Public Hearing Summary Public Hearing Summary Charter School: Success Academy Charter School - Harlem 5 Hearing Date: October 23, 2012 Hearing Location: Building M175, 175 West 134th St., New York, NY 10030 (CSD 5) Start Time 6:05 p.m. End Time 8:20 p.m. Background: The New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE”) proposes to co-locate and expand Success Academy Charter School – Harlem 5 (“SA – Harlem 5”) to serve students in 4th through 8th grades in building M175 (“M175”), located at 175 West 134th Street, New York, NY 10030, in Community School District (“CSD”) 5, beginning in 2013-2014. SA – Harlem 5 currently serves students in Kindergarten through 3rd grades in building M123 (“M123”), located at 301 West 140th Street, New York, NY 10030 in Manhattan’s CSD 5. In M175, SA – Harlem would be co-located with P.S. 175 Henry H. Garnet (“P.S. 175”), a zoned district elementary school serving students in Kindergarten through 5th grades, which also offers a pre-Kindergarten program. P.S. 175 is currently co-located in M175 with Harlem Children’s Zone Promise Academy Charter School I ( “HCZ PA I”), a public charter school currently serving students in Kindergarten through 3rd grades. HCZ PA I will be moving to a private space located in CSD 5 in 2013-2014, thereby creating space for SA – Harlem 5 to co-locate its 4th through 8th grades with P.S. 175 in M175. According to the NYCDOE’s Educational Impact Statement (“EIS”) there will be sufficient space in building M175 to accommodate SA – Harlem 5’s proposed expansion and co-location with P.S. 175. According to the NYCDOE’s 2010-2011 Enrollment Capacity Utilization Report, building M175 has a target capacity to serve 633 students. Currently, the building serves 786 students in Kindergarten through 5th grade and pre-Kindergarten to 8th grade yielding a building utilization rate of 124%. This includes 386 students from P.S. 175 and 400 students from HCZ PA I, which will be moving to a private facility. SA – Harlem 5 would enroll 350-450 students at full capacity, approximately the same number as HCZ PA I, and the building would have a utilization rate of 113-138%1. Hearing Notes: Gail Reeves CSD 5 superintendent facilitated the hearing with over 200 people in attendance. * A School Leadership Team (“SLT”) member (a special education teacher at M175) stated M175 has moved from C to high B on the NYCDOE report card. The relationship with HCZ PA 1 has been good and they should be able to have the same relationship with the SA-Harlem 5. She stated she has some concerns regarding the schedule proposed for next year and capacities of various rooms. She stated she wants an assurance that the proposed schedule is just proposed, not final –especially since it violates the fire code. * Another SLT member said he pledged to help every single child who attends school in this building. He stated the school is like a community. He stated parents and faculty want to feel like they have impact. He stated students coming in are not coming from the district. He stated the “impact statement” will impact the parents and students and the impact should be equal. He stated he read something from NYCDOE’s website that said some district schools that are co-located with the Success schools have a decline in performance after the co-location. He stated the P.S. 175 principal wanted to put in a medical, dental and mental health clinic in the space that will be vacated. He stated there haven’t been any laws passed to benefit public schools but there have been plenty to benefit charter schools. He stated the hearing wasn’t legitimate because the EIS was not inclusive and it is illegal because it violates the 14th Amendment. He stated negative information was omitted from the EIS and thinks the omission on the EIS was willful. * The Community Education Council (“CEC”) 5 representative stated she is impressed with P.S. 175 and thinks it is more of family than a school. She stated she is concerned about having older children with the younger ones. She stated she wants P.S. 175 to grow to 8th grade by itself. * Another CEC 5 member stated he is an advocate for every parent and child and this gathering has nothing to do with education but everything to do with money. He stated if you are not part of the solution you are a part of the problem. He asked how many schools have not been allowed to co-locate. He stated that SA –Harlem 5 is a super charter. He asked what the EIS was based on. He stated schools co-located with SA schools do poorly because SA sucks the life out of schools and asked why that impact is not in the EIS. * The CEC 5 Vice President stated that the number of blue shirts (P.S. 175 parents) is an indication of the “Harlem success” and it can come from within. He stated they are not there to badger any of the students or parents of the other schools. He stated the proposal isn’t justice and it isn’t right. He stated they don’t want to gain success on the backs of anyone else. He stated HCZ PA 1 offered something to the community; SA does not. Public Comment (started at 7:04 p.m.) * A grandparent stated she was impressed by the curriculum and atmosphere of P.S. 175. She stated she knows other parents of co-located schools and they said their space has become smaller. She stated the numbers are deceiving. * A librarian at P.S. 30 (co-location site with a Success Academy) stated her school is not dying but they have been pushed around. She stated SA has tried to force them into a smaller playground. She stated that they do not play nice and every year they send them the rejects and they do it after the budget is set. * A parent stated she does not understand how the NYCDOE can bring in a middle school. She stated there have been times with the co-location currently in place they have not been able to do what they had done in the past. She stated they will not be able to do the same activities. * A teacher stated that P.S. 175 teachers are dedicated professional with master’s degrees. She stated the school is progressive. She stated they take the kids that have been turned away from charter schools. She stated the schools’ lunches will overlap. * A woman stated they offer what the charter schools do with limited funding. She stated P.S. 175 is not broken and therefore should not be fixed. She stated they can soar on their own and should be allowed to expand. * A P.S. 175 teacher stated she comes in everyday from Jersey City because she loves the variety of programs they offer. She stated kids that have graduated still keep in touch with her. * A P.S. 123 teacher (SA - Harlem 5 co-location) stated it is an invasion, not a co-location. She stated she was “accidentally” hit by a SA - Harlem 5 staff member and nothing was done. She stated P.S. 123 was once an A school but are now on the list. * A P.S. 175 parent stated she is comfortable with P.S. 175 and wants it to stay that way. * A P.S. 175 supporter stated there a lot of things wrong with the EIS. She stated they have to give rooms back. She stated the building is not meant for middle school students unless they have been there all along. * The P.S. 175 principal welcomed everyone to her school and stated she is appealing for equity that they have not been afforded. She stated the co-location has been going on since before she came here. She stated M175 had to be abated of asbestos but it has only been done on the charter school floors. She stated she was told the problem wasn’t as bad as they thought. She stated she wanted civility. She stated the SA schools do not foster civility. She stated the objective is children and community. She stated she came here and brought community based alliances and the co-location will cause them to lose their programs. * Several P.S. 175 teachers expressed their satisfaction with the school and unhappiness with the co-location proposal. * A SA parent stated she is co-located with another school and people can manipulate the truth. She stated scheduling conflicts can be worked out. She stated she is a parent and teacher at another school and she has made the choice to send her child to Success. She stated she appreciates the passion and drive of the parents and students. * Another SA parent stated that schedules can be adjusted. She stated charter schools are public schools. She stated she is zoned to this school but she chose to send her child to SA. She stated everyone’s opinions must be respected. * A P.S. 175 parent stated 14th Amendment rights are being violated and this is separate but not equal. * A P.S. 175 SLT member stated he’s been here for 3 years and he is disappointed the schedules were made without consultation with them. He stated that the NYCDOE is just looking for out for Success. * The P.S. 175 parent coordinator stated he would like to have the school grow to middle school because they could co-exist with them. * A SA parent stated he has a lot of respect for the parents there because they care. He said his daughter had problems in her district school and has not had any problems at Success. He stated SA fosters respect from the students. * The P.S. 175 Title I representative stated she applauds all the parents who came to the hearing. She stated they have a good relationship with the current charter school. She stated she doesn’t want the space shared with older children. * A parent member of the public stated “here we go again.” She stated her 4th grader is in a co-located space with Success students and they have to give up everything. She stated she was part of the lottery and because her son missed the “dress rehearsal” all of her children were taken off the waitlist. * A school partner stated that this school educates children with special needs. * A P.S. 175 teacher and SLT member stated he has never worked at a school that shows such concern for the students. He stated he is proud to be part of this public school community. * A P.S. 175 SLT member stated that the numbers in the Building Usage Plan (“BUP”) are incorrect and it lists student numbers over 100% capacity. He stated that they need space to grow. * A Harlem resident who comes to the school on a regular basis stated that the public officials are supposed to act on behalf of the public good. * A community member stated she was on the school board when P.S. 175 and I.S. 275 co-located and the NYCDOE said the school was underutilized. She stated this is about money. * A P.S. 30 parent stated there is no co-location with SA. She stated they were told SA would be there for a year and they have been there for three years and make their kids rush through meals. She stated there is a lot of hostility, segregation and no communication at P.S. 30. * A commenter stated that the EIS and BUP have bad numbers -- the utilization rate is 138%. She stated the document must be attacked to be successful. * A UFT representative stated this is not public vs. charter schools, it is about equity for all students. He stated all students deserve equal resources. He stated everyone should come to the community board meeting. * Several P.S. 175 parents expressed dissatisfaction with the co-location. Preliminary Determination: The SUNY Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”) reviewed the EIS and 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 revision 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 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 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 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, grants or programs, and only has the ability to approve or deny a new facility location of a charter school authorized by SUNY once the NYCDOE approves the space for use by the charter school. SUNY also has no positive authority to place schools into NYCDOE space. As the charter school proposes to add facilities, the Institute, on behalf of the SUNY Trustees, needs to determine whether to allow the school to use the district school space, but may deny the request only for good cause. Based on the foregoing, and as the Institute has held the hearing required by the New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (as amended), the Institute proposes to approve the NYCDOE facility for use by the charter school subject to compliance with the terms of its charter agreement regarding facilities. 1 Although a utilization rate in excess of 100% may suggest that a building will be over-utilized or over-crowded in a given year, this rate does not account for the fact that rooms may be programmed for more efficient or different uses than the standard assumptions in the utilization calculation. In addition, charter school enrollment plans are frequently based on larger class sizes than target capacity, contributing to building utilizations above 100% while not impacting the utilization of the space allocated to the traditional public school. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ Page 1 of 6