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 Schooland 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.