Community engagement and closed schools
 |
While working with DOE to develop last month’s resolution, District 3 CEC members heard that MS44 was on a list of schools under consideration for closure, but that no final decision had yet been made. Members of the Community Education Council toured the MS44 building just a few weeks ago, to see for themselves whether there was enough space for the Anderson School to share the building with both the Computer School and MS44.
Phasing out and eventually closing MS44 and opening another middle school in its place has no direct bearing on overcrowding in District 3, though it would help if the seats in the school were filled (MS44 was officially listed at 56% capacity in 2007). But should the DOE have told the community sooner, and included the community in its decision? That would have been a positive addition to the District 3 discussions.
I have been advocating to the DOE that they develop a “middle way” of communicating — somewhere between “we do not see a need at this time” and “we made that decision yesterday.” Discussing decisions that are still in process can be messy, to be sure. But if the decision process is sound, more engagement with the community can lead to a more robust DOE, stronger community organizations, and a more positive collaboration between the city and its constituents.
Speaking of strong community organizations, State Assemblymember Danny O’Donnell sent an odd letter last week to a dozen elected officials lambasting the DOE for letting the important topics covered in last month’s resolution be addressed by CEC3, rather than handled solely by DOE fiat. The letter was notable because O’Donnell is one of the few New York City members of the state legislature’s education committee, which is directly in charge of the legislation on mayoral control coming up for renewal next spring. If O’Donnell has a problem with strong community processes, I have a problem with that.
Subscribe to 
Please find below the contents of the above-referenced letter, which is addressed to Mayor Bloomberg and addresses the DOE’s refusal to allocate needed resources or deal comprehensively with school overcrowding. I am more than happy to discuss this matter further and welcome your calls at 212-866-3970.
Thank you,
Daniel O’Donnell
Assembly Member
——————–
November 25, 2008
Mayor Michael Bloomberg
City Hall
New York, NY 10007
Dear Mayor Bloomberg,
Last Wednesday, the Community Education Council of Community School District 3 (CDEC3) voted to accept a resolution calling for the relocation of The Center School (MS 243) to PS 09, the relocation of The Anderson School (PS 334) to MS 44, and the spot rezoning of District 3 school zones to address pockets of overcrowding.
I do not wish at this point to weigh in on the resolution itself, but rather to question the relegation of overcrowding to the CDEC when it is more appropriately addressed by the Department of Education. CDECs are charged with approving rezoning proposals put forth by Department of Education. Determinations about resource allocation, such as school relocation, are under the purview of Department of Education and ultimately made by the mayor under the current system.
For years, construction and demographic trends on the West Side have predicted school overcrowding. For years, parents and advocates have clamored for new school construction, well aware that class size and school populations were swelling. By refusing to consider more capital investment in District 3, DOE has abdicated its responsibility to plan for the continued maintenance and probable growth of a robust, dynamic school system. By relegating to CDEC3 an issue that has more to do with long-term planning and capital resource allocation than with zoning lines, DOE has effectively shirked its responsibility and created a scapegoat for dissatisfied parents. To pass along a district’s most complex and contentious issue, and to relegate it to a body not popularly elected by the public, does not inspire trust in the current system, purportedly designed to enhance accountability.
The prioritization of PS 199 over other district schools also evidences a refusal to look at District 3’s needs in a long-term context. It begs the question of whether other suggestions for the district were seriously weighed. While the problems facing PS 199 are very real, CDEC3’s analysis of DOE’s published utilization rates ranks the school sixth in District 3 in terms of overutilization. For example, DOE has no plans to address overcrowding at PS 163, an exemplary school where kindergartners learn to read in decade-old “temporary” trailers. The repercussions of this shortsightedness will be devastating to New York City’s children.
Parents across the economic spectrum increasingly perceive New York City Public Schools as a desirable option for their children. They are choosing to raise their families, rent or buy their homes, and pay their taxes here. This shift in perception and broader attention to the quality of public education has increased school populations and improved education across New York City. This will not continue unless class size is reduced, art rooms and science labs restored, and student populations evenly distributed. Long-term planning must take into account new construction and population shifts. Good schools, with fairly allocated resources, are economically beneficial to our city. But ultimately the issue is one of fairness within an educational system that is the cornerstone of our democracy. Good schools are the right thing to do for our children and our society.
If there is a case being made to retain ultimate decision-making at the DOE, there must exist proof of taking ultimate responsibility for the most difficult decisions before the Department. Mayoral control will be at the forefront of issues weighed by the State Legislature in the coming session. As a member of the Committee on Education, I will be deeply involved in the conversations leading up to June 30, 2009. In this situation, I perceive a refusal to take responsibility for a district’s most contentious issue and to plan for the long-term health of our school system, not the enhanced accountability or commitment to excellence that mayoral control supposedly offers.
Very truly yours,
Daniel O’Donnell
Assembly Member
Comment by Assembly Member Daniel O'Donnell — December 5, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
Funny, Jennifer, I don’t consider Assembly Member O’Donnell’s letter to Mayor Bloomberg to be “odd” at all. Quite the contrary. Mr. O’Donnell’s comments are thoughtful, his concerns are real. He’s asking for fairness and equity for all of the schools in our district. Isn’t that what we, as NYC Public School parents, should be working toward? Odd? No, Jennifer, that’s honorable. In fact, as PTA Co-President at The Center School and parent of two at PS 199, I think I’ll call him and thank him for his efforts.
Comment by Mary — December 5, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
I have to agree with some of O’Donnell’s concerns. I’m not a Manhattanite, but a Brooklynite, but what I’ve seen for the last two years is a real need to re-evaluate the CECs in how they are elected and how they can better serve the parents, the community, and its schools they represent. Perhaps DOE can examine how many people actually attend all the meetings, see if the meetings take place in an accessible area for all parents in each district, and review how each meeting is announced. It might also be useful to provide minutes so at least people can see what kinds of decisions are made and how.
Comment by anonymous — December 6, 2008 @ 9:43 am
The CEC is made up of a group of volunteers. Mostly they have no power but for this one instance were given a serious issue to consider. A group of volunteers have made recommendations that have prioritized two schools needs over the good of the district. Why were the most crowded schools in the district not given top priority? Why was the 6th most crowded school in the district given top priority? Why are middle schools left to bear the burden of the overcrowding issue? One being forced out of their home, one school being crowded into their own building to make way for a citywide program and one school being disbanded to make room for a new middle school-where was the voice for these middle schools? nowhere to be found on the CEC that is for sure. Please lets take a good look at their role in this and see whos interests were serviced.
Comment by comment by anonymous — December 6, 2008 @ 11:25 am
According to the state law that created Community Education Councils, CECs are supposed to be consulted before any decision is made to close a school in their districts.
See the following story from NY1 last year — which cites the law and also quotes Jim Liebman as saying this: “The CECs, as in the past, were not consulted before the announcement. They’re being consulted now,” said James Liebman of the DOE.
If they are not, this is a violation of state law and the CECs should consider taking legal action.
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?&aid=76659&search_result=1&stid=4#
Some Say Klein Should Have Consulted Before Shutting Schools
December 17, 2007
The Department of Education decision to order 14 city school closed down is not sitting well with some politicians, parents and school advocates, especially with those who say the DOE violated state law in the way it went about it.
A city lawmaker says the chancellor may have acted too fast by not consulting with some local parent groups. NY1 Education reporter Michael Meenan filed the following report.
State law says the chancellor can close down schools, but he has to consult with the local Community Education Council, or CEC, when doing that. In East Harlem, the CEC president says no one at the DOE asked for his input before three closures were ordered in his district this month.
“There was definitely conversations, I wouldn’t say consultations. That’s what we’re working towards now,” said Hector Nazario of Community Education Council 4.
When to consult with these parent councils, before or after closures are announced, came to a head at a recent City Council hearing. A DOE official said many people were spoken with before schools were ordered closed but not these CECs.
“The CECs, as in the past, were not consulted before the announcement. They’re being consulted now,” said James Liebman of the DOE.
Prompting a warning from Councilman Robert Jackson.
“If that’s the direction the chancellor is going, he’s in big trouble,” said Jackson.
The law is clear enough. It says:
“The chancellor shall consult with the affected community district education council before: (a) substantially expanding or reducing such an existing school or program within a community district.”
But the DOE says, not so fast, saying that “firmly established legal precedent gives the chancellor the sole authority to decide to close schools.”
DOE says that means the chancellor needn’t ever consult with CECs when closing a school and that consultations are happening now because they’re the right thing, not because a state law calls for it. The former legal counsel to the old Board of Ed says that CECs are supposed to be consulted before closures and for good reason.
“The CECs replaced community school boards. So they were certainly intended as community entities to have at least an advisory role and sometimes a decision making role in the way students are educated in their districts,” said attorney David Bloomfield.
Nazario says the ironic thing is that the three schools ordered closed in his District 4 do need lots of improvement. He says he would have stood by the chancellor publicly about his decision, but he was never asked for his opinion.
“This is the way they treat us parents, and then they come back with roses trying to say they’re trying to clean things up,” says Nazario.
Jackson says the education committee is still looking a very hard look at the situation.
– Michael Meenan
Comment by Leonie Haimson — December 6, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
Lie down with dogs and you get fleas, Jennifer.
Comment by Richard — December 6, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
Give me a break. The CEC exists as a necessary bridge between the community and the education bureaucracy. They represent community interests (by the way, the district 3 community does include the parents and non-parents that reside in the PS199 catchment, not just the hand picked parents of the private school that uses the third floor of the PS199 building).
In this instance, the CEC made a RECOMMENDATION via a public process that DOE was heavily involved with. Ultimately DOE made the decision to relocate the Center School and ANderson School. PS199 wasn’t prioritized over anyone — whether Center School people like it or not the concept that young children should be given priority to their neighborhood catchment elementary school is a more important value than the inconvenience associated with moving a middle school.
If O’Donnell wants to oppose mayoral control, he has a platform do it but CEC’s are the community and he shouldn’t use Center School’s talking points to attack these parent volunteers.
Comment by enough — December 6, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
“The CECs replaced community school boards. So they were certainly intended as community entities to have at least an advisory role and sometimes a decision-making role in the way students are educated in their districts,” said attorney David Bloomfield.
I find the above quote to be alarming. Were they really to replace community school boards? Yikes. In that case, by all means, the CEC role needs to be re-evaluated, as I said in my #3 comment.
I do agree with “enough,” though, that neighborhood catchment should be a priority. I’m not that familiar with the UWS school issues (and based on the controversy, I’m glad I’m in Brooklyn!), I just find it astonishing that CECs should have any decision-making role in the way students are educated.
Comment by anonymous — December 6, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
I’d like to thank Jennifer and the entire CEC District 3 for all their hard work on the recent issues in District 3. Their hard work, dedication and care has ensured that many many children/kindergarteners will now be able to attend their local elementary school. Taking into consideration the needs of the ENTIRE community in an open forum are critical and that is what was done in this case.
Daniel O’ Donnel sounds just like another shill for the Center School.
Frank
Comment by Frank Thompson — December 7, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
Well, it absolutely me sickens me to see that the Center School are now focusing their efforts on attacking Jennifer Freeman and the CEC.
Kudos to both Ms. Freeman and the CEC for rising to the difficult challenge of solving District 3’s south end overcrowding problem with no physical resources. Ms. Freeman, thank you. You and the CEC handled the whole situation beautifully from start to finish, especially in the face of such ugliness from the likes of the Center School.
It is not lost on us REAL people that you and your team have dedicated and continue to dedicate a tremendous amount of your personal time for the betterment of our community. You have my gratitute and maximum respect.
Oh, and Center School, I LOVE comment number three (#3) from the “Brooklynite”. How cute. No doubt Ms. Cynthia Nixon’s parner Christine Marinoni. Hola Rojo Caliente! Hope you and yours have enjoyed dividing a defaming an entire community of honest families just so that you and your petty school director could show how powerful you are. Shame on you, brooklyn brownstone hollywood trash.
You Center School folks would be best served to be gracious for once. Everybody won, fair and square, even you in your bigger space. It’s just not what Elaine Schwartz wants? Tough luck. Say Uncle, or say Uncle Matt…
Comment by Uncle Matt — December 7, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
Uncle Matt,
I am not affiliated with Center School, but I can’t wait to tell my husband Cynthia Nixon is my lover!!
Chill out. Even Brooklynites have school issues and opinions.
xoxo, Hollywood Trash
Comment by Hollywood trash — December 9, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
Uncle Matt, At least Cynthia Nixon does not sit behind a keyboard and defame people - what your kid didn’t get it? - get over it - blogging on Thanksgiving - pathetic…and so are you!!!
Comment by comment by Margaret — December 10, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
Jennifer and the CEC did an excellent job stepping up to address the challenge of overcrowding in D3. We need our representatives in Albany to similarly step up and ensure all our children have access to resources, especially the quality of facilities and small class sizes found in the rest of the state. We have new leadership in Albany. We need more than letters of complaint to the DOE. We must now hear an agenda that serves the interests of public school families.
Comment by Patrick J. Sullivan — December 10, 2008 @ 10:30 pm