Skip to content

PS 9 Co-Location: Another Missed Opportunity by the DOE

July 22, 2011

by Katie O’Hare

“You can’t make a decision, then say you are giving a space for feedback because that’s really false democracy…it’s such a missed opportunity.” 

-PS 9 Parent Advocate Committee (PAC) member Ivana Espinet 

On July 20th, the NY State Education Department dismissed an appeal filed by parents at PS 9 in Brooklyn against the co-location of Brooklyn East Collegiate Charter School (BECCS) in their building. It looks like BECCS will be moving in while MS 571 phases out, but that doesn’t mean the larger push for co-location reform is over. Judge Paul Feinman may have denied the UFT’s and NAACP’s request to halt the city from moving forward on school co-locations and closures, but the debate over educational equality between district schools and charter schools students must still be addressed.

At PS 9, the first missed opportunity was expanding PS 9 to middle grades instead of co-locating BECCS. While PS 9’s letter of intent to expand was approved for the 2012-2013 school year and PS 9 received an extension to submit the full proposal by October 1st, the BECCS co-location means they can only expand within their space. PS 9 is currently at full capacity with a waiting list for Kindergarten. If they do decide to expand, they face difficult choices such as serving less elementary students, or cutting from the Pre-K and Gifted and Talented program.

The other missed opportunity was the NYC Dept. of Education’s (DOE) failure to facilitate meaningful engagement of the school community. The PS 9 Parent Advocate Committee has remained strong and steadfast as they’ve fought the co-location plan for the last seven months; their story illustrates the grave need for reform of the the co-location process that was most recently outlined by Public Advocate Bill de Blasio in his “Consensus for Reform” report.

Laura Jaffe, a PAC member at PS 9 explains, “I think you have to approach the school right from the gate…they could have co-located a public school with the same kind of curriculum.” If the school community had been involved in the co-location proposal and decision-making process, they would have known about the plans to close MS 571 and could have applied to expand PS 9 to a middle school. Unfortunately, Principal Sandra D’Avilar’s letter of intent to expand was submitted after the April 13, 2010  deadline. While PS 9 has been invited to submit a proposal to expand in the 2012-2013 school year, now that the co-location plan has been approved they can only expand within their current space. Since PS 9 is at full capacity with a Kindergarten waiting list, they will have to make difficult decisions if they do choose to expand.

Currently, the calculations used by the DOE to create the required Building Usage Plan (BUP) and Educational Impact Statement (EIS) for each school is another significant flaw in the process. The footprint analysis that is used doesn’t consider non-instructional spaces (ie, gyms, cafeterias, etc) or overall student population density. Ivana Espinet adds, “I don’t think [DOE footprint data] is an accurate measure. It’s not about how many people you can cram into a certain amount of space…They are looking at it from numbers not what is going to serve the community, ultimately the purpose of schools.” Additionally, transparency and clarity about the process are minimal, at best.

On July 20, Deputy Commissioner of Education Valerie Grey filed a dismissal of the PS 9 appeal. In addition to procedural issues, Grey noted an “EIS is required to address issues such as “the impact of a proposed co-location on affected students and its ramifications upon the community…DOE is afforded a considerable amount of discretion in determining how best to do this.” Thus Grey concluded, “there is no requirement that the impact of a co-location be addressed in a BUP.”

The problem isn’t just with the freedom given to the DOE to determine what information to share and how, but with the purpose of the BUP and EIS as stated in the statue. The proposals are supposed to “provide sufficient information to the public to inform their comments on the proposal.”5 LeBrie agrees the legal language poses a problem. LeBrie explained, “I think part of the problem is the process. The only purpose is to inform public. If the law says these proposals are the foundation for this co-location, then they (the DOE) would be more careful about them.”

Although the appeal was dismissed PAC members remain vigilant; for often it is parent and local community groups that are the strongest supporters of their neighborhood schools. Each time the DOE dismisses or trivializes parent and community voices, it is a missed opportunity to build a more equitable, just school system. How long will children, teachers, and parents have to wait for the DOE to take advantage of these opportunities?

4 Comments leave one →
  1. Bryan G Davis permalink
    July 23, 2011 3:26 pm

    This is very interesting. I have a few questions…Did the parents inform the principal of the desire to expand into a middle school prior to finding out that MS 571 was to be phased out? Has the principal wanted to expand the school into a middle school? Did the principal express these desires to the Superintendant prior to the co-location proposal? It is very important for school communities that want to expand existing programs to communicate those desires with the principal, superintendent and the CEC. There are processes in place that could have prevented what happened at PS 9. If the school community had made these desires known then the superintendant could have brought this up at the District Planning Team meeting when this specific co-location was discussed. As the VP of CEC Six I have discovered that school communities often do not pay any attention to what is going on in the rest of the district. Parents rarely attend CEC meetings where information such as this is shared.

    I agree that the DOE needs to do a better job of communicating, but school communities need to realize that they are part of a district, and CEC’s need to do a better job of identifying the needs of individual schools in their district and come up with strategies around school planning that put the needs of all children in a district first. In addition please note that pre-k programs and gifted and talented programs are district programs NOT an individual schools program. The placement of such programs needs to benefit the entire district not just a specific school. The DOE needs to do a better job of educating parents in regards to the current processes that are in place to facilitate communication between the DOE and individual school communities and we parents need to do a better job at making sure that we participate in the structures that currently exist to facilitate communication.

  2. first-hand observer permalink
    July 24, 2011 11:25 pm

    there are inaccuracies here. the PS expansion application was filed in time for the 4/13 deadline. It was filed after the last revision to the co-location proposal however, although it was heavily under development at the time that the first colocation EIS was found to be illegal and dismissed. The PS9 community was aware of the 571 phase-out proposal for around 2 weeks before the colocation proposal was presented to us. It was all clearly conceived as a piece (why else would 571 be phased out so quickly? 2 years ago it was a “B” school according to the DOE!) Engagement with the community could have produced a different result. It seems very much that the DOE was settling scores with Uncommon for promises it was unable to fulfill the previous year due to the UFT lawsuit. PS9 and MS571 are mere pawns in the game. What’s in it for the DOE? not clear. they say it’s because “you will not find a better educational organization” than Uncommon schools, but it reeks of backroom deals and money changing hands in darklit rooms. If not, give us reason to believe otherwise please!


  1. Remainders: Critiquing legalese in the city’s co-location plans | GothamSchools
  2. Online Education in America » Blog Archive » Remainders: Critiquing legalese in the city’s co-location plans

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: