Oct 28, 2016

Letter: Where CEC won't represent parents, DOE must help

A joint letter from PSPED and the District 3 Task Force for Equity in Education:

October 28, 2016

Dear Chancellor Fariña,

The parents and educational communities of Community School District 3 are in a dual crisis.

It is common knowledge that our schools are made deeply unequal by years of disparities in resources and supports, and yet there is no vision and no policy to address those inequalities. The effect is that access to education and educational outcomes are skewed by race, income, national origin, housing status, and other factors. This is happening not just because schools serving low-income families have less, but because privileged parents are allowed to group themselves into specific schools for the purpose of having more. This deliberate production of inequality is largely unacknowledged by the Department of Education (DOE) and Community Education Council (CEC) 3, although it is a matter of constant public discussion among parents and school communities.
                                                                                                    
Compounding this unacceptable state of District 3 schools, our CEC has yet to acknowledge its obligation to represent District 3 parents and “promote achievement of educational standards and objectives relating to the instruction of students,” as New York State law demands.

“Desegregation” and the CEC rezoning
We appreciate the fact that the CEC has recently acknowledged that the District’s schools are segregated and that the problems of zoning, overcrowding, and segregation are joined. This was not the case a year ago, and it does mark significant progress. However, we disagree with the CEC that its rezoning plan is a “desegregation" plan; it does not represent the interests of low-income families of color throughout the district. While the CEC has begun to portray itself as a champion of diversity, we must insist that words be backed with actions that address how structural racism creates segregated and unequal learning environments and opportunities for the majority of the district’s children.

At the same time, CEC3 continues to sideline discussions about the vast disparities that exist among schools, and how privilege allows some families to choose and gain access to certain schools, thereby disproportionately concentrating resources in select schools and exacerbating overcrowding. Moreover, for the past three years, the CEC has focused its attention on overcrowding at a few high-performing and heavily parent funded schools at the southern end of the district. The rezoning focuses mostly on schools where high-income families have accessed the vast majority of seats. The schools left aside are virtually all low-income Title I schools, serving mostly families of color.

PS 241 and the exclusion of low-income schools from CEC representation
The CEC has also consistently sidelined discussion about the need to support the many under resourced schools outside the small area targeted for rezoning. The “surprise” closure of PS241 is just one example of how the CEC’s myopic focus has harmed families and schools in the rest of the district.

Like the CEC’s new turn to “desegregation,” its plan for PS 241, which would effectively change zone lines, seems to have emerged without the participation of the affected school community. The CEC’s proposed zoning plan for PS241 makes no provision for mitigating the impact it will have on the children in the building, and recommends an engagement process only after the plan is approved. We ask, do the families in this school and all the other schools in the northern part of District 3 deserve the same policymaking process that has been afforded the more vocal families at PS199, PS452, PS9, PS87, PS166 and the other lower district communities who have controlled the discourse on this subject? 

CEC leaders have often repeated the refrain that low-income parents, parents of color, and parents from Harlem schools should raise equity concerns at CEC meetings – and that since they don’t show up en masse like parents concerned about rezoning, they must not be very concerned. There are several problems with such reasoning. First, as parents and community members have commented: there has consistently been a lack of notice, a lack of outreach, and a lack of infrastructure (language interpretation and childcare) for meetings that have resulted in the de facto prioritizing of those with greater flexibility of schedule and resources. Second, discussions about disparities and supporting low-income schools have had to be virtually elbowed in at Zoning Committee meetings and CEC public meetings. Since these meetings are never set up to discuss school equity, raising these issues often appears “off topic” and is treated as a distraction from the severely limited issues around which agendas have been planned. Given the need to literally clear space to talk about school quality, and the often hostile and dismissive response from CEC leadership, the claim that the CEC is open to parents is disingenuous at best. The combined result is that parents concerned about equity and parents at low-income schools have little reason to view the CEC as a place where they can find representation.

Community-Controlled Choice
Parents, PTAs, SLTs, and community advocates have been asking since 2014 for CEC3 to consider Community-Controlled Choice as a way to remedy unequal schools, admissions criteria that offer disproportionate choice to privileged families, and over- and under enrollment. There is no other proposal on the table to address those problems.

In its October 18 letter, the CEC claimed that Community-Controlled Choice had been considered but had left too many unanswered questions. Both of these claims are untrue: it was never considered, and the CEC has never pursued answers. Further, the leadership of the CEC has made clear that they oppose Community-Controlled Choice. Letters from the leadership of the CEC to parents and advocates have made inaccurate claims that “controlled choice does not enjoy a level of support in District 3 that makes further consideration prudent.”[1] The leadership of the CEC has made these profoundly undemocratic assessments against Controlled Choice.

Under pressure from parents, advocates, and PTAs, the CEC held two deeply flawed community forums to discuss Community-Controlled Choice. They were planned in such a way that low-income parents were substantially excluded.[2] The Task Force, which had invested several years considering how Community-Controlled Choice might work in District 3, was not allowed to present because it was “not impartial.” Instead, the CEC created a panel with little knowledge of District 3, and limited what the panelists could say. Lisa Donlan, a panelist who was then CEC1 president, detailed in a recent comment on Chalkbeat that the panel appeared set up to preempt, rather than facilitate, consideration of Community-Controlled Choice:

“Despite my clear claims that, under the model of community-led controlled choice, each community would need to clarify its own values and examine the geographic and historical context that contribute to the segregation problem that controlled choice could address, I was asked to answer questions about a plan for D3 that had not been created!...

…That process is not necessarily lengthy or expensive (in D1 we funded most of our work- workshops, forums, studies, Town Halls, etc, with our CEC budget and certainly could have been well advanced by now if it had been undertaken when discussed many months ago…

…I was told by a CEC Task Force on Overcrowding panel organizer that I could not use words like "segregated schools" as they are too hurtful…

…The panel was asked to provide a busing and transportation plan for a proposal that had not been designed, and other such backwards planning requests.

…These sorts of constraints and questions indicated an underlying general resistance to actually exploring controlled choice as an option, based on a deep aversion to removing zone lines, the ones that ensure privileged access to the most resourced schools.

…The panels felt set up in a way to avoid having to consider ways to reach for real equity for all children by finding fault with controlled choice before it even had a chance, so it would not be given consideration in D3.”[3]

What would be needed to genuinely give Controlled Choice a real consideration is a commitment from the CEC to invest in a community-wide planning process, similar to the process that District 1 developed and implemented.[4] This process would not be a decision to implement Controlled Choice, it would be a decision to fully consider it, and finally address the severe and entrenched inequities that plague our district.
 
Public process and Open Meetings law
The CEC has created an unfortunate practice of making decisions on behalf of District 3, with little or no public consideration – often accompanied by disingenuous claims that they are actually the product of public engagement. The summary dismissal of Community-Controlled Choice is one example. The CEC’s rezoning proposal letter is yet another.

There is a question as to whether the CEC’s plan required a public vote since there was an action taken by the members of the CEC that proposed a rezoning plan.  The New York State Committee on Open Government is directed by the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) and under the Open Meetings Law to furnish advice and issue regulations. The law requires public bodies, including the CEC, to provide notice of the times and places of meetings and to keep minutes of actions taken.  Open Meetings Law states: “It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens… be fully aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy." We are very concerned that it appears that CEC3 did not follow the Open Meetings Law in proposing a re-zoning plan to DOE without a vote in public.  It is imperative that all actions by the CEC be transparent so that the public may be engaged and informed in a proper and timely manner about decisions that affect all the students in the District 3 community.

Finally including all of District 3 parents, schools, and communities
The CEC’s October 18th proposal to Chancellor Fariña demonstrates that the CEC has begun to recognize the problem of segregation and inequity in our District. But tacking “desegregation” onto a small, piecemeal rezoning is a shortsighted approach that avoids confronting the underlying causes and leaves the systemic problem unresolved. It is also unconscionable to conduct “desegregation” without the participation of low-income communities. 

We respectfully request, once again, that you support our recommendation to engage the District 3 community in a planning process to delve seriously into Community-Controlled Choice as a potential solution to the most pressing systemic problems that create unequal schools.

We request that the CEC’s plan be rejected in favor of a more comprehensive plan that reviews the entire district and fulfills the CEC’s unmet obligation to provide all District 3 parents and community with “a public forum to air their concerns.” 

The families of District 3 deserve to have a real chance at equitable schools throughout the district. Segregation (the problem) and overcrowding (its effect) need to be addressed in a manner that deals together with defining and creating diversity, equitably funding and supporting schools, improving school outcomes, halting the siphoning effect of charter schools, and challenging the “ownership” of better resourced schools by privileged families.

This cannot happen in a CEC that represents only the loudest, most privileged families and schools. We ask, therefore, for your support in holding the CEC to its statutory obligation to represent the rest of us, and to create equal educational opportunity for all of our children.

Sincerely,
Ujju Aggarwal
Marilyn Barnwell
Flor Donoso
Lori Falchi
Theresa Hammonds
Elena Nasereddin
Donna Nevel
Lizabeth Sostre
Members, District 3 Equity in Education Task Force
Emmaia Gelman (PS 75)
Yassiel Nieves (PS 145)
Kavita Singh (PS 333/MSC)
Toni Smith-Thompson (Mott Hall II)
for
NYC Public School Parents for Equity and Desegregation



[1] https://nycpsped.blogspot.com/2016/10/cec3-pres-response-to-psped-letter.html
[2] For discussion of forum planning, see www.d3equity.org.
[3] http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2016/10/19/drowned-out-of-upper-west-side-rezoning-battle-desegregation-advocates-fight-for-a-broader-plan/#.WBN6L-ErL-Y
[4] For information on CEC1’s community engagement process, see CECd1.org
, , , , ,

Oct 24, 2016

Research on School Equity and Community-Controlled Choice

The website of the District 3 Task Force for Equity in Education hosts a collection of research and documents that's not available elsewhere online. Their "Resources and Documents" page can be accessed directly here.


, , , ,

Challenging CEC3's tightly-controlled "open discussion" of school equity

Last March, Lisa Donlan was at CEC3's forum on a potential solution to unequal schools: Controlled Choice admissions. This week, Donlan explained how the forum was used to deny the policy a hearing even as the CEC gave the appearance of raising it.

CEC3 claimed in a letter to DOE last week that it had considered and rejected Community-Controlled Choice. Donlan wrote this explanation of why the CEC's claim rang hollow. She posted it in response to a Chalkbeat article on the CEC's letter.
I was one of the panelists at the two Controlled Choice forums in question and I must say, as I did at both panels, I am NO EXPERT! I am a parent leader/now community member who has been active in the movement to address systemic segregation in NYC public schools for more than 10 years, working with grass roots organizers, parents and communities across NYC to explore policy options that address segregation. 
As a result if this work I have had the opportunity to learn form and collaborate with with folks from D3, as well as D13, D15 and many other communities across NYC who are looking at dismantling segregating assignment policies. 
My only "expertise" is derived from a deep understanding of my community- CSD1 (the LES/ East Village) - and our long struggle to dismantle the admissions policies that cause and contribute to school segregation. 
(You can learn at lot about that history here: https://cecd1.org/cec1-initiat...
and here: https://cecd1.org/district-1/h... and here: https://cecd1.org/2015/09/14/s... 
I participated in the two CEC3 Task Force on Overcrowding panels in that capacity and was clear that I could provide no "answers" for D3. Rather, I was adamant that I could offer only a potential model for D3 to consider -based on our work in D1, and the work of grass roots groups already studying the issue and solutions in D3( see http://www.d3equity.org/p/abou... with whom we often collaborated. 
Despite my clear claims that, under the model of community-led controlled choice, each community would need to clarify its own values and examine the geographic and historical context that contribute to the segregation problem that controlled choice could address, I was asked to answer questions about a plan for D3 that had not been created!
I explained that after analyzing and coming to a deep understanding of the factors that create segregation in D3, the local leaders and stakeholders needed to clarify their vision for equity and fairness and then work with data and expert planners to hard wire those values into policy. 
I talked about D1 and our work and how it garnered us a Federally funded grant to create such a plan to pilot in CSD1. That process is not necessarily lengthy or expensive ( in D1 we funded most of our work- workshops, forums, studies, Town Halls, etc, with our CEC budget and certainly could have been well advanced by now if it had been undertaken when discussed many months ago. 
Nonetheless I was told by a CEC Task Force on Overcrowding panel organizer that I could not use words like "segregated schools" as they are too hurtful. At the meetings I was asked questions like:
"Are you asking UWS families to leave their current schools and go uptown to attend failing schools?"
And:
"Will there be two kinds of admissions priorities- for those who bought vs those who rent on the UWS?" 
The panel was asked to provide a busing and transportation plan for a proposal that had not been designed, and other such backwards planning requests. 
These sorts of constraints and questions indicated an underlying general resistance to actually exploring controlled choice as an option, based on a deep aversion to removing zone lines, the ones that ensure privileged access to the most resourced schools. The panels felt set up in a way to avoid having to consider ways to reach for real equity for all children by finding fault with controlled choice before it even had a chance, so it would not be given consideration in D3. 
A band aid approach can never dismantle the systemic structural inequities in our city - rezoning and single school set asides will not achieve the goals of providing equity and excellence in education for all children.
,

Building Justice: Segregation in NYC Schools is No Accident (CityLimits.org, 10/24/16)

Snippet:
"Today, school segregation in District 3 is the result of many factors, including, for example, the drawing of zone lines to exclude low-income housing as well as the ability of those with economic wealth to buy or rent a home in close proximity to a desired school.  
"In District 3, the latter has resulted in an aggressive urban local proprietism where wealthy families increasingly express a belief that they have a special “pact with the city“ that ensures them access to a certain school.  
"School segregation in District 3 also takes shape through the creation of programs in schools that create intra-school segregation as well as the creation of new kindergarten seats—and even, the creation of a new school—despite ample room in nearby schools, ensuring the separation of wealthy children. 
"Finally, in District 3, school segregation is also fueled by the ability of many with economic resources to choose and gain disproportionate access to schools outside of their zoned school... According to the Center, the primary reason for this divide is that wealthy parents choose a school that is outside of their zone."
Read the full article
by Ujju Aggarwal and Donna Nevel:
http://citylimits.org/2016/10/24/building-justice-segregation-in-nyc-schools-is-no-accident/ , , , , ,

What are Community Education Councils (CECs) supposed to do?

Most parents don't know about the Community Education Councils that are supposed to represent us and make sure our schools are working. Although CECs don't have a lot of power to make policy, they do have the power to create a space for parents, schools, and school districts to speak out about their needs. CECs have a megaphone to relay those needs to DOE and the media.

The ability to represent parents and communities -- to say what we care about and what our kids need -- is a powerful political tool in itself. CEC members have a lot of wiggle room in deciding how to use it since so few parents participate in electing them. How is your CEC using it?

Scroll down to read the NYS law that sets out Community Education Councils' responsibilities.

What are CECs?

"The Community Education Councils are the structures replacing the former community school boards. There are 32 Community Education Councils for each of New York City’s 32 community school districts, with each council having twelve members. In contrast to the former community school boards, which did not require members to have children enrolled in the city’s public schools, at least nine of the twelve available seats on each CEC must be held by public school parents. Two members of each CEC are appointed by the borough presidents and these members are not required to have children in the public schools. One member of the CEC must be a non-voting high school senior who lives in the community school district and is on the elected student leadership of his/her school. This member is appointed by the community superintendent (New York City Department of Education, 2009b). 
"Parents interested in serving on the community education councils can nominate themselves for the position. With regard to elections, members are selected by the President, Secretary, and Treasurer of every Parent and Parent- 7 Castillo: Public Participation and Mayoral Control Teacher Association (PA/PTA) in the district. These three PA/PTA officers are known as Parent Selectors. To facilitate public participation in the electoral process, public meetings are held in each community school district. At these public meetings, candidates are able to make presentations to the parent selectors, other parents, and members of the community. Anyone attending these public meetings can submit written comments regarding CEC candidates that are shared with the parent selectors. Following these public meetings, each PA/PTA is encouraged to hold membership meetings to obtain additional feedback on the candidates (New York City Department of Education, 2009c). 
"While Community Education Council members are predominantly parents with children in the school system, they are intended to serve as representatives of both parents with children in the school system and members of the greater district community. According to Section 2590-e of New York State's Education Law, the CECs are responsible for "promoting the achievement of educational standards and objectives relating to the instruction of students.” State law encourages a collaborative rather than adversarial relationship with school system administrators, calling on CEC members to “establish a positive working relationship with the community superintendent and local instructional superintendents.” The CECs are intended to gather community input on educational policy issues in the district and work with Department of Education officials to help ensure that such concerns are reflected in school policy and administration. The CECs have the power to approve school zoning changes within the district and also play a role in evaluating the community superintendents and the local instructional superintendents (Salimi, Atwell, Culp, Poreda-Ryan, & Hogrebe, 2006)."

(Castillo, Marco A. (2013) "Public Participation, Mayoral Control, and the New York City Public School System," Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 9: Iss. 2, Article 6. Available at: http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol9/iss2/art6)


What are CECs required to do under New York State law?
Highlighted parts lay out what the CEC is required to do on behalf of the communities in each school district. Much of the rest of the law covers administrative rules.

§2590-E - Powers and duties of community district education council
Cite: N.Y. E.D.N. Law § 2590-E (Consol.).

Each community council shall have the following powers and duties to establish educational policies and objectives, not inconsistent with the provisions of this article and the policies established by the city board, with respect to all pre-kindergarten, nursery, kindergarten, elementary, intermediate and junior high schools and programs in connection therewith in the community district. The community councils shall have no executive or administrative powers or functions, but shall have the following powers and duties:

3. promote achievement of educational standards and objectives relating to the instruction of students.

4. cooperate as required by the chancellor in the removal from office pursuant to section twenty-five hundred ninety-l of this article of any community council member for willful, intentional or knowing involvement in the hiring, appointment or assignment of employees other than as specifically authorized in this article.

5. a. require community council members, the community superintendent, and any other officer or employee in schools and programs under the jurisdiction of the community councils, to make annual written disclosure, in accordance with regulations and bylaws of the city board developed in consultation with the community councils, to the community council and the city board, of the following information:

(1) the employment by the city school board or any community council of any person related within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity to the person making disclosure, including the employment of any such person for which a two-thirds vote was required under paragraph e of subdivision four of section twenty-five hundred ninety-j of this chapter with a notation of the date such vote was taken.

(2) the source of any income, reimbursement, gift or other form of compensation for services rendered together with a description of such services.

(3) the source of any financial contribution made within the year preceding the election or the term of office of a community district education council member to assist in the election or reelection of such member of the community council, and the amount of such contribution, consistent with any applicable regulations of the city board and the board of elections.

b. willful or repeated failure to make full and timely disclosure shall constitute cause for removal from office of any member of a community council or for any other officer or employee disciplinary action and such other penalty as provided by law.

c. all written disclosures required hereunder shall be filed with the community council and the city board and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours on regular business days.

6. require community council members, candidates for community district education councils, the community superintendent and, for good cause shown, any other officer or employee in schools and programs under the jurisdiction of the community councils to submit to the city board and the community councils, in accordance with regulations and bylaws of the city board developed in consultation with the community councils, financial reports for themselves and their spouses.

a. the frequency and period of coverage, the designation of persons to submit such reports by name, title or income level or by a combination thereof, and the content of such reports, including minimum dollar amounts, shall be determined by the city board.

b. willful or repeated failure to file required financial reports or make other required disclosures shall constitute cause for removal from office of any member of a community council or for any other officer or employee disciplinary action and such other penalty as provided by law. No person may assume office as a community council member without previously complying with this subdivision, subdivision five of this section, and with all applicable financial disclosure requirements promulgated by the board of elections.

7. participate in training and continuing education programs pursuant to the provisions of this subdivision.

(1) Community district education council members shall participate in training to acquaint them with the powers, functions and duties of community council members, as well as the powers of other governing and administering authorities that affect education including the powers of the commissioner, city board, chancellor and community superintendents. Such participation shall be completed no later than three months from the date in which a community council member takes office for the first time.

(2) Each community district education council member shall be required to participate in continuing education programs on an annual basis as defined by the chancellor. Participation in training pursuant to paragraph one of this subdivision by a community district education council member who takes office for the first time shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of this subdivision for the first year of such member's term.

(3) such training and continuing education programs shall be approved by the chancellor, following consultation with the commissioner, and may be provided by the state education department, the city board, the chancellor or a nonprofit provider authorized by the chancellor to provide such training and continuing education programs.

(4) the chancellor is authorized to promulgate regulations regarding providers and their certification, the content and implementation of the training and continuing education programs. Any such regulations shall be developed after consultation with the commissioner.

(5) such training and continuing education programs shall be offered on an annual basis or more frequently, as needed, to enable community council members to comply with this subdivision.

(6) failure of community council members to comply with the training and continuing education requirements mandated by this subdivision shall constitute cause for removal from office pursuant to section twenty-five hundred ninety-1 of this article.

8. Each year prepare a school district report card pursuant to regulations of the commissioner, and shall make it publicly available by transmitting it to local newspapers of general circulation, appending it to copies of the proposed budget made publicly available as required by law, making it available for distribution at the annual meeting, and otherwise disseminating it as required by the commissioner. Such report card shall include measures of the academic performance of the school district, on a school by school basis, and measures of the fiscal performance of the district, as prescribed by the commissioner. Pursuant to regulations of the commissioner, the report card shall also compare these measures to statewide averages for all public schools, and statewide averages for public schools of comparable wealth and need, developed by the commissioner. Such report card shall include, at a minimum, any information on the school district regarding pupil performance and expenditure per pupil required to be included in the annual report by the requests to the governor and the legislature pursuant to section two hundred fifteen-a of this chapter; and any other information required by the commissioner. School districts (i) identified as having fifteen percent or more of their students in special education, or (ii) which have fifty percent or more of their students with disabilities in special education programs or services sixty percent or more of the school day in a general education building, or (iii) which have eight percent or more of their students with disabilities in special education programs in public or private separate educational settings shall indicate on their school district report card their respective percentages as defined in this paragraph and paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this subdivision as compared to the statewide average.

9. Subject to paragraph (o) of subdivision one of section twenty-five hundred ninety-f of this article, to employ or retain counsel subject to the powers and duties of the corporation counsel of the city of New York to be the district's attorney and counsel pursuant to subdivision a of section three hundred ninety-four of the New York city charter in actions or proceedings in which the council or any member thereof is a defendant or a respondent.

10. Where the district has provided transportation to students enrolled in such district to a school sponsored field trip, extracurricular activity or any other similar event, it shall provide transportation back to either the point of departure or to the appropriate school in the district, unless the parent or legal guardian of a student participating in such event has provided the school district with written notice, consistent with district policy, authorizing an alternative form of return transportation for such student or unless intervening circumstances make such transportation impractical. In cases where intervening circumstances make transportation of a student back to the point of departure or to the appropriate school in the district impractical, a representative of the school district shall remain with the student until such student's parent or legal guardian has been (a) contacted and informed of the intervening circumstances which make such transportation impractical and (b) such student had been delivered to his or her parent or legal guardian.

11. Approve zoning lines, as submitted by the superintendent, consistent with the regulations of the chancellor, applicable to schools under the jurisdiction of the community district.

12. Hold meetings at least every month with the superintendent to discuss the current state of the schools in the district and progress made toward the implementation of the district's comprehensive education plan required by the chancellor.

13. Review of the district's educational programs and assess their effect on student achievement.

14. Hold public meetings at least every month with the superintendent during which the public may speak so that parents and the community have a voice and a public forum to air their concerns.

15. Submit an annual evaluation of the superintendent to the chancellor.

16. Submit an annual evaluation consistent with procedures which shall be developed by the chancellor of all other instructional supervisory personnel who have responsibility for more than one school within the district.

17. Hold a public hearing on the district's annual capacity plans, recommended by the superintendent and based on data from the chancellor on enrollment/utilization for each school within the district and submit such plan, upon approval by the community council, to the chancellor for his or her approval and implementation.

18. Provide input, as it deems necessary, to the chancellor and the city board on matters of concern to the district.

19. Liaison with school leadership teams as may be necessary and provide assistance to the school leadership teams where possible.

20. Consult on the selection of a community superintendent pursuant to subdivision thirty of section twenty-five hundred ninety-h of this article.

21. Hold a joint public hearing with the chancellor or deputy chancellor, or in the case of a proposed significant change in school utilization the chancellor or his or her designee, and the impacted school based management team regarding any proposed school closing or significant change in school utilization, including the phase-out, grade reconfiguration, re-siting, or co-location of schools, of any public school located within the community district pursuant to subdivision two-a of section twenty-five hundred ninety-h of this article.

* NB Effective until June 30, 2015

* § 2590-e. Powers and duties of community boards. Each community board shall have the following powers and duties to establish educational policies and objectives, not inconsistent with the provisions of this article and the policies established by the city board, with respect to all pre-kindergarten, nursery, kindergarten, elementary, intermediate and junior high schools and programs in connection therewith in the community district. The community boards shall have no executive or administrative powers or functions, but shall have the following powers and duties:

1. employ a community superintendent, selected by the chancellor, by contract for a term not to exceed by more than one year the term of office of the community school board authorizing such contract, subject to removal for cause, at a salary to be fixed within the budgetary allocation therefor, subject to the provisions of subdivision two of section twenty-five hundred ninety-j of this article. Consistent with procedures of the chancellor establishing a publicly inclusive process for the recruitment, screening and selection of superintendent candidates, and regulations establishing educational, managerial, and administrative qualifications and performance record criteria for such position, the community board shall select no more than four final candidates for superintendent from candidates for appointment, who shall have been interviewed and screened by and with the assistance of parents, teachers, representatives of school support personnel, and administrators, and forward such names, to the chancellor for selection together with the reasons for the recommendation of such candidates. If the chancellor should reject all the candidates for written reasons within thirty days after the receipt of the proposed names, the community board shall make another selection of no more than four new names consistent with such procedures and regulations, until the chancellor selects a candidate. The contract of employment shall be consistent with a model contract promulgated by the chancellor which shall include provisions for reappointment.

3. promote achievement of educational standards and objectives relating to the instruction of students.

4. cooperate as required by the chancellor in the removal from office pursuant to section twenty-five hundred ninety-l of this article of any community board member for willful, intentional or knowing involvement in the hiring, appointment or assignment of employees other than as specifically authorized in this article.

5. a. require community board members, the community superintendent, and any other officer or employee in schools and programs under the jurisdiction of the community boards, to make annual written disclosure, in accordance with regulations and bylaws of the city board developed in consultation with the community boards, to the community board and the city board, of the following information:

(1) the employment by the city school board or any community board of any person related within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity to the person making disclosure, including the employment of any such person for which a two-thirds vote was required under paragraph e of subdivision four of section twenty-five hundred ninety-j of this chapter with a notation of the date such vote was taken.

(2) the source of any income, reimbursement, gift or other form of compensation for services rendered together with a description of such services.

(3) the source of any financial contribution made within the year preceding the election or the term of office of a community board member to assist in the election or reelection of such member of the community board, and the amount of such contribution, consistent with any applicable regulations of the city board and the board of elections.

b. willful or repeated failure to make full and timely disclosure shall constitute cause for removal from office of any member of a community board or for any other officer or employee disciplinary action and such other penalty as provided by law.

c. all written disclosures required hereunder shall be filed with the community board and the city board and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours on regular business days.

6. require community board members, candidates for community boards, the community superintendent and, for good cause shown, any other officer or employee in schools and programs under the jurisdiction of the community boards to submit to the city board and the community boards, in accordance with regulations and bylaws of the city board developed in consultation with the community boards, financial reports for themselves and their spouses, provided that in the case of community board members and candidates for community boards the statement of financial disclosure and the frequency with which it must be filed must satisfy at least the requirements and standards for disclosure of section seventy-three-a of the public officers law.

a. the frequency and period of coverage, the designation of persons to submit such reports by name, title or income level or by a combination thereof, and the content of such reports, including minimum dollar amounts, shall be determined by the city board.

b. willful or repeated failure to file required financial reports or make other required disclosures shall constitute cause for removal from office of any member of a community board or for any other officer or employee disciplinary action and such other penalty as provided by law. No person may assume office as a community board member without previously complying with this subdivision, subdivision five of this section, and with all applicable financial disclosure requirements promulgated by the board of elections.

7. participate in training and continuing education programs pursuant to the provisions of this subdivision.

(1) Community board members shall participate in training to acquaint them with the powers, functions and duties of community board members, as well as the powers of other governing and administering authorities that affect education including the powers of the commissioner, city board, chancellor and community superintendents. Such participation shall be completed no later than six months from the date in which a community board member takes office for the first time.

(2) Each community board member shall be required to participate in continuing education programs on an annual basis as defined by the chancellor. Participation in training pursuant to paragraph one of this subdivision by a community board member who takes office for the first time shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of this subdivision for the first year of such member's term.

(3) such training and continuing education programs shall be approved by the chancellor, following consultation with the commissioner, and may be provided by the state education department, the city board, the chancellor or a nonprofit provider authorized by the chancellor to provide such training and continuing education programs.

(4) the chancellor is authorized to promulgate regulations regarding providers and their certification, the content and implementation of the training and continuing education programs. Any such regulations shall be developed after consultation with the commissioner.

(5) such training and continuing education programs shall be offered on an annual basis or more frequently, as needed, to enable community board members to comply with this subdivision.

(6) failure of community board members to comply with the training and continuing education requirements mandated by this subdivision shall constitute cause for removal from office pursuant to section twenty-five hundred ninety-1 of this article.

8. Each year prepare a school district report card pursuant to regulations of the commissioner, and shall make it publicly available by transmitting it to local newspapers of general circulation, appending it to copies of the proposed budget made publicly available as required by law, making it available for distribution at the annual meeting, and otherwise disseminating it as required by the commissioner. Such report card shall include measures of the academic performance of the school district, on a school by school basis, and measures of the fiscal performance of the district, as prescribed by the commissioner. Pursuant to regulations of the commissioner, the report card shall also compare these measures to statewide averages for all public schools, and statewide averages for public schools of comparable wealth and need, developed by the commissioner. Such report card shall include, at a minimum, any information on the school district regarding pupil performance and expenditure per pupil required to be included in the annual report by the requests to the governor and the legislature pursuant to section two hundred fifteen-a of this chapter; and any other information required by the commissioner. School districts (i) identified as having fifteen percent or more of their students in special education, or (ii) which have fifty percent or more of their students with disabilities in special education programs or services sixty percent or more of the school day in a general education building, or (iii) which have eight percent or more of their students with disabilities in special education programs in public or private separate educational settings shall indicate on their school district report card their respective percentages as defined in this paragraph and paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this subdivision as compared to the statewide average.

9. Subject to paragraph (o) of subdivision one of section twenty-five hundred ninety-f of this article, to employ or retain counsel subject to the powers and duties of the corporation counsel of the city of New York to be the district's attorney and counsel pursuant to subdivision a of section three hundred ninety-four of the New York city charter in actions or proceedings in which the board or any member thereof is a defendant or a respondent.

10. Where the district has provided transportation to students enrolled in such district to a school sponsored field trip, extracurricular activity or any other similar event, it shall provide transportation back to either the point of departure or to the appropriate school in the district, unless the parent or legal guardian of a student participating in such event has provided the school district with written notice, consistent with district policy, authorizing an alternative form of return transportation for such student or unless intervening circumstances make such transportation impractical. In cases where intervening circumstances make transportation of a student back to the point of departure or to the appropriate school in the district impractical, a representative of the school district shall remain with the student until such student's parent or legal guardian has been (a) contacted and informed of the intervening circumstances which make such transportation impractical and (b) such student had been delivered to his or her parent or legal guardian.

* NB Effective June 30, 2015
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Pages