Harlem- from Noah Gotbaum
Please join us tonight at the Harlem PS149/Harlem Success I charter expansion hearing at 41 W 117th St. at 6 pm. The parents, students, and teachers at PS 149/The Sojourner Truth School are phenomenally eloquent and remain passionate and resolute after 5+ years of fighting Eva Moskowitz and the DOE.
Please come out to support them, to hear their stories, and to bolster them and the NAACP against the continuing PR storm.
IS 33 Old Building -
I'm covering this one as I monitor the extent of opposition in District 14 towards Moskowitz invasion. She has no foothold with parents there yet though I imagine some will come out tonight. IS 33 is in the middle of housing projects and has always been viewed as one of the least safe environments. The last time I was in IS 33 there were gunshots. No, not from the UFT directed at me.
Date, time and place of joint public hearings for this proposal.
June 16, 2011 at 6:00 p.m.Foundations / Urban Environment / P368K@I033K
70 Tompkins Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11206
Questions about the proposal can be directed as indicated in section IV above.
Speaker sign-up will begin 30 minutes before the hearing and will close 15 minutes after the start. Interpretation services will be provided in Spanish. To request interpretation services in another language, please contact Mr. Taylor at the e-mail address or telephone number above.
VI. Date, time and place of the Panel for Educational Policy meeting at which the Panel will vote on the proposed item.
June 27, 2011 at 6:00 p.m.
Prospect Heights Campus
883 Classon Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11225
June 16, 2011 at 6:00 p.m.Foundations / Urban Environment / P368K@I033K
70 Tompkins Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11206
Questions about the proposal can be directed as indicated in section IV above.
Speaker sign-up will begin 30 minutes before the hearing and will close 15 minutes after the start. Interpretation services will be provided in Spanish. To request interpretation services in another language, please contact Mr. Taylor at the e-mail address or telephone number above.
VI. Date, time and place of the Panel for Educational Policy meeting at which the Panel will vote on the proposed item.
June 27, 2011 at 6:00 p.m.
Prospect Heights Campus
883 Classon Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11225
Summary of all public comment received to date.The following comments and remarks were made at the joint public hearing on February 17, 2011, regarding the co-location proposal:
1. The CEC 14 representative stated that the DOE’s engagement process moved too quickly. Specifically, she stated that the CEC was not able to meet with the Success Academy Charter Network or to spread information to their community about the proposal. She also stated that the signatures supporting the proposed school came from the Bronx, not from the District 14 community.
MORE:
2. A representative of the P369K@I033K SLT stated that the school organizations currently in building K033 have a great relationship and expressed concern that this relationship would be negatively affected by the co-location of Brooklyn Success in the building. Additionally, she asked whether charter schools are given more money than traditional schools. Finally, she said the co-location will cause overcrowding that will push the other schools out.
3. A representative of the Foundations Academy SLT questioned what Brooklyn Success would add to the building and expressed concern about the impact of co-locating an elementary school with a middle school and a high school on all students. She asked if Brooklyn Success is expecting to enroll students from a specific demographic. Moreover, she cited a Stanford study that says only 17% of charter schools outperform traditional schools while 83% perform worse. Finally, she questioned how shared resources in the building would be allocated and whether any school’s instructional programming would be impacted by the co-location.
4. New York City Council Member Albert Vann disagreed with the DOE’s assessment that the co-location would not have negative impact on students enrolled in the schools that are currently sited in the building. He stated that he opposed this proposal because there is no space in the building and because he was concerned about the siting elementary school students in the same building with middle and high school students. Additionally, he contended that comments made at the joint public hearing would not impact the final decision. He also stated that the DOE’s engagement process moved too quickly.
5. A representative of the Urban Assembly School for Urban Environment SLT stated that it was inappropriate to co-locate elementary and middle and high school students together. She stated that the building is underutilized, but she also stated that the space would be better used by the school organizations already in the building or another school organization that would serve students of a similar age as the school organizations currently in the building.
6. The principal of Urban Assembly School for Urban Environment stated her belief that Brooklyn Success would not be a good fit with the other school organizations in the building because they serve high school students, autistic students, and students at the ALC, while Brooklyn Success would enroll elementary students.
7. Multiple commenters stated that they support the proposal because:
a. They’ve had positive experiences with their children in Success Charter Network schools. (These were Harlem Success parents who have come to Brooklyn to plug HSA. They come to every meeting. I wonder what they get from Eva? - Pat)
52 Chambers Street Room 320 New York, NY 10007
Telephone: 212-374-0209 Fax: 212-374-5588
b. Charter schools that are working well should be given a chance to grow because the DOE is failing children.
8. A commenter stated that the engagement process did not effectively engage the community. He also asked whether it is legal for Success Charter Network to be asking for applications already, which he said do not say anything about a lottery and seem to suggest the program is screened.
9. A commenter said charter schools have inequitable access to resources and school spaces. He also stated that charter schools often exhibit a lack of collaboration with their co-located schools.
10. Multiple commenters expressed opposition for the proposal because:
a. The current schools have worked hard.
b. The extra space in the building should be used for schools that currently exist.
c. The new school should be placed somewhere like Greenpoint where people want this type of school.
d. There are already enough elementary schools in the area.
e. The community has not expressed a desire for this school. Signatures supporting the school were obtained from the Bronx, not Brooklyn.
f. Younger students should not be sited in a building older students.
g. Charters are run like corporations. The charter school process destroys the rights of the people and community because it is only through public schooling and public comment that the community has democracy.
h. The building is a public building, and charter schools should not be taking away public funds from public schools.
i. Charter schools create racial segregation.
j. Good results have come from public schools, so charters are not needed.
11. A commenter said it is problematic that charter schools are only put into neighborhoods with high minority populations.
No comments were received through the DOE’s dedicated written and oral comment mechanisms.
1. The CEC 14 representative stated that the DOE’s engagement process moved too quickly. Specifically, she stated that the CEC was not able to meet with the Success Academy Charter Network or to spread information to their community about the proposal. She also stated that the signatures supporting the proposed school came from the Bronx, not from the District 14 community.
MORE:
2. A representative of the P369K@I033K SLT stated that the school organizations currently in building K033 have a great relationship and expressed concern that this relationship would be negatively affected by the co-location of Brooklyn Success in the building. Additionally, she asked whether charter schools are given more money than traditional schools. Finally, she said the co-location will cause overcrowding that will push the other schools out.
3. A representative of the Foundations Academy SLT questioned what Brooklyn Success would add to the building and expressed concern about the impact of co-locating an elementary school with a middle school and a high school on all students. She asked if Brooklyn Success is expecting to enroll students from a specific demographic. Moreover, she cited a Stanford study that says only 17% of charter schools outperform traditional schools while 83% perform worse. Finally, she questioned how shared resources in the building would be allocated and whether any school’s instructional programming would be impacted by the co-location.
4. New York City Council Member Albert Vann disagreed with the DOE’s assessment that the co-location would not have negative impact on students enrolled in the schools that are currently sited in the building. He stated that he opposed this proposal because there is no space in the building and because he was concerned about the siting elementary school students in the same building with middle and high school students. Additionally, he contended that comments made at the joint public hearing would not impact the final decision. He also stated that the DOE’s engagement process moved too quickly.
5. A representative of the Urban Assembly School for Urban Environment SLT stated that it was inappropriate to co-locate elementary and middle and high school students together. She stated that the building is underutilized, but she also stated that the space would be better used by the school organizations already in the building or another school organization that would serve students of a similar age as the school organizations currently in the building.
6. The principal of Urban Assembly School for Urban Environment stated her belief that Brooklyn Success would not be a good fit with the other school organizations in the building because they serve high school students, autistic students, and students at the ALC, while Brooklyn Success would enroll elementary students.
7. Multiple commenters stated that they support the proposal because:
a. They’ve had positive experiences with their children in Success Charter Network schools. (These were Harlem Success parents who have come to Brooklyn to plug HSA. They come to every meeting. I wonder what they get from Eva? - Pat)
52 Chambers Street Room 320 New York, NY 10007
Telephone: 212-374-0209 Fax: 212-374-5588
b. Charter schools that are working well should be given a chance to grow because the DOE is failing children.
8. A commenter stated that the engagement process did not effectively engage the community. He also asked whether it is legal for Success Charter Network to be asking for applications already, which he said do not say anything about a lottery and seem to suggest the program is screened.
9. A commenter said charter schools have inequitable access to resources and school spaces. He also stated that charter schools often exhibit a lack of collaboration with their co-located schools.
10. Multiple commenters expressed opposition for the proposal because:
a. The current schools have worked hard.
b. The extra space in the building should be used for schools that currently exist.
c. The new school should be placed somewhere like Greenpoint where people want this type of school.
d. There are already enough elementary schools in the area.
e. The community has not expressed a desire for this school. Signatures supporting the school were obtained from the Bronx, not Brooklyn.
f. Younger students should not be sited in a building older students.
g. Charters are run like corporations. The charter school process destroys the rights of the people and community because it is only through public schooling and public comment that the community has democracy.
h. The building is a public building, and charter schools should not be taking away public funds from public schools.
i. Charter schools create racial segregation.
j. Good results have come from public schools, so charters are not needed.
11. A commenter said it is problematic that charter schools are only put into neighborhoods with high minority populations.
No comments were received through the DOE’s dedicated written and oral comment mechanisms.
II. Information regarding where the full text of the proposed item may be obtained.
The revised EIS and revised BUP can be found on the Department of Education’s Web site:
http://schools.nyc.gov/
Copies of the revised EIS and revised BUP are also available in the main offices of Urban Environment, Foundations, and P368K@I033K.
III. Submission of public comment.
Written comments can be sent to D14Proposals@schools.nyc.gov.
Oral comments can be left at 212-374-0208.
IV. The name, office, address, email and telephone number of the city district representative, knowledgeable on the item under consideration, from whom information may be obtained concerning the item.
Name: Benjamin Taylor
Office: Division of Portfolio Planning
Address: 52 Chambers St
Email: D14Proposals@schools.nyc.gov
The revised EIS and revised BUP can be found on the Department of Education’s Web site:
http://schools.nyc.gov/
Copies of the revised EIS and revised BUP are also available in the main offices of Urban Environment, Foundations, and P368K@I033K.
III. Submission of public comment.
Written comments can be sent to D14Proposals@schools.nyc.gov.
Oral comments can be left at 212-374-0208.
IV. The name, office, address, email and telephone number of the city district representative, knowledgeable on the item under consideration, from whom information may be obtained concerning the item.
Name: Benjamin Taylor
Office: Division of Portfolio Planning
Address: 52 Chambers St
Email: D14Proposals@schools.nyc.gov
No comments:
Post a Comment