You are on page 1of 54

Advocacy  Toolkit  

Fight  to  Defend  Your  School  from  the  
Misguided  Policy  of  Public  School        
Co-­Locations  with  Charter  Schools

CAPE:    Concerned  Advocates  for  Public  Education   GEM:    Grassroots  Education  Movement  
~Parents  and  Teachers  Working  Together  to  Protect  
and  Preserve  Public  Education~  
Know  Your  Rights  
x For  a  complete  overview  of  the  Change  in  School  Utilization  Law  and  Process,  as  
PowerPoint  should  be  available  wherever  this  supplement  is  found.    For  a  copy,  

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


190%20%20.FINAL.pdf    *Be  sure  to  read  through  the  regulation  in  order  to  
maximize  your  public  hearing  and  to  understand  the  new  shared  use  
agreements/plans  and  shared  facility  committees/building  council.
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:­

2.  Appeal  to  the  State  Education  Commissioner:    for  more  information  visit,  for  an  example  of  an  appeal  filed  by  parents  on  a  
co-­location  issue  email:  

x How  to  FOIL-­    CR  D-­110  Freedom  Of  Information  Law  Procedures:­84/D-­110__1-­9-­03.pdf  


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  

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.  


Asses  the  Current  Space  Situation  at  Your  School  

Evaluate  the  current  rooms  and  school  usage:  

x List  all  of  the  rooms  in  the  school  and  their  current  usage:    see  appendix  for  an  
example  from  PS  15,  independent  analysis  

x Evaluate  the  utilized  space  in  the  building:    See  appendix  for  an  example  from  the  
21st  Century  Fund,  foundation  analysis,  map,  and  conclusions  

x Evaluate  utilization  percentage:    Utilization  calculations  are  simply  \RXUVFKRRO¶V

enrollment  divided  by  the  capacLW\)RULQIRUPDWLRQRQWKH'2(¶V8WLOL]DWLRQ)RUPXOD
and  to  view  the  Blue  Book  visit:  (2008-­‐2009  version,  2009-­‐2010  not  on  DOE  site  yet)­09.pdf  

x $QDO\]HDQGDSSO\WKH'2(¶s  Instructional  Footprint:    Note  what  your  school  

currently  has  that  is  not  included  in  the  Footprint.    See  appendix  for  an  example  from  

Asses  the  Need  for  a  Co-­Location  


x Asses  your  school's  performance:  demographics,  programs  and  services,  etc  

x Asses  other  neighborhood  schools:  performance,  utilization,  demographics  served  

x Assess  community  need:    overcrowded  or  underutilized  schools,  failing  schools,  

projected  growth,  district  averages  of  high  needs  students  (special  education  ±CTT  and  
self  contained-­,  percentage  of  students  with  IEPS,  percentage  of  students  categorized  as  
ELL,  percentage  of  students  who  receive  free  and  reduced  lunch,  percentage  of  
homeless  students,  percents  by  race  and  ethnicity).  *Leverage  outside  such  as  with  your  
distrLFW&(&'/7RU&%2¶VWKDWPD\DOready  be  engaged  in  the  larger  community  issues  
including  how  other  schools,  ergo  families/students,  outside  of  the  building  will  be  

x Assess  other  available  spaces  in  the  community  

Assess  the  Impact  
x What  current  rooms  and  usage  will  be  lost?    See  example  in  appendix  

x Create  a  presentation  for  the  public.    See  example  in  appendix  

x Create  a  response  EIS.    See  example  in  appendix  

A  Co-­Location  Case  Study:    Tips  from  two  of  last  

x Involve  everyone  in  your  school  community.    Form  Teams.    Delegate  Jobs.  

policymakers,  community  organizers,  other  advocacy  RUJDQL]DWLRQV«  

x Hold  meetings  once  a  week.    Set  a  clear  mission,  message  and  list  of  goals  
and  tasks.  

x Cull  through  charter  school  filings  and  financial  reports  and  other  FOILable  
documents.    Look  at  attrition  rates  (if  an  already  existing  charter),  budgets,  
salaries,  outside  funding  sources,  salaries,  relations  among  board  members  
and  funders  and  politicos,  money  spent  on  marketing,  travel  and  

x Examine  not  only  how  the  co-­location  affects  your  school,  but  how  others  will  

x Hold  protests,  execute  campaigns  


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  

Additional  Information:  

Find  a  charter:  

For  SUNY  and  CSI  authorized  Charters,  school  visit  reports,  and  renewal  visit  reports:  

UFT  report  that  examines  charter  school  cherry  picking  of  students:                                       ­‐content/uploads/2010/01/Separate-­‐and-­‐Unequal-­‐01-­‐03-­‐10-­‐FINAL1.pdf  

Excellent  Article  by  Sarah  Knopp  that  explains  the  charter  school  movement:­‐charterschools.shtml  

Excellent  discussion  of  charters  by  Brian  Jones:                                               ­‐school-­‐charade  

1.  CEC  resolution  on  the  Co-­Location  of  Girls  Prep  Charter  School  in  District  One  

2.  PS  15  room  distribution  List  

3.  PS  15  utilization  analysis  and  impact  

4.  21st  Century  Fund  analysis  and  map,  located  wherever  you  find  this  supplement  or  

5.  PS  15  footprint  and  utilization  analysis  

6.  PS  15  EIS  responses  

7.  PS  15  public  hearing  PowerPoint,  located  wherever  you  find  this  supplement  or  

8.  Public  comment  submission,  example  from  Leonie  Haimson  @  Class  Size  Matters  


1.  CEC  Resolution  Sample:  

Corlears  Complex  (M056),  220  Henry  Street-­‐Room  134,  New  York,  N.Y.    10002,  (212)587-­‐4094,  Fax  

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  

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  

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.  

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.  

to  serve  grades  K-­‐8  at  ĨƵůůĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ͙͘ĂƚĨƵůůĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ͕ĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞϰƚŚLJĞĂƌŽĨƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚĐŚĂƌƚĞƌƚĞƌŵ'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  
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/ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐĨŽƌĂůůƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͕ǁŝƚŚĂŵĞŵƉŚĂƐŝƐŽŶĂƚ-­‐risk  students,      


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  


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  

23.  In  the  charter  application  Girls  Prep  cites  the  NYC  Dept  of  City  PlannŝŶŐ͗͞ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚWƌŽĨŝůĞƐΗďĂƐĞĚŽŶ
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  

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  

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:  


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  

·∙                  The  gap  is  decreased  by  14  points  between  Hispanic  students  and  their  White  student  


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  

·∙                  The  gap  is  decreased  by  21  points  between  Hispanic  students  and  their  White  student  


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  

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  since  1991,  such  that  studentƐ͛ĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐĐĂŶĐŚŽŽƐĞƚŽĞŶƌŽůůƚŚĞŝƌĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶŝŶĂŶLJƐĐŚŽŽůŝŶ

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  

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  

 -­‐  Earth  School  (PS  361)  received  294  applications  for  60  K  seats,  =  a  5:1  ratio,  and  wait  list  of  234  for  K  
-­‐  CWS  garnered  212  applications  for  45  seats,  for  a  nearly  5:1  ratio  and  a  wait  list  of  167  for  


45.  ŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛ƐtŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ^ĐŚŽŽůǁĂƐŐƌĂŶƚĞĚƚŚĞƌŝŐŚƚƚŽŐƌŽǁĨƌŽŵĂƉƌĞ-­‐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  

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  
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  

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^ϭϴϴ͚ƐĂǀĞƌĂŐĞĐůĂƐƐƐŝnjĞĨůƵĐƚƵĂƚĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶϭϵ-­‐21  students,  mirroring  the  citywide  average,  


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.  

students  from  3:40pm  to  6pm.    

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  
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.  Constructed  in  1902,  the  scŚŽŽů͛ƐŐLJŵǁĂƐĂŐůĂƐƐĂƚƌŝƵŵ
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  

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.    džƉĂŶĚŝŶŐ'ŝƌůƐ͛WƌĞƉƚŽŝŶĐůƵde  300  Middle  School  seats  in  M188  would  require  significant  
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.    


73.    PS94  and  PS/MS  188  have  a  positive  working  relationship,  collaboratively  providing  opportunities  

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.  

ĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶŝŶŐ͟ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐďĞŶĞĨŝƚĨƌŽŵŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶopportunities  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.  


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-­‐
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  
children  in  order  to  accommodate  the  expansion  of  Girls  Preparatory  Charter  School.    

PS  20  

82.    W^ϮϬ͛ƐƌĞĐĞŶƚĞŶƌŽůůŵĞŶƚŚĂƐƐŚŽǁŶĂŵĂƌŬĞĚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐe  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  

 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  

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  
regimen  of  exercise  and  address  kinesthetic  needs  of  hundreds  of  adolescents.    Ironically,  the  DoE  
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  

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  
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  

  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  

%  Charter   11%                  


SC  Classes                                                                 1   3   2   2   3   3  

CTT                1   0   6   1   2   3   1   5  

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%  

%  Title                      
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                    

%  out  of                    

%  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%  


  Sources  and  References:  

DCEP  2009-­‐10,  p.5,  author  Sarah  Kleinhandler,  school  district  improvement  liaison  
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  
- 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.  PS  15  Room  Distribution  List  ±Example-­  
1. Rooms 201 and 201A: PS 15 previously used this room. It served as our Performing and
Visual Arts space. This is where classes went to participate in such programming as
where children would be able to showcase their learning through projects that were put
on display. This room serviced all of the children in PS 15 from grades 2 through 5 on an
almost daily basis. This room is now a PAVE second grade classroom. Children who are
now able to participate in these programs are limited due to lack of performance space
and only one-third of the students are able to participate.
2. Room 202: PS 15 previously used this room for as a classroom for Grade 2 Collaborative
Team Teaching. This room was lost to PAVE as they expanded this year and is now a
PAVE second grade. The teachers who were once in this classroom had to move books,
furniture, and equipment across the hall to room 203.
3. Room 203: This room was a second grade classroom and had been so for at least 10
who once taught here was moved to room 207 and is now a grade four teacher. PS 15
also closed one grade 2 class. This had to be done to create room for the grade 2 CTT
4. Room 204: has remained a PS 15 grade 2 classroom, however with a new teacher due to
this room from a regular classroom, to this half-room, in the first year of the PAVE co-
location. This room was previously used for social services.
6. Room 205A: Is now being used by the PS 15 Literacy Intervention Teacher. This room
³KDOI-URRP´DQGLW¶VVL]HVHYHUHO\OLPLWVWKHQXPber of children that can be grouped for
literacy intervention. PS 15 is known citywide as an intervention model. An integral
them out in small groups to address those specific needs. This also provided the
classroom teacher with an opportunity to meet individually or in very small groups with
the children who remained in class. Due to the lack of space, the intervention specialist
will have to push-in to classes. This will make it more difficult to be so successful.
7. Room 206: This classroom continues to be occupied by PS 15 and is a 4/5 12:1:1
classroom. By legal mandate, this room may not have more than 12 students enrolled at
one time.
8. Room 207: It has remained a PS 15 4th grade classroom.
9. Room 208: It is currently being used as a PS 15 grade 4 classroom. However, previously
it was used for literacy and intervention. This afforded the intervention and reading
teacher with plenty of space to store materials and hold small group instruction. This is
no longer possible.
10. Room 209: has continued as a PS 15 grade 4 classroom.
12. Room 211: This room continues to be used by the Guidance Counselor to service those
children with guidance mandated on their IEPs.
13. Room 212: Custodian Closet
14. Room 213: This room is used by PS 15 as a grade 2/3 class servicing 12:1:1 students.
This classroom is also mandated by state and federal law to only allow 12 students at a
time. The teacher in this class is new to the grade. The previous teacher had to be
excessed due to budget cuts. This is the first time a teacher has been excessed from PS
15 in, at least, the last 8 years.
15. 5RRP*LUO¶V%DWKURRPIRU the students in PS 15, grade 2, 3, and 4.
16. Room 218: PS 15 Closet
17. Room 217: Has remained a PS 15 4th grade special education classroom. Again, this
services a full program, all the children of PS 15 weekly.
19. Room 220: PS 15 Grade 3
20. Room 221: The PS 15 Social Studies Cluster Teacher uses this room for a full service
classroom. She also provides instruction for all the students in PS 15 through project
based, art-infused learning.
21. Room 222: PS 15 uses this room as a third grade Collaborative Team Teaching
22. Room223: This room is a PS 15 grade 3 classroom.
the Occupational Therapist who services state mandated children with special needs must
use the library instead of a classroom. She maintains a full program roster. This room is
also used for the morning program art club everyday of the week as well as chess club,
boys club, and teacher meetings multiple days a week. It should also be noted, the room
is being used for all of these programs while it is under renovation.
24. Room 225: Closet PS 15
25. Room 226: PS 15 grade 5 classroom.
26. Room 227: This room is used for the second full program occupational therapists room.
In addition, the Beacon/Good Shepherd Program is currently using this classroom as their
computer lab. They also use this room as a group meeting room for their afterschool
program, as well as several other rooms on the floor. The Beacon did not use this room
during any other year at PS 15 because room 237 was their computer lab as was taken
over by PAVE. Room 227 used to be used by PS 15 for enrichment. It served as a violin
studio, a room for small group pullout for CTT classrooms, a room to provide testing
accommodations, and finally a performing arts room. Young Audiences New York
(YANY) would meet with some classes in this room to learn and practice routines. PS 15
can no longer use this room for enrichment and we are finding it difficult to find
replacement space. We have had to have some programming moved to in-class and when
available the auditorium.
27. Room 228: This room is a 12:1:1 classroom for PS 15, grade 5. Again, it can only hold
12 students at a time, according to law.
29. Room 230: Previously, this room was used by the Math Coach as a Math Lab for PS 15
teachers. Now, it is the office for PAVE Principal Ms. Ferguson. No students, PAVE or
PS 15, are given instruction in this room.
30. Room 231: PS 15 grade 5 classroom.
31. Room 232: Closet
32. Room 233: until this school year, a PS 15 Speech and Language Provider used this room
in need, from grades K-5. Speech providers are now forced to share one classroom on the
first floor. This room has now EHFRPHD7HDFKHU¶V&DIpDQG3$9(VWRUDJHDUHD
33. Room 233A: This is another room that had many different uses for PS 15. It was home
base for the Guitar Group during morning program and was shared by two PS 15
Occupational Therapists (the guitar group moved to the ELL room and the ELL teacher
works out of the library in the morning and the Occupational Therapists share the library
and room 227 with other programs). This room was taken by PAVE and now houses the
offices of a PAVE Social Worker and a PAVE ³/HDUQLQJ6SHFLDOLVW´
students (K, 1 and 2).
35. Room 235: PS 15 Music Room and Piano Lab. A few years ago, PS 15 received grant to
create a Piano Lab, complete with proper wiring and equipment. This equipment must
stay in this room for it to work properly. PAVE often complains about the noise and this
year the PS 15 Band has been forced to carry all its equipment downstairs to rehearse.
36. Room 237: Until this school year, this room belonged to the Beacon Program. They
used it as a computer lab. This year, room 237 is a PAVE kindergarten classroom.
37. Room 238: previously used as a Professional Development Teacher resource center, it is
now a PAVE office for Mr. Robertson, Mr. Westandarp, and the Office Manager, Ms.
38. Room 239: Now a PAVE Kindergarten class, this used to be a PS 15 12:1:1 grade 5
39. Rooms 240 and 241: Closets
40. Rooms 243 and 244: Staff Restrooms, now shared by both PAVE and PS 15 Staff.
41. Room 244: Closet
42. Room 245: This room is now being used for PAVE grade 1. It used to be the PS 15
Science Cluster classroom.
43. Room 246: This room is currently a PAVE classroom for grade 1. It used to be a
Science Laboratory adjacent to the Science Classroom so students would be able to
perform various Science experiments. We were also pursuing a grant for a renovated
science lab that had to be cancelled.
44. Room 247: This room used to be the PS 15 Special Education Office, holding student
IEPs, bussing information, contact information and resources. It is now a PAVE
Coordinator. Due to the lack of space, the region wide attendance office is now located
here also.
46. Room 104: In the past, this room has served as a second grade classroom for CTT, a
math intervention classroom used by the Math Coach, and a room for test administration
for those students who receive extra testing time. The room served children in any of its
capacities. This room is now for BOTH speech and language providers. They must
share a space due to the loss of space.
47. Room 106: This room is used by the Testing Coordinator, Reading Intervention,
Toddler Time, parent meetings, teacher meetings, and extended test time.
48. Room 108: Copy Center, Storage, and Aides Room
49. Room 108A: Lutheran Dental Office. Previously, this room was a Parent Resource
Room and Textbook Central. This room is also shared by a part-time speech provider.
50. Room 109: This room is now used as an office by the Beacon/Good Shepherd.
51. Room 111: Intervention Coordinator/Administrative Offices.
52. Room 113: This room remained a PS 15 Pre-Kindergarten Class
53. Room 115: This classroom is for the District 15 MR class. It was previously used as a
kindergarten classroom.
54. Room 117: PS 15 used to use this room as a kindergarten classroom. It is now the
Department of Health Medical Office, Toddler Time programming, Parent
Workshop/Resource room, testing accommodations room, Bilingual CSE Evaluation
Room, and Pre-K Social Worker room.
55. Room 118: Has remained a PS 15 kindergarten
56. Room 119: This room used to be a PS Pre-K room, now it is a PS 15 CTT kindergarten
57. Room 120: Continues to be a PS 15 kindergarten classroom
58. Room 127: Previously this room was a first grade classroom. This year it is a K/1st
12 children in it.
59. Room 123: Continues to be a Pre-Kindergarten classroom
60. Room 124: Computer Central for entire school
61. Room 125: PTA Office
a Music Prep for the school. Now it continues to be a music room, with the added
difficulty of also being the Musical Instrument Storage Room since the PS 15 band was
made to move to the first floor.
63. Room 121: This room is a first grade CTT classroom, and is not a full sized room.
64. Room 128: Reading Library/Professional Room. This room is under renovation and
materials are being relocated to make additional space.
65. Rooms 129 and 129A: These rooms are shared between At-Risk counseling, IEP Office,
and IEP conference room.
66. Room 130: Continue to be the Lutheran Medical Office.
67. Room 131: Continued to be a first grade CTT class
68. Room 133: Continued to be a first grade classroom
69. Room 141: This used to be the storage area for our school aides and crossing guards.
Now it is used for Physical Therapy
70. Room 147: This room used to belong to the Beacon for storage and one-on-one
counseling with PS 15 students. It also was used as a stage room and backstage entrance
for performances. It was given to PAVE this year as another office.
This  overview  accounts  for  all  of  the  classroom  space  in  the  PS  15  building.    There  are  no  underutilized  
rooms,  and  in  fact  many  rooms  are  shared  and  used  for  multiple  purposes.    The  DOE  shared  space  
formula  calculates  PS  15  to  be  at  66%  capacity  (and  needs  to  be  corrected  to  73%).    We  ask  the  DOE  to  
tell  us  what  we  should  give  up.  

3.  PS  15  utilization  analysis  and  impact  ±Example-­  
Year   Rooms  Lost:    PS  15   Rooms  Gained:  PAVE   Impact  

1   239-­‐classroom  moved   239-­‐classroom   Lost  science  lab  

2008-­‐2009   246-­‐science  room  moved   246-­‐classroom   Classrooms  moved  to  
248-­‐  science  lab  lost   248-­‐classsroom   intervention  rooms,  2  
Special  Ed  Office  (2  part  rooms)   201a/b-­‐classroom   intervention  teachers  
201A-­‐  enrichment  room  lost     moved  to  ½  and  ¼  
201B-­‐  ͞   rooms  
Professional  Development  Room   Lost  Sp.  Ed  office  
Math  Coach  Room   Lost  math  coach  room  
2   233A  (Speech)   233A-­‐  teacher  café  and   Kd͛ƐŶŽǁƐŚĂƌĞƌŽŽŵƐ͗
2009-­‐2010   233B-­‐  OT  (already  shared  by  2)   storage   1  shares  227  w/  Good  
202-­‐  classroom  moved   233B-­‐  related  services   Shepherd  Services,  1  
237-­‐  Good  Shepherd  Computer  lab   202-­‐  classroom   shared  library  (under  
99-­‐  Beacon  Services  Counseling   237-­‐  classroom   renovation)  with  several  
  99-­‐  related  services   other  programs.    Moved  
  classroom  took  
Beacon  now  services  in  a  
3   Will  lose  at  least  two  full  size  rooms   Will  get  two  full  rooms   Loss  of  two  cluster  
2010-­‐2011   (we  are  expanding  to  25  classes  from   plus  undefined   rooms:    specially  wired  
  24  as  our  MR  program  moves  up  and   ͞ďĂĐŬƐƉĂĐĞ͟   music  room  would  be  
an  additional  class  is  added)     lost,  music  would  be  
  moved  to  book  room,  
and  book  room  would  
be  lost.    Science  or  social  
studies  room  will  be  lost:    
prep  once  a  week  in  the  
classroom  losing  ability  
to  complete  projects  
and  experiments.    Two  
related  speech  service  
providers  (who  already  
share  a  room)  will  lose  
space  and  have  no  space  
to  function.  
*By  this  point:    NO  
related  service  providers  
(for  special  education  
students)  will  have  a  
room  to  run  their  
4   Will  lose  at  least  three  full  classrooms   Will  gain  at  least  2  full   At  this  point  PS  15  will  
2011-­‐2012   plus  undefined  backspace  and   classrooms  and  1  cluster   have  no  related  service  
  potentially  other  rooms  qualified  per   room  plus  backspace   provider  rooms,  no  
enrollment  on  instructional  footprint   and  undefined   Beacon  computer  lab,  
  additional  space   no  room  for  the  DOE  
  nurse  and  no  
intervention  testing  
coordinator  room.    This  
only  covers  classrooms.    
Remaining  space  at  this  
point  only  includes  
enrollment  generating  
rooms  (actual  full  time  
classrooms)  and  ½  and  ¼  
*except  for  2  cluster  
rooms  which,  according  
to  the  footprint  we  are  
entitled  to  
5   At  least  two  full  size  rooms.   At  least  two  full  size   The  only  way  to  
2012-­‐2013   rooms.   accommodate  the  need  
for  two  full  size  
classrooms  would  be  to  
give  up  cluster  rooms.  
6   ?  We  have  no  other  space  to  give  at   At  least  two  full  size   Cut  classroom  sections,  
2013-­‐2014   this  point  without  cutting  classroom   rooms.   increase  class  size.  
  sections,  thus  drastically  increasing    
class  size.   Place  full  classrooms  in  
  ½  or  ¼  rooms  and  have  
resource,  pupil  
personnel  services  of  
our  own.  
7   ?  We  have  no  other  space  to  give  at   At  least  two  full  size   Cut  classroom  sections,  
2014-­‐2015   this  point  without  cutting  classroom   rooms.   increase  class  size.  
  sections,  thus  drastically  increasing    
class  size.   Place  full  classrooms  in  
  ½  or  ¼  rooms  and  have  
resource,  pupil  
personnel  services  of  
our  own.  
The  Impact  of  PAVE  Academy  on  PS  15  and  the  further  impact  if  an  
extension  is  granted  beyond  their  two  year  agreement  
Rooms  Lost  to  PAVE  Academy  as  of  the  fall,  2009:  

PS  15  students  and  families  have  lost  six  half  rooms  and  six  full  rooms  to  PAVE  Academy.    These  rooms  
were  used  as  full  service  classrooms,  a  computer  room,  a  science  lab,  an  occupational  therapy  room  
already  shared  by  two  full  time  OTs,  a  full-­‐time  speech  and  language  room,  a  professional  
development/computer/book/teacher  meeting  room,  a  math  coach  room  for  intervention  and  
resources,  the  special  education  office,  a  social  services  room  used  by  Good  Shepherd  services  for  one-­‐
on-­‐one  individual  and  family  counseling,  and  a  room  used  for  arts,  enrichment,  and  intervention  

Impact  of  lost  space  and  co-­‐location  on  PS  15  students,  programs,  and  services:  

Generally  the  impact  has  been    the  downscaling  and  in  some  cases  termination  of  intervention  and  
enrichment  services,  loss  of  quality  of  related  services  provided,  and  the  loss  of  space  to  run  groups  and  
special  events  and  programs.    We  have  lost  a  room  wired  as  a  computer  room  as  well  as  a  science  lab.    
PS  15  has  had  to  downgrade  and  downsize  what  we  offer  our  students  because  we  do  not  have  the  
space  to  function  as  we  did  previously.    In  specific  related  to  the  classroom  space  lost:  

x The full service classrooms were moved to other classrooms occupied by intervention
service and related service providers. These providers were moved into offices, smaller
rooms, closets and shared rooms. In addition, PS 15 had to collapse one class. This has
increased class size, intervention group size, and the quality of the programming related
service providers give our students. These rooms were replaced by PAVE with
x The computer room, primarily used by the Beacon/Good Shepherd program, was moved
to a room previously used for intervention, testing accommodations and weekly
enrichment programs. The room lost was wired as a computer lab and this can never be
replaced as it has been renovated. This room is also shared with one full time
occupational therapist. This negatively impacts the quality of programming provided by
our OT. It has also negatively impacted our enrichment programming because we have
no space for dance (we use the auditorium on limited availability because we share that
space), which requires our dance program to sometimes be held in the classroom which
negatively impacts instructional time because we have to move all of the furniture. It has
negatively impacted other arts programs as well that now must be held in the classroom.
In addition, we have lost this space for testing accommodations and small group pull out,
negatively affecting intervention group sizes and programming on testing dates. This
room was replaced with a PAVE classroom.
x The science lab was not replaced and we lost out on pursuing a grant for its renovation.
The science lab was replaced with a PAVE classroom.
x The occupational therapists now share separate rooms with other programs. One full
program OT shares the library, which is under renovation, with an art club that meets
daily, a chess club that meets twice weekly, and is also the home for teacher meetings,
program OT shares the computer room. This negatively impacts the programming of
both therapists as they are forced to service their kids in corners of shared rooms and
often have to go into the hallways because their work requires the space for movement,
which is not available in shared space. Sharing rooms is also a major distraction for
and storage area.
x The full program speech teachers (who both lost their half rooms, one to PAVE, the other
intervention teacher) now share one room on the first floor. The impact of delivering
speech services in a room where there is another teacher and group meeting and talking is
detrimental to the related service program we provide and does not meet what our
students are entitled to. The speech teacher¶VURRPWDNHQE\3$9(ZDVUHSODFHGZLWK
their own related service providers.
x The professional development room could not be replaced.
x The math coach room could not be replaced.
x The special education office was not replaced and all files, resources and materials are
now stored in two small rooms that five staff members, the IEP team, share.
x The social services room was replaced by emptying an old closet. Counseling services
are now provided in this closet. It is unclear how PAVE uses this room.
x The arts/enrichment/intervention room could not be replaced. This has negatively
impacted the availability of arts and enrichment programming and has increased
intervention group sizes in some cases and generally makes it impossible for our
intervention program to run as it used to.

Further  impact  if  the  extension  is  granted:  

Both  schools  will  face  extreme  difficulty  in  programming  and  planning  use  of  shared  space  such  as  gym,  
cafeteria  and  auditorium  due  to  capacity  limits  of  those  spaces  and  staffing  ability.    As  PAVE  expands,  
their  needed  use  of  these  shared  space  areas  will  increase.    There  is  already  overlap  and  scheduling  
difficulties  regarding  these  spaces  including  loss  of  gym  time  for  PS  15  students  on  Fridays.      

If  the  extension  is  granted  and  PAVE  is  allowed  to  expand,  they  would  at  minimum  be  allotted  two  full  
size  classrooms.    There  have  been  no  official  discussions  concerning  the  allocation  of  space  if  the  
extension  is  granted,  however,  there  are  no  empty  or  lightly  used  rooms  so  there  will  be  a  significant  
impact.      The  options  for  losing  an  additional  space  would  impact  most  directly  our  related  services  
provided  to  one-­‐third  of  our  students  and  our  cluster  and  enrichment  programs.    Students  would  lose  
the  opportunity  to  complete  the  programming  our  clusters  provide,  as  they  would  lose  rooms.    If  music  
is  lost,  students  will  not  have  access  to  music  equipment.    If  science  or  social  studies  are  lost,  students  
will  not  be  able  to  complete  projects  and  experiments  because  the  space  would  prohibit  the  set  up  time  
and  the  space  to  participate  in  these  activities.    Related  service  providers  would  lose  all  of  their  space  
and  would  be  required  to  provide  services  in  hallways,  more  than  they  already  do.    With  any  options,  
classrooms  would  have  to  again  be  shuffled  and  moved,  of  which  the  burden  fall  solely  on  the  staff  and  
resources  of  PS  15  to  relocate  staff,  furniture,  supplies,  and  equipment.    There  are  no  rooms  not  used  
for  instructional  and  program  purposes  to  give  up  to  PAVE.    Additional  options,  could  result  in  placing  
more  than  two  teachers  in  a  room,  leave  the  Department  of  Education  nurse  without  a  room,  or  result  
in  the  loss  of  a  class  contributing  to  a  further  increase  in  class  size.      

In  addition,  our  programming  will  continue  to  suffer  from  the  loss  of  space  and  the  difficulties  imposed  
by  sharing  space  and  coordinating  and  scheduling  multiple  spaces  with  two  different  schools,  schedules  
and  programs.    All  of  this  has  a  detrimental  effect  on  the  quality  education  PS  15  provides,  we  are  an  
AAA  school.    Enrichment  and  intervention  are  the  cornerstones  of  our  school  and  the  programming  we  
provide  enriches  our  students  lives  and  directly  impacts  student  achievement  .    The  ability  to  maintain  
our  programming  is  significantly  put  at  risk  with  a  PAVE  extension.    The  housing  of  PAVE  and  the  
possible  extension  negatively  impact  our  school  climate  and  culture.    Students  consistently  complain  
about  the  co-­‐location  and  cannot  understand  why  they  have  lost  their  resources  and  have  to  walk  by  
Ws͛ƐŶĞǁůLJƉĂŝŶƚĞĚĂŶĚƌĞfurbished  rooms  that  are  filled  with  state  of  the  art  equipment  and  
furniture,  while  they  go  without.    Furthermore,  parents  who  have  children  in  Pre-­‐Kindergarten  and  
their  child  to  PS  15,  beyond  Pre-­‐K,  because  of  the  negative  impact  they  perceive  PAVE  would  have  on  
enrolling  their  child  in  PAVE,  would  prefer  PS  15,  but  will  consider  seeking  a  school  outside  of  the  PS  15  
zone,  because  of  their  concerns  about  the  co-­‐location  of  PAVE  Academy.  

The  difficulties  of  sharing  space  with  PAVE  Academy:  

x The Department of Education nurse refused to return to PS 15 in the fall of 2009 because
of the treatment she received by PAVE staff.
x PAVE has taken credit and misled visitors and funders, taking them to our certified bird
habitat and stating it is theirs and utilized by them.
x PS 15 has a school aide and parent volunteer monitor the shared bathroom space daily for
x Special events at PS 15 are limited and fewer children get to participate in these events
because of the impact of shared space such as the auditorium, playground, gym, and
stairwell (which is a double stairwell). Instead students must travel in the opposite
direction of their destination and share a single stairwell to the downstairs, which is
regularly backed-up.
x The PS 15 band program has had to move downstairs, after running out of the piano lab
consistent complaints and threats from PAVE administration.
x PAVE administration has not been transparent with PS 15 staff and administration: they
invited a Daily News reporter into the building and announced their plans for an
extension to her without notifying anyone else first (our community found out about it in
the paper). They promised they had no intention to stay beyond two years and have yet
to purchase a space mid-way through their second year. In the same week, Spencer
Robertson told our staff they had all the money they needed and would sign on a property
that they need six million more dollars and already owned a building in Red Hook.

Why  the  PEP  should  vote  no  to  extend  their  co-­‐location  beyond  the  two  year  agreement  made  to  the  
Red  Hook  community:  

The  co-­‐location,  the  temporary  location,  of  PAVE  Academy  with  PS  15  has  been  detrimental  to  the  
education,  programs,  and  resources  provided  to  the  children  of  Red  Hook.    PAVE  buses  in  (at  public  
expense)  more  than  half  of  their  students  to  the  PS  15  building  from  outside  of  the  community,  taking  
away  space  from  community  members.    The  space  they  have  taken  and  seek  to  take,  is  not  unused  or  
underutilized  space.    In  fact,  PS  15  uses  many  rooms  for  multiple  uses  and  several  staff  members  share  
rooms.    The  DOE  shared  space  formula  is  faulty  and  does  not  take  into  account  special  education  
mandates  and  related  services,  the  space  required  for  our  health  and  dental  programs  through  Lutheran  
or  our  social  services  program  through  Good  Shepherd/Beacon.    The  formula  does  not  take  into  account  
intervention  services  and  enrichment  services  and  ignores  the  difficulty  of  sharing  multiple  spaces  with  
two  different  schools  that  have  different  programs  and  schedules.    The  temporary  housing  of  PAVE  in  PS  
15  has  negatively  affected  our  school  culture  and  climate  and  has  burdened  teachers,  students  and  
administrators  with  not  only  the  loss  of  space,  but  of  their  time  and  resources  as  well.      

PAVE  Academy,  Spencer  Robertson,  and  the  DOE  made  an  agreement  with  the  PS  15  and  Red  Hook  
community  that  this  co-­‐location  would  only  last  two  years.    This  was  not  only  stated  once,  but  
repeatedly  and  reassuringly  told  to  all  stakeholders  involved.    Mr.  Robertson  has  still  not  secured  a  
space  mid-­‐way  through  his  second  year,  and  nearly  400  students  and  their  families  who  choose  PS  15  
should  not  be  burdened  by  his  difficulty  in  finding  real  estate  whether  it  due  to  unforeseen  
circumstances,  his  lack  of  understanding  of  the  difficulties  such  a  venture  requires,  or  the  deliberate  

PAVE  Academy  should  be  held  to  their  agreement.    The  PEP  should  vote  no  on  granting  their  extension.    
In  the  event  that  the  PEP  should  grant  the  extension,  at  the  very  least,  PAVE  should  not  be  allowed  to  
provided  to  them.          

4.  21st  Century  Fund  analysis  and  map.    Email  for  a  copy  
5.  PS  15  Instructional  Footprint  and  Utilization  
Analysis  ±Example-­  
PS  15  and  instructional  footprint  allocations  

Current  Utilization   Footprint  Allocation   Compliance   Notes  

Instructional  Capacity       This  includes  5  self-­‐

Generating  Classrooms:   contained  (12:1:1)  
24   As  needed   On  Target   classrooms,  which  
  entitles  PS  15  to  an  
additional  5  full  or  
half  classrooms  

Four  Cluster  Rooms     Over  Target   Denies  students  

(science,  social  studies,   access  to  and  
music,  music-­‐  as  needed   2   Have  2  additional  Cluster   participation  in  two  
to  run  full  Prep  Program   rooms   of  the  following:  

  *This  allocation  denies   -­‐Science  

students  to  participate  in  
two  of  the  following:      
science  experiments,   -­‐Social  studies  
social  studies  project-­‐ project-­‐based  
based  learning,  and/or   learning,  and/or    
music  w/  access  to  piano  
lab  and  musical   -­‐  music  w/  access  to  
instruments   piano  lab  and  
musical  instruments  

Title  1  Room   1   On  Target   This  room  is  also  

used  for  Testing  
Room  106   Coordination,  
Toddler  Time,  and  

Resource  Room   4  ¼  rooms   Under  Target   Entitled  to  two  more  

¼  rooms  
Two    ¼  rooms  

Student  Support  Services   2   On  Target    

Guidance  Suite:    ¼,  ¼    

Social  Worker:  ¼  

PTA:  ¼  

Good  Shepherd  Office:  1  

Storage   1.5   Under  Target   Unclear  if  this  

includes  closet  
  128  Book  Room   space  

Administrative   1.5-­‐3   Under  Target   Owed  ½  room  for  

administrative  space  
-­‐Main  Office  w/  Principal   2  ½  
Office  (2)    

-­‐Rm.  111  (1/4  room)   *apply  to  aides  

room/copy  room  
-­‐Attendance  (1/4  in  
guidance  suite)  

SBST   Error:    Written  as   Cannot  determine  as    

Shared  Space,  this  is  not   Formula  contains  an  
shared  space   error  

Two  ½  room  allocations  

for  4  staff  members  

Not  Accounted  For  In        


x Speech (2
teachers in one
full room)
x Teacher
Cafeteria and
UFT room (1/2
x ELL (1/2 room)
x Occupational
Therapy (share
rooms w/ Good
Shepherd (1/2)
Services and the
x Physical
Therapy shares
aides and
crossing guard
room (1/2)
x Doe Nurse (uses
full classroom
that is shared w/
x Dental Program
(1/2 room)
x Lutheran
Medical Office
(1/2 room)
x Good Shepherd
Computer Lab
and Social
Worker pull-out
(shared w/ OT
and PAVE
social worker

Additional  not  accounted        


x Adaptive
x Testing
x Intervention
x Coaches (math,
x Since when is
Libraries contain
the resources of
the existing

Current  Usage  as  forced  by  co-­‐location:    38  ¾  

Entitled  to  Usage:    39  

Owed:  ¾  

This  does  not  take  into  account  the  items  omitted  from  the  footprint  listed  above    

*If  this  is  married  w/  what  pave  should  be  allocated,  we  are  WAY  beyond  100%  utilization  

PAVE-­‐PS  15K  Co-­‐Location  and  Extension  by  the  Numbers  

x C ur rent Utilization on the E IS is wrong. T he E IS, revised December 14th , states the PS 15 building is at
66% . T he utilization percentage is determined by total enrollment divided by capacity.
(E nrollment of PS 15) 390 + (E nrollment of P A V E) 138 ÷ (C apacity) 726
528  ÷  726  =  73%  NOT  66%.  

x T he utilization percentage is not mar ried to the Instructional Footprint. W hen these two documents are
mar ried (see PowerPoint Presentation), the utilization percentage would actually be significantly higher.
T his does not take into account the additional space P A V E should be afforded so the true percentage is
actually even higher. T here needs to be transparency and accountability in determining school utilization
and capacity. T he cur rent formulas do not provide a realistic or accurate picture of school space and do
not cor respond with each other.

x A ccording to the Instructional Footprint, PS 15 should be allocated approximately 39 rooms.

39 (rooms) x 20 (students/enrollment) =780

780 ÷726 = 107% capacity

x T he utilization percentage, mar ried with the footprint still does not account for at least 15 vital space
allocations necessary for PS 15 to maintain its programming including: speech therapy, occupational
therapy, physical therapy, dental p rogram, medical program, D O E nurse, Good Shepherd Services, Good
Shepherd computer room, adaptive physical education, ESL , math and reading coach/intervention, testing
coordinator and school based support team.

x E very room in PS 15 is utilized and has an instructional purpose (please see room distribution list).

x T he utilization percentage based only on capacity and enrollment, if the proposal for continued co-location
overcrowd a school and remove vital services?

x A llowance for PS 15 to grow in the E IS is Zero. A mount the E IS accounts for PS 15 losing enrollment is

x Number of additional rooms PS 15 needs to meet the I E P T esting A ccommodation Requirements for E L A
is 6 rooms and for M ath it is 8 rooms. T he cur rent co-location and proposed continued co-location will
FRPSURPLVH36¶VDELOLW\WRFomply with mandated testing law.

requires additional space for various mandated services. T hese services are being negatively impacted due
to lack of space.

6.  PS  15  EIS  Responses  ±Examples-­  
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  

The  new  EIS  contains  many  basic  inaccuracies  and  false  or  misleading  statements  including  the  

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  
3. The  EIS  is  not  able  to  assess  impact  to  children  with  special  needs  because  it  suggests  methods  
concerns  could  be  alleviated  by  incorporating  some  alternative  delivery  models  such  as  in-­‐class  
In  general,  the  DOE  has  failed  to  properly  identify  the  actual  uses  of  space  at  PS-­‐15  and  we  believe  
accurate  assessment  of  the  potential  impact  on  our  children  and  community.  By  simply  stating  
͞ƚŚĞƌĞǁŝůůďĞŶŽŝŵƉĂĐƚ͕͟ĂŶĚĚŝƐƉĞŶƐŝŶŐŝŶĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶƌegarding  utilization  of  space  in  
order  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  

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  

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.      

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,  
ŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐϯϵϬĂŶĚWs͛ƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͕ϭϯϴ͘dŚŝƐŝƐĨĂƵůƚLJŽŶƚǁŽůĞǀĞůs.    First,  it  cannot  
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-­‐ϳϯй͘^ĞĐŽŶĚ͕ƚŚŝƐŵĞĂŶƐǁĞĂĐĐĞƉƚƚŚŝƐŶƵŵďĞƌ͕ϳϮϲĂŶĚƚŚĞK͛Ɛ
claim  that  that  is  how  many  students  ƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŵƵƐƚŚĂǀĞƚŽďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚ͞ĂƚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ͟ĂƐƚŚĞLJƐĂǁ
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.    

students  outside  of  Red  Hook,  District  15  and  Brooklyn?  

Section  II:    Enrollment,  Admissions  and  School  Performance  


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.  

Furthermore,  as  we  examine  PAV͛ƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚƐƚƵĚĞŶƚĞŶƌŽůůĞĚ͞ĂƚƐĐĂůĞ͟;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  

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,  
disagree  with,  while  public  school  principals  can  be  sanctioned  for  defending  and  advocating  for  their  
school  community.  

C.  Students  

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  

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  
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  

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.  


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:  and  share  your  thoughts.    Our  school  community  deserves  better  and  

7.  PS  15  Public  Hearing  PowerPoint,  located  
wherever  you  find  this  supplement  or  email:  
8.  Public  Comment  Submission  ±Example-­:  

Comments to the SUNY board re the application of Success Academy

Charter school to be co-located in District 3

October 14, 2010

Insufficient space in District accRUGLQJWR'2(¶VRZQVWDQGDUGV

recently posted by the NYC Department of Education, there is only one elementary school in
a co-location. This is PS 145, with approximately 320 extra seats.1 Yet PS 145 was just
awarded a federal magnet grant, with the stipulation that the school must have room in its
building for enrollment to grow.

NYC DOE, Underutilized Space Memorandum as of Oct. 6, 2010, posted at :
157D795BA9CE/90273/UnderutilizedSpaceMemorandum100610.pdf The only other two buildings with at least
300 extra seats are IS 188 ± with two middle schools in the building, with about 400 seats, and Brandeis HS, with
four new high schools, none of them yet at scale.
In addition, according to the Success Academy application, by its third year the charter
school would have grown to 401 seats, far outstripping the space in the building.2 Also, the
charter school is projected to eventually grow to 689 students in grades K-5, far exceeding
the space in the building. Upon renewal, the school intends to expand to the eighth grade. 3


of space in schools, according to half of all NYC pULQFLSDOV7KLVLVEHFDXVHWKH³%OXHERRN´
formula provides for insufficient space for cluster rooms and specialty rooms, and is aligned with
larger than what principals believe are necessary to provide a quality education, as well as the

Rapid enrollment growth in District 3

In addition, District 3 is one of the fastest growing school districts in the city, with the largest
percentage of Kindergarten general education enrollment growth in 2009--2010 at 16%. Nearly
200 District 3 children were placed on waiting lists for their zoned school for Kindergarten.

Enrollment projections and Capital Plan

This rapid enrollment growth is expected to continue in future years.

projected to be built in D3 between 2008-2017. 5 The City Environmental Quality Review
Success Academy Charter Application, posted at

WƌŽĨ͘ŵŝůLJ,ŽƌŽǁŝƚnjϭΘ>ĞŽŶŝĞ,ĂŝŵƐŽŶ͕͞,ŽǁƌŽǁĚĞĚƌĞKƵƌ^ĐŚŽŽůƐ͍New  Results  from  a  Survey  of  NYC  

 NYC  SCHOOL  CONSTRUCTION  AUTHORITY,  Projected  New  Housing  Starts  as  Used  in  2008-­‐2017  Enrollment  
Projection  for  2010-­‐2014  Capital  Plan;  posted  at      
³&(45´ VWDQGDUGVHVWLPDWHWKDWWKLVZLOO generate the need for at least 890 additional
elementary seats, 330 middle school seats, and 495 high school seats in the district. 6 Yet in
single new seat or new school planned for District 3.


We urge you to reject the Success Academy application, based upon the fact that there is
insufficient space within District 3 schools for it to be co-located. If the SUNY board
authorizers this charter school, it will undoubtedly further overcrowd the existing
schools in the district, cause class sizes to rise even further, lead to the loss of critical
cluster and specialty spaces, and put at jeopardy the federal magnet school grant
received by PS 145.

target  class  sizes   Five-­‐Year  Plan   class  sizes  for  quality  

in  "blue  book"   C4E  goals  by   education,  acc.  to  NYC  
2012   principals  

UFT  Contract  

Kindergarten   25   20   19.9   20  

1-­‐3  grades   28   20   19.9   20  

4-­‐5  (Title  1   32   20   22.9   23  


4-­‐5  (Non-­‐Title   32   28   22.9   23  


relevant section posted at
6-­‐8  (Title  1   30   28   22.9   24  

6-­‐8  (Non-­‐Title   33   28   22.9   24  


9-­‐12  (core   34   30   24.5   24  


IURPD6XUYH\RI1<&3XEOLF6FKRRO3ULQFLSDOV´E\Prof. Emily Horowitz & Leonie Haimson.
October 3, 2008.


You might also like