Public Hearing Summary

Charter School:
Success Academy Charter School - Manhattan 2
Hearing Date:
December 12, 2012
Hearing Location:
Building M625, 439 West 49th St., New York, NY 10019 (CSD 2)
Start Time:
6:10 p.m.
End Time:
7:40 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 2 (“SA – Manhattan 2”), a new charter school operated by the charter school education corporation Success Academy Charter Schools – NYC, in Building M625 (“M625”), located at 439 West 49th Street, New York, NY 11216, 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 2 would be co-located with Business of Sports School (02M393, “BOSS”), an existing district high school that serves students in 9th through 12th grades; High School of Graphic Communication Arts (“Graphics”), an existing district high school that serves students in 9th through 12th grades; Urban Assembly Gateway School for Technology (“Gateway”), an existing district high school that currently serves students in 9th through 10th grades, and an Alternate Learning Center (“ALC”), which provides an educational setting for students in 9th through 12th grades who are on a superintendent’s suspension for up to 90 days. SA – Manhattan 2 would grow by one grade each year until it reached full capacity in 2017-18 serving 412-528 Kindergarten through 5th grade students.  M625 also houses a ROTC program that draws students from across the various high schools, and a small number of community organizations.

According to the NYCDOE’s 2010-2011 Enrollment, Capacity and Utilization Report, M625 has the capacity to serve 2,139 students. Currently, the building serves 1,912 students, which yields a building utilization rate of 89%. If this proposal is approved, the M625 would serve approximately 2,222 – 2,528 students and have a utilization rate of 104% - 118% in 2017-2018 when all schools, including SA - Manhattan 2, are at full scale. Graphics is expected to be phased out over time, which would leave additional space in the building. While the anticipated utilization rate exceeds of 100%, the NYCDOE represents that all schools will receive space that meets their instructional needs.  

Hearing Notes:

The hearing was moderated by NYCDOE CSD 2 Superintendent Marisol Bradbury who read the proposal with about 100 people in attendance. 

* A person identified only as Shino, who represented Community Education Council (“CEC”) 2 spoke in opposition to the co-location. She also read a joint statement from CEC 2 and the Citywide Council on High Schools in opposition to the proposal.  The statement included the following
o high school space in NYC should only be used for high school grades;
o the NYCDOE has made only haphazard attempts to reform Graphics, which is on an upcoming closure list;
o the NYCDOE only want space for charter schools;
o once both BOSS and Gateway are at full scale the building utilization rate will be 104-118%;
o at Brandeis (SA – Upper West (authorized by SUNY) co-location, the high schools lost space;
o CEC 2 has passed three resolutions – two against co-location, one specifically against having any Success charter school in CSD 2 and a moratorium on charter applications for CSD 2;
o CEC 2 opposes co-location of any kind as it is an inefficient use of space as every school needs its own administrative space;
o adding another school to M625 is not a good idea as it is hard to coordinate the use of space among so many schools; some students will have to eat lunch early; and CEC 2 does not want to see district students get less than charter students;
o charter schools have their own resources – they do not need to co-locate; 
o Ms. Moscowitz can find space on her own;
o parents want more middle school space and do not want charters; and 
o CSD 2 needs more high school space as there are 30 students in a class and cannot learn that way.

* A School Leadership Team (“SLT”) member from BOSS, who was also a United Federation of Teachers (“UFT”) chapter representative, said there was a security issue with the charter school as the high school students and parent must be screened by the metal detector and the elementary students and parents do not have to be screened. She also said the co-location would cause a safety issue because the school is overcrowded and sharing space will be difficult.  She said an elementary school in high school space cannot collaborate. She said the fire exiting and coming back into school would be more difficult with elementary students.

* A SLT member from Graphics, who was also a UFT chapter representative, opposed the co-location because of a negative impact on space issues. She also stated that privacy issues for counselors and guidance counselors in the high school would be impacted negatively. She said the Graphic’s social worker now has to share space with School Security and there is no space for mandated Individualized Education Program counseling. She said the NYCDOE should upgrade the Graphics campus. 

* The PTA President of BOSS stated the SLT members should have gotten the Educational Impact Statement (“EIS”) and Building Usage Plan (“BUP”) weeks ago. He said the charter school would be building a cafeteria on the 2nd floor if approved. He said three years from now Success would have more space than BOSS.

* Another BOSS SLT member stated that equal fairness meant that the charter students and parents must be screened by the metal detector. He said he hoped the charter school would not kick students out because it wants to use the space. He said he didn’t know why another school would come into the building.

Public Comment (started at 6:40 p.m.)

* A number of student speakers form the ROTC program spoke in opposition to the proposal. They said the lack of space would make it harder for them to drill. They said elementary student should not be exposed to the cursing of older students, should not witness violence in the high school, and be exposed to students who are not a good example. They said space is an issue in the building. 

* A member of the Urban Assembly at Gateway said he didn’t agree with the proposal because they were just starting to learn how to change how teenagers act.

* A student form one of the high schools said it would not be a good environment for elementary students because it will be a big change for them.

* A Gateway student said he didn’t believe M625 was appropriate for elementary students because of the size of the cafeteria.

* A junior in Graphics strongly disagreed with the proposal stating there was not enough space, and that it would be a hazardous environment for elementary students. 

* A member of the Partnership for Student Advocacy said CSD 2 parents say there is no need for a charter school. She said there is so much choice in CSD 2 and it is the highest earning district. She said she would never want to send elementary students into unruly corridors. She said there was a stabbing in Hell’s Kitchen last week.

* A parent of an 11 year old and a child about to turn five said there is an overcrowding issue in CSD 2. She said there are a lot of small children and not enough spots in the district schools. She said the proposal should be allowed to go forward because education is so important.

* Another community parent said demand for public schools in this area of CSD 2 is enormous. She said the options in CSD 2 are scary, and parents face substandard schools or a lottery.

* A Success parent in another co-located school said the elementary student have their own entrance and exit at that school.
* Another Success parent stated that she disapproved of the schools in CSD 2, but was “blown away” by a Success open house, and is pleased with Success teachers. She said SA - Manhattan 2 would be a perfect fit.

* A “proud” parent of a Success student for six years said parents are looking for more choices and that it is a myth that parents in CSD 2 are not seeking more options. She said there is overcrowding in the good schools in CSD 2. She said her daughter is co-located with a high school and students are not crowded. She said violence and cursing are not things that just happen in high schools. She said parent choice is the best thing for New York City.

* An English teacher from one of the high schools said she was opposed to the proposal and that the co-location would be a disaster. She said fire drills for over 1000 students would not work with little children. She said it was a stupid and dangerous idea. She said students would have to eat lunch at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. She asked whether the district schools would get the same upgrade to the cafeteria.  She said the building does not have a functioning library.

* NY State Senator Thomas Duane said he was at the end of his term as an elected official and he was sad the Graphics was not best graphics school in the world, which it could be. He said it almost feels like there was a plot not to make this happen. He said he was very angry about the plans for M625 but they were losing the battle for space. He said that he and NY Assemblyman Richard Gottfried joined with all the school PTAs in opposing the co-location. He said the space should go to the remaining high schools in the building and a new small high school. He said he was dismayed by the EIS and said it is not a way to address overcrowding. He said it is wasteful to reconfigure what should be one school. He said the NYCDOE should stand ready to proactively meet CSD 2 needs. He said it is better to build a new elementary school than to cannibalize existing high school space. He said charter schools do not serve their original purpose by innovating, serving at-risk students and collaborating with district schools. He said instead they tend to compete with district schools and resources to come out victorious. He said the co-location would be disruptive to the existing high schools and that co-locating elementary students with late teens is not a good idea. He said the co-location would require several construction projects and would waste space on extra administration for each school. He said many of the spaces in M625 were specifically designed for high school students and it is a waste to reconfigure them for a charter school. He said the SA - Upper West co-location validates this concern because one of the schools had to move out.

* A teacher for ten years in M625 said the administration struggled for years to provide resources to students.

* A staffer for NYC Councilmember Christine Quinn said elementary schools need playgrounds and other physical space, and feared storage, classroom and gym space would be taken away from the high schools for this.  She said we can make it happen by fighting for students in the high school first. 

* The ROTC instructor said there are 212 ROTC students in M625 and the NYCDOE has a contract with ROTC with certain conditions regarding drill space and storage of ROTC equipment that is not in the NYCDOE footprint for the building. He said ROTC consumes a lot of space in the building and the NYC Schools Chancellor wants them to grow. He said he expected ROTC to grow by 50-60 students per year and next year there should be 250-300 students in ROTC.

* The boys varsity basketball couch for Graphics since 2000 said he remembered when nobody wanted to teach at M625. He said the co-location would quash his program. He asked whether a vocational school would be a better choice for the building.  

* A 10th grade teacher who was a UFT representative said she must compare Eva Moscowitz to Iago in Othello because she tricks people. She said staff and students in Brandeis (SA - Upper West collocation site) feels very disrespected by Success staff. She said high school students are no longer allowed to play music because the elementary students could not hear in their classes. She said there is no longer access to a gym or science labs. She said the Brandeis people feel frustrated and betrayed.

Preliminary Determination:

The SUNY Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”) reviewed the EIS and the 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 and the representations made by NYCDOE regarding proposed renovations at the site, the physical space allotted to the charter schools 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 based organizations 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.







	Page 5 of 5

Page 1 of 1