This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Fight to Defend Your School from the
Misguided Policy of Public School
Co-Locations with Charter Schools
CAPE: Concerned Advocates for Public Education
~Parents and Teachers Working Together to Protect
and Preserve Public Education~
GEM: Grassroots Education Movement
Know Your Rights
x For a complete overview of the Change in School Utilization Law and Process, as
well as for tips on how to advocate, view the PowerPoint entitled, ¨Changes in
School Utilization: Navigating DOE Process, Policy, and Public !nformation". This
PowerPoint should be available wherever this supplement is found. For a copy,
x How to find PEP bylaws, notices, and documents:
x Chancellor's Regulations A190 (SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN SCHOOL
UTILIZATION AND PROCEDURES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL
BUILDINGS HOUSING MORE THAN ONE SCHOOL):
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: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28988592/Mulgrew-
2. Appeal to the State Education Commissioner: for more information visit
http://www.counsel.nysed.gov, for an example of an appeal filed by parents on a
co-location issue email: email@example.com
x How to FOIL- CR D-110 Freedom Of Information Law Procedures:
x Seek out support from other advocacy groups: A complete list can be
found in the Advocacy Toolkit.
x Contact local policy makers and ask for their support: A complete list can
be found in the Advocacy Toolkit and in the ¨Changes in School Utilization:
Navigating DOE Process, Policy, and Public !nformation" PowerPoint.
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
Century Fund, foundation analysis, map, and conclusions
x Evaluate utilization percentage: Utilization calculations are simply your school's
enrollment divided by the capacity. For information on the DOE's Utilization Formula
and to view the Blue Book visit: (2008-2009 version, 2009-2010 not on DOE site yet)
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
PS 15. To view the DOE's !nstructional Footprint visit:
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
district CEC/DLT or CBO's that may already 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
year's schools slated for Co-Location
x Involve everyone in your school community. Form Teams. Delegate Jobs.
x Outreach to everyone and anyone who may help you: CEC, CBO'S,
policymakers, community organizers, other advocacy organizations.
x Hold meetings once a week. Set a clear mission, message and list of goals
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
be affected: enrollment, cherry picking kids, who is serving neediest kids.
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 The Media
9 Other Advocacy Groups
9 Important Links and Blogs
Find a charter: http://www.newyorkcharters.org/parentSchoolList.htm#NYC
For SUNY and CSI authorized Charters, school visit reports, and renewal visit reports:
UFT report that examines charter school cherry picking of students:
Excellent Article by Sarah Knopp that explains the charter school movement:
Excellent discussion of charters by Brian Jones:
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
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 1
Vice President Corinna Lindenberg, Co 1
Vice President Monse Santana, Edward Primus-2
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. AŶ ĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐ ŽĨ ĞŶƌŽůůŵĞŶƚ ƚƌĞŶĚƐ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞ uŽL͛Ɛ 8ůƵĞ 8ŽŽŬ ϮϬϬϳ-8 to 2008-9 shows District One
growing faster than any other district in the entire city ʹ by far -- at 4.1%in PS buildings. The same
growth rate also held true in 2006-200, 4.1%.
Thus, from 2006-2008 the enrollment in PS buildings in District One grew by 8.1% the most by far of any
district. (Second fastest growth was D11 at 5; Third, D 31 at 4.9%; Fourth, D2 at 4.2%)
D1 enroll PS` MS HS Total
2007 8,306 2,965 1,805 13076
2008 8,650 2,929 1,824 13403
increase 344 -36 19 327
increase 4.142% -1.214% 1.053% 2.501%
13. District One Kindergarten class sizes are up 22% since 2007, possibly the biggest gain in the city,
when in 2007 the average Kindergarten class size was 16.1.
14. uŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ CŶĞ͛Ɛ ŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂůůǇ ƐŵĂůů ĐůĂƐƐ ƐŝǌĞ ŝŶ kŝŶĚĞƌŐĂƌƚĞŶ ŚĂƐ ŶŽ ĚŽƵďƚ ĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞĚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŐƌĞĂƚ
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.
lŶ ƚŚĞ ĐŚĂƌƚĞƌ ƌĞŶĞǁĂů ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ CÞCS ƐƚĂƚĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ ŝƚ͗ ͞ƉůĂŶƐ ƚŽ ŽƉĞŶ Ă MŝĚĚůĞ SĐŚŽŽů ŝŶ AƵŐƵƐƚ ϮϬϬϵ͙
to serve grades K-8 at ĨƵůů ĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ͙͘Ăƚ ĨƵůů ĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ͕ ĚƵƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ϰƚŚ ǇĞĂƌ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐĞĐŽŶĚ ĐŚĂƌƚĞƌ ƚĞƌŵ CŝƌůƐ
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
ŝŶƉƵƚ͗ ƚŚĞ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚ ŐƌŽǁƚŚ ĂŶĚ ĞǆƉĂŶƐŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĐŚĂƌƚĞƌ ƐĐŚŽŽů͕ ĐĂůůŝŶŐ ŝƚ ŽŶůǇ Ă ͞ƌĞŶĞǁĂů͕͟ ĂƐ ŝĨ ƚŚĞ
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:
ͻlŵƉƌŽǀĞ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚ ĂĐŚŝĞǀĞŵent,
ͻlŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ ůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ ŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ ĨŽƌ Ăůů ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͕ ǁŝƚŚ Ăŵ ĞŵƉŚĂƐŝƐ ŽŶ Ăƚ-risk students,
ͻÞƌŽǀŝĚĞ ĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐ ǁŝƚŚ ŚŝŐŚ ƋƵĂůŝƚǇ ĐŚŽŝĐĞƐ͘
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 PlannŝŶŐ͗ ͞uŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ÞƌŽĨŝůĞƐΗ ďĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ
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:
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
· 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
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.
· 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 studentƐ͛ ĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐ ĐĂŶ ĐŚŽŽƐĞ ƚŽ ĞŶƌŽůů ƚŚĞŝƌ ĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ ŝŶ ĂŶǇ ƐĐŚŽŽů ŝŶ
uŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ CŶĞ ƚŚĂƚ ďĞƐƚ ŵĞĞƚƐ ƚŚĞŝƌ ĐŚŝůĚ͛Ɛ ŶĞĞĚƐ͘
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
41. Fewer than 27 Kindergarten students from District One chose Girls Prep out of an incoming class of
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
ŝŵƉƌĞƐƐŝǀĞ ĚĞŵĂŶĚ ĂŶĚ ͞ǁĂŝƚŝŶŐ ůŝƐƚƐ͟ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ůĂƐƚ k ĂĚŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐ ĐǇĐůĞ͗
- 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
CƚŚĞƌ 5ĐŚŽŽůƐ͛ 5ƉĂĐĞ NĞĞĚƐ
45. CŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛Ɛ WŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ SĐŚŽŽů ǁĂƐ ŐƌĂŶƚĞĚ ƚŚĞ ƌŝŐŚƚ ƚŽ ŐƌŽǁ ĨƌŽŵ Ă ƉƌĞ-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-
ŵĞŶƚĂů ŚĞĂůƚŚ ĐŽƵŶƐĞůŝŶŐ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ Sƚ͘ vŝŶĐĞŶƚ͛Ɛ ĂŶĚ ClS ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͖ ŽŶ-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. ÞS ϭϴϴ͛Ɛ ŽǀĞƌ-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
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ LŽǁĞƌ LĂƐƚ SŝĚĞ͕ 1ŚĞ AůůŝĂŶĐĞ͛Ɛ LĂƌůǇ PĞĂĚ SƚĂƌƚ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ ůŽĐĂƚĞĚ Ăƚ ƚŚĞ LŝůůŝĂŶ
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. ÞSͬMS ϭϴϴ͚Ɛ ĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ ĐůĂƐƐ ƐŝǌĞ ĨůƵĐƚƵĂƚĞƐ ďĞƚǁĞĞŶ ϭϵ -21 students, mirroring the citywide average,
ǁŚŝĐŚ ŚĂƐ ĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞĚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ƐĐŚŽŽů͛Ɛ ŚŝŐŚ ĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ ĂĐŚŝĞǀĞŵĞŶƚ͘
59. PS/MS 188 Cafeteria capacity is 150. The schools located in the PS 188 building already operates
four lunch periods, beginning at 10:45 am. through 2pm Even with many students eating in the adjacent
lobby due to insufficient cafeteria space, an additional 300 students would require two additional lunch
periods, thus eliminating any use of the Lobby-level dedicated gym space for instructional purposes
during those additional two lunch slots.
60. 1ŚĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇ ŽƉĞƌĂƚĞƐ ϱ ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞ ĂĨƚĞƌ ƐĐŚŽŽů ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͕ ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐ ϯ ͞ƐƵƉƉĞƌƐ͟ ĨŽƌ
students from 3:40pm to 6pm.
CŝƌůƐ͛ ÞƌĞƉ Ϯϱ ϱƚŚ ŐƌĂĚĞ ĂĨƚĞƌ ƐĐŚŽŽů ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ ƐŚĂƌĞ Ă ƐƵƉƉĞƌ ƚŝŵĞƐůŽƚ ǁŝƚŚ CŝƌůƐ͛ ÞƌĞƉ LůĞŵĞŶƚĂƌǇ ĂĨƚĞƌ
61. 1ŚĞƌĞ ĂƌĞ ŶŽƚ ĞŶŽƵŐŚ ƚŝŵĞƐůŽƚƐ ƚŽ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ͞ƐƵƉƉĞƌ͟ ĨŽƌ Ăůů ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ 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
ƐĞƐƐŝŽŶƐ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ďǇ CŝƌůƐ͛ ÞƌĞƉ͕ ǁŽƵůĚ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞ ƚŚĞ ůĂď ďĞ ŝŶ ƵƐĞ Ă ƌŝĚŝĐƵůŽƵƐ ϲϰ ĐůĂƐƐ ƉĞƌŝŽĚƐ Ă ǁĞĞŬ Ăƚ
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
67. The M188 building does not have a gym. Constructed in 1902, the scŚŽŽů͛Ɛ ŐǇŵ ǁĂƐ Ă ŐůĂƐƐ ĂƚƌŝƵŵ
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
70. LǆƉĂŶĚŝŶŐ CŝƌůƐ͛ ÞƌĞƉ ŝŶƚŽ ƚŚĞ Mϭϴϴ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ǁŽƵůĚ ƐĞǀĞƌĞůǇ ĐƵƌƚĂŝů ÞSͬMSϭϴϴ͛Ɛ ĂďŝůŝƚǇ ƚŽ ĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞ
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. LǆƉĂŶĚŝŶŐ CŝƌůƐ͛ ÞƌĞƉ ƚŽ ŝŶĐůƵde 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
ĨŽƌ ŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶ ƐƵĐŚ ĂƐ 8ŽƐŝĞ͛Ɛ 8ƌŽĂĚǁĂǇ kŝĚƐ͕ 1ŚŝƌĚ SƚƌĞĞƚ MƵƐŝĐ ƉĞƌĐƵƐƐŝŽŶ ĐůĂƐƐĞƐ͘
74. A former P94 student who was fully included and then enrolled in PS/MS 188 was accepted into,
and is now thriving, at Bard High School Early College across the street.
75. ÞS ϵϰ ĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ ĂƌĞ ŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚ ĂƐ ƌĂŶŐŝŶŐ ĨƌŽŵ ŵŝůĚ ƚŽ ƐĞǀĞƌĞ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ĂƵƚŝƐŵ ƐƉĞĐƚƌƵŵ͘ 1ŚĞ ͞ŚŝŐŚ
ĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶŝŶŐ͟ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ ďĞŶĞĨŝƚ ĨƌŽŵ ŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶ opportunities in the 188 community building, while many
other students strive to use communication devices and picture symbols to express themselves.
76. PS 94 children are the most fragile/at risk because they are unable to express or meet their own
needs, depending on their teachers and educational associates to teach them coping skills.
77. ÞS ϵϰ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ ƐƵĐĐĞƐƐ ĚĞƉĞŶĚƐ ŽŶ ƌŽƵƚŝŶĞƐ͕ ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶĐǇ͕ ƐƚĂďŝůŝƚǇ ĂŶĚ ĨĂŵŝůŝĂƌŝƚǇ͘
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-
ĞǆƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶ͘ 1ŚĞƐĞ ͞ƵŶĚĞƌƵƚŝůŝǌĞĚ͟ ƌŽŽŵƐ ĂƌĞ ŝŶ ĨĂĐƚ ƚŚĞ ŵŽƐƚ ĞƐƐĞŶƚŝĂů ĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ÞS ϵϰ ĐƵƌƌŝĐƵůƵŵ͕
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
ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞǇ ĚŽ ŶŽƚ ĞŶĚŽƌƐĞ ĂŶǇ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů ƚŚĂƚ ǁŝůů ƌĞƐƵůƚ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĚŝƐƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ ĂŶǇ ŽƚŚĞƌ ƐĐŚŽŽů͛Ɛ
children in order to accommodate the expansion of Girls Preparatory Charter School.
82. ÞS ϮϬ͛Ɛ ƌĞĐĞŶƚ ĞŶƌŽůůŵĞŶƚ ŚĂƐ ƐŚŽǁŶ Ă ŵĂƌŬĞĚ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐe 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 ʹŐŝƌůƐ͛ ŵŝĚĚůĞ ƐĐŚŽŽů ŽŶ ĞŝƚŚĞƌ ƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͛ ĚĞŵŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐƐ ĂŶĚ ĚĂǇ ƚŽ
day routines is of great concern to our community.
PS 184 (M137 building)
88. 1ŚĞ CÞÞ͛Ɛ ͞uŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ϭ - SĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ ĂƌŽƵŶĚ SƉĂĐĞ nĞĞĚƐ͟ ůŝƐƚƐ ϭϳ ĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ ƌŽŽŵƐ ŝŶ Mϭϯϳ͕ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ÞS
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
ŽŶůǇ ŽŶĞ ͞AǀĂŝůĂďůĞ 8ŽŽŵƐ ŝŶ 8ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕͟ ŶŽƚ ϵ͘
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.
a.) Second Grade will need an additional classroom to accommodate the progression of four sections of
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.
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.
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
grade middle schools, and Henry Street School of International Studies (M292) a
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
ÞŚǇƐŝĐĂů LĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ ŽŶĐĞ Ă ǁĞĞŬ͕ ŝŵƉĂĐƚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ƐĐŚŽŽů͛Ɛ ĂďŝůŝƚǇ ƚŽ ĂĚĚƌĞƐƐ ŽďĞƐŝƚǇ͕ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ Ă ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚ
regimen of exercise and address kinesthetic needs of hundreds of adolescents. Ironically, the DoE
ĨŽƌŵƵůĂ ůĂďĞů ƚŚŝƐ ƐĐŚŽŽů ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ͞ƵŶĚĞƌƵƚŝůŝǌĞĚ͟ ĚĞƐƉŝƚĞ ƚŚĞ ĞǀŝĚĞŶƚůǇ ĞǆĐĞůůĞŶƚ ƵƐĞ ŽĨ ƐŚĂƌĞĚ ƐƉĂĐĞ
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
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-5
. 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
ϯϬϬ ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů ƐĞĂƚƐ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ŵŝĚĚůĞ ƐĐŚŽŽů ŐƌĂĚĞ ƌŝƐŬƐ ŝŵƉĂŝƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͛Ɛ ĂďŝůŝƚǇ ƚŽ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ Ă
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 students 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
NEW YORK CITY ʹ CS DISTRICT 1 STATISTICS 2009
District One P.S.
P.S. 15 UNMS CASTLE HSISS P.S. 20
640 263 400 235 180 292 525 590
1 3 2 2 3 3
1 0 6 1 2 3 1 5
8% 21% 36% 27% 30% 16
.3 0 15% 18% 20% 21% 22% 10%
% ELL 12
5% 0 16 21 15 7 15 18%
% 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%
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
- ͚CŝƌůƐ ÞƌĞƉ Ăƚ Ă ŐůĂŶĐĞ͕͛ ĂƵƚŚŽƌ MŝƌŝĂŵ 8ĂĐĐĂŚ͕ ĞǆĞĐƵƚŝǀĞ ĚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ ÞƵďůŝĐ ÞƌĞƉ\
- 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
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
Creative Arts Team (CAT) and Studio in a School. It also housed our class 'museums¨
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
years. Due to the loss oI room 202 and the 'Domino EIIect¨ the second grade teacher
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
the 'PAVE ShuIIle¨.
5. Room 205: remains the PS 15 SETTS provider`s room. This teacher was relocated 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
was previously used by one oI PS 15`s Speech and Language Providers. It is only a
'halI-room¨ and it`s size severely limits the number of children that can be grouped for
literacy intervention. PS 15 is known citywide as an intervention model. An integral
piece to that was our literacy intervention teacher targeting students` needs and pulling
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
8. Room 207: It has remained a PS 15 4
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.
11. Room 210: Boy`s Bathroom. now shared by PS 15 grades 2. 3. and 4.
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. Room 216: Girl`s Bathroom Ior the students in PS 15, grade 2, 3, and 4.
16. Room 218: PS 15 Closet
17. Room 217: Has remained a PS 15 4
grade special education classroom. Again, this
room is only permitted to have 12 students enrolled at one time. as per the students` IEPs.
18. Room 219: This room is being used as the PS 15 Science Cluster`s room. This cluster
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.
23. Room 224: This is PS 15`s School Library. Due to lack oI space and loss oI classrooms.
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.
28. Room 229: This room is used by PS 15`s ELL teacher. This is a halI room.
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
Ior small group instruction as stated in the students` IEPs. It was utilized by all students
in need, from grades K-5. Speech providers are now forced to share one classroom on the
first floor. This room has now become a Teacher`s CaIe and PAVE storage area.
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 'Learning Specialist¨.
34. Rooms 234 236: Children`s bathroom. shared by PS 15 IiIth graders and all PAVE
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
'Art/Intervention¨ room and the oIIice oI the dean.
45. Room 103: This room used to be Ior PS15`s 2 guidance counselors and our Parent
Coordinator. Due to the lack of space, the region wide attendance office is now located
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
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/1
grade 12:1:1 classroom. Again. Student IEP`s mandate that this room have no more than
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
62. Room 126: In years prior to PAVE`s arrival. this room was a Music Room and provided
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
246-science room moved
248- science lab lost
Special Ed Office (2 part rooms)
201A- enrichment room lost
Professional Development Room
Math Coach Room
Lost science lab
Classrooms moved to
intervention rooms, 2
moved to ½ and ¼
Lost Sp. Ed office
Lost math coach room
233B- OT (already shared by 2)
202- classroom moved
237- Good Shepherd Computer lab
99- Beacon Services Counseling
233A- teacher café and
233B- related services
99- related services
C1͛Ɛ ŶŽǁ ƐŚĂƌĞ ƌŽŽŵƐ͗
1 shares 227 w/ Good
Shepherd Services, 1
shared library (under
renovation) with several
other programs. Moved
Beacon now services in a
Will lose at least two full size rooms
(we are expanding to 25 classes from
24 as our MR program moves up and
an additional class is added)
Will get two full rooms
Loss of two cluster
rooms: specially wired
music room would be
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
*By this point: NO
related service providers
(for special education
students) will have a
room to run their
Will lose at least three full classrooms
plus undefined backspace and
potentially other rooms qualified per
enrollment on instructional footprint
Will gain at least 2 full
classrooms and 1 cluster
room plus backspace
At this point PS 15 will
have no related service
provider rooms, no
Beacon computer lab,
no room for the DOE
nurse and no
coordinator room. This
only covers classrooms.
Remaining space at this
point only includes
rooms (actual full time
classrooms) and ½ and ¼
*except for 2 cluster
rooms which, according
to the footprint we are
At least two full size rooms. At least two full size
The only way to
accommodate the need
for two full size
classrooms would be to
give up cluster rooms.
? We have no other space to give at
this point without cutting classroom
sections, thus drastically increasing
At least two full size
Cut classroom sections,
increase class size.
Place full classrooms in
½ or ¼ rooms and have
ŶŽ ͞ďĂĐŬ ƐƉĂĐĞ͟ or
personnel services of
? We have no other space to give at
this point without cutting classroom
sections, thus drastically increasing
At least two full size
Cut classroom sections,
increase class size.
Place full classrooms in
½ or ¼ rooms and have
ŶŽ ͞ďĂĐŬ ƐƉĂĐĞ͟ Žƌ
personnel services of
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,
parent meetings. and other enrichment groups such as boys` group. The other Iull
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
students with special needs. The OTs` room was replaced with a PAVE teacher cafeteria
and storage area.
x The full program speech teachers (who both lost their half rooms, one to PAVE, the other
because oI the PAVE shuIIle` so we could still maintain a room Ior our reading
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`s room taken by PAVE was replaced with
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
ÞAvL͛Ɛ ŶĞǁůǇ ƉĂŝŶƚĞĚ ĂŶĚ ƌĞfurbished 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
ƚŚŽƐĞ ǁŚŽ ŚĂǀĞ ĐŽŵĞ ƚŽ ÞS ϭϱ͛Ɛ kŝŶĚĞƌŐĂƌƚĞŶ ŽƉĞŶ ŚŽƵƐĞƐ͕ ŚĂǀĞ ǀŽŝĐĞĚ ƐƚƌŽŶŐ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ ĂďŽƵƚ sending
their child to PS 15, beyond Pre-K, because of the negative impact they perceive PAVE would have on
ƚŚĞŝƌ ĐŚŝůĚ͛Ɛ ƐĐŚŽŽů ĂŶĚ ĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘ 1ŚĞƐĞ ƉĂƌĞŶƚƐ ŚĂǀĞ ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚůǇ ƐƚĂƚĞĚ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞǇ ǁŽƵůĚ ŶŽƚ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌ
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 SaIety needs have increased since PAVE`s co-location.
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
x PS 15 students lose instructional time because they are not permitted to use the 'PAVE¨
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
x The PS 15 band program has had to move downstairs, after running out of the piano lab
and music teacher`s room. where all oI their equipment is. Ior over ten years because oI
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
soon. two days later one oI PAVE`s board members announced to the Brooklyn Eagle
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
ŝŶƚĞŶƚŝŽŶ ƚŽ ƐƚĂǇ Ăƚ ÞS ϭϱ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ƉƵďůŝĐ͛Ɛ ĚŝŵĞ͘
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
ĞǆƉĂŶĚ ĨƵƌƚŚĞƌ ŝŶƚŽ ÞS ϭϱ ĚƵĞ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŶĞŐĂƚŝǀĞ ŝŵƉĂĐƚ ŽŶ ÞS ϭϱ͛Ɛ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵŝŶŐ ƚŚĂƚ ŝƐ
provided to them.
Century Fund analysis and map. Email
firstname.lastname@example.org for a copy
5. PS 15 Instructional Footprint and Utilization
PS 15 and instructional footprint allocations
Footprint Allocation Compliance Notes
This includes 5 self-
entitles PS 15 to an
additional 5 full or
Four Cluster Rooms
(science, social studies,
music, music- as needed
to run full Prep Program
Have 2 additional Cluster
*This allocation denies
students to participate in
two of the following:
social studies project-
based learning, and/or
music w/ access to piano
lab and musical
access to and
participation in two
of the following:
- music w/ access to
piano lab and
Title 1 Room 1 On Target
This room is also
used for Testing
Toddler Time, and
Resource Room 4 ¼ rooms Under Target
Two ¼ rooms
Entitled to two more
Student Support Services
Guidance Suite: ¼, ¼
Social Worker: ¼
Good Shepherd Office: 1
2 On Target
1.5 Under Target
128 Book Room
Unclear if this
-Main Office w/ Principal
-Rm. 111 (1/4 room)
-Attendance (1/4 in
1.5-3 Under Target
Owed ½ room for
*apply to aides
SBST Error: Written as
Shared Space, this is not
Cannot determine as
Formula contains an
Two ½ room allocations
for 4 staff members
Not Accounted For In
x Speech (2
teachers in one
UFT room (1/2
x ELL (1/2 room)
rooms w/ Good
Services and the
x Doe Nurse (uses
that is shared w/
x Dental Program
x Good Shepherd
(shared w/ OT
Additional not accounted
x Coaches (math,
x Since when is
library a shared
the resources of
Current Usage as forced by co-location: 38 ¾
Entitled to Usage: 39
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 Cur rent Utilization on the EIS is wrong. The EIS, revised December 14
, states the PS 15 building is at
66%. The utilization percentage is determined by total enrollment divi ded by capacity.
(Enrollment of PS 15) 390 + (Enrollment of PA V E) 138 ÷ (Capacity) 726
528 ÷ 726 = 73% NOT 66%.
x The utilization percentage is not mar ried to the I nstructional Footprint. When these two documents are
mar ried (see PowerPoint Presentation), the utilization percentage would actually be significantly higher.
This does not take into account the additional space PAV E should be afforded so the true percentage is
actually even higher. There needs to be transparency and accountability in determining school utilization
and capacity. The cur rent formulas do not provide a realistic or accurate picture of school space and do
not cor respond with each other.
x According to the I nstructional Footprint, PS 15 should be allocated approximately 39 rooms.
39 (rooms) x 20 (students/enrollment) =780
780 ÷726 = 107% capacity
x The 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 program, medical program, DOE 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 Every room in PS 15 is utilized and has an i nstructional purpose (please see room distribution list).
x The utilization percentage based only on capacity and enrollment, if the proposal for continued co-location
follows the EIS. equals over 100º capacity by 2015. Is it this Administration`s desire to intentionally
overcrowd a school and remove vital services?
x Allowance for PS 15 to grow in the EIS is Zero. Amount the EIS accounts for PS 15 losing enrollment is
twenty-seven students. Is it this Administration`s desire to intentionally shrink or limit the growth of PS
x Number of additional rooms PS 15 needs to meet the I EP Testing Accommodation Requi rements for E L A
is 6 rooms and for Math it is 8 rooms. The cur rent co-location and proposed continued co-location will
compromise PS 15`s ability to comply with mandated testing law.
x One-third of PS 15`s student population receives special education related services. This population
requi res additional space for various mandated services. These 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-ůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ Ăƚ ŽƵƌ ĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛Ɛ ƐĐŚŽŽů͘
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
ŽĨ ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ĐŽŶƚƌĂƌǇ ƚŽ ůĂǁ͘ CŶ ƉĂŐĞ ϳ ŝƚ ƐƚĂƚĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ ͞AŶǇ ƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂů ƐƉĂĐĞ
concerns could be alleviated by incorporating some alternative delivery models such as in-class
SL1SS͘͟ 1ŚŝƐ ǁŽƵůĚ ŶŽƚ ďĞ ƉĞƌŵŝƐƐŝďůĞ ĂƐ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ ĂƌĞ ĚŝĐƚĂƚĞĚ ďǇ ƚŚĞ lLÞ ďǇ ůĂǁ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ
ůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ ĂƌĞ ͚ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞ ůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͛͘
In general, the DOE has failed to properly identify the actual uses of space at PS-15 and we believe
this faŝůƵƌĞ ŝƐ Ăƚ ƚŚĞ ĐŽƌĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ uCL͛Ɛ ŝŶĂďŝůŝƚǇ ƚŽ ĂƐƐĞƐƐ ŝŵƉĂĐƚ ŽŶ ŽƵƌ ĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͘ 1ŚĞ ůĂǁ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐ ĂŶ
accurate assessment of the potential impact on our children and community. By simply stating
͞ƚŚĞƌĞ ǁŝůů ďĞ ŶŽ ŝŵƉĂĐƚ͕͟ ĂŶĚ ĚŝƐƉĞŶƐŝŶŐ ŝŶĐŽƌƌĞĐƚ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ƌegarding 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.
CAÞL kĞǀĞĂůƐ ƚŚĞ IůĂǁƐ͕ LŝĞƐ͕ ĂŶĚ IŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶĐŝĞƐ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ DCL͛Ɛ kĞĐĞŶƚůǇ
Released Education Impact Statement of the Co-Location of PAVE Academy and
This statement released the evening of December 11
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,
Žƌ ŝŶ ŶŽƌŵĂů ůĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ͕ ͞ĨƵůů͘͟ lƚ ĂƐƐŝŐŶƐ ƵƐ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ƵƚŝůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ ƌĂƚĞ ŽĨ ϲϲй͕ ďĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ ŽƵƌ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ ŶƵŵďĞƌ
ŽĨ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ ϯϵϬ ĂŶĚ ÞAvL͛Ɛ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ ŶƵŵďĞƌ ŽĨ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͕ ϭϯϴ͘ 1ŚŝƐ ŝƐ ĨĂƵůƚǇ ŽŶ ƚǁŽ ůĞǀĞůs. 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 SĞĐŽŶĚ͕ ƚŚŝƐ ŵĞĂŶƐ ǁĞ ĂĐĐĞƉƚ ƚŚŝƐ ŶƵŵďĞƌ͕ ϳϮϲ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ uCL͛Ɛ
claim that that is how many students ƚŚĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ŵƵƐƚ ŚĂǀĞ ƚŽ ďĞ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚ ͞Ăƚ ĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ͟ ĂƐ ƚŚĞǇ ƐĂǁ
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.
ÞůĞĂƐĞ ďĞ ĂǁĂƌĞ͕ ƚŚĞ ůĂƐƚ ƉĂƌĂŐƌĂƉŚ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ ĐůĂŝŵƐ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚŝƐ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů ͙͞ĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞĚ ƚŚĞ ŶĞĞĚ ƚŽ
ĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞ ƚŽ ŽĨĨĞƌ ŚŝŐŚ ƋƵĂůŝƚǇ ŽƉƚŝŽŶƐ ĨŽƌ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ ŝŶ uŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ϭϱ͘͟ PŽǁ ŝƐ ƚŚŝƐ ƐŽ ǁŚĞŶ ÞAvL ĞŶƌŽůůƐ
students outside of Red Hook, District 15 and Brooklyn?
Section II: Enrollment, Admissions and School Performance
ÞAvL͛Ɛ ĐŚĂƌƚĞƌ ĐůĞĂƌůǇ ƐƚĂƚĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĞĂĐŚ ĐůĂƐƐƌŽŽŵ ǁŝůů ƐĞƌǀĞ ϮϮ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͘ CƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇ͕ Ăůů ďƵƚ ŽŶĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞŝƌ
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 PAVL͛Ɛ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚ ĞŶƌŽůůĞĚ ͞Ăƚ ƐĐĂůĞ͟ ;ŝŶ ƚŚŝƐ ĐĂƐĞ͕ ƚŚĂƚ ŵĞĂŶƐ Ăƚ
2015 when they serve up to 7
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
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
grade, while the previous pages state they will stay until they grow to 7
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
ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ͞ŽƉƚŝŽŶƐ ĨŽƌ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ ŝŶ uŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ϭϱ͘͟ 1ŚĂƚ ŝƐ ŶŽƚ Ă ƌĂŵŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘ AĚĚŝŶŐ ϮϲϬ ƐĞĂƚƐ takes 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,
ďĞĐĂƵƐĞ ŽĨ ŶĞǁůǇ ĐƌĞĂƚĞĚ ͞ĐĂŵƉƵƐ ƉŽůŝĐǇ͟ ĐŚĂƌƚĞƌ ƐĐŚŽŽů ůĞĂĚĞƌƐ ĂƌĞ ĂůůŽǁĞĚ ƚŽ ĨŝŐŚƚ ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƐ ƚŚĞǇ
disagree with, while public school principals can be sanctioned for defending and advocating for their
1ŚŝƐ ŝŵƉĂĐƚ ƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ ƚŚĂƚ ƌĞĂĚƐ ͞nŽ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ Þ͘S͘ ϭϱ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚ ǁŝůů ďĞ ĚŝƐƉůĂĐĞĚ͟ ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ ĂƐ l ƐƚĂƚĞĚ
ďĞĨŽƌĞ͕ ƚŚĞ ĞŶƌŽůůŵĞŶƚ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ŝŶ SĞĐƚŝŽŶ ll ĂůůŽǁƐ ĨŽƌ ĂŶĚ ĐůĞĂƌůǇ ƐƚĂƚĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĂƐ ÞAvL͛Ɛ ŶƵŵďĞƌƐ ǁill
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
ĐŚĂƌƚĞƌ ƐĐŚŽŽůƐ ĂŶĚ ƐĞĞ ƚŚĞ ĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞ ĚĂŝůǇ͘ CƵƌ ƚŚĞƌĂƉŝƐƚƐ ƐŚĂƌĞ ƌŽŽŵƐ͕ ƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ ŵƵƐƚ ĚĞĂů ǁŝƚŚ ÞAvL͛Ɛ
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
VII. Building Information
1ŚŝƐ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ĚŽĞƐ ŶŽƚ ĞǆƉůĂŝŶ ŚŽǁ ƚŚĞ ͞ƚĂƌŐĞƚ ĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ͟ ŽĨ ϳϮϲ ǁĂƐ ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚ͕ ŶŽƌ ĚŽĞƐ ŝƚ
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:
www.capeducation.blogspot.com and share your thoughts. Our school community deserves better and
ǁĞ ǁŝůů ŶŽƚ ďĞĐŽŵĞ ĂŶŽƚŚĞƌ ĐĂƐƵĂůƚǇ ŝŶ MĂǇŽƌ 8ůŽŽŵďĞƌŐ͛Ɛ ĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ ƌĞĨŽƌŵ ŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ͊
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 according to DOE's own standards
Contrary to the assertions in the Success Academy application, that there "are numerous
buildings that have space available in District 3,¨ according to the space memorandum
recently posted by the NYC Department of Education, there is only one elementary school in
District 3 that has at least 300 excess seats, according to the DOE "Blue Book¨, sufficient for
a co-location. This is PS 145, with approximately 320 extra seats.
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.
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.
DOE's "BIue Book" overestimates actuaI space in school
Even as there is insufficient space according to the "Blue Book¨ to accommodate this charter
within the district, the official DOE "blue book¨ figures actually overestimates the excess amount
of space in schools, according to half of all NYC principals. This is because the "Blue book¨
formula provides for insufficient space for cluster rooms and specialty rooms, and is aligned with
overly large class sizes. Ìndeed, the "target¨ class sizes in the "blue book¨ are more than 20%
larger than what principals believe are necessary to provide a quality education, as well as the
class size standards in the city's C4E plan.
(See chart below.)
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.
According to DOE's compilation of housing starts, at least 8,246 additional residential units are
projected to be built in D3 between 2008-2017.
The City Environmental Quality Review
Success Academy Charter Application, posted at
ÞƌŽĨ͘ LŵŝůǇ PŽƌŽǁŝƚǌϭ Θ LĞŽŶŝĞ PĂŝŵƐŽŶ͕ ͞PŽǁ CƌŽǁĚĞĚ AƌĞ CƵƌ SĐŚŽŽůƐ͍ New Results from a Survey of NYC
ÞƵďůŝĐ SĐŚŽŽů ÞƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůƐ͕͟CĐƚŽďĞƌ ϯ͕ ϮϬϬϴ͘
NYC SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY, Projected New Housing Starts as Used in 2008-2017 Enrollment
Projection for 2010-2014 Capital Plan; posted at
("CEQR¨) standards estimate that this will generate the need for at least 890 additional
elementary seats, 330 middle school seats, and 495 high school seats in the district.
the NYC School Construction Authority's five year capital plan for 2010-2014, there is not a
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
in "blue book"
C4E goals by
class sizes for quality
education, acc. to NYC
Kindergarten 25 20 19.9 20
1-3 grades 28 20 19.9 20
4-5 (Title 1
32 20 22.9 23
32 28 22.9 23
New York City`s Revised City Environmental Quality Review ('CEQR¨) Technical Manual. May 17. 2010;
relevant section posted at
6-8 (Title 1
30 28 22.9 24
33 28 22.9 24
34 30 24.5 24
For class size standards of NYC principals, see "How Crowded Are Our Schools? New Results
from a Survey of NYC Public School Principals," by Prof. Emily Horowitz & Leonie Haimson.
October 3, 2008.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.