SUNY CHARTER SCHOOLS INSTITUTE Public Hearing Summary Charter School: Leadership Preparatory Brownsville Charter School Hearing Dates: February 29, 2012 (K284), March 1, 2012 (K275) Hearing Locations: Building K284, 213 Osborn Street, Brooklyn, NY 11212 (CSD 23) and Building K275, 985 Rockaway Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11212 (CSD 23) Hearing Times: Both hearings began at 6 p.m. Background: Leadership Preparatory Brownsville Charter School (“LPBV”) serves 245 students in grades K-3, which is currently co-located in building K284 at 213 Osborn Street, Brooklyn, NY 11212 in Community School District (“CSD”) 23. K284 currently houses P.S. 284 Lew Wallace, an existing zoned school serving students in kindergarten through eighth grade and offering a full-day pre-kindergarten program. K275 had a target capacity to serve 1,209 students. However, in 2011-2012 it serves 763 students, which yields a target utilization rate of 63%. If this proposal and the proposal to re-site P140K@KAPPA V are approved, there will be approximately 871-1,073 students served in K275 in 2012-2013, which yields a projected utilization rate of 72%-89%. The New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE”) proposes to re-site LPBV’s K-4 grades to building K275, located at 985 Rockaway Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11212, also in CSD 23. The NYCDOE also proposes to split-site and co-locate LPBV’s future grades 5-8 back into K284, assuming the school’s charter is renewed. Hearings were held in both K275 and K284. K275 currently houses Knowledge and Power Preparatory Academy V middle school, and two existing transfer high schools: Metropolitan Diploma Plus High School and Brooklyn Democracy Academy. The transfer schools serve students between the ages of 16 and 21 who have fallen behind academically and are more than two years away from graduation. K275 also currently houses a District 75 program that serves Kindergarten through eighth grade students who have an Individualized Education Program classification of emotionally disturbed. In a separate proposal, the NYCDOE has proposed re-siting the District 75 program to another more suitable building. K275 also provides space to three Community Based Organizations (“CBOs”): Beacon, CAMBA, and the Jewish Child Care Association. K284 Hearing Notes: The hearing was moderated by CSD 23 Superintendant Ainslie Cumberbatch. Members of the Community Education Council (“CEC”) and School Leadership Team (“SLT”) were notified of the hearing and were present. Superintendant Cumberbatch opened the hearing by reading the hearing introduction and summarized the Educational Impact Statement (“EIS”). A representative from the CEC stated that the proposal should have been given to the community sooner, and that there was not enough time for the community to review the DOE’s plans. He stated that if LPBV leaves Building K284, it should not be allowed to return. He stated that the NYCDOE and SUNY were not getting a true statement from the community because many parents could not come to the hearing. He stated that PS 284 was a good school, and the community should be fighting to provide it with more resources. A member of the PS 284 SLT stated that although she would like the entire building back, she welcomed LPBV on their return. She stated that PS 284 was alive and flourishing, and that they would be there in the long run. She stated that if LPBV continues to make improvements when they return, the existing school should also receive improvements to ensure that there is a fair access to an education. A representative from LPBV stated that she respected the PS 284 SLT, and that they have a lot in common, to include the common goal of serving the children of Brownsville. She stated that she was proud that the charter and district schools had forged a strong trusting relationship, and that she looked forward to continuing that relationship in the future. Six parents of Uncommon Schools children all spoke in favor of the co-location. They stated that their children were receiving a great education at various schools managed by Uncommon, were excelling academically, and were receiving extra support when needed including particularized attention for those students with IEP’s. They stated, as involved parents, that they were looking forward to continuing to work with the collocated schools at K284 and K275, as evidenced by a recent parents meeting that included students and parents from both schools. K275 Hearing Notes: Prior to the hearing, BUPs and EISs for both LPBV co-locations were distributed to the public and hearing panel. The hearing was moderated by CSD 23 Superintendant Ainslie Cumberbatch. The CEC President was not present at the beginning of the hearing but did arrive later. Members of the SLT were notified of the hearing and were present. The CSD 23 Superintendent opened the hearing by reading the hearing introduction and summarized the EIS. Elected officials and/or principals were given the first opportunity to speak. The District 75 principal spoke in support of the moves and stated that his school’s new space would better support his grade levels of students with special education needs. He described the move as a “win-win” situation. The CEC president stated that she needed to make sure that the co-location decision best suits children. She urged parents to let the NYCDOE know the needs of the community. The LPBV school leader stated that the school was committed to the community and had developed a quiet relationship with the schools in the same space in K284 with trust and respect. She said LPBV was excited about partnering with the other schools in the building. New York City Councilman Barron (District 42) stated that the NYCDOE process was flawed in that the NYCDOE comes to the community for one night to make a decision. He stated that all co-location, not just charter co-location was ridiculous because the buildings were not designed for it; rather they were designed for one school. He said that in his opinion when schools have to juggle a lot of space, it creates chaos. He stated the community needed a “say so.” He said the NYCDOE needs to sit down with parents, elected officials and school leaders to discuss things the schools need like culturally relevant curriculum, principals with vision and class size. He stated that the NYCDOE is not dealing with real things that make kids learn and that students do not need test preparation every year to make the Mayor look good. He stated that 13% of Black and Latino students are prepared for college in New York City, and in charter high schools the number is 10%. He said a high school diploma is not worth the paper it is printed on as 80% of those students attending CUNY need remediation. He said the NYCDOE needs a plan for excellence and needs to fight for parents. He said the hearing was part of a bogus process. He said co-location in general is not working and putting schools in and out of buildings is not working. Only 5-6 non-elected officials or school leaders signed up to speak though there were approximately 30 people in attendance plus various children. A self-described proud parent of a LPBV 3rd grader stated that the zoned district school was not a good fit for her son, who has made great strides due to the outstanding support at LPBV. She said he can articulate, read, understand and work on his own. She said LPBV needs free public space, a statement that received much applause. Another self-described proud parent of two LPBV scholars and three district school students spoke about her son who the NYCDOE told her needed a 12:1:1 inclusive class setting. She stated that she refused to send him to the district school and enrolled in LPBV who provides him only O/T and P/T. She said her son is exceeding at reading and was the valedictorian of his class in January. She said public education has to have choices. Another parent told a similar story for a general education student. She said she likes LPBV because homework is signed and checked, and the teachers and staff support her child. A grandparent of a LPBV student relayed that she resided in CSD 23 for many years and 25 years ago when her daughter was going to attend school, the district schools were dangerous and there was no parental choice. She spent money to send her daughter to Catholic school. When her grandchildren were ready for school a few years ago, the district schools were still not an option but she could not afford Catholic school so she had them apply to LPBV. She said she has seen a big improvement in their reading, spelling and comprehension. Another parent stated that it was important for children to have a sound education. She said in a perfect neighborhood we would all have our own schools and space but that we do not live in a perfect neighborhood. She said education is a game changer and LPBV makes the difference. She said in her neighborhood both a charter school and a district school excel and so everybody wins. Another parent relayed information similar to that set forth above and said there was huge support for the co-location and for the LPBV middle school. Councilman Barron responded that he was glad that some parents were happy with the charter school, but that there was nothing magic in charters. He said the NYCDOE should set aside money in its budget to build space for charters. He reiterated that only 13% of Black and Latino students were prepared for college and that of 1.1 million students in NYC, 83% Black and Latino, only 30-50,000 are charter students. He said the NCDOE should not only take care of charter schools. He said all parents need to fight together. He said charters are private entities not publicly owned schools, but they get public funding. He said LPBV is probably going to come into building K275, but that parents had to look at the bigger picture and the Mayor’s policies. He said part of it is chaos with three to four schools in a building. Determination: The Charter Schools Institute reviewed the Educational Impact Statements and the Building Utilization Plans prepared by the NYCDOE for the facilities at issue. The Institute also inspected the spaces at the time of each hearing and found them to be typical NYCDOE buildings that appeared to be in compliance with applicable law. Based on the documentation prepared by the NYCDOE and the information in the charter school’s application, the Institute also finds that the proposed use of the spaces by the charter school would not violate applicable law. Based on the site review, the physical space allotted to the charter school was safe and adequate. In addition, there appears to be sufficient common spaces and resource spaces to be shared by the charter school and the district schools and any community programs in the buildings. Finally, the Institute notes that the BUPs, at the time of the co-location hearings, were in draft form. Pursuant to New York Education Law, leadership teams from the co-located schools are required to agree on a plan to utilize common spaces at each building. As such, the BUP will not be finalized until the co-locations are finalized. With respect to public comments, the Institute thanks the elected officials and the members of the community for their candor. The Institute notes that Education Law requires the NYCDOE to pre-approve any capital improvements to a charter school’s co-located facility in excess of $5,000. If approved, the NYCDOE would then be required to match the capital contribution on behalf of each of the existing co-located public schools (not including any other charter schools in the space). In addition, SUNY has no authority over NYCDOE decisions regarding the physical locations of NYCDOE schools or programs, and only has the ability to approve or deny the relocation of a charter school authorized by SUNY once the NYCDOE approves the space for use by the charter school. SUNY has no positive authority to place schools into NYCDOE space. As the school proposes to re-locate and expand to new space (as it will terminate its occupancy in K284) in the CSD or part of the NYC borough set forth in its charter application, the Institute, on behalf of the SUNY Trustees, needs to determine whether to allow the school to use the district school spaces. Based on the foregoing, the Institute proposes to approve the NYCDOE facilities for use by the charter school subject to compliance with the terms of its charter agreement regarding facilities. SUNY CHARTER SCHOOLS INSTITUTE Public Hearing Summary Charter School: Bronx Success Academy Charter School 2 Hearing Date: February 15, 2012 Hearing Location: Building X055, 450 Saint Paul’s Place, Bronx, NY 10456 (CSD 9) Start Time: 6:05 p.m. End Time: 6:55 p.m. Background: The New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE”) proposes to re-site and co-locate Bronx Success Academy Charter School 2 (“BSA2”), an existing charter school serving grades K-2 that is currently located in building X146 at 968 Cauldwell Avenue, Bronx, NY 10456, in Community School District (“CSD”) 8, where it is co-located with P.S. 146. The school would be sited in building X055 located at 450 Saint Paul’s Place, Bronx, NY 10456, in CSD 9, beginning in 2012-13. BSA2 would be co-located with P.S. 55, an existing zoned elementary school serving grades PK-5. If approved, BSA2 would grow to serve grades K-4 in X055. Currently, in addition to P.S. 55, X055 also houses a middle school, Mott Hall III. However, the NYCDOE has proposed to re-site Mott Hall to another location in CSD 9, beginning in the 2012-13 school year. According to the NYCDOE, X055 is an under-utilized building with capacity to serve 1,363 students; yet it currently serves 1,078 students, yielding a building utilization rate of 79%. As Mott Hall is to be re-sited, if X055 houses only P.S. 55 in the 2012-13 school year, the building would serve only approximately 656-716 students, yielding an estimated utilization rate of 48-53%. If the proposal to re-site BSA 2 into X055 is approved, in 2012-13, the building would serve 1,031-1,141 students, yielding an estimated utilization rate of 76-84%. At full scale, X055 would serve between 1,131-1,256 students, yielding an estimated building utilization of 83-92%. Hearing Notes: The hearing was moderated by CSD 9 Superintendent Delores Esposito. Members of the Community Education Council (“CEC”) and School Leadership Team were notified of the hearing and were present. Superintendant Esposito opened the hearing by reading the hearing introduction and summarized the Educational Impact Statement (“EIS”). A representative of New York State Assemblyman Stevenson was in the audience and spoke on behalf of the Assemblyman. He stated that the public does not understand the co-location process, and that the deal to site BSA2 in X055 had already been struck. The hearing is nothing but an exercise in futility. Charter schools should not be able to determine who has a right to a better future, as all kids should be educated and be able to compete in the world. Irrespective of a building, all kids should be given the same opportunities. He stated that the co-location hearings should be meaningful discussions. The P.S. 55 PTA president, reacting to the NYCDOE’s draft Building Usage Plan (“BUP”), stated that P.S. 55 children were not slated to arrive until 8:00 a.m., while the charter school was to arrive at 7:15 a.m. She stated that with that schedule, the P.S. 55 students wouldn’t have time to eat breakfast before school begins. Two members of the P.S. 55 School Leadership Team spoke. They stated that the proposed schedules in the BUP would not work, and that P.S. 55 should not have to change any aspect of its schedule for the co-location. One also stated that the building would not have enough room to house BSA2, and that the extra space in the facility should be used to allow P.S. 55 to expand its enrollment. One stated that charter schools do not guarantee that all kids that apply can get in, unlike traditional public schools. The CEC 9 President stated that P.S. 55 should not have to alter its schedule as a result of the co-location. She added that all children should be treated equally including those with IEPs. She stated that at Success Academy schools, special needs children are accepted, and as soon as the school receives additional funding, they are told to leave. A BSA2 parent stated that the school was not trying to take over, but that they had outgrown their space at P.S. 146, where they had been for two years. The NYCDOE has designated the space at X055 as available for co-location, so BSA2 should be allowed to use it. He stated that BSA2 does not want to kick anyone out of the facility, but they just want what they need to educate their children. He added that all parents should be fighting for their children, not against each other. Seven P.S. 55 teachers spoke in opposition of the proposed co-location. One stated that BSA2 should be required to take all kids from the community including those with special needs. Another stated that it would be a conflict of interest for BSA2 to enter X055 because the existing school is also an elementary school. Several stated that BSA2 does not accept students with disabilities or ELLs. One teacher stated that when requested, BSA2 refused to share their curriculum with the school. Several also expressed concerns about the proposed BUP. Several parents and community residents also spoke in opposition to the proposed co-location. One stated that BSA2 should be required to stay in the facility where they are currently housed. Several raised concerns with the proposed BUP, which would make it difficult for parents to drop their children off at school and still get to work on time. A community member stated that his organization has supported P.S. 55 for years and will continue to do so even if the co-location is approved. Finally, a parent expressed concerns about potential overcrowding, suggesting that P.S. 55 be allowed to grow rather than bring in a charter school. Determination: The Charter Schools Institute reviewed the Educational Impact Statement and the Building Utilization Plan prepared by the NYCDOE for the space at issue. The Institute also inspected the space at the time of the hearing and found it to be a typical NYCDOE building that appeared to be in compliance with applicable law. Based on the documentation prepared by the NYCDOE and the information in the charter school’s application, the Institute also finds that the proposed use of the space by the charter school would not violate applicable law. Based on the site review, the physical space allotted to the charter school was safe and adequate. In addition, there appears to be sufficient common space and resource space to be shared by the charter school and the district schools and any community programs in the building. Finally, the Institute notes that the BUP, at the time of the co-location hearing, was in draft form. Pursuant to New York Education Law, leadership teams from the co-located schools are required to agree on a plan to utilize common spaces at X055. As such, the BUP will not be finalized until the co-locations are finalized. With respect to public comments, the Institute thanks the members of the community for their candor. While the NYCDOE has proposed to decrease the enrollment of P.S. 55, it should be noted that SUNY has no authority over NYCDOE decisions regarding the contraction or expansion of DOE schools or programs. SUNY has no authority over NYCDOE decisions regarding the physical locations of NYCDOE schools or programs. With respect to the issues regarding the admission of ELL students and students with disabilities, all charter schools must accept all eligible students into their lotteries and allocates seats in accordance with their approved admissions policies and legal priorities and preferences. All ELL students must be educated in or by the charter school in accordance with federal law. While charter schools do not have to follow Part 154 of the State Education Commissioners regulations regarding the education of ELLs, charters may not discriminate against ELL students and must provide them equal access to the educational and after school programs of the school on the same basis as general education students. Students with special education needs present a different statutory context, but again charter schools may not discriminate against them. For purposes of federal law, a charter school is not its own Local Educational Agency; rather it is a school within the LEA of the school district of the student’s residence. While charters must admit all students with disabilities, the question of whether a SPED student remains in the charter school in the first instance is decided by the Committee on Special Education of the CSD through a meeting of the student’s IEP team. In addition, a charter school does not have to provide each setting or service that may be included in a student’s IEP; charter schools are entitled to request the school district of the student’s residence to provide such settings and services. While districts are required to treat charter schools as similarly situated district schools for this purpose and educate students in place at their home school to the same extent as district schools, the district may remove a student from the charter school to District 75 or another district setting in certain cases. To the uninformed, this may appear to be discrimination, but it is in fact part of state and federal law. With respect to the issue that all students who apply to charters school cannot gain admission, the Institute notes that Education Law specifically contemplates lotteries for charter schools. The Institute also notes that if the law provided facility funding for charter schools and if there were a higher number of quality charter school applications more students could be admitted to charter schools, but that SUNY is only permitted to authorize 57 new charter school education corporations to open schools in New York City pursuant to the 2010 amendments to the Charter Schools Act. As the school proposes to re-locate from one CSD or part of the NYC borough to another, the Institute, on behalf of the SUNY Trustees, must approve or deny the request pursuant to the school’s charter agreement. Based on the foregoing, the Institute proposes to approve the change in location subject to the school’s compliance with the terms of its charter agreement regarding facilities. SUNY CHARTER SCHOOLS INSTITUTE Public Hearing Summary Charter School: Brooklyn Success Academy Charter School 4 Hearing Date: January 17, 2012 Hearing Location: Building K050, 183 South 3rd Street, Brooklyn (CSD 14) Start Time: 6:05 p.m. End Time: 7:55 p.m. Background: The New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE”) proposed to co-locate Brooklyn Success Academy Charter School 4 (“BSA4”), a new charter school projected to serve grades K-1 in 2012-13, in K050, 183 South 3rd Street, Brooklyn, in Community School District (“CSD”) 14. At scale, BSA4 would serve only grades K-4 at K050. BSA4 would be co-located in K050 with an existing middle school, J.H.S. 050, which serves students in grades 6-8 and admits students in sixth grade through the CSD 14 Middle School Choice application process. Currently, in addition to J.H.S. 50, K050 also houses a high school, Academy for Young Writers. However, the DOE has proposed to re-site Academy for Young Writers to Building K422 in District 19 beginning in the 2012-13 school year. Also, a district Office of Adult and Continuing Education holds evening classes at K050 on Monday and Wednesday evenings, and K050 houses a community-based organization, El Puente, which offers after school programs at J.H.S. 50. According to the NYCDOE’s 2010-11 Enrollment Capacity Utilization Report, K050 has the capacity to serve 1,232 students. Currently, the building serves 822 students, yielding a building utilization rate of 67%. If this proposal is approved, in 2012-2013, the first year of the proposed co-location, BSA4 would serve approximately 170-196 students in grades K-1. BSA4 would then add one grade each year until it serves approximately 525-625 students in grades K-4 in 2015-2016. At that time, K050 is projected to serve approximately 870-1,000 students enrolled in J.H.S. 50 and BSA4, yielding an estimated building utilization rate of 71-81%. Hearing Notes: The hearing was moderated by a NYCDOE representative. Members of the Community Education Council (“CEC”) and School Leadership Team were notified of the hearing and were present. The representative opened the hearing by reading the hearing introduction and summarized the Educational Impact Statement (“EIS”). Three members of the CEC spoke in opposition to the proposed co-location. Each stated that they were not against charter schools per se, but that the community does not need an elementary school. They stated that the students in J.H.S. 50 were receiving a good quality education, and rather than bring in a charter school, J.H.S. 50 should be allowed to expand in the building. They stated that they have been asking the NYCDOE for more middle and high schools in the neighborhood, but the NYCDOE does not listen. One stated that the NYCDOE was being “sneaky” in determining buildings for co-location. The CEC President added that the CEC would no longer be participating in joint public hearings for co-location, and she criticized the salary of the CEO of Success Charter Network, Inc. A representative from the Citywide Council on Special Education stated that she was against all charter schools in public school buildings. J.H.S. 50 is welcoming to special education students, with over 26% of the students having IEPs. She stated that charter schools only have 3% of students with IEPs. She also suggested that the NYCDOE was slow in making capital improvements to public school buildings when required under the Charter Schools Act. She also complained that the EIS did not specifically address how BSA4 would recruit and provide services to students with disabilities. New York City Councilmember Duran stated that he was going to let the NYCDOE know that he will not allow public schools to be taken over. He stated that the area has enough high-performing elementary schools, but that the NYCDOE has a record of failing the community. A representative of the Brooklyn Borough President stated that Williamsburg is a predominately Latino community, but that most of BSA4’s marketing outreach was directed at the primarily white areas on the North side of the CSD. There was no advertising in the immediate area of the school, and none of the advertising was in Spanish. He stated that BSA4 does not have a viable plan to serve the ELL population in Williamsburg. New York Councilwoman Reyna urged the community to reject the proposal, stating that it has polarized the community. She stated that CSD 14 parents want to partner with the NYCDOE, and that schools in the CSD that are underperforming should be given additional resources, as their underperformance can be traced back to neglect from the NYCDOE. She criticized the co-location process, stating that they were largely political decisions to benefit too few people while ignoring the CSD’s need for more high quality middle schools. A representative from Congresswoman Velazquez expressed similar concerns. She stated that they would continue to fight Success Academy schools from coming into the area, and that they were committed to working with the NYCDOE for a community-driven solution to their problems. Quality education should be available for all students, not just those that win a lottery. She concluded by stating that BSA4 should be prohibited from advertising or marketing the school outside the Williamsburg community. Several district public school teachers spoke in opposition to the co-location. Several criticized Success Academy for trying to take over public education. One stated that the entire community is against the school, so it should not be allowed to co-locate or even enter the community. Approximately two dozen community residents and/or parents spoke in opposition to the co-location. Several stated that J.H.S. 50 was open to all students, while BSA4 will cater only to a select few and encourage those that do not fit their model to leave the school. A few commenters noted that Success Academy schools generally have low ELL percentages, adding that they should be expected to enroll more ELLs in Williamsburg. One stated that all Success Academy schools were “rotten” because they were not accountable to the community and received money from private equity funds. Several suggested that Success Academy was merely serving the interests of the real estate community by trying to drive up real estate values in predominately poor neighborhoods. Many also criticized BSA4’s outreach efforts, which they claimed were focused entirely on white students on the north side of the CSD. Several stated that the NYCDOE should focus on improving existing schools rather than bringing in charter schools. Also, several current and former J.H.S. 50 students spoke in opposition to the proposed co-location. One community resident stated that he was in support of the co-location. He stated that Success Academy will make an impact on the neighborhood, and that he should have the right to choose the school that is the best for his children. The Institute received one written comment in opposition of the proposed co-location from a CSD 15 parent. While the majority of the comment was directed at the Cobble Hill co-location, the commenter stated that she opposed Success Academy charter schools in all community school districts. Parents need more control over their children’s schools and the money that is being spent in those schools. With Mayoral Control over NYC schools, a billionaire Mayor and a handful of people he has picked to do his deeds decide how best to educate our children, not the public. Success Academy charter schools are clearly only focused on the pot of gold that comes with each child, and not the minds and souls of NYC children. The commenter added that it is time to recognize that the perceived failure of our schools is not due to our children or teachers, but the failure of our administration to properly support our public schools, our teachers and the real needs in our communities. Success Academy is a large part of this failure, since it undermines the unity of a community, drains the resources of the school it infiltrates and shifts funding away from public schools. The commenter stated that children are being over-tested, and that charter schools do not offer a true alternative to mediocre public schools. Success Academy has no relationship to these communities and has no intention of bringing goodwill into these communities. Instead, they bring their idea of what they think is right for the residents of a neighborhood. This rings of colonialism and corporatism, which is not what most parents wish to have as the model for the society in which they raise their children. The Institute received a written comment from a CSD 14 parent of a student who will be in Kindergarten next year. She applied to BSA4. She wrote that it would mean a lot to her and her daughter if this school can come into the neighborhood. She lived in Williamsburg all her life, 30 years, and attended some of the public schools in Williamsburg. She learned that NYC public schools are not meeting the standards she has or the goals and achievements she wants for her daughter. “I really didn’t want my daughter attending any of these public schools in Williamsburg or outside of Williamsburg. I had my daughter take the NYC talented and gifted exam. By, her getting accepted into this program, I know she will have more of an education in this program than in a regular program in public schools. I have also thought about giving my daughter a homemade education. I was doing research on how I can do this, until Success Academy came into my daughter’s daycare and they blew my mind away. All the doubts I had about enrolling her into a school in Williamsburg had changed. All the schools that stopped by and spoke to parents, Success Academy gave me relief with one of the biggest concerns I had with schools. They are able to move the child up a step if they are excelling in a certain area. At, my daughter’s daycare she is learning on a kindergarten level and by placing her into a NYC public school she will move backwards. I know what my daughter is capable of and needs to continue to move forward, with Success Academy they will move forward with my daughter. Having my daughter attend Success Academy would be great and an honor, knowing that my daughter will receive a good education; also, knowing that a child in Williamsburg will receive a good education. Therefore, it is very important to me that Success Academy can be a part of Williamsburg. Thank you for allowing her team to want to open up a school in Williamsburg and taking the time to read my letter.” Determination: The Charter Schools Institute reviewed the Educational Impact Statement and the Building Utilization Plan prepared by the NYCDOE for the space at issue. The Institute also inspected the space at the time of the hearing and found it to be a typical NYCDOE building that appeared to be in compliance with applicable law. Based on the documentation prepared by the NYCDOE and the information in the charter school’s application, the Institute also finds that the proposed use of the space by the charter school would not violate applicable law. Based on the site review, the physical space allotted to the charter school was safe and adequate. In addition, there appears to be sufficient common space and resource space to be shared by the charter school and the district schools and any community programs in the building. Finally, the Institute notes that the BUP, at the time of the co-location hearing, was in draft form. Pursuant to New York Education Law, leadership teams from the co-located schools are required to agree on a plan to utilize common spaces at K050. As such, the BUP will not be finalized until the co-locations are finalized. With respect to public comments, the Institute thanks the elected officials and members of the community for their candor. While the NYCDOE has proposed to move the Academy for Young Writers, it should be noted that SUNY has no authority over NYCDOE decisions regarding the physical locations of NYCDOE schools or programs. Several commenters stated the need for quality middles schools in the proposed location. The Institute notes that BSA4 intends to grow into a K-8 school but would not serve students in grade 8 until its second charter term if renewed. With respect to comments about private benefit from the operation of the school, the Institute notes that both the school and its community management organization are not-for-profit corporations that have or will have Internal Revenue Service tax-exempt charitable status. No funds received by such entities whether from per pupil or private sources may inure to the private benefit of any person and payroll and other information is publicly available. The Institute also notes that some of the commenters were opposed to Success Academy charter schools whether or not they would be located in district school space. As the school initially proposes to locate in the CSD or part of the NYC borough set forth in its charter application, BSA4’s charter agreement limits the Institute’s role to determining whether the space, and the school’s use of the space, would be in compliance with applicable law and the other facility provisions in the charter agreement. Base on the foregoing, the Institute proposes to approve the facility for use by the charter school subject to compliance with the terms of its charter agreement regarding facilities. SUNY CHARTER SCHOOLS INSTITUTE Public Hearing Summary Charter School: Icahn Charter School 6 Hearing Date: January 9, 2012 Hearing Location: P.S./M.S. 4 Crotona Park West X004 Start Time: 6:10 p.m. End Time: 6:40 p.m. Background: The New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE”) proposes to initially site and co-locate Icahn Charter School 6 (“Icahn 6”), a new charter school set to open in fall 2012 that will serve 108 students in grades K-2 in building X004/X171, located at 1701 Fulton Avenue, Bronx, NY 10457 in Community School District (“CSD”) 9. Icahn 6 would be co-located with P.S./M.S. 4, a zoned school that serves students in grades K-8. Also co-located at the site is Leadership Institute High School. According to the Educational Impact Statement (“EIS”) and Building Usage Plan (“BUP”) developed by the NYCDOE, the building’s current utilization rate is 54%; and the final utilization rate for 2014-15 would be 60-75%. Icahn 6 will begin serving a total of 108 Kindergarten, first, and second grade students in 2012-2013. In the 2013-2014 school year, Icahn 6 will expand to serve third grade and will serve a total of approximately 144 students. In the 2014-2015 school year, Icahn 6 will expand to serve fourth grade and serve a total of approximately 180 students in its third and final year of expansion. At that point and beyond, Icahn 6 will serve approximately 180 students in kindergarten through fourth grades at this location. Building X004 has the capacity to serve 949 students and X171 has the capacity to serve 213 students. In 2010-2011, buildings X004 and X171 collectively served 684 students, yielding a utilization rate across the two buildings of just 59%. Currently, X004 and X171 serve approximately 632 students in P.S./M.S. 4 and Leadership Institute, yielding a utilization rate of 54%. Once Icahn 6 has completed its expansion, there will be a total of 700-870 students served collectively by P.S./M.S. 4, Leadership Institute, and Icahn 6, yielding a total utilization rate of 60%-75% in buildings X004 and X171. Hearing Notes: Approximately 60 people attended the hearing. However, only three signed up to speak. Jeff Litt, the Superintendent of the Icahn network of schools, spoke about the Icahn Schools and the lottery process and introduced the principal of the new school. (Icahn schools utilize a shared service model that does not include a charter management organization.) The Parents Association president of P.S./M.S. 4 spoke. She stated that many parents were not aware of the BUP. She wanted to know where the charter children would be placed in the building. She did not think the 5th floor was a good place, and believed the new students would be sharing the common spaces. She proposed that the P.S. 4 students in the X004 annex be moved to the main building and Icahn moved into the annex, so that the charter school would be altogether. [Note: the NYCDOE staff indicated that this was originally proposed to the P.S./M.S. 4 school principal and it was declined.] A member of the community, who is a parent, felt that the new charter school coming in would take away from district school students who need to raise their academic performance to passing level. Another parent spoke about her concerns for parents who are hoping their children will be admitted to Icahn 6 who won’t get in. She said the charter schools bus in students from all over. She asked whether her children were going to get anything out of it Icahn 6 locating in the building. Jeff Litt described the preference for CSD 9 resident students and why a student might be bused to a charter school. (Siblings living in another CSD, charter schools that have moved from one location to another, and charter schools under enrolled with CSD resident students might all have students taking buses or public transportation to attend school.) Determination: The Charter Schools Institute reviewed the EIS and the BUP prepared by the NYCDOE for the space at issue. The Institute also inspected the space at the time of the hearing and found it to be a typical NYCDOE building that appeared to be in compliance with applicable law. Based on the documentation prepared by the NYCDOE and the information in the charter school’s application and the Institute’s experience with the Icahn school model in district school space, the Institute also finds that the proposed use of the space by the charter school would not violate applicable law. Based on the site review, the physical space allotted to the charter school was safe and adequate. In addition, there appears to be sufficient common space and resource space to be shared by the charter school and the district schools and any community programs in the building. Finally, the Institute notes that the BUP, at the time of the co-location hearing, was in draft form. Pursuant to New York Education Law, leadership teams from the co-located schools are required to agree on a plan to utilize common spaces at X004. As such, the BUP will not be finalized until the co-locations are finalized. With respect to public comments, the Institute thanks members of the community for their candor. SUNY has no authority over NYCDOE decisions regarding the physical locations of NYCDOE schools or programs. With respect to the issue of parents not knowing about the proposed siting, the Education Law requires the NYCDOE to take many steps to publicize such sitings including postings on the NYCDOE website. In addition, SUNY works with the NYCDOE to ensure backpack notices are sent to each school principal in a proposed co-location hearing prior to the SUNY hearing for distribution to students and these are translated as necessary. As the school initially proposes to locate in the CSD or part of the NYC borough set forth in its charter application, the school’s charter agreement limits the Institute’s role to determining whether the space, and the school’s use of the space, would be in compliance with applicable law and the other facility provisions in the charter agreement. Base on the foregoing, the Institute proposes to approve the facility for use by the charter school subject to compliance with the terms of its charter agreement regarding facilities. SUNY CHARTER SCHOOLS INSTITUTE Public Hearing Summary Charter School: Children’s Aid Society Community Charter School Hearing Date: January 12, 2012 Hearing Location: PS 211 Start Time: 6:20 p.m. End Time: 7:45 p.m. Background: The New York City Department of Education (the “NYCDOE”) proposes to temporarily co-locate Children’s Aid Society Community Charter School (“CAS”), a new charter school to open in fall 2012, in building X193 at 1919 Prospect Avenue, Bronx in Community School District (“CSD”) 12 with P.S. 211 and I.S. 318. P.S. 211 is an existing district choice K-8 school with a full day pre-Kindergarten program enrolling 677 students. I.S. 318 is an existing zoned middle school serving 385 students in 6th through 8th grades. X193 has a capacity of 1,592 students and is serving approximately 1,062 students, yielding an estimated utilization rate of 67% of target capacity. In the 2012-2013 school year, during the first year of implementation, CAS will enroll a total of approximately 120 students in Kindergarten and first grade. Collectively, all schools in the building will serve approximately 1,089-1,239 students, yielding an estimated building utilization rate between 68% and 78% of target capacity. In the 2014-2015 school year CAS will serve Kindergarten through third grades and will enroll approximately 222 students. Collectively, all schools in the building will serve approximately 1,166-1,341 students, yielding an estimated building utilization rate between 73% and 84% of target capacity. CAS is expected to move into a permanent private facility for the 2014-15 school year. Hearing Notes: Approximately 65 people attended the hearing. The School Leadership Team (“SLT”) representative for P.S. 211 indicated that the building is underutilized, which means that the space will get used by someone new. She said she would rather have a school run by a community group in the building than a start-up group. She would rather not see a high school in the building so CAS is the better option. She said the Children’s Aid Society has been around for over a 100 years and has helped her students in the past. The SLT representative from I.S. 318 felt that their children will be affected. The school should be preparing their children for the world and she believes the CAS will impact the growth of her school. She said the charter school will affect security. She doesn’t think the facilities or the staff support the charter school. She feels that there is no room for more schools in the building. No other school or district representatives spoke. Many Children’s Aid Society representatives spoke about the history and services offered by the Children’s Aid and its commitment to the community. A parent spoke about her positive experience with the Children’s Aid Society. She was provided with high quality services and commitment. She feels education is most important in being successful and children need to have other services too. Several parents of I.S. 318 students expressed concern about the lack of space and its impact on existing students. Most stated that they feel there is a safety issue with the co-location but did not elaborate on why they felt there is a safety problem. Most parents thought the cafeteria would be too crowded. Two former students of a Children’s Aid Society after school program spoke about the program and how it helped them. The TECH coordinator for I.S. 318 spoke about his concern regarding the loss of space for his program. A former teacher and current resident spoke in support of CAS. She understands concerns about safety and space but indicated that CAS is there to work with them to provide the best for the community. Community schools offer more than just education; they leverage funds in the community. Two P.S. 211 employees spoke. They are happy to have an entity they know move in rather than some unknown entity. They know someone will come in because they are underutilized. The PTA president/Panel for Educational Policy member/parent spoke. He said he believes the community needs to stop opposing opportunities that come along and support all schools. He said they are not divided they are united. Determination: The Charter Schools Institute reviewed the Educational Impact Statement and the Building Utilization Plan (“BUP”) prepared by the NYCDOE for the space at issue. The Institute also inspected the space at the time of the hearing and found it to be a typical NYCDOE building that appeared to be in compliance with applicable law. Based on the documentation prepared by the NYCDOE and the information in the charter school’s application, the Institute also finds that the proposed use of the space by the charter school would not violate applicable law. Based on the site review, the physical space allotted to the charter school was safe and adequate. In addition, there appears to be sufficient common space and resource space to be shared by the charter school and the district schools and any community programs in the building. Finally, the Institute notes that the BUP, at the time of the co-location hearing, was in draft form. Pursuant to New York Education Law, leadership teams from the co-located schools are required to agree on a plan to utilize common spaces at X193. The concerns raised about the cafeteria use would be worked out by the SLT pursuant to the BUP before the BUP is finalized. As such, the BUP will not be finalized until the co-locations are finalized. With respect to public comments, the Institute thanks the members of the community for their candor. SUNY has no authority over NYCDOE decisions regarding the physical locations of NYCDOE schools or programs. The Institute notes that this co-location intends to serve as incubator space with CAS leaving NYCDOE space before the end of its charter term at which time the NYCDOE would be free to put the space to other use. As the school initially proposes to locate in the CSD or part of the NYC borough set forth in its charter application, the school’s charter agreement limits the Institute’s role to determining whether the space, and the school’s use of the space, would be in compliance with applicable law and the other facility provisions in the charter agreement. Base on the foregoing, the Institute proposes to approve the facility for use by the charter school subject to compliance with the terms of its charter agreement regarding facilities. SUNY CHARTER SCHOOLS INSTITUTE Public Hearing Summary Charter School: Explore Exceed Charter School Hearing Date: February 15, 2012 Hearing Location: K022 Start Time: 6:10 p.m. End Time: 7:15 p.m. Background: The New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE”) proposes to open and site a new zoned elementary school, P.S. 705, and to co-locate a new public charter school, Explore Exceed Charter School (“Explore Exceed”) in school building K022, located at 443 St. Marks Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11238, in Community School District (“CSD”) 17. P.S. 705 would serve Kindergarten through fifth grade and would offer a full-day pre-Kindergarten (“pre-K”) program. Explore Exceed would serve the same grades, but may not offer pre-K per state law. Currently, K022 houses P.S. 22, a zoned elementary school that serves Kindergarten through fifth grade and offers a full-day pre-K program. As the New York City Panel for Educational Policy passed the P.S. 22 phase-out and eventual closure because of its low academic performance, Explore Exceed’s co-location is considered a charter “turnaround” siting. K022 has the capacity to serve 998 students. During the 2012-13 year P.S. 22 and P.S. 705 would serve a total of 351-411 students in Kindergarten through fifth grades and Explore Exceed would serve 223 students in Kindergarten through third grade for a total of 574-634 students for a utilization rate of 55-66%. In 2014-2015 and future years, P.S. 705 would serve 296-356 students in Kindergarten through fifth grade and Explore Exceed would enroll 336 students for total 632-692 and a utilization of 60-73%. Hearing Notes: About 50 people attended the hearing. The School Leadership Team (“SLT”) representative from P.S. 22 spoke of her disappointment about the closing of the school. She feels it is not a bad school; it is underutilized because the NYCDOE has encouraged families to leave the school. She wanted to know if the charter school would provide services to special education (“SPED”) students, about transition to the new school, and about the pre-K program. She also wanted to know if there will be meetings with parents about transition. (NYCDOE staff addressed her questions.) The Community Education Council (“CEC”) 17 representative believes that P.S. 22 is a great school. The CEC does not support the phase out of the school and want a restructuring of the school. Explore Exceed’s proposed principal, Curtis Palmore, spoke. He said that he is product of NYC public schools and a former principal. He said all classes in Explore Exceed will have two certified teachers. The school day would be longer and the school year would be longer with 1.5 hours of math and literacy each day. He said the charter school’s admissions policy would provide a “preference” for students in the CSD zoned to attend a failing school allowing students currently attending P.S. 22 to have [first] preference. [The Institute notes that technically the school would provide an at-risk designation for students attending failing schools and then provide the statutory preference for students residing in CSD 17. Such a combination yields the following admissions hierarchy: - CSD 17 resident students attending a failing school; - non-CSD 17 students attending a failing school; - CSD 17 resident students; and - Non-CSD 17 resident students.] The CEC 17 representative asked how the charter school is better than P.S. 22. The proposed Explore Exceed principal responded that he was not going to compare the school and outlined what his school would offer. A SLT member asked about SPED students in the charter school. Explore Exceed’s proposed principal responded that they serve many special education students at Explore schools. Two students from Explore schools spoke about their positive experiences at the schools. Ethan Mitnick, principal at Explore Excel Charter School (authorized by the SUNY Trustees) spoke about the goals of the school, his school in Carnarsie and how the lottery worked there. A teacher at one of the Explore schools spoke about the data collected by Explore, its schools and the growth at its schools. He said he is proud of the network. A parent of an Excel student spoke. She said she has been very pleased with her experience. She said the communication is excellent and her child’s teacher is very responsive. She said the principal greets all the students every day. A director at Excel spoke of the dedicated staff; how they love and care about their children and know them well. A parent representative, who serves on the board of trustees of Explore Empower Charter School (authorized by the NYC Schools Chancellor), spoke. She said that parents have a voice at the school. She added that every adult in the building is responsible for the success of the children in the building and you can trust your children there. A parent of a P.S. 22 first grader spoke. She favors the reconstruction of P.S. 22. She wanted to know what the NYCDOE has done for the kids at P.S. 22. She also wanted to know if there is a seat for every child in P.S. 22 and if there were any children already enrolled in the charter school. (The lottery will be held at some point after close of business on April 1, 2012.) A P.S. 22 parent asked about what accountability there is for the students enrolled in P.S. 22. She feels that children may feel bad about attending a “bad” school. The CSD 17 superintendent said that the NYCDOE is working on getting quality schools for CSD 17. She said she knows that people care about the students of CSD 17. NYCDOE and Explore staffs answered the questions raised during and after the comment period. Determination: The Charter Schools Institute reviewed the Educational Impact Statement (“EIS”) and the Building Utilization Plan (“BUP”) prepared by the NYCDOE for the space at issue. The Institute also inspected the space at the time of the hearing and found it to be a typical NYCDOE building that appeared to be in compliance with applicable law. Based on the documentation prepared by the NYCDOE and the information in the charter school’s application, the Institute also finds that the proposed use of the space by the charter school would not violate applicable law. Based on the site review, the physical space allotted to the charter school was safe and adequate. In addition, there appears to be sufficient common space and resource space to be shared by the charter school and the district schools and any community programs in the building. Finally, the Institute notes that the BUP, at the time of the co-location hearing, was in draft form. Pursuant to New York Education Law, leadership teams from the co-located schools are required to agree on a plan to utilize common spaces at K022. As such, the BUP will not be finalized until the co-locations are finalized. With respect to public comments, the Institute thanks members of the community for their candor. While the NYCDOE has proposed to phase out P.S. 22, it should be noted that SUNY has no authority over NYCDOE decisions regarding the physical locations of NYCDOE schools or programs. With respect to the issue of restructuring P.S. 22, NYCDOE is doing so by replacing the school with a turnaround charter school and a replacement district school both designed to serve the existing students of P.S. 22. As the school initially proposes to locate in the CSD or part of the NYC borough set forth in its charter application, the school’s charter agreement limits the Institute’s role to determining whether the space, and the school’s use of the space, would be in compliance with applicable law and the other facility provisions in the charter agreement. Base on the foregoing, the Institute proposes to approve the facility for use by the charter school subject to compliance with the terms of its charter agreement regarding facilities.