Public Hearing Summary Charter School: Success Academy Charter School – Brooklyn 5 Hearing Date: December 7, 2013 Hearing Location: Building K265, 101 Park Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11205 (CSD 13) Start Time: 6:10 p.m. End Time: 7:40 p.m. Background: The New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE”) proposes to site Success Academy Charter School – Brooklyn 5 (“SA - Brooklyn 5”), a new public charter school operated by the charter school education corporation Success Academy Charter Schools – NYC, that will serve students in Kindergarten through 5th grade in building K265 (“K265”), located at 101 Park Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11205, in Community School District (“CSD”) 13, beginning in the 2013-2014 school year. SA - Brooklyn 5 would be co-located in K265 with Dr. Susan S. McKinney Secondary School of the Arts (“McKinney”), an existing secondary school that serves students in grades 6-12, and a District 75 inclusion program that also serves grades 6-12. K265 also houses the District 13 School Food Field Office and a community-based organization, Partnerships with Kids. The NYCDOE has identified K265 as an underutilized building. K265 has the capacity to serve 1,035 students, but in 2012-2013, serves only 470 students, yielding a building utilization rate of approximately 45%. In 2017-2018, when SA - Brooklyn 5 would be fully phased in, the co-located schools would collectively serve 864-1,060 students, yielding a projected utilization rate of 83-102%. With the utilization rate potentially over 100%, as discussed in Section III.B of the NYCDOE Building Utilization Plan (“BUP”) for the co-location, while the anticipated utilization rate is in excess of 100%, the NYCDOE states that sufficient space will be available for all co-located schools to meet their instructional needs. Hearing Notes: NYCDOE representative Elaine Gorman moderated the hearing. * District Superintendent Karen Watts read a summary of the co-location proposal. She also stated that McKinney would retain sole usage of dance and music studios in the facility, and assured the school that the NYCDOE would replace any such facility that was impacted by the co-location. * A representative from the Citywide Council on High Schools was initially present, but later indicated that she would not be speaking and was standing in solidarity with Community Education Council (“CEC”) 13, electing not to participate in the hearing. * New York City Councilwoman Letitia James first recognized CEC 13’s “courageous” decision not to participate in hearing process, which she stated was flawed. She said she supported the CEC’s resolution to encourage fairness in co-location, which has the potential to destroy a school that is thriving. The Councilwoman stated she does not oppose charter schools, but the co-location process is flawed, as the decision is predetermined and not democratic. She said schools have been turned into warehouses for high-needs kids, and the NYCDOE starves them of resources and support. She said the NYCDOE must see and develop all kids, and not cherry-pick children. The NYCDOE is yielding to interests that look at education as a business model, she said. She reiterated that the process is undemocratic, stating she had called the NYCDOE and Deputy Chancellor five times, but did not get any response, which is disrespectful to elected officials. She stated that co-location is a countdown to end of the Bloomberg administration, meant to grab as much real estate as possible. She said co-location has nothing to do with education. She stated that Success Academy schools had received a waiver to not serve students with Individualized Education Programs (“IEPs”).1 She added that there should be an emphasis on arts and culture, and that none of the schools should be expected to operate at 102% building capacity. * Two members of the school leadership team (“SLT”) spoke next. One stated that the co-location process is undermining the success of kids and should not be allowed in any building. He stated that McKinney is an “A” school, with many students being recognized for academic excellence. * The other SLT member questioned the viability of rebuilding McKinney’s specialty arts rooms, which would take at least one year, depriving students of appropriate arts facilities. She claimed that the NYCDOE was setting McKinney up to be dismantled. She said the NYCDOE is focused only on square footage, with less attention to students, greater chance of failure, and no consideration for IEP mandates. She said the only way co-location can work is if McKinney’s enrollment is capped. She said real choice should not include a lottery; rather, students should be admitted first-come, first-served. Charter schools are supposed to take the most at-risk students, not ask for waivers to avoid special education kids, she said. * Eight current McKinney students spoke next, all in opposition to the co-location. Each spoke of the high quality education they were receiving at McKinney, and extolled the value of having specialty arts facilities. They stated that kids were already cramped in the facility and there was difficulty in moving from room to room. Several stated that it would be unsafe to have pre-Kindergarten and elementary-aged children in a building with high school children. All students stated that they believed their school would suffer as a result of the co-location, with diminished access to an arts program that is central to the community. * Several current parents of students attending McKinney spoke in opposition to the co-location. One stated that there are no other opportunities in the community that offer as much as McKinney. Another stated that while she was not opposed to charter schools, it makes no sense to cohabitate elementary and high school children together. The co-location will kill the dreams of so many kids in the performing arts programs at McKinney as well as the many special education students that charter schools are not required to accept. * Another parent of a special needs child at McKinney stated that McKinney teachers work very hard to mainstream kids, which will be more difficult to do if they are competing for space. A parent stated that she was against the “no excuses” model that she said Success Academy supports, as it leaves kids stressed out and mentally disturbed. She added that all Success Academy charter schools should have their own building because they are funded by private organizations. * A parent of a current Success Academy student spoke in favor of the co-location. She stated that her son’s academics had improved substantially while at the school, and that Success Academy has done a lot for kids. * Several McKinney and CSD 13 teachers spoke in opposition to the co-location. All stated that McKinney would be hurt by the co-location, and spoke of the importance of the availability of an arts program like that offered at McKinney. Several stated that the building was not as underutilized as claimed by the NYCDOE, as arts programs require more physical space than traditional education programs. * Several community residents spoke in opposition to the co-location. One stated that while not opposed to charters specifically, co-location merely divides kids and make the teachers unhappy; the aftermath is terrible. * Another community resident stated that McKinney improves kids and improves the community, and that co-location would jeopardize the many partnerships that McKinney has with Ivy League institutions. * Another community member stated that Success Academy did not seek to improve education, but merely to privatize it, as evidenced by their waiver regarding special education. * One community member stated that charter schools are reverse discriminating – busing kids from affluent communities to use the resources of the poor and less politically connected. * Another community member expressed concern about the NYCDOE’s plan to takes arts education out of the community while brining in charter schools which provide separate and unequal education. * One community resident expressed anger that SA - Brooklyn 5 was accepting applications for students before the siting was determined. Preliminary Determination: The SUNY Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”) reviewed the Educational Impact Statement (“EIS”) 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, except as noted below, that appeared to be in compliance with applicable law. The 3rd floor of the proposed facility had specialized dance, theater, art and guidance rooms, each of which were two to three times larger than a typical NYCDOE full-sized classroom. 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 proposed to be 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 schools and the community program 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 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 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. 1 While the SUNY Charter Schools Institute normally does not comment on the content of hearing participant’s messages, as a matter of law, such waivers do not exist in New York. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ Page 1 of 4