.
KƚŚĞƌ^ĐŚŽŽůƐ͛^ƉĂĐĞEĞĞĚƐ
45. ŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛ƐtŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ^ĐŚŽŽůǁĂƐŐƌĂŶƚĞĚƚŚĞƌŝŐŚƚƚŽgrow from a pre-‐k to 5th elementary school to

a pre-‐k to 8th grade elementary/middle school by the Community School Board, yet no space has ever
been made available to make good on that long standing promise, even though the CEC raises it every
year when space needs are aired in public.
46. The DoE has also failed to grant space to a project that their own Office of New Schools approved,
after their long internal development and vetting process, namely the growth to the HS grades of a
successful local middle school (Tompkins Square) that serves a full compliment of local students well.
The high school project was approved by DoE but there was no space granted in the district, thus
nullifying the very premise of the school and preventing its inception in District One or anywhere.

47. Each of those two schools turns students each year away for lack of space (TSMS, for example has
waiting lists of 400 hundred or more students year after year).
PS/MS 188, The Island School
48. PS/MS 188, The Island School, is a successful school serving students most-‐at-‐risk. Over 94% Title I,
22% English Language Learners; 23% Special Education; and with more than 60 students in temporary
housing, serves the highest percentage of homeless students in District One.
49. PS 188 is the only one of the three school buildings in its one block radius (NEST, Bard High School
Early College) that still serves district residents.

50. PS/MS 188 has developed a comprehensive network of wrap-‐around support services for students
living in temporary housing shelters students and their families, including on-‐site child-‐ and family-‐
ŵĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚĐŽƵŶƐĞůŝŶŐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ^ƚ͘sŝŶĐĞŶƚ͛ƐĂŶĚ/^ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͖ŽŶ-‐site Ryan-‐NENA medical clinic , with
nurse practitioner; computer literacy and ESL classes for parents; extended day (TASC and 21st Century
Community Learning Center funding), Saturday sports, recreation & enrichment for Pre K through
Grade 8 students from 9am ʹ 4pm; homework help and tutoring with internet access Monday-‐
Thursday evening and Saturdays. Reducing the PS/MS 188 capacity may affect these children directly by
depriving them access to enrichment programs.
51. In order to comply with mandated CTT percentages in each General Education class PS/MS 188
must offer two classes per grade.
52. PS 188 currently lacks adequate space to provide mandated related services for its Special
Education students. Occupational Therapy now takes place in District 75/PS 94 space on the 5th Floor.
Elementary guidance counselors share an office shared with the Parent Coordinator, impairing their
ability to address children and families in crisis on a walk-‐in basis.
The full-‐time Speech and Language therapist services children in the self-‐contained special education
classroom.
53. W^ϭϴϴ͛ƐŽǀĞƌ-‐sized 8th grade classes (more than 30 students, the maximum allowed for a Title One
Middle School) negatively impacted instruction, prompting this Empowered Principal to divide the 8th
graders into 3 sections, which has significantly improved classroom participation, achievement and
management of students.
54. Due to a shortage of Early Childhood Head Start seats in close proximity to the public housing
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐŽŶƚŚĞ>ŽǁĞƌĂƐƚ^ŝĚĞ͕dŚĞůůŝĂŶĐĞ͛ƐĂƌůǇ,ĞĂĚ^ƚĂƌƚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚƚŚĞ>ŝůůŝĂŶ
Wald housing complex next door to M188, plans to expand at PS/MS 188 in collaboration with the
school, requiring one additional classroom room, with a sink.

55. PS/MS 188 currently has one 5th Grade class, and next year projects adding a second 5th grade
classes.
56. Based on past recruitment, PS 188 projects a minimum enrollment of 50 students in Grade 6.
57. PS/MS 188 enrollment is projected to increase by over 40 students over the next two years, per the
growth listed above.
58. W^ͬD^ϭϴϴ͚ƐĂǀĞƌĂŐĞĐůĂƐƐsize fluctuates between 19 -‐21 students, mirroring the citywide average,
ǁŚŝĐŚŚĂƐĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƐĐŚŽŽů͛ƐŚŝŐŚĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐĂĐŚŝĞǀĞŵĞŶƚ͘
59. PS/MS 188 Cafeteria capacity is 150. The schools located in the PS 188 building already operates
four lunch periods, beginning at 10:45 am. through 2pm Even with many students eating in the adjacent
lobby due to insufficient cafeteria space, an additional 300 students would require two additional lunch
periods, thus eliminating any use of the Lobby-‐level dedicated gym space for instructional purposes
during those additional two lunch slots.
60. dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇŽƉĞƌĂƚĞƐϱƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞĂĨƚĞƌƐĐŚŽŽůƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐϯ͞ƐƵƉƉĞƌƐ͟ĨŽƌ
students from 3:40pm to 6pm.
'ŝƌůƐ͛WƌĞƉϮϱϱƚŚŐƌĂĚĞĂĨƚĞƌƐĐŚŽŽůƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐƐŚĂƌĞĂƐƵƉƉĞƌƚŝŵĞƐůŽƚǁŝƚŚ'ŝƌůƐ͛WƌĞƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƌǇĂĨƚĞƌ
school students.
61. dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞŶŽƚĞŶŽƵŐŚƚŝŵĞƐůŽƚƐƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ͞ƐƵƉƉĞƌ͟ĨŽƌĂůůƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶƚŚĞ M188 building, if

another 275 students are added to after school.
62. As at lunch time, the use of the dedicated lobby gym space during meal times would significantly
curtail use of gym space for after-‐school activities in M188.

63. The M188 building utilization capacity number has not been revised to reflect creation/upgrade of
PS/MS 188 Library, communications rooms, half-‐size classrooms on the 5th Floor, the internet café, etc.
64. Existing bathrooms are already in severe shortage for both students and staff in M188.
65. The new Middle School Science Lab under construction will only be able to meet the mandated
curricular needs of MS 188 Middle School based on 7 sections, meeting4 times weekly. The additional 9
ƐĞƐƐŝŽŶƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚďǇ'ŝƌůƐ͛WƌĞƉ͕ǁŽƵůĚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƚŚĞůĂďďĞŝŶƵƐĞĂƌŝĚŝĐƵůŽƵƐϲϰĐůĂƐƐƉĞƌŝŽĚƐĂǁĞĞŬĂƚ
the schools full capacity!
66. The Library at PS 188 was built for an Elementary school, is already fully scheduled, and currently
does not meet the needs of the 188 Middle School students, and will not serve the additional 300 GPCS
MS students.
67. The M188 building does not have a gym. ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŝŶϭϵϬϮ͕ƚŚĞƐĐŚŽŽů͛ƐŐǇŵǁĂƐĂŐůĂƐƐĂƚƌŝƵŵ

on the roof. Today, dedicated Lobby space is used for physical education. PS/MS 188 students are only
scheduled for gym one time per week at current building capacity.
68. Adding 12 sections of GPCS classes, as proposed, would put unmanageable demands on the shared
lobby and cafeteria facilities at M188.
69. At present there is already not adequate space in the gym, 2nd Floor Multi-‐Purpose Room and
Auditorium to fully implement the School Wide Enrichment program funded by competitive grants by
TASC and 21st Century Community Learning Center during the school day, after school and on
Saturdays.

70. ǆƉĂŶĚŝŶŐ'ŝƌůƐ͛WƌĞƉŝŶƚŽƚŚĞDϭϴϴďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁŽƵůĚƐĞǀĞƌĞůǇĐƵƌƚĂŝůW^ͬD^ϭϴϴ͛ƐĂďŝůŝƚǇƚŽĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞ
offering the programs for which it has been awarded competitive funding.
71. Moving the PS 94 classes and office from M188 would incur far greater moving costs for NYCDOE
than would moving the furniture of one current GPCS 5th grade class.
72. ExpĂŶĚŝŶŐ'ŝƌůƐ͛WƌĞƉƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞϯϬϬDŝĚĚůĞ^ĐŚŽŽůƐĞĂƚƐŝŶDϭϴϴǁŽƵůĚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚ
spending on renovations, i.e.: converting the fifth floor into classroom space , of which more than half of
the rooms are half-‐sized classrooms and offices designed for special needs students.
PS94
73. PS94 and PS/MS 188 have a positive working relationship, collaboratively providing opportunities
ĨŽƌŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶƐƵĐŚĂƐZŽƐŝĞ͛ƐƌŽĂĚǁĂǇ<ŝĚƐ͕dŚŝƌĚ^ƚƌĞĞƚDƵƐŝĐƉĞƌĐƵƐƐŝŽŶĐůĂƐƐĞƐ͘
74. A former P94 student who was fully included and then enrolled in PS/MS 188 was accepted into,
and is now thriving, at Bard High School Early College across the street.
75. W^ϵϰĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶĂƌĞŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚĂƐƌĂŶŐŝŶŐĨƌŽŵŵŝůĚƚŽƐĞǀĞƌĞŽŶƚŚĞĂƵƚŝƐŵƐƉĞĐƚƌƵŵ͘dŚĞ͞ŚŝŐŚ
ĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶŝŶŐ͟ƐƚƵĚĞnts benefit from inclusion opportunities in the 188 community building, while many
other students strive to use communication devices and picture symbols to express themselves.
76. PS 94 children are the most fragile/at risk because they are unable to express or meet their own
needs, depending on their teachers and educational associates to teach them coping skills.
77. W^ϵϰƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĚĞƉĞŶĚƐŽŶƌŽƵƚŝŶĞƐ͕ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶĐǇ͕ƐƚĂďŝůŝƚǇĂŶĚĨĂŵŝůŝĂƌŝƚǇ͘

78. PS 94 students deserve the successful inclusion opportunities underway at PS188.
79. Many PS 94 students cannot speak for themselves, and those that can, may not express
themselves in traditional ways. Their pedagogy often utilizes technology requiring computer and science
labs, or non-‐traditional methods such as Art & Music Therapy Sensory Room activities as forms of
occupational and physical therapy to enhance socialization & communication skills,
80. These essential therapy rooms provide important outlets for PS 94 children struggle with self-‐
ĞǆƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶ͘dŚĞƐĞ͞ƵŶĚĞƌƵƚŝůŝǌĞĚ͟ƌŽŽŵƐĂƌĞŝŶĨĂĐƚƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĞƐƐĞŶƚŝĂůĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞW^ϵϰĐƵƌƌŝĐƵůƵŵ͕
providing some of the proven successful therapies for children with autism.
81. The parents of PS 94 students oppose any proposal that would move their children out of this
ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞǇĚŽŶŽƚĞŶĚŽƌƐĞĂŶǇƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƚŚĂƚǁŝůůƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶƚŚĞĚŝƐƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚŽĨĂŶǇŽƚŚĞƌƐĐŚŽŽů͛Ɛ
children in order to accommodate the expansion of Girls Preparatory Charter School.
PS 20
82. W^ϮϬ͛ƐƌĞĐĞŶƚĞŶƌŽůůŵĞŶƚ has shown a marked increase in students whose native language is
Mandarin who have been identified as English Language Learners.
83. Recent Parent Survey and Program Selection forms collected by the school indicate that 15
Kindergarten families desire a Mandarin Dual Language Program. According to city and state guidelines,
PS 20 is thus mandated to open that program next year.
84. An optimal dual-‐language instruction program would expand next year to add 20-‐25 native Chinese
speakers in Kindergarten. Based on recent PS 20 and district wide Kindergarten enrollment such growth
is not infeasible.

85. Initiating a Mandarin Dual Language program at PS 20 will raise PS 20 enrollment. Based on
enrollment in schools located nearby in Chinatown, PS 20 expects to increase by at least 1 class of
approximately 25 students each year for the next 6 years.
86. Based on the recent Office of Space Planning walk through and revised space utilization
assessment, such growth will bring PS 20 close to a 90% utilization rate, making the addition of any new
program (GPCS or Global Leaders Middle School) infeasible in the very near future.
87. PS 20 services nearly 600 students, and PS 188 serves close to 400 students, about half of whom
are boys. The effects of housing an all ʹŐŝƌůƐ͛ŵŝĚĚůĞƐĐŚŽŽůŽŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͛ĚĞŵŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐƐĂŶĚĚĂǇƚŽ
day routines is of great concern to our community.
PS 184 (M137 building)
88. dŚĞKWW͛Ɛ͞ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϭ-‐ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂƌŽƵŶĚ^ƉĂĐĞEĞĞĚƐ͟ůŝƐƚƐϭϳĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƌŽŽŵƐŝŶDϭϯϳ͕ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐW^

184. Based on a walk-‐through of M137 on November 10, 2009, OPP revised that number to 9 available
rooms. PS184M, located in the M137 building, will need additional rooms over the next 7 years, because
PS 184M intends to grow by seven classes within three years, and eight classes in four years. Leaving
ŽŶůǇŽŶĞ͞ǀĂŝůĂďůĞZŽŽŵƐŝŶƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕͟ŶŽƚϵ͘
In 2010-‐2011:
First Grade will need one additional room as the four sections of Kindergarten move up to First Grade
(there are currently three sections of First Grade).
Fourth Grade will need an additional room because the enrollment number for the current Third Grade,
73 students, will necessitate a third section.
A new section of Fifth Grade will also be needed since the current Fourth Grade overcrowding, with 66
students in two sections, has led to a grievance filed by the teachers with the UFT. PS 187 will need
three additional classrooms for 2010-‐2011.
In 2011-‐2012:
a.) Second Grade will need an additional classroom to accommodate the progression of four sections of
first graders.
b.) Sixth Grade will need an additional room to fit the higher numbers of rising fifth grade students.
PS187 will need two additional classrooms for 2011-‐2012.
In 2012-‐2013:
a) Third Grade will need an additional room for the four sections of Second Grade moving up.
b) Seventh Grade will need an additional room for the Sixth Graders moving up. PS 184 will therefore
need two additional classrooms for 2012-‐2013.
In 2013-‐2014:
An additional Eighth Grade classroom will be needed for the rising Seventh Grade students. PS 184
will need one additional classroom for 2013-‐2014.
District One Office
89. District One families would be better served by moving the District Offices to PS 20. District 1
schools serve over 12,000 students, of which over 10,000 students are in schools located north of Henry
Street.
The roles and responsibilities of the Superintendent, Office of Family Engagement and Advocacy, and
the Community Education Council are to provide support by helping parents and schools to find answers
and to resolve problems. By moving the District Offices to a more centralized location that is more
easily accessible by public transportation, a greater population of parents, teachers, and members of the
community can be better informed and served. Improved visibility and access to the District Offices can
only strengthen community relationships and thus, provide the best resources to better service all
students in the community.
Corlears Complex (JHS 56 building)
90. One of the buildings that recently been looked at more closely for underutilized space was the
Corlears Complex, in building JHS 56. Housing University Neighborhood Middle School (M332), CASTLE
(M345), 6th through 8th grade middle schools, and Henry Street School of International Studies (M292) a
6th through 12th grade middle and high school, the Corlears Complex also houses the citywide NASA
Science Space Center and the District One Office. The three Corlears principals work diligently to
sustain a harmonious coexistence, and to address the challenge of scheduling shared space, such as the
cafeteria, the auditorium, the gymnasium, and the recess yard.
By way of an example to illustrate the building demographics, University Neighborhood Middle School
is an unscreened, neighborhood school, with a poverty rate 85.4%. 55% of students are overage, 11%
are English Language Learners, and 35% of students have an Individualized Educational Plan. Accordingly
students are legally expected to receive Occupational Therapy and Physical Therapy services, Adaptive
Physical Education, Speech and Language services, and Counseling services. These services require
dedicated, separate space. To address and support the emotional needs of at risk students, the school
provides space to Educational Alliance and Turning Points, counseling providers. UNMS students receive
WŚǇƐŝĐĂůĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶŽŶĐĞĂǁĞĞŬ͕ŝŵƉĂĐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞƐĐŚŽŽů͛ƐĂďŝůŝƚǇƚŽĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŽďĞƐŝƚǇ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚ
regimen of exercise and address kinesthetic needs of hundreds of adolescents. Ironically, the DoE
ĨŽƌŵƵůĂůĂďĞůƚŚŝƐƐĐŚŽŽůďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͞ƵŶĚĞƌƵƚŝůŝǌĞĚ͟ĚĞƐƉŝƚĞƚŚĞĞǀŝĚĞŶƚůǇĞǆĐĞůůĞŶƚƵƐĞŽĨƐŚĂƌĞĚƐƉĂĐĞ
among 5 institutions serving a great number of at-‐risk students.
District One and DOE
91. Scarce District One space should not be utilized for out-‐of-‐district charter school students at the
expense of District One students.
From this perspective all three scenarios presented by the NYCDOE Office of Portfolio Planning are
unacceptable, and the NYC Department of Education and Girls Prep Charter need to find an alternative
solution.
92. The FY 2010-‐2014 Five Year Capital Plan has committed some $210 million dollars toward the NYC
DOE Charter School Partnership. Funds from this budget could provide the necessary space to GPCS
growth rather than overcrowd and displace and deprive district students of enrichment activities in our
neighborhood schools.
93. The NYC DOE entered into a 5 year Shared Facility Use agreement with GPCS, committing public
school space to this charter school for $1/year through July 2010. For $1/year rent the DOE pays all of
the related custodial, maintenance, school safety costs; commits to making good faith efforts to move
the charter to a geographically proximate location if the PS space is needed, and other generous
supports. The current agreement appears not to have been updated (as it can be, annually) to reflect
changes in use and location. GPCS has grown by one grade every year for the 5 years of the agreement,
changing the space agreement; including moving two years ago to a new shared location at PS 188.
94. GPCS is currently made up of two sections per grade from K-‐5th. Continuing the same configuration
in the Middle School grades, rather than the recently proposed three sections per grade would benefit
both GPCS and the district middle schools. Last year some 320 middle school seats were over projected,
perhaps indicating that the current 13 middle school choices in the district more than satisfy current
demand for middle school seats.
95. Taking space away from one or more schools in order to allow Girls Prep Charter School to grow by
ϯϬϬĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƐĞĂƚƐŝŶƚŚĞŵŝĚĚůĞƐĐŚŽŽůŐƌĂĚĞƌŝƐŬƐŝŵƉĂŝƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͛ƐĂďŝůŝƚǇƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂ
quality education to the high-‐needs population served by our existing community schools.
These programs and services have led to our schools demonstrating most improved student outcomes
more than any other district in the state, while maintaining our economic, academic, racial and ethnic
diversity (See Chart B).
96. 11% of district 1 Students are currently enrolled in Charter Schools in 2009-2010 according to the
DoE's Office of Student Enrollment. District One students are thus ahead of the DoE's recently stated goal
of achieving 10% charter school enrollment in NYC.

97. Close to 85% of District 1 Schools are already housed in a building with at least 1 other school.
District One schools know from experience what works and what does not, in these shared space
arrangements. In addition to divvying up classrooms multiple schools in a building put additional pressure
on shared and cluster spaces.
The plans to expand GPCS endanger our student s ability to participate in art, music science and PE,
lunch and other essential components of a well rounded and enriching school experience.

98. District One parents, schools and the CEC have consistently worked to build bridges and include
charter parents in our CEC and District President Council meetings. We have often shown support at
hearings to allow Charter schools to share space with PS 188 and with Eastside Community in hearings
where adequate space and fair protocols have been worked out by the school communities in the building.

99. There is no evidence that enough parents in our community are seeking an all girls middle school to
warrant this requested expansion in our current school space. Recent results from ongoing surveys and
other parent feedback indicate rather that district parents are looking for: alternative progressive middle
school programs, selective/high performing middle school programs, and /or bilingual
(Spanish/Chinese) elementary and middle school programs.

100. DoE's own recommendations include expanding the number of seats located in District One for
D75 students in 6:1:1 programs (see DCP memo 11/15 Scenario One that states " there is a growing
need for 6:1:1 D75 programs in District 1 and 4-6 6:1:1". Given the growing need for placements
indicated by the DoE along with rising rates of Autism diagnoses, simply moving the PS 94 program to
Tribeca or closing it down through articulation and attrition, to make room for GPCS expansion, is
unacceptable. Our most vulnerable students need our support and advocacy to make sure they are
provided with the resources they need in a geographically convenient location.
Therefore, be it resolved:

The CEC requests that Portfolio Planning suspend its space needs planning and
siting efforts for Girls Prep Charter Middle School and the District Office until
a comprehensive needs assessment is completed and we can undertake planning
on a schedule that will implement any changes in time for the Fall 2011-‐12 school
year, taking into account the wishes of the community, per the intent of the law.

December 16, 2009

Chart A

Chart B
NEW YORK CITY ʹ CS DISTRICT 1 STATISTICS 2009
District One P.S. Girls P.S. P.S. 15 UNMS CASTLE HSISS P.S. 20
184 Prep 188
Total 11,653 640 263 400 235 180 292 525 590
enrollment
% Charter 11%
Students
SC Classes 1 3 2 2 3 3
0
0
CTT 1 0 6 1 2 3 1 5
Classes
IEPS 23%(ES)/29%(MS) 8% 21% 36% 27% 30% 16
5.5
SC/CTT 15%(ES)/21%(MS) .3 0 15% 18% 20% 21% 22% 10%
% ELL 12 5% 0 16 21 15 7 15 18%
% Title
One
93.3 77.8 68.0 92.6 96.5 89.6 80.8 69.9 97.1
#/ %STH
4% 4=2% 51=13% 24=11% 6=3% 3=1% 9=2% 3=.5%
% in
district
43
% out of
district
57
% Hispanic 48 5% 64 58 65 62.3 58 60%
% Black 19 6% 33 30 26 18.5 28 10%
%Asian 19 80% 3 8 2 15.1 10 26%

%White 13 7% 1 3 6 3.4 3 2%
%Am 1 .9% 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.4 .7%

Indian
Sources and References:
-
DCEP 2009-‐10, p.5, author Sarah Kleinhandler, school district improvement liaison
-
͚'ŝƌůƐWƌĞƉĂƚĂŐůĂŶĐĞ͕͛ĂƵƚŚŽƌDŝƌŝĂŵZĂĐĐĂŚ͕ĞǆĞĐƵƚŝǀĞdirector Public Prep\
-
8/10/2009 ATS snapshot K students D1
-
DOE D1 K-‐8 Special Ed Percentages base on 2009 projections (08/04/09)
-
D1 poverty percentage, author Jane Mingot, budget officer Manhattan integrated Service Center
10/26/09
- School portals DOE website Aug. 09
- ATS website 10/23/09
- STH report from ATS 09/22/09, author Cecilia Diaz, Office of Youth Development Manhattan ISC
ATS 10/23/09

2. EIS Response Example:
WZĞǀĞĂůƐƚŚĞ&ůĂǁƐ͕>ŝĞƐ͕ĂŶĚ/ŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶĐŝĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞK͛ƐZĞĐĞŶƚůǇ
Released Education Impact Statement of the Co-‐Location of PAVE Academy and
P.S. 15K
This statement released the evening of December 11th evening is riddled with errors and
miscalculations, faulty reasoning, incorrect statistics and favoritism towards Pave Academy.
Section I: Summary of Proposal
This summary states that our school building must have 726 students to be considered at 100% capacity,
ŽƌŝŶŶŽƌŵĂůůĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ͕͞ĨƵůů͘͟/ƚĂƐƐŝŐŶƐƵƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƵƚŝůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶƌĂƚĞŽĨϲϲй͕ďĂƐĞĚŽŶŽƵƌĐƵƌƌĞŶƚŶƵŵďĞƌ
of studentƐϯϵϬĂŶĚWs͛ƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͕ϭϯϴ͘dŚŝƐŝƐĨĂƵůƚǇŽŶƚǁŽůĞǀĞůƐ͘&ŝƌƐƚ͕ŝƚĐĂŶŶŽƚ
be supported by basic math; 390 P.S. 15 students plus 138 PAVE students equals 528 students, 528 is
NOT 66% of 726, it is between 72-‐73%. Second, this means ǁĞĂĐĐĞƉƚƚŚŝƐŶƵŵďĞƌ͕ϳϮϲĂŶĚƚŚĞK͛Ɛ
ĐůĂŝŵƚŚĂƚƚŚĂƚŝƐŚŽǁŵĂŶǇƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŵƵƐƚŚĂǀĞƚŽďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚ͞ĂƚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ͟ĂƐƚŚĞǇƐĂǁ
in the Office of Portfolio Development. We should not accept this number, as it is unclear how the
department came up with it. It could just be a building code number, outlining the amount of people
who can safely occupy the building.
WůĞĂƐĞďĞĂǁĂƌĞ͕ƚŚĞůĂƐƚƉĂƌĂŐƌĂƉŚŽĨƚŚĞƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚĐůĂŝŵƐƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͙͞ĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞĚƚŚĞŶĞĞĚƚŽ
continue to offer high qualiƚǇŽƉƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϭϱ͘͟,ŽǁŝƐƚŚŝƐƐŽǁŚĞŶWsĞŶƌŽůůƐ
students outside of Red Hook, District 15 and Brooklyn?
Section II: Enrollment, Admissions and School Performance
Enrollment:
Ws͛ƐĐŚĂƌƚĞƌĐůĞĂƌůǇƐƚĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚĞĂĐŚĐůĂƐƐƌŽŽŵǁŝůl serve 22 students. Currently, all but one of their
classrooms serve 23-‐24 students. That is a violation of their charter. Also, this impact statement allows
them a range of 179-‐189 students for the 2010-‐2011 year, which also violates their charter and allows
for more than 22 students in each room.
&ƵƌƚŚĞƌŵŽƌĞ͕ĂƐǁĞĞǆĂŵŝŶĞWs͛ƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚƐƚƵĚĞŶƚĞŶƌŽůůĞĚ͞ĂƚƐĐĂůĞ͟;ŝŶƚŚŝƐĐĂƐĞ͕ƚŚĂƚŵĞĂŶƐĂƚ
2015 when they serve up to 7th grade) it is listed between 343-‐353 students. The total number of
students the DOE claims the building can hold is 726. 726-‐353=373 spaces left for P.S. 15 students. P.S.
15 has 390 now, with plans to expand as much as possible. How can we expand when this statement
allows for PAVE to add an additional 215 students by 2015 and requires P.S. 15 to lose 17 students? Our
projected enrollment will be beyond capacity, and using the instructional footprint to decide which
rooms each school can use will not work because there are not enough rooms in the building to support
those numbers.
School Performance:
P.S. 15 has pages of data and three years in a row with an A rating. Pave Academy has no progress
report or data to share.
Section III: Proposed or Potential use of K015
The first sentence contains a mistake, stating our building will continue to house PAVE until it grows to
8th grade, while the previous pages state they will stay until they grow to 7th grade.
Section IV: Impact of the Proposed Extended C0-‐location on the Community, Existing Schools and
Students
A. Community Ramifications

The only community ramifications listed on this EIS is: Pave will stay 5 years, (adding 260 seats) and
ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ͞ŽƉƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϭϱ͘͟dŚĂƚŝƐŶŽƚĂƌĂŵŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘ĚĚŝŶŐϮϲϬƐĞĂƚƐtakes away
options for students of P.S. 15! It means the loss of at least 10 more classrooms to Pave Academy. This
means no rooms for music, social studies, and science clusters, no rooms for intervention services or
mandated services such as speech, occupational and physical therapy. It could also mean no rooms for
our long-‐time community service partner, Good Shepherd Services who provides a computer lab, after
school programming, student groups and family counseling.
B. Existing Schools
This sections states that school leaders will determine use of space. This will be impossible since the
instructional footprint they are to use is not compatible with the capacity of the building. Furthermore,
ďĞĐĂƵƐĞŽĨŶĞǁůǇĐƌĞĂƚĞĚ͞ĐĂŵƉƵƐƉŽůŝĐǇ͟ĐŚĂƌƚĞƌƐĐŚŽŽůůĞĂĚĞƌƐĂƌĞĂůůŽǁĞĚƚŽĨŝŐŚƚĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƐƚŚĞǇ
disagree with, while public school principals can be sanctioned for defending and advocating for their
school community.
C. Students
dŚŝƐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚƌĞĂĚƐ͞EŽĐƵƌƌĞŶƚW͘^͘ϭϱƐƚƵĚĞŶƚǁŝůůďĞĚŝƐƉůĂĐĞĚ͟ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂƐ/ƐƚĂƚĞĚ
before, the enrollment infŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŝŶ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶ//ĂůůŽǁƐĨŽƌĂŶĚĐůĞĂƌůǇƐƚĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚĂƐWs͛ƐŶƵŵďĞƌƐǁŝůů
grow to 260, ours shrink leaving us with 17 less spaces available by the year 2015? Also, the final
sentence of this section informs readers how to apply to PAVE Academy, which is unrelated to this
issues, and clearly biased towards this charter school.
IV. Initial Costs and Savings
The Department of Education anticipates no initial costs or savings as a result of this proposal. What
about the costs to P.S. 15 families and savings to billionaire heir/PAVE founder Spencer Robertson?

VI. Effect on Personal Needs, Costs of Instruction, Administration, Transportation and Other Support
Services
The DOE anticipates no impacts on the P.S. 15 personnel, however P.S. 15 personnel are impacted right
now. Tensions are high, teachers and staff of P.S. 15 are aware of the inequitable policies that favor
ĐŚĂƌƚĞƌƐĐŚŽŽůƐĂŶĚƐĞĞƚŚĞĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞĚĂŝůǇ͘KƵƌƚŚĞƌĂƉŝƐƚƐƐŚĂƌĞƌŽŽŵƐ͕ƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐŵƵƐƚĚĞĂůǁŝƚŚWs͛Ɛ
noisy activities during the admission of state and city tests to their students, school safety issues have
risen since PAVE has entered this building and sharing the auditorium, gym and lunchroom is getting
more difficult by the day. Furthermore many P.S. 15 staff members will be directly and harshly effected
when they lose their jobs due to increased class size and loss of programs as PAVE gains more space in
the building.
VII. Building Information
dŚŝƐŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĞǆƉůĂŝŶŚŽǁƚŚĞ͞ƚĂƌŐĞƚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ͟ŽĨϳϮϲǁĂƐĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚ͕Ŷor does it

correctly reflect the correct percentage of utilization as we stated earlier, which is between 72-‐73%, not
66%. Furthermore, the claim that P.S. 15 has a computer room is false, that room belongs to Good
Shepherd Services. Finally, the Instructional Footprint used to determine how many rooms a school
deserves does NOT take into considerations collaborations with community organizations. In our case,
rooms in our building are used by Good Shepherd, Lutheran Medical, Dental and Mental Health
Services, Young Audiences New York and the DOE nurse.
Conclusion
These statements are incredulous and confirm our worst fears about PAVE Academy taking over our
school building. If you have any questions, comments or feedback, please visit:
www.capeducation.blogspot.com and share your thoughts. Our school community deserves better and
ǁĞǁŝůůŶŽƚďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŽƚŚĞƌĐĂƐƵĂůƚǇŝŶDĂǇŽƌůŽŽŵďĞƌŐ͛ƐĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĨŽƌŵŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ͊

2. Parent Letter, EIS Response Example:
April 15, 2010
Dear Chancellor Klein, DOE and PEP members,
We are Parents of children enrolled at the Patrick F Daly School (PS-‐15) in Brooklyn. We are writing to
collectively comment on the Educational Impact Statement of March 26, 2010, revised on April 9, 2010,
regarding the proposed extension of the PAVE Academy co-‐ůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĂƚŽƵƌĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛ƐƐĐŚŽŽů͘
As you know, this EIS was issued after PS-‐15 parents filed a petition of appeal with the NY State
Education Commissioner. That petition argued that the previously issued EIS lacked content and failed
to identify any impact to PS-‐15 children or the Red Hook community. Unfortunately, this new EIS, while
padded with additional statistics, still fails to identify any negative impact on PS-‐15 children.
The new EIS contains many basic inaccuracies and false or misleading statements including the
following:
1. It states that PS-‐15 enrollment is flat despite an increase of more than 10 percent in this school
year. It also states as fact that the enrollment at PS-‐15 is not expected to increase in the coming
years. Based on preliminary Kindergarten enrollment for 2010-‐2011 and other factors including
the expansion of the MR program as required to meet the growing age needs of existing
students, we can see that PS-‐15 is certain to have higher enrollment again next year.
2. The EIS states on Page 7 that PS-‐15 is using 11 more full size classrooms than allocated by the
footprint and implies that these rooms are being used for arts and enrichment. In fact, these
rooms are used to deliver mandated services including vital, mandated services for children with
special needs as well as health programs including medical, dental, mental health, and
counseling.
3. The EIS is not able to assess impact to children with special needs because it suggests methods
ŽĨƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĐŽŶƚƌĂƌǇƚŽůĂǁ͘KŶƉĂŐĞϳŝƚƐƚĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚ͞ŶǇƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůƐƉĂĐĞ
concerns could be alleviated by incorporating some alternative delivery models such as in-‐class
^d^^͘͟dŚŝƐǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚďe permissible as service locations are dictated by the IEP by law and the
ůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĂƌĞ͚ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͛͘

In general, the DOE has failed to properly identify the actual uses of space at PS-‐15 and we believe this
ĨĂŝůƵƌĞŝƐĂƚƚŚĞĐŽƌĞŽĨƚŚĞK͛ƐŝŶĂďility to assess impact on our children. The law requires an accurate
ĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶŽƵƌĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶĂŶĚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͘ǇƐŝŵƉůǇƐƚĂƚŝŶŐ͞ƚŚĞƌĞǁŝůůďĞŶŽ
ŝŵƉĂĐƚ͕͟ĂŶĚĚŝƐƉĞŶƐŝŶŐŝŶĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƵƚŝůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƐƉĂĐĞŝŶŽƌĚĞƌ to sustain that
statement, the DOE hinders our ability to assess the true nature of the co-‐location and its impact on our
children. Recently,PS-‐15 parents sought an independent and neutral investigation and analysis of the
space utilization at PS-‐15 and the potential impact of the co-‐location on our children. That report, from
21st Century School Fund, is attached. It argues that the continued co-‐location will be detrimental to the
children of PS-‐15 and that PAVE enrollment must be capped.
Finally, the EIS proposes a 3 year co-‐location timetable based on the assumption that PAVE Academy is
likely to complete construction of a new building by spring of 2013. As of today, PAVE has still not
secured a building site for a new school. We believe that even were it to secure a site today, it is not
reasonable to believe that this deadline could be reached even under the most optimal conditions. No
recent ground-‐up public school building has been constructed in NYC within 3 years of groundbreaking.
We believe it unwise and unfair to families of PS-‐15 and to perspective PAVE Academy families for new
students to be admitted to PAVE Academy until it has constructed a new building.
We object to this proposal and demand that the DOE undergo a comprehensive analysis of the real
impact on our children, the children of PAVE Academy, and the entire Red Hook community before
submitting this to the PEP for vote.
WE, the undersigned, make this statement as individuals and ask that each of us be counted as one
person against the co-‐location of PAVE Academy at PS-‐15.
(parents individually signed and then we sent digitally and in paper version)

Advocacy Toolkit Supplement: School Closings

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advocacy Toolkit Supplement: School Closings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advocacy Toolkit

x How to find PEP bylaws, notices, and documents:

x &KDQFHOORU¶V5HJXODWLRQVA190 (SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN SCHOOL

x Contact your CEC. Ways your CEC can support you:

¾ CEC'c can also possibly help you FOIL documents.

x Performance 'DWD WHVWVFRUHVJUDGUDWHVDWWHQGDQFHUDWHV«

Assess the Need for Closure

x What will be the impact on neighboring schools?

Assess the Closure Decision

x Create a response EIS *see appendix for an example

x Inform the public

x Take steps to protect your school

The Toolkit contains useful information including contact information for:

9 Other Advocacy Groups

9 Important Links and Blogs

5. Jamaica High School PowerPoint *see PowerPoint wherever you

For other useful documents such as;; a sample petition,

Office of Portfolio Planning Process

Girls Prep Charter School

12. ŶĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐŽĨĞŶƌŽůůŵĞŶƚƚƌĞŶĚƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŽ͛ƐůƵĞŽŽŬϮϬϬϳ-­‐8 to 2008-­‐9 shows District One

D1 enroll PS` MS HS Total

2007 8,306 2,965 1,805 13076

2008 8,650 2,929 1,824 13403

increase 344 -­‐36 19 327

23. In the charter application Girls Prep cites ƚŚĞEzĞƉƚŽĨŝƚǇWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͗͞ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚWƌŽĨŝůĞƐΗďĂƐĞĚŽŶ

Subgroup 2006-­‐2007 2008-­‐2009

African American 135 159

Hispanic 139 162

White 184 193

Subgroup 2006-­‐2007 2008-­‐2009

African American 139 159

Hispanic 149 174

White 185 195

28. The difference is in 2006-­‐07 :

Is still only 43% in district.

45. ŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛ƐtŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ^ĐŚŽŽůǁĂƐŐƌĂŶƚĞĚƚŚĞƌŝŐŚƚƚŽgrow from a pre-­‐k to 5th elementary school to

PS/MS 188, The Island School

61. dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞŶŽƚĞŶŽƵŐŚƚŝŵĞƐůŽƚƐƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ͞ƐƵƉƉĞƌ͟ĨŽƌĂůůƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶƚŚĞ M188 building, if

67. The M188 building does not have a gym. ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŝŶϭϵϬϮ͕ƚŚĞƐĐŚŽŽů͛ƐŐǇŵǁĂƐĂŐůĂƐƐĂƚƌŝƵŵ

PS 184 (M137 building)

88. dŚĞKWW͛Ɛ͞ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϭ-­‐ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂƌŽƵŶĚ^ƉĂĐĞEĞĞĚƐ͟ůŝƐƚƐϭϳĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƌŽŽŵƐŝŶDϭϯϳ͕ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐW^

District One Office

Corlears Complex (JHS 56 building)

District One and DOE

Therefore, be it resolved:

IEPS 23%(ES)/29%(MS) 8% 21% 36% 27% 30% 16

SC/CTT 15%(ES)/21%(MS) .3 0 15% 18% 20% 21% 22% 10%

% ELL 12 5% 0 16 21 15 7 15 18%

4% 4=2% 51=13% 24=11% 6=3% 3=1% 9=2% 3=.5%

% Hispanic 48 5% 64 58 65 62.3 58 60%

% Black 19 6% 33 30 26 18.5 28 10%

%Asian 19 80% 3 8 2 15.1 10 26%

%Am 1 .9% 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.4 .7%

Sources and References:

Section I: Summary of Proposal

Section II: Enrollment, Admissions and School Performance

Section III: Proposed or Potential use of K015

IV. Initial Costs and Savings

VII. Building Information

dŚŝƐŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĞǆƉůĂŝŶŚŽǁƚŚĞ͞ƚĂƌŐĞƚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ͟ŽĨϳϮϲǁĂƐĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚ͕Ŷor does it

Dear Chancellor Klein, DOE and PEP members,

You might also like

x Performance 'DWDWHVWVFRUHVJUDGUDWHVDWWHQGDQFHUDWHV«

12. ŶĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐŽĨĞŶƌŽůůŵĞŶƚƚƌĞŶĚƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŽ͛ƐůƵĞŽŽŬϮϬϬϳ-‐8 to 2008-‐9 shows District One

increase 344 -‐36 19 327

23. In the charter application Girls Prep cites ƚŚĞEzĞƉƚŽĨŝƚǇWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͗͞ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚWƌŽĨŝůĞƐΗďĂƐĞĚŽŶ

Subgroup 2006-‐2007 2008-‐2009

Subgroup 2006-‐2007 2008-‐2009

28. The difference is in 2006-‐07 :

45. ŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛ƐtŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ^ĐŚŽŽůǁĂƐŐƌĂŶƚĞĚƚŚĞƌŝŐŚƚƚŽgrow from a pre-‐k to 5th elementary school to

67. The M188 building does not have a gym. ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŝŶϭϵϬϮ͕ƚŚĞƐĐŚŽŽů͛ƐŐǇŵǁĂƐĂŐůĂƐƐĂƚƌŝƵŵ

88. dŚĞKWW͛Ɛ͞ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϭ-‐ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂƌŽƵŶĚ^ƉĂĐĞEĞĞĚƐ͟ůŝƐƚƐϭϳĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƌŽŽŵƐŝŶDϭϯϳ͕ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐW^