At 4:54 p.m. Friday evening, the DOE notified P.S. 9's leaders that it had amended the 2 major documents—34 pages in all—to be discussed on Monday at a public hearing. Were the changes significant or superficial? Difficult to tell at a quick glance. Yet one aspect of this last-minute change is clear: by adopting a document-release technique employed by sneaky and scandal-ridden organizations the world round, DOE is essentially confirming that it has been hasty and opportunistic in pushing changes to P.S. 9's building , without bothering to weigh the evidence. Unfortunately, DOE's new Educational Impact Statement and Building Utilization Plan still propose the relocation of a charter middle school onto the second floor of 80 Underhill Avenue.
DOE's 11th-hour changes include:
•Raising the projected number of students at P.S. 9, from 650 to 729
•Shortening the already-slim description of the proposal's impact on P.S. 9 students; now one may find a few details buried in a catch-all "Impact on Students Currently Attending Schools in the K009 Building."
•Removing footnotes that chastised P.S. 9 for admitting out-of-zone students this year
•Adding 3 pages.
Also unchanged is DOE's severe underestimation of the number of classrooms that P.S. 9 will need at the enrollment rates it projects.
One stated purpose of DOE's revisions is to eliminate typographical errors caused by the initial rush. Yet the new documents introduce new typos—including one in a sentence about earlier typos! Obviously, Deputy Chancellor Sternberg, this persistent sloppiness is a sign that DOE needs to shelve this whole scheme until its team can do some honest and responsible evaluation.
You may still look at the original EIS and the original BUP.
(Eyebrows raised courtesy of The Truthiness Institute.)
2 comments:
Shocking! If they revise two pieces, they should just postpone the whole thing, but at least we've got momentum.
Below my proposed questions, all comments welcome. Maria
1) Projecting number of classes from the present intake of 6 classes per grade and the ‘footprint rules’ PS9 have a minimum need of 40 class rooms for 2013-14 and 44 by 2015 The DOE BUP allocates only 36 classrooms to PS9.
My question is: given that the DOE numbers shrink PS9 form the present size, please provide some transparency how is this shinking in the face off the increased need going to happen and what is the justification for cutting PS9? who will be kicked out? Where will my present kindergartener be in 4th and 5th grade?
2) My second question is: How is the PS9 community supposed to understand the fact that the BEC is the only school eating lunch at noon and per class on the BUP has been allocated more than 6 times!!!!! more gym and library time than PS9 classes?
As this unfathomable disproportionate calculation survived the Friday’s ‘typo’ revision, one is left to ask why? What possible justification can the DOE officially provide for this plain injustice and slap in the face of the community that has worked so hard at creating resources for our kids?
Post a Comment