BY ALINE REYNOLDS | Downtown families and education activists are railing against a proposal for a charter high school they believe would be in low demand, and possibly privately run.
New York Flex Charter High School hopes to open its doors in fall 2012 to 125 ninth graders and grow to 550 students, grades nine through 12, by 2015-16. Board members are considering 123 William St., 17 Battery Place North, 175 Varick St. and 200 Hudson St. as possible sites. The school promises to offer its students individualized learning plans to help them organize their coursework and discover and articulate their academic strengths and weaknesses. It will welcome students with disabilities, English language learners and students on lunch vouchers, according to the school board’s application to the New York State Education Department, the agency responsible for authorizing charters.
But District Two Community Education Council Member Shino Tanikawa and other Downtown parents feel the school is an unnecessary addition to a neighborhood that is in dire need of more elementary schools. “Using resources to create a charter school in this budget climate is misguided,” said the P.S. 3 parent, who co-wrote a letter in early June to the State and city education departments contesting the school’s opening. “I think we need to direct our resources toward traditional public schools.”
“I think it’s just rather suspicious that they can’t find seats for public schools, but they’re finding seats for charter schools,” said P.S. 234 parent Tina Schiller. “I don’t think [the D.O.E. is] being particularly transparent with this process in [terms of] what their long term objective is.”
New York State Assembly Member Deborah Glick finds it “appalling” that the city D.O.E. would facilitate a location of a charter high school in light of the elementary school shortage.
“District Two continues to have serious overcrowding issues, which are clearly demonstrated by repeated wait lists for kindergarten and chaotic attempts to address overcrowding by reshuffling students,” said Glick. “It has become a D.O.E. policy to focus on the siting of charter schools rather than effectively addressing the larger community school needs.”
Glick and the community members are also questioning the school’s collaboration with learning provider K12 Inc., which will offer assistance in student assessment, human resources and other tasks designated by the school’s board and staff, according to Flex’s application. According to the application, “K12 will provide curriculum and instructional materials aligned to the N.Y. learning standards, digital resource functionality, testing and assessment tools aligned to the N.Y. State Testing Program, and teacher training.”
An amendment to the State’s 2010 charter school law, however, prohibits for-profit parties from operating or managing the schools. In a questionnaire, Flex’s founding board member Yung Moon, associate publisher of SELF Magazine, insists that the school’s board is not in a contractual relationship with K12 Inc.
A K12 spokesperson confirmed that Flex’s board doesn’t currently have a services agreement with the company, but that K12 would indeed enter into a contract with the school if and when the State approves its charter.
Leonie Haimson, executive director of the Greenwich Village-based nonprofit Class Size Matters, and others are suspicious of the relationship. “Though the applicants now claim only to be ‘collaborating’ with K12, but not ‘contracting’ with them… this claim appears made to allow the applicants to evade the ban in the new State law against for-profit managers of charter schools,” Haimson said in a written testimony given at Flex’s charter application hearing on Mon., June 6.
By referring to the partnership with K12 as a “collaboration” rather than a “contract,” Flex may be trying to avoid disclosing any personal or financial arrangements the school has with the company, according to Haimson.
And, while K12 boasts its “state-of-the-art interactive technology” and “award-winning” curriculum, Haimson said the company has a low performance rate, pointing out the 25 percent score the company recently received in national progress standards between 2003 and 2008.
Glick is equally concerned about Flex’s partnership with K12, and is urging the Education Department to deny the school a charter. “When this law was passed, the intent was to prevent for-profit entities from interfering with the management of schools,” said Glick. “This is a charter school that has documented ties to a for-profit entity and is blatantly attempting to do an end run around State law which specifically prohibits such ties.”
“Even though the applicant might have a non-profit status, much of the school’s instruction will be managed by K12,” echoed Tanikawa. “It sets a precedent for these for-profit charter operators to create a nonprofit façade and pretend that everything is fine.”
Community members and politicians are also outraged by the State Education Department’s absence from the June 6 hearing.
“It’s disrespectful. What kind of hearing is it when the people who are supposed to be listening to the public aren’t there?” said Tanikawa.
Haimson agreed. “It’s pretty bad,” she said. “The State education department is supposed to be interested in what the community and parents have to say about new charters.”
The hearing was held by the district, not the State, noted Education Department spokesperson Jonathan Burman. Given limited staff resources, he said, “[the department] has been unable to attend all hearings, and the [City] D.O.E. provides us with full summaries and records them, so the testimony provided at these hearings are duly considered in the process.”
The public, Burman added, can send the Department feedback about proposed charter schools at any point during the application process.
