8/8/2019 Mulgrew a190 Letter

1/2

f TeachersYork, NY 10004

org

d Aaronson

Secretarystant T reawr erP d d e n t s :Afwd

AlvarezCasey

Marc StembergDivision of Portfolio PlanningTweed Courthouse52 Chambers StreetNew York, NY 10007Dear Mr. Sternberg,

We have reviewed the proposed revisions of Chancellor's Regulation A-190. Wetake note that the Department of Education has responded positively to a number of theconcerns raised by the plaintiffs who filed suit against the Department of Educationregarding its failure to follow Education Law 52590 in its proposal to close 19 schoolslast Spring. However, several important issues remain:1 This regulation needs to apply to programs that operate as schools as well asschools that experience a change in space utilization. (page 1; section IG)2. Regarding notification of the School Leadership Team, the appropriate school staffperson to be notified of the proposal to change the school's utilization is the "chair of theSLT(s) of the impacted school(s)," not "the principal(s) of the impacted school(s) in his orher capacity as a member of the SLT." (pages 3-5; sections llA3, llA4, IIBI, llB3)3. As written, this regulation gives the Chancellor ultimate decision-making authoritywith regard to the scheduling of the joint public hearing. The law, however, does notprovide the Chancellor with this authority; instead, it requires that the hearings be joint.The CEC, the SLT, and the DOE must work together to ensure that the needs of allcommunity members that will be affected by the proposed change shall be met. Byentrusting the Chancellor with such authority, attempts at building consensus may belimited and restricted. (page 4; section llB2(b))4. By affording the Chancellor unilateral authority on the revision of the EIS, thisregulation limits the ability of the public to fully engage in the process. Education Laws2590-h.2-a.dl specifically requires a second public hearing if the EIS is revised. Sincethe joint public hearing provides an opportunity for those who will be impacted by achange in a school's space utilization to respond to the proposal, those impacted shouldcertainly have a chance to respond to any proposed revisions. (page 4; section 1185)5. To be most effective, a campus building committee must have representatives of themain constituencies of the school. Such a committee should be comprised of the samerepresentatives, whether or not there is a charter school sited on the campus. To thatend, we assert that the Building Council is unnecessary and the Shared SpaceCommittee should be created for each campus and perform the responsibilities assignedby the regulation to the Building Council. If there will be two committees, we maintainthat the campus building council should have teacher representation in the form of theUFT chapter leader or his or her designee. The UFT chapter leader (where applicable),

8/8/2019 Mulgrew a190 Letter

2/2

his or her designee, or a teacher representative (in the case of a charter school thatdoes not have union representation) of each school should also serve on the SharedSpace Committee. Likewise, the PTA president or designee of each school or programshould replace the parent on the shared space committee. (page 6; section l llA1 andpage 7; section IIIB1)6. To effectively support school communities, the DOE must have the capacity to shareall efforts taken to intervene prior to the decision to close or phase out any school. Thisinformation must be presented, in writing, to all impacted community members in theEIS. (Attachment 1A, page 1 section I)7. In instances of phase out and re-siting, the DOE uses the tern "community" withoutpresenting a definition. We are concerned that this will lead to either an unnecessarilynarrow or inappropriately broad definition of community, when applied in practice.(Attachments IA, IB, IC)8. The DOE must include PSAL, noteworthy academic and CTE programs,extracurricular activities, CBO engagement. (Attachment 1A, page 1 section Ill a andAttachment IC , page 1 section I ll a)9. Enrollment projection and change in geographic community school district, if anyshould be presented when the information about the building is proposed for co-location.(Attachment 1B, page 1 section II)10. In cases of the reconfiguration of a school's grades, the DOE must list possibleschools (including selection criteria, location, and enrollment) that are similar to theschool being impacted located within the neighborhood, community school district andborough. (Attachment 1A, page 2 section Ill b and Attachment 1C, page 2 section I ll a)11. Over the past few years, there have been several instances of temporary placementof schools for incubation purposes as well as to address construction needs. In cases ofre-siting and co-location, the length of time for the expected siting should be included.The expected final site of the school must also be included. (Attachment IC, page 1section I)12. In cases of co-location and re-siting, since there is an undeniable impact on existingschools, the DOE must consider the space it could have used to reduce class size.Specifically, the DOE should explain whether an existing school has class sizes inexcess of C4E targets and if citing of new school will limit the existing school's ability toreduce class size in the future. (Attachments 1A, 1C, and 2)The aforementioned changes will, we are sure, allow engaged community members toparticipate in a process that is transparent, fair, and just. We welcome the opportunity todiscuss these issues with you.Sincerely,

Michael MulgreW L