Public Hearing Summary

Charter School:
Achievement First Central Brooklyn Charter School
Hearing Date:
November 28, 2012
Hearing Location:
Building K111, 35 Starr St., Brooklyn, NY 11221 (CSD 32)
Start Time:
6:20 p.m.
End Time:
7:00 p.m.

Background:  
The New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE”) proposes to open and site a new public charter school, Achievement First Central Brooklyn Charter School (“AF Central Brooklyn”) in building K111 (“K111”), located at 35 Starr Street, Brooklyn, NY 11221, in Community School District (“CSD”) 32, beginning in the 2013-2014 school year. AF Central Brooklyn is operated by the charter school education corporation Achievement First Brownsville Charter School and would be co-located in K111 with existing schools I.S. 347 School of Humanities (“I.S. 347”), an existing district zoned and academic screened middle school that serves 6th through 8th grade students, and I.S. 349 Math, Science and Tech. (“I.S. 349”), an existing zoned and academic screened middle school that serves 6th through 8th grade students. Building K111 also provides space to the Beacon program, a community-based organization. 
According to the 2011-2012 NYCDOE Enrollment Capacity Utilization Report, K111 has the capacity to serve a total of 1,428 students. In 2012-2013, I.S. 347 is projected to serve 505 students, and I.S. 349 is projected to serve 456 students. This yields a projected utilization rate of approximately 67%. If this proposal is approved, in 2016-2017, once AF Central Brooklyn Brooklyn’s 5th through 8th grades have fully phased in, AF Central Brooklyn is projected to serve 303-386 students, I.S. 347 is projected to serve 510-540 students, and I.S. 349 is projected to serve 405-435 students, yielding a projected building utilization rate of approximately 85-95%.
Hearing Notes:
NYCDOE representative Sonia Park started the hearing at 6:20 p.m. Community Education Council (“CEC”) 32 members and school leaders were given an opportunity to speak first with public comments beginning at 6:40 p.m. Three CEC 32 members were present, along with the CEC President, Lillia Druck, and the principals from I.S. 347 and I.S. 349, John Barbella and Roy Parrish, respectively. Fourteen community members spoke at the hearing.
* I.S. 347 Principal John Barbella stated that his responsibility is to make sure I.S. 347 is represented equally, that he expects that all decisions in all future action plans to include his input and that safety must be paramount in shared access areas and passing periods. Regardless of the Panel on Educational Policy (PEP) decision, I.S. 347 will continue to offer a safe school environment and educate students and serve the community in CSD 32.
* Elaine Cruz, a CEC panel member and parent of students in I.S. 349, urged that the focus should be on making better the schools that are currently in the building not expanding. She stated registration is going down because the parents are moving to charter schools, but the parents don’t know the demands that are placed on them at the charter schools – insofar as parents at charters are required to be involved, and the public district schools can’t do that. If a parent is not participating or involved or is a behavior problem, they are sent back. Additionally, she stated charter schools don’t provide special education or English language learner services, and demanded that if the public district schools have to take every child, the charters should be required to as well. 
* The first community speaker questioned whether the decision to use K111 for co-location meant that I.S. 347 or I.S.349 were being phased out, restructured or closed. The speaker, who was a community member and parent, stated a safety concern for egress, as there is only one stairwell that accesses all of the building. Principals Barbella and Parrish stated that they met with NYCDOE staff to discuss the proposal, and stated that, while there are legitimate concerns for the safety of all students, they are willing to incorporate more students if there is clarity on how the co-location will happen.
* Five parents of Achievement First students spoke on the positive experiences their children have at co-located schools (three have children at AF-East New York (authorized by the NYCDOE), one at AF-Bushwick (authorized by SUNY), and one did not identify the campus). All parents reiterated that their children come home happy, and are making significant gains. One parent mentioned the Individualized Education Program services her son receives, that he was classified as “mentally retarded” in his district school and now gets 3s and 4s on state tests. Other experiences in co-location make them eager to partner with the existing schools, to see which programs are working well to bring everyone up.
* A community member stated that the meeting was important, but the largest issue is that the K111 does not have the students, and she asked if there was any option to not bring in an additional school and instead bolster the enrollment of the current schools. The speaker asked that the PEP focus on working to increase the capacity here instead of just trying to push another school into the hole.
* The principal of neighboring P.S. 145 spoke of looking for other opportunities to advance our community, instead of competing against each other for students. She stated that it would be best to unify in order to amplify the resources that are currently in place, and to build the resources needed.
* Three teachers from I.S. 347 and I.S. 349 spoke, and asked that the money that is being deleted from budgets because enrollment is down should be returned to the school to work to increase the work they do.  
* A graduate of I.S. 349 stated that she received a good education and support in the school. She is now an education major in college, and while she is not opposed to charter schools, she stated that a portion of their public funds should go to being housed in separate buildings to ease over-crowding.
Two people who signed up to speak left before their turns.  
Preliminary Determination:
The SUNY Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”) reviewed the Educational Impact Statement 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 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, the district school and the 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 the building. As such, the BUP will not be finalized until the co-location is finalized.
With respect to public comments, the Institute thanks 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, grants or programs. SUNY also has no positive authority to place schools into NYCDOE space.

As the charter school initially proposed to locate in the CSD or NYC borough set forth in its charter application, the Institute only needs to determine whether the space, and the charter school’s use of the space, would be in compliance with the school’s charter and applicable law. In such cases, SUNY does not separately approve the school’s location. Therefore, as the Institute has held the hearing on behalf of the SUNY Trustees required by the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended), it proposes to approve the facility for use by the charter school subject to compliance with the terms of its charter agreement regarding facilities.

Page 1 of 3