Public Hearing Summary Charter School: Success Academy Charter School – Manhattan 1 Hearing Date: December 10, 2012 Hearing Location: Building M460, 40 Irving Pl., New York, NY 10003 (CSD 2) Start Time 6:10 p.m. End Time 8:00 p.m. Background: The New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE”) proposes to co-locate Kindergarten through 5th grade of Success Academy Charter School – Manhattan (“SA - Manhattan 1”), a new charter school operated by the charter school education corporation Success Academy Charter Schools – NYC in Building M460 (“M460”) in New York City Community School District (“CSD”) 2, beginning in the 2013-14 school year with 164-210 students in Kindergarten and 1st grade. SA - Manhattan 1 would be co-located with Gramercy Arts High School (“Gramercy Arts”) an existing district high school that serves students in 9th through 12th grades; Washington Irving High School (“Washington Irving”), an existing district high school that currently serves students in 10th through 12th grades and is in the process of phasing out; High School for Language and Diplomacy (“Language and Diplomacy”), an existing district high school that currently serves students in 9th through 12th grades; International High School at Union Square (“International”), an existing district high school that currently serves students in 9th through 11th grades; Academy for Software Engineering (“AFSE”), an existing district high school that currently serves students in 9th grade; and Union Square Academy for Health Sciences (“USAHS”), an existing district high school that currently serves students in 9th grade. M460 also houses several community based organizations (“CBOs”). SA - Manhattan 1would be permanently sited in M460 and would grow by one grade each year until it reached the 5th grade and enrollment of 470 – 602 students. According to the NYCDOE’s 2010-2011 Enrollment Capacity Utilization Report M460 has the capacity to serve 2,847 students. During the 2011-2012 school year, the building served 1,861 students, yielding a building utilization rate of 65%. During the 2012-2013 school year, M460 is projected to serve 1,906 students, yielding a building utilization rate of 67%. If this proposal is approved, the building would serve approximately 2,620 – 2,952 students and would have a utilization rate of 92% – 104% in 2017-2018, when Washington Irving has fully phased out and all remaining schools, including SA - Manhattan 1, have reached full scale. While the anticipated utilization rate is in excess of 100%, all schools would receive space that meets each of their instructional needs. 1 Hearing Notes: NYCDOE Manhattan High Schools Superintendent Elaine Gorman facilitated the hearing with about 120 people in attendance. CSD 2 Superintendent Marisol Bradbury read the proposal. * A representative from NY State Senator Thomas Duane’s office read a prepared statement on his and NY Assemblyman Richard Gottfried’s behalf strongly opposing the proposal. * NYC Councilmember Rosie Mendez stated she is against the co-location and was against the phase out of Washington Irving. She stated at the time when the phase out was announced, the NYCDOE said a charter school would not move in. She stated when one of her middle schools was proposed to go into a high school she was told it was not appropriate. She stated capital dollars will be needed to convert the facility to accommodate an elementary school. She stated every time a new school came into Washington Irving its scores went down. She stated the Success Academies do not have a good record of serving English language learners (“ELLs”) and special education students. She stated charter schools do not have to serve special education students or the charter schools make life so difficult for them that they transfer. She stated everyone knows that these hearings are a sham. * A NYC Community Board 5 member stated the community board is against this co-location. She stated entering the building is different for high school and elementary school students. She stated that the final figures will be over 100 %. She stated the charter school proposes to eventually be K-8 and where would they go. She stated charter schools have the ability to fundraise in a way that zoned schools do not. She stated they are not really adding capacity. She stated only if SA – Manhattan 1 gets a private space will they create capacity. She stated they need middle school and high school seats for their children. She stated the charter school should find a building that will accommodate them from K-8. * A Community Education Council (“CEC”) 2 representative stated she wishes they had the ability to decide on this proposal, but they do not. She read a prepared statement from the CEC 2 president that stated they oppose the loss of high school space and any space left in the building should be reserved for high school seats. It stated those in co-located space suffer especially when elementary schools are put in and the space must be re-purposed and cannot be shared. The statement said CEC 2 issued resolution opposing the creation of SA - Manhattan 1. She stated charter schools have more resources and when one goes in co-located space one can tell what space belongs to the charter school. She stated CEC 2 is generally against co-locations as they are not efficient since each school has their own administrative staff. She said CEC 2 also issued resolution for a moratorium on charter applications in CSD 2, which she read. * A Co-Chair of Washington Irving’s school leadership team (“SLT”) stated although the school is being phased out she is concerned the existing students are being marginalized. She stated she would want to see the specific plans for the location of the charter school before the hearings. She stated she believes the SA will apply for a high school and that would mean that one of the district high schools would have to go. She stated bringing in the charter school is like private education. She stated the charter school will expel students who don’t meet their standards. She stated the lives of at-risk students are being negatively impacted. She stated charter schools are siphoning funds from the public system. She stated choice means segregation. * A teacher from one of the high schools stated he opposes every aspect of this proposal. He stated it doesn’t support the high school students or the elementary coming in. He stated there are scarce public resources and we shouldn’t support two systems. He stated SA spent $1.3 million on public relations and advertising while their students face a daily “lunch crunch.” He stated they work together but it is very difficult for principals to schedule lunch time resulting in lunch at 10:30 and some at 2:00. He stated a 7th school in the building is too much and the diversion of public funds is shameful. He stated we don’t need people like Moskowitz stealing space from public schools and schools should not be run like a business. He read a statement from SA that indicated the school will likely out grow the space and move but he did not believe that, he believes one of the district schools would have to go. He stated it feels horrible regarding the way the Panel for Educational Policy works: once in a blue moon a proposal is voted down. * The PTA president of one of the high schools stated she is a proud parent of a student and does not want her child to be treated as a second class citizen at the school. * A SLT representative from another high school in M460 stated she is concerned about the co-location, losing the shared space and overcrowding in the school. She stated she is afraid of being pushed out of the school. She stated they have successful students and they are overlooked in favor of charter schools and this is not the message to be sent to students. * A SLT member from the same school stated leaders of co-located schools have said that their students are treated poorly by the Success schools. He stated there are five new young high schools in the building and they should be allowed to survive without Success schools. * A principal of one of the high schools in M460 stated all of the high schools are doing well together but the building is meant for a high schools and she can’t see how an elementary school will fit in the space. She said they have metal detectors in the school. She stated it will be difficult to have the elementary students on the elevators. She stated the proposal does not make sense. The public comment period started at 7:10 * A student from Achievement First Bushwick Charter School (authorized by SUNY) stated she shares space in her school and it has no effect on the schools in the building. She stated they are not trying to bring the other students down. She stated having an elementary here would allow elementary school students to look at high school students as role models. * A student for one of the high schools stated that common sense would indicate that sharing space would not benefit the elementary students. * A father of a SA –Upper West (authorized by SUNY) Kindergarten student stated they arrive early and leave late and there is no interaction between the high school and elementary school students. He said if anything they are more respectful around the little kids. He stated if you put 1000 kids in a building with a capacity of 1000 there will be issues regardless of their ages. He stated at the end of the day it will all work out fine. * A mother of a high schools student stated their space is precious to them. She stated that the building is historic and she has heard the murals will be painted over. * A community member stated the school was built 100 years ago and will be destroyed in ten. He stated that the Success Academy vilifies the special needs students and targets them for shame. * A teacher and former student stated she finds it disturbing that the “public” has been taken out of public district schools. She said her students are being treated unfairly. She stated students should not go through a lottery to get into public schools. * A community member indicated there are eight floors and five high schools in the building and there are not enough rooms for all of the schools. * An English teacher stated he was in a school that was closed and the students were shuffled to other schools that were formed to fail. * A United Federation of Teachers (“UFT”) delegate stated many people spoke passionately about how the co-location can’t work. She stated it is not supposed to work. She stated Success is a spearhead to get the other schools out of the building. She stated they have to come together to organize and use this hearing as a platform. She stated this a charter invasion. She stated minorities are not allowed in. * A teacher stated she is against the co-location because it will take away from her students who are high risk. She stated the charter school can get their own building. * A mathematics teacher stated they are only in their 3rd year and she is using all of their classrooms now. She stated another cafeteria should be built for the existing schools. She stated she had a petition to submit. * Another teacher stated that his students accomplish amazing thing despite their troubled backgrounds. He stated he knows Success co-locations are toxic. * Community members stated this is not why they fought for all these years. He stated they fought against vouchers. He stated charter schools were a great idea but it was co-opted by big money. * A parent of a SA - Upper West student stated she is very happy with the school. She stated that the SA schools operate painlessly and feels the school is an asset. * A prospective parent of small children stated she is interested in the new school. * A father of a Success student stated great things may be happening here but great things are happening at the Success schools too. * A parent of an ELL student at Success stated that the education he receives is beyond his expectations and he said there are no issues with the co-location and there are still unused spaces at the building. * A teacher stated they do not have a library in the building. She stated the only thing that is failing is the NYCDOE. (Note that a library was observed during the building inspection.) * A special education teacher read from some comments that stated co-locations create division among schools, and elementary students should not be with the young adults. * A UFT High School representative stated she questions the veracity of the statements of the Success parents. She stated the teachers and administrators are not happy with the co-location. She stated they are not treated with respect at Brandeis (SA - Upper West). * A teacher of a phased out school stated there is impoverishment of education for kids and she is against the phase out of Washington Irving. She stated there is pitting of students against each other. Preliminary Determination: The SUNY Charter Schools 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 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 schools 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 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. 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 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