SUNY Charter Schools Institute Public Hearing Summary Charter School: Beginning with Children Charter School II Hearing Date: April 2, 2012 Hearing Location: 215 Heyward Street, Brooklyn, NY 11206 Start Time: 6:00 p.m. End Time: 6:19 p.m. Background: The New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) is proposing to site Beginning with Children Charter School II (BwCCS 2) in Building K071 (K071), located at 215 Heyward Street, Brooklyn, NY 11206 in New York City Community School District (CSD) 14 beginning in 2012-13. BwCCS 2 is a new public charter school that will serve students in Kindergarten through fifth grade. BwCCS 2 would be co-located in K071 with existing secondary school Juan Morel Campos Secondary School, which serves students in grades six through twelve and P141K@I071K, an existing site of the District 75 school, 75K141, serving students in sixth through twelfth grade in 12:1:4, 8:1 (inclusion), and 9:1 (inclusion) settings. K071 also houses one community based organization (CBO), College Bound, which offers college counseling to the Juan Morel Campos Secondary School community. According to the NYCDOE’s 2010-11 Enrollment Capacity Utilization Report (Blue Book), K071 has the capacity to serve 1,434 students. Currently, the building serves 907 students, yielding a building utilization rate of approximately 63%. If this proposal is approved, in 2012-13, BwCCS 2 will serve approximately 100 students in Kindergarten and first grade. BwCCS 2 will then add one grade each year until it serves approximately 270-330 students in Kindergarten through fifth grades in 2016-17. At that time, K071 is projected to serve approximately 1,126-1,258 students enrolled in Juan Morel Campos Secondary School, P141K@I071K, and BwCCS 2, yielding an estimated building utilization rate of 79%-88%. Hearing Notes: There were approximately 9 people in attendance, not including translators, the transcriber and those on the dais. One person registered to speak. The hearing began at 6 p.m. • A community resident, parent and member of Southside Community Schools Coalition (which is suing SUNY) stated that when BwCCS 2 started it looked like a good choice because it was supposed to have its own building. He stated that now they are acting like Eva Moskowitz and flooding the neighborhood with fliers and moving into public space. He stated that now he is worried that they are predators and will need to watch this operation closely. The hearing closed at 6:19. Determination: The Charter Schools Institute (Institute) reviewed the Educational Impact Statements and the Building Utilization Plan (BUP) prepared by the NYCDOE for the facility at issue. The Institute also inspected the space at the time of each 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 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 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 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 member of the community for his candor. The Institute notes that 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 location 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 locate in the CSD or part of the NYC borough set forth in its charter application, and the Institute, on behalf of the SUNY Trustees, held the hearing required by the Charter Schools Act, SUNY need take no further action to allow the school to use the district school space. The Institute will monitor the school’s compliance with the terms of its charter agreement regarding facilities. SUNY Charter Schools Institute Public Hearing Summary Charter School: Manhattan Charter School II Hearing Date: March 8, 2012 Hearing Location: Building M056, 220 Henry Street, Manhattan Start Time: 6:40 p.m. End Time: 9:15 p.m. Background: Manhattan Charter School II (MCS II) is proposed to open in Building M056 (M056), located at 220 Henry Street, New York, NY 10002, in New York City Community School District (CSD) 1 beginning in 2012-13. MCS II would be co-located in M056 with Henry Street School for International Studies (“Henry Street”), an existing district secondary school that serves students in grades 6-12; University Neighborhood Middle School (“UNMS”), an existing district middle school that serves students in grades 6-8; and Collaborative Academy of Science, Technology, & Language-Arts Education (“CASTLE”), an existing district middle school that serves students in grades 6-8. MCS II would begin serving 96 students in Kindergarten through first grade in the M056 building in the 2012-13 school. MCS II would expand to serve a new grade of students each year until 2016-17, when it would reach full scale and serve approximately 274 students in Kindergarten through fifth grade. M056 has a target capacity of 1,445 students. Currently, the building serves approximately 775 students, yielding a utilization rate of just 54%, which means the building is under-utilized. Once MCS II has completed its expansion, there will be approximately 940-1,130 students served in the building by Henry Street, UNMS, CASTLE, and MCS II, yielding a building utilization rate of 65-78%. Hearing Notes: The hearing was moderated by the CSD superintendent and began late, at 6:40 p.m. • A representative from Community Education Council 1 (CEC 1) gave a presentation about the history of the district and charter schools. She said that the CEC supported Ross Global (a charter school authorized by the NYCDOE and now closed), but not Girls Preparatory Charter School of New York (authorized by SUNY) because it felt it would infringe on an autism program. They did support Girls Prep when it moved to Ross Global’s old space. She said the CSD has a history of sharing schools, however, the CEC opposes this proposal. She said that she believes that there is not enough demand in the district for the school and wants to know if there are any students outside of the CSD in the school. She also wanted to know if SUNY can certify that there is a real waitlist? She shared a document which outlined the CECs concerns. • The school leadership team (SLT) representative from CASTLE stated that the process used to determine the utilization rate is flawed. She said that small schools have limited space to execute their programs but are utilizing the space well with a diverse population. She said that there are 245 students in her school and the school takes their needs seriously. She stated that half and quarter size rooms are used frequently. She said that all students are receiving targeted instruction and that the kids will be in larger sized classrooms. She said that the school needs 21 classrooms to have school wide assessment and the Building Utilization Plan (BUP) will give them 15. She said that CSD 1 has 20 elementary schools and they need middle school classrooms. • Another SLT representative stated that they use half of a hallway on the 3rd floor. She said that their kids come back to visit and some are currently in college. She said that the school’s impact is great. She said that the plan is not in best interest of the students of the district, community at large and the school because the current program cannot be sustained with the proposed plan; their philosophy includes 60 minutes of classes instead of the normal 40. She stated that each general education classroom has two periods of humanities and one of math and science in addition to language and arts. Self-contained classroom students travel to their classrooms just like the general education students. She said that there will not be enough instructional periods in a given week to sustain their program since they need a minimum of 11 classrooms but portfolio planning is giving them 8 classrooms. She stated that even with keeping kids in ½ size classrooms there will not be enough instructional periods because they would need 9. She stated that the plan does not consider space needed for crisis intervention as 25% of students need counseling, 44% are over aged, 16% are in temporary housing and 40% of non-classified students get other services. She stated that the plan does not account for space needed for ELLs and other at- risk students. She stated that the plan allows MCS II to have 300 students but UNMS will be capped at 135 students when UNMS serves every student. She said that MCS I has no ELL students and 14% students with disabilities and that MCS II is expected to have similar demographics. She said that MCS I statistics were used to describe MCS II demographics but the BUP demonstrates otherwise. She believes that the school will not service those students who need small classrooms. She said that MCS II will not offer a small classroom setting. She said that the NYCDOE says that charter schools are open to all students in the city including those with special needs. She said that the SLT opposes the plan because they need their half of the hallway. • A SLT representative from Henry Street stated that the NYCDOE uses a bottom-line formula for building utilization. She said the district has 20 existing elementary schools for parent choice. This proposal will stretch the limit of the shared spaces. She said that her school would lose 12 classrooms. She also stated that sharing of space with high school and elementary school students will not be good. She stated that NYCDOE thinks that all classrooms should be used at all times. She stated that their school needs time between classes to get ready and there will not be adequate board and wall space in the classrooms for work to be posted with all the different subjects utilizing the classroom space that they share. She said that they need the space for private discussions between classes. She said that the gymnasium sharing took years to work out between the three schools and now they would have to add another. She said that high school students need physical education time to graduate. She asked if they will have to hike through the streets to basketball city? • A representative from Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez’s office said that the congresswoman is concerned about the co-location of MCS II in this building. She said she wants the NYCDOE to reconsider the proposal. She asked why the NYCDOE would cut back space in the district schools for the charter school? She said that the proposed co-location will impact the lives of the students. She said that the school needs is a library not a co-location, and that every child deserves an education and the students of New York City are not an exception. • Mr. Paul Goldstein from NYS Assembly Speaker Silver’s office said that the Speaker has heard from people in the district and has a letter to share which asks the Chancellor to pull the proposal (attached). He said that the speaker wants to support the existing schools and the mixing of students is not good. • A representative for New York City Council Member Margaret Chin said that Ms. Chin is disappointed that MCSII chose to pursue public school space. She said that the MCS II people met with Ms. Chin to help look for private school space but none of the spaces they looked at worked out. She said that there are concerns that have not been addressed such as: what will happen to the size of the schools in the building, and can they all fit when the charter school is at full enrollment? She said that the principals have worked to keep the schools separate and that there are elementary schools with empty seats in the district. • A former student stated that her teachers pushed hard and cared for the students. She said that the government should not look at them as numbers and their needs should be met. She said the space will be less safe. • A grandmother of a student currently in the building said she feels the NYCDOE treats them as a piece of meat shoved aside in a freezer. She said that there is not enough space in the school and the charter school should not force themselves where they are not wanted. • The principal of the Henry Street School asked all of the people at the dais to stand and group tightly together, urging them to get closer and closer. Then she said this is the crowding her school will experience. • A teacher from Henry Street stated that when her classroom is not being used for instruction, it is still being used for other things and she does not want that taken away. • A related service provider from two of the schools state that in addition to Special Education Teacher Support Services (SETTS) and Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT) there are occupational, physical and speech therapists serving the students in the building. She stated that the special education population has increased to 30% plus and she doesn’t expect that to change. She stated that they need small rooms and quiet areas. She stated that she already shares classrooms with other service providers. • A teacher at UNMS spoke. He said he is not opposed to the innovation that charter schools promise. Taking away their classrooms, however, will not let them be innovative. • A teacher from Henry Street spoke about the gym space. He has students sharing with 30 UNMS students. He wants more sports programs for his kids for after school. His school cannot grow with shared space. • A guidance counselor stated that they have a high needs population and all of their students are at-risk. She stated that they have mandated services and crisis intervention that will be difficult to do with less space. • A Henry Street teacher stated that this school is different from other schools she has worked where every classroom was used every part of the day. She said the students in those schools did not like their school. • A former and current student said that English language learners and students with disabilities have a right to learn and cannot do that if there is less space. • A teacher state that there are 420 seats in the Henry Street currently and lower Manhattan has lost two high schools in the last few years. He stated that the replacement schools do not serve students with disabilities. He also stated that current practices discriminate against the Chinese in that the NYCDOE notification in Chinese had the wrong address. He stated that the hearing should stop and start again on another day. • A student of UNMS stated that if there are not enough classrooms, students would not be able to concentrate and that it would not be good for the teachers to have to move equipment from class to class. • A student of UNMS shared some posters that she made promoting her school. She said that her teachers are her friends and that 7th grade is fun this year and she does not want that taken away. • A teacher from UNMS stated that there are inequities in the co-location for her students. She said that the NYCDOE’s documents show 30% of students in her school have disabilities vs. 15% city-wide. She said that the BUP says there will be two self-contained classrooms for her school, but none for MCSII. She asked why the footprint is based on the number of students enrolled and not their needs. • A teacher at Henry Street said that there is a psychology to space. The charter schools have lots of powerful people behind them. He said that people should think about the elementary school students; he said the move will make their kids feel inferior. • A student stated that the children should be consulted because they are the ones in the classrooms and hallways. • A special education coordinator form UNMS said he is not the enemy. He said his school has a proven record of success with sound leaderships, staff and families. He said that they use data driven instruction and offer a range of support. He said that they have new instruction techniques and got an A on their report card. He said that 80% of their students qualify for the Federal Free and Reduced Price Lunch Program and that the school has a long waiting list. He said that all students come from the district unless they have siblings in the school or moved out of district. • A student from UNMS asked where the students with disabilities and English language learners are going to go. He stated that the charter school will start with K-1 but every year they will take more space from his school. He said that they only have half of a hallway. He asked why would a parent want to send their child to a school that is not safe? • A SLT representative said the NYCDOE did not bring the parties involved to the table to discuss the proposal. She the NYC Schools Chancellor did not go into classrooms when he visited the school; neither did staff from the NYCDOE Office of Portfolio Planning. She said that the parties involved should get together and bring their proposals to Portfolio Planning to amend the proposal. She said that they want the Office of Portfolio Planning to follow their procedures and to take into account the input of educators. • The principal of UNMS said that she is opposed to losing classrooms at the expense of English language learners. • A teacher from CASTLE said it is hard to fulfill all the needs of the students. She fills two roles currently and will have to have another person share her classroom with the co-location. She said that testing accommodations will be difficult and the space is valuable. • A UFT district representative said that they are in “an area of immigrants” and CSD 1 is lucky that they do not have overcrowded schools. She said it is all about numbers. She stated that they are a district of choice, the only one in the city. She said that the first year enrollment won’t be so bad but it will get worse and have a negative impact on students with special needs. She said she feels strongly that any other school will interfere with the programs currently at the school. • A teacher stated that the state is judging everyone as a number and their legal rights are being taken away. • An English language arts teacher stated that her classroom is used almost every day almost all day. She stated that she has to give up her space daily already. She was also concerned that older children could intimidate the younger ones. • A teacher and member of the community stated that he has shared classrooms in the past. He stated that conversations have to happen in hallways and it is not appropriate. He said that all the professional development in the world can’t deal with that. • A teacher said he used to work at large schools and now the schools are small. He said thirty years ago he had better services and now things are going backward. • A special education teacher stated that 30% of his students cannot read. He said that some of his non-achieving students came from UNMS. • Principal of CASTLE said the arguments against the co-location are profound. She said the three schools that work hard every day and serve students of all needs, and that success is possible as long as the focus is on children. She stated that class size will increase and jeopardize the students’ rights to an education. She said that students will no longer be able to meet in groups. She said the policy of NYCDOE is wrong and the damage that will occur is not reflected in the proposal. • A UNMS parent said her child’s experience at the school was a positive one. She said that she has sent her kids to a cross section of public schools across the district. • A UNMS student and her mother said there is not an issue with people of different sizes walking together. They stated that the school is underutilized and asked why not give the other school a chance. • A male speaker who identified himself as a charter school leader said that UNMCS was focusing on the wrong thing. He said his charter school never tried to co-locate. • A parent of a student at UNMS said it sounds like marginalization and she demands that UNMS stays the same. • A former student stated that it is hard to concentrate in a large class. She said that she has 34 students in one of her classes. She said that she is concerned about her sibling’s safety and she would never send a kid to a school with high school students. • Many speakers left before their turn to speak. • The public comment period ended at 9:06 p.m. Questions were then addressed. Apart from the comments and written statements provided at the hearing, a petition was established on the website www.change.org. Anytime someone clicks to ‘sign’ the petition, an automatic email is generated to whomever the organizers’ pre-selected as recipients. Anyone with Internet access can support the petition. While the Institute received 511 emails, the listed state/country of the senders included Vermont, Massachusetts, Alabama, the United Kingdom, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Oregon, multiple signers from California and Florida, Germany, Canada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, New Jersey, etc. There were also senders from Albany, Syracuse, and other upstate cities. There were also a number of duplicate names. The Institute estimates that 1/3 of the emails were from residents of one of the five boroughs of New York City. The petition reads as follows: "I just signed the following petition addressed to: New York City elected officials and members of the Panel for Education Policy. Protect the educational rights of students in the Lower East Side. The education of the students who currently attend public school in the Corlears 056 Campus is in jeopardy. The Department of Education has proposed to co-locate an elementary charter school in a building that already houses three middle schools, a high school and a citywide space science center. We are not opposed to charter schools or this charter in particular. We are opposed to co-locations that will result in the loss of resources for high need students like the ones who currently attend school in the building. The elected officials in the community agree and have drafted a letter urging the DOE to reconsider this plan. By signing this petition you are showing these officials that you support their opposition to this plan and you expect them to follow through on their words. You will also tell the Panel for Education Policy that you expect them to vote down this proposed co-location on March 21, 2012." Determination: The Charter Schools Institute (Institute) reviewed the Educational Impact Statement and the BUP prepared by the NYCDOE for the facility 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 spaces and resource spaces to be shared by the charter school and the district schools and any community programs in the buildings. According to the NYCDOE, at full charter school enrollment, the building will be only 65-78% of full occupancy. Even allowing for variance in the numbers, this appears to be a case where district schools have spread beyond their allocated space, and all of the schools should not be overcrowded. 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 each building. As such, the BUP will not be finalized until the co-location is 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 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, nor can it direct the manner in which the NYCDOE Office of Portfolio Planning conducts its activities. As the school proposes locate in the CSD or part of the NYC borough set forth in its charter application, and the Institute, on behalf of the SUNY Trustees, held the hearing required by the Charter Schools Act, the charter school may occupy the space subject to compliance with the terms of its charter agreement regarding facilities. SUNY Charter Schools Institute Public Hearing Summary Charter School: ROADS Charter School II Hearing Date: March 12, 2012 Hearing Location: Building X401, 1010 Reverend James A. Polite Ave., Bronx, NY 10459 (CSD 12) Start Time: 6:25 p.m. End Time: 9:20 p.m. Background: The New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE”) proposed to co-locate ROADS Charter School II (“ROADS II”), a new charter school projected to serve approximately 150 students in grade 9 in 2012-13, in Building X401 (“X401”), 1010 Reverend James A. Polite Avenue, Bronx, NY 10459, in Community School District (“CSD”) 12. At full scale, ROADS II would serve approximately 250 students in grades 9-12 at X401. If approved, ROADS II would be co-located in X401 with: the Arturo A. Schomburg Satellite Academy Bronx, an existing transfer high school; the Bronx Regional High School, an existing transfer high school; a full-time General Education Development Plus program; the Living for the Young Family through Education program; and two community-based organizations, Montefiore Medical Center, and a Referral Center for High School Alternatives. As stated above, ROADS II is scheduled to open in the fall of 2012 with an entering class of approximately 150 students. Each subsequent year, through 2014-15, ROADS II will add approximately 50 students, reaching full scale in enrollment in 2014-15, when it will serve approximately 250 students. According to the NYCDOE, X401 has a target capacity of 1,622 students. During the current 2011-2012 school year, X401 is serving 1,080 students yielding a target utilization rate of 67%. If the ROADS II co-location is approved, during the first year of implementation in the 2012-13 school year, X401 is projected to serve approximately 1,130-1,335 students, yielding a projected target utilization rate between 70-82%. When ROADS II reaches full scale, in the 2014-15 school year, X401 is projected to serve approximately 1,220 - 1,445 students, yielding a projected target utilization rate between 75-89%. Hearing Notes: Elected and community officials were given the opportunity to speak first. The Institute notes that representatives from the Community Education Council (“CEC”) 12 were present at the hearing but elected not to speak. The final CEC 12 member left the hearing at approximately 8:30 p.m. • New York City Councilwoman Maria del Carmen Arroyo said that the NYCDOE’s decision-making process is an example of how not to do business. She said that while ROADS II may have a good program and can provide an excellent opportunity for some students, the NYCDOE should instead focus on growing the capacity of the existing schools. The Councilwoman criticized the NYCDOE’s outreach efforts to inform the community of the proposed co-location, stating that they need to engage the community as a partner. While she is a supporter of charter schools, she cannot celebrate a co-location decision that may impact the existing schools, which are currently running good programs. • Members of the School Leadership Team (“SLT”) suggested that there should only be one school per floor, a plan that would allow the existing schools to grow slightly but not allow the proposed co-location. Based on their analysis, the one-school-per-floor arrangement would best suit the unique building design. They stated that the NYCDOE has followed the letter of the law in informing the public of their plans, but they have not followed the spirit of the law, as the public is not sufficiently aware of the proposal. With the introduction of another school, there will be increased crowding and conflicts among the student body, and all schools will see a reduced access to common areas for several hours each day. The NYCDOE should look for a more appropriate space for ROADS II, while allowing the existing schools to expand, even though that has been requested in the past and rejected by the NYCDOE because they are purposefully limiting the enrollment in transfer high schools. • New York State Assemblyman Eric Stevenson spoke at the hearing. The Assemblyman stated that the NYCDOE was pitting parent against parent and student against student. Rather than introducing new schools, the NYCDOE should be working to improve the existing schools. Currently, he said that NYCDOE schools are like prisons. • Several teachers from the existing traditional public schools spoke at the hearing, and they offered a wide variety of opinions about the academic program proposed by ROADS II. Some stated that it was a new, innovative and exciting program, but that it simply would not fit into the proposed space. Other teachers stated that it was identical to the programs that already existed at the transfer high school in the building, and as such was not needed in the facility or in the community. Others yet derided the proposed academic program from ROADS II, suggesting that it was an academic model that had been tried in the past and proven to be wholly ineffective. One teacher stated that the community had more over-aged and under-credited youth than could be handled by the existing schools, and that ROADS II would serve as a good high-quality option with a promising academic model. Another teacher stated that he was not opposed to co-location, as the existing traditional public schools are already co-located, but suggested that the NYCDOE’s system for determining the utilization rate of the facility was not accurate as applied to this particular facility. Another teacher commended the ROADS II team for trying to serve a very difficult and often neglected segment of the population, but suggested putting 250 of the hardest-to-serve students in a confined space was a recipe for disaster which would imperil the safety of the existing students. A teacher also stated that ROADS II deserved to have space to fulfill its mission, and that other building options would be more appropriate than the current proposal. One teacher suggested that SUNY was collaborating with the NYCDOE to deny students access to education. • Several traditional public school parents and community residents praised the academic programs of the existing schools, stating that their unique approach was an asset to the community that had prevented many troubled youth from dropping out of high school. They chastised the NYCDOE for proposing to site ROADS II with other similar transfer high schools, stating that such a proposal would never be considered with one of the high-performing traditional high schools in the area. One community resident stated that the only way ROADS II can make a profit is to hire cheaper staff and provide fewer benefits, which is not in the interest of the community. [The Charter Schools Institute (“Institute”) notes that ROADS II is a not-for-profit education corporation that does not have for-profit management.] Many parents and community residents stated that they did not want to have their children in schools with metal detectors. One parent stated that the existing schools are already overcrowded; they could accept more students, but not a new charter school. • A representative from ROADS II stated that she appreciated and understood the concerns being expressed at the public hearing. She stated that she had been working hard to engage community organizations, and she was looking forward to working with and partnering with the existing schools to provide a high-quality education to all students in the facility. She also stated that they had received a large number of letters of support from community based organizations. The proposed school leader from ROADS II stated that he was looking forward to working with the existing schools. He said that he has seen too many dropouts on the streets, and it is clear that the current system simply isn’t reaching everyone that it should. He stated that he is committed to making the school work for kids. • Several students spoke at the hearing, suggesting that the existing schools would be forced out of the facility by ROADS II. One student said that she would likely drop out of school again if the co-location was approved. Another stated that he should not have to go to school with parolees. The Institute notes that SLT provided the Institute with a copy of their presentation materials and their own hearing summary. Determination: The Institute reviewed the Educational Impact Statement and the Building Utilization Plan (“BUP”) prepared by the NYCDOE for the space at issue. Based on a site review, the Institute 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 X401. As such, the BUP will not be finalized until the co-location is 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 generally maintain the enrollment of physical footprint of the traditional public schools located in the building, it should be noted that SUNY has no authority over NYCDOE decisions regarding the contraction or expansion of NYCDOE schools or programs, nor how such programs use the space allotted to them. SUNY has no authority over NYCDOE decisions regarding the physical locations of NYCDOE schools or programs. It should be further noted that ROADS II is a not-for-profit education corporation, and that the NYCDOE has no current plans to install metal detectors or other additional safety equipment in the facility. As the school initially proposes to locate in the CSD or part of the NYC borough set forth in its charter application, the Institute only needs to determine whether the space, and the school’s use of the space, would be in compliance with applicable law. Therefore, as the Institute has held the hearing required by the Education Law, 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.