Community Education Council – District 20

415- 89^th Street

Brooklyn, NY

Calendar Meeting

December 14, 2011

IS259, 7301 Ft. Hamilton Pkwy, Brooklyn, NY

Excused:  Tatyana Segal

Meeting Start Time: 7:05PM

1. Call To Order:  Mark Bramante, IS259 Color Guard, Keyboard Selection

1. Roll Call:  Dina Gangemi

III.        Approval of November 2011 Minutes

• Motion made by Mark Bramante
• All in favor

IV.        President’s Report: Laurie Windsor

• Thanked everyone for coming out
• Welcomed everyone to IS259
• Thanked Ms.Geary, Principal of IS259 for hosting meeting
• Welcomed the following guests

Bill Chin, district 20 Family Advocate

Judith Collins, representing Community Board 10

Sara Steinweiss, representing Councilman Vincent Gentile’s office

June Johnson, representing Senator Marty Golden

Heather Chin, Home Reporter

Ellen Driesen, District 20 UFT representative

V.         Committee Reports: Mark Bramante

            Mark read a letter that was written by him on zoning of PS748

Tonight the CEC will vote on a number of proposals to zone and rezone schools across the district.  The proposals were created by the Office of Portfolio Management in close consultation with the CEC.   The proposals were presented to the public at a CEC Zoning Committee meeting on November 8 and a CEC monthly meeting on November 9.  This round of rezoning is part of a decade long process that began before the CEC was even in existence and has been a major focus of the CEC since its inception in 2004. 

As we all know, District 20 is the second most crowded district in the city.  On top of that, District 20 is densely populated and its population is growing at a rapid pace, largely due to immigration. Add to that the reality of a dearth of space available in the most crowded parts of the district and you have the current situation where even brand new schools are overcrowded the year they have all their grades in the building.

Over the past 30 days the CEC, Portfolio and the Superintendent have received comments on the proposals.  The overwhelming majority of the comments were from parents of children currently in PS 748.  The comments shared a common theme:  “I chose 748 for my child because I thought it would be a place where only select students were admitted”.  Select meaning gifted and talented students (like most of the commenters’ children) or students chosen in some to be determined application process.  There was statements made that indicated that people who chose 748 were in some way misled by the Department of Education.  In line with those comments was the sentiment that 748 should not be zoned because parents deserve the ability to choose the public elementary school their child attends and that the CEC and the DOE are taking away the ability and/or right of parents to choose their child’s elementary school. 

We would like to address the points made by the commenters from 748 as they were the most significant.

 The initial thing to understand is that PS 748 was never in the minds of the CEC, the Superintendent or anyone in the DOE intended to be anything other than a zoned school created to alleviate overcrowding at its predecessor school, PS/IS 163 and PS 200 (and in a very complicated way, IS 201).  The idea that the school is being “changed” from an application school to a zoned school is fundamentally incorrect.  In practice when a new school like 748 is opened, the DOE and the District use the first year or two of its opening to gauge the impact of the school on the community before establishing its zone.  During that time, admissions to a school is often left to the principal so the number of new students can be carefully controlled.  That is what happened at 748 and what is going on around the district for all the new schools that have either just opened or are being incubated in another building.  In addition to gauging impact, the slow controlled growth allows for the principal and staff to become familiar with the building and adapt to it.  The current students attending 748 were allowed to “choose” the school as part of the District’s efforts to get the school started and to slowly bring 748 up to speed.  No one from the CEC or the DOE made statements that the school would be a gifted and talented or application school.  If parents were led to believe that from other sources that is beyond the control of the CEC or DOE.

As for the “right” of parents to choose an elementary school, everyone would love to have unlimited choices in education.  Unfortunately, when dealing with a public school system with limited funds and a severe overcrowding problem, choice is not a right and rarely an option.  The CEC and the DOE are not taking away choice at 748.  Choice never really existed.  The parents who were offered seats in 748 were given the opportunity to send their mostly gifted and talented children there because that was in the best interest of the school and the district at that time.  There was never any intention for that to be a permanent method of admitting children to 748.

Finally, one of the comments stated that the CEC failed to strategically plan and project the number of students when planning for the new PS/IS 163.  This statement is patently incorrect and made without any knowledge of the process by the commenter.  As previously stated, The CEC and the DOE have been working on a comprehensive plan to find space and build new schools throughout the district for almost a decade.  All parties involved, including the principals of 163, 200, 201 and 229 were consulted prior to any decisions being made.  Every effort was made to plan and build schools wherever space could be found to alleviate overcrowding as best possible.

Few comments were submitted from the other schools impacted as each of those schools would either benefit in reduced overcrowding or because the community of the impacted school understood the necessity of the zoning changes and accepted its responsibility to share the burden and help to keep District 20 a top performing district.

In summary, the CEC and the DOE have not ignored the pleas of the current parents of students in PS 748.  What we have done is to try and improve the ability of all children in District 20 to learn effectively balancing the competing demands of all interested parties.  All voices were heard and all points of view were considered.   Tonight the CEC will vote to either accept or reject these proposals based upon the best interests of all children and parents in District 20.

1. Superintendent’s Report: Karina Costantino

• Wished everybody a happy and healthy holiday season
• Congratulations on the appointments of Kevin O’Hanlon and Carol Heeraman

1. Appointment of Kevin O’Hanlon, Assistant Principal I.S. 223

• Speakers on behalf of Kevin O’Hanlon
• Mr. O’Hanlon, thanked everyone for making this possible

1. Appointment of Carol Heeraman, Principal I.S. 30

• Speakers on behalf of Ms. Heeraman
• Ms. Heeraman thanked everyone for making this possible

1. Vote on Zoning Proposal

• CEC voting on zoning for PS69, PS105,PS164 & PS/IS 180, Motion made by Mark Bramante, all in favor, motion carries
• CEC voting on zoing for PS748, PS/IS163 & PS200, Motion made by Mark Bramante, all in favor, motion carries

1. Public Speakers:

• Laura Hamilton, read the following letter:
• I am writing to make you aware of a serious violation that occurred this weekend, during the OLSAT testing at Shallow Middle School.  The test was improperly administered and therefore invalid.  When assessments are administered unfairly, everyone loses.  If the goal is to allow the brightest the opportunity to attend Superintendent program, how does an improperly administered test achieve this goal?  Today, I wrote to Chancellor Walcott.  Here is a copy of that letter:
  
  
  On Saturday, December 10th at 9:00AM, my son took the OLSAT test at Shallow Middle School in Brooklyn. The proctor for his test was Mr. Profera. Mr. Profera told the children in this group that they should repeat after him, "There is no writing on the OLSAT." My son questioned Mr. Profera several times and asked if they could use scrap paper. Profera, unkindly, replied "NO!" and made the kids repeat it again and again. The problem is, in other classrooms, other proctors encouraged the students to write on the tests. It is ludicrous that 10 year old children should not be able to do math calculations and number theory using pencil and paper. It is obvious that the hundreds of students who were allowed to write on the test have a distinct advantage over the students who were not allowed to write on the OLSAT. I spoke to a representative from Pearson, today, who assured me that the directions do not say that the kids should not write on the test. I understand that each proctor is given a script, but I am here to tell you Mr. Profera and several other proctors did not follow the script. Either all the kids should be able to write on the test or all the kids should not be able to write on the test. A standardized test is only valid if all of the people taking the test receive the same instructions. This was not the case. Now, my child is extremely bright, he earned 4s on both his ELA and Math State test, last year. I am sure that he excelled at the OLSAT, once he adapted to the unfairness of the testing conditions. And, I am sure that he will get into the Academy of Choice at the District 20 Middle School that he desires. However, that is not the point. The point is that all of the students who took the OLSAT should be on a level playing field or else the test should not count for anyone. Why were some children allowed to write on the test and others not permitted to? My son was not the only child that we know who was subjected to this unfairness.