Public Hearing Summary

Charter School:
Success Academy Charter School – Brooklyn 7
Hearing Date:
December 6, 2013
Hearing Location:
Building K907, 1150 East New York Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11212 (CSD 17)
Start Time:
6:10 p.m.
End Time:
6:40 p.m.

Background:  
The New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE”) proposes to site Success Academy Charter School - Brooklyn 7 (“SA – Brooklyn 7”), a new public charter school operated by charter school education corporation Success Academy Charter Schools – NYC, which will serve students in Kindergarten through 5th grade in building K907 (“K907”), located at 1150 East New York Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11212, in Community School District (“CSD”) 17, beginning in the 2013-2014 school year. SA – Brooklyn 7 would be co-located in K907 with Brownsville Academy High School (“Brownsville Academy”), an existing district transfer high school that serves students in 10th through 12th grades. K907 also houses two community based organizations, the New York City Mission Society and CAMBA.
K907 has been identified by the NYCDOE as an under-utilized building. K907 has the capacity to serve 503 students, but in 2012-2013, Brownsville Academy is only projected to serve 225 students. This yields a building utilization rate of approximately 45%, which demonstrates that the building is “underutilized” and has space to accommodate additional students. In 2017-2018, K907 would serve 644-796 students between SA – Brooklyn 7 and Brownsville Academy combined.
Hearing Notes:
NYCDOE representative Gregg Bertheil started the hearing at 6:10 p.m.  
Community Education Council 17 members and school leaders were given an opportunity to speak first, but informed the NYCDOE that they would not be attending the hearing, due to the ongoing recovery from Hurricane Sandy. Members of the school staff, however, posted signs in the meeting space which read “SOS – Save Our School” and “Due to the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, the Parents, Staff & Scholars of Brownsville Academy H.S. will not be in attendance at the Joint Public Hearing.” Written comments sent in after the hearing are summarized below.
A representative from NYC Council Member Darlene Mealy’s office spoke first, with public comments beginning at 6:25 p.m.  6 community members spoke at the hearing, 2 left before their names were called.
* Norah Daniel, the representative from Council Member Mealy’s office, stated that the Council Member was opposed to the co-location because it did not meet both of the two criteria set forth for co-location. She stated that they were a) that the school currently occupying the space was classified as failing and b) that the building space was under-utilized. Ms. Daniel stated that, according to those criteria, K907 should not be co-located, because Brownsville Academy has an A report card and is in the top 25 high schools in the city.
* Three parents of Success Academy students spoke, stating that they were very happy for the education their children were receiving from Success. These parents believe that Success Academies enhances all of the students in the community, and teaches the children they can succeed no matter what.  
* Two students at Brownsville Academy spoke against the co-location, based on the structure of Brownsville Academy. The students praised the individualized attention they received – something they did not receive at the previous schools they attended – and said that the addition of Success Academy would be detrimental because they would be squeezed out. The one-on-one attention they receive would be degraded if the co-location were to be approved.
* A student at Brownsville Academy sent an email to the SUNY Charter Schools Institute (“Institute”) Executive Director Susan Miller Barker on December 5, urging the Institute to quash the co-location. The student stated that the percentage of Africa-American children attending college from her neighborhood is only 13%, and if the co-location goes through, the number would decrease. 
Two people who signed up to speak left before their turn. 
Written Comments:
After the hearing, the Institute received comments via email from CEC 17 as follows:
* Brownsville Academy does not have the space to accommodate Success Academy at full scale enrollment as indicated in its charter application and/or the EIS without deliberately scaling down the enrollment of Brownsville Academy, which would result in families being denied the opportunity or choice to attend Brownsville Academy an “A” school. 
* Brownsville Academy serves a fragile and vulnerable population which uses space to create the environment necessary to deliver quality instruction. 
* Brownsville Academy students have asked that they be allowed the privacy and room to recover and heal from the trauma of broken homes, the ills of the streets, the adjustments needed to thrive in a new country, etc. Co-locating with Success Academy would deprive them of the intensive care that they need in order to heal. 
* Brownsville Academy is not a traditional school building and has no auditorium or gym. The current space has been specifically designed to address the student population it currently serves. The co-location of Success Academy prevents the Brownsville Academy students from receiving the specialized instruction they need to catch up and move forward in a timely manner to compete with their peers who did not need a second chance. 
* Parents of Success Academy are not given an opportunity to converse with the students or families of Brownsville Academy resulting in an incomplete picture of the negative impact a co-location would have on the current student population. The deliberate misrepresentation in Success’s advertising campaign and in its outreach to the community demonstrates unethical practices and does not indicate the willingness to foster a healthy environment for a positive co-location relationship.  
* Success Academy has not demonstrated any good will or genuine effort to forge a relationship with the school communities it is already co-located with and therefore CEC 17 has great apprehension that they will not act any differently with the Brownsville Academy community. 
Preliminary Determination:
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