This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Pacific Park to create new middle school for Prospect Heights — Brooklynian

Pacific Park to create new middle school for Prospect Heights

whynot_31
whynot_31
edited June 2015 in Prospect Heights
---quote--

Speak up for a public school at Atlantic Yards that works for the community

What: Joint hearing of Community Board 8 and Community Education Council 13

When: Wednesday, June 3, 7:00PM

Where: CNR-Center Light Health Care Center, 727 Classon Avenue (corner of Park Place)

One of the key benefits promised by the Atlantic Yards project is a new public school to be created at the site. Development plans currently call for the facility to be located in a building to be constructed at the northeast corner of Dean Street and Sixth Avenue beginning in July 2016.

The proposed site of the school falls within District 13. The School Construction Authority has announced that the facility will contain 616 seats for primary and intermediate school students. No other information has been released.

Schools that provide access to a quality public education for local families are more than an investment in the future of all of our children—they help to build stronger communities. Unfortunately, Prospect Heights currently lacks public middle school options accessible to all of their students. DOE facilities in our neighborhood that could house a public middle school for District 13 instead have been allocated to charter school networks and students from other districts.

On Wednesday evening, you have a chance to tell the School Construction Authority, the Department of Education, and our elected officials that a new school at Atlantic Yards must address the needs and concerns of its community. Neighborhood children deserve a middle school that reflects the diversity of its school district and is accessible to all. Local residents must have the opportunity to participate in the design process in a meaningful way so that traffic and pedestrian safety at the site is ensured, and the operation of the school works for students, neighbors and nearby fire and police services. Come out and speak up for accountability on one of Atlantic Yards’ key public commitments!"

endquote

http://phndc.org/content/speak-public-school-atlantic-yards-works-community
«13

Comments

  • pheightsresident
    pheightsresident
    I can definitely see this school becoming a "go to" school. My block is currently zoned for PS9, but I wonder if it'll be zoned for this school as well. Either way, I'm glad this is coming.
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    At present, many high income families are "not impressed" with the local middle schools, but are ok with the elementary ones.

    This might change that.
  • maggie
    maggie

    I and many of my fellow public school parents are advocating for a significant amount of the new capacity to be dedicated to a District 13 middle school, which is desperately needed.  A new middle school would be equally available to all the District, but would address the fact that there is no district middle school in Prospect Heights and that the students of Prospect Heights, Ft. Greene and Clinton Hill are currently extraordinarily underserved in terms of middle school quality.

    I would not like to see this becoming a stand-alone zoned school, because there is no current need for increased capacity within the zones and because data from the district makes clear that it would almost immediately be intensely socio-economically segregated.  In any event, if this becomes a separate zoned school, it's likely going to benefit only those in the AY footprint, and very few of us who are current residents of the neighboring community. 

    But it doesn't have to be an either/or thing in terms of elementary/middle school -- in other areas the DOE has consulted with the community on planning for new school buildings to make sure they address the community's needs.  For example, in Kensington they created a new middle school and devoted the remaining space to upper grades of the local zoned school, specifically with the dual intentions of preserving diversity and not dividing communities or creating a have/have not division in a community.  http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150220/windsor-terrace/new-brooklyn-middle-school-aims-reflect-diversity 

    It wouldn't have to be this, but wouldn't it be nice if our public resources were thoughtfully allocated in response to community needs?

       

  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    edited June 2015
    It would be.

    I find it hard to imagine that many low income families for the district will show up for Wednesday's hearing.

    My mind is also grappling with the fact that although many present PS 9 parents are quite well off, they may be comparitively "poor" compared to the majority of residents who will be moving into Pacific Park.

    Does the DOE have an incentive to serve the not-yet-arrived rich, more than the already arrived wealthy?

    ...if Pacific Park has a say in this, DOE's answer might be "yes".
  • maggie
    maggie

    I look at precedent as to what the DOE has already done with communities as potential for what it can do here. A new, full-size middle school would benefit new arrivals as much as it does current residents (to the extent that public schools would be a draw to the comparatively rich in any event).  And if they don't start creating viable options for middle schools, Pacific Park parents will be in the same boat as the rest of us.

    I'm not sure "Pacific Park" (whatever and whoever it is presently), would feel the need to have a dog in that fight. Space is space, and if later adjustments are merited by circumstances (political or otherwise), the DOE can always adjust later on, as it frequently does. 

  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    edited June 2015
    I found the loss of Pacific Park to the 78th Pct to be very interesting.

    The new development suddenly got the benefit of being in a pretty homogeneous, low crime pct.

    It makes me wonder if the DOE will follow suit.

    I'm sure PS 9 parents are aware that the ability to send their kids to a good middle school is worth ten$ of thousand$.

    One of the shapes "Pacific Park" will take is the NYC Dept of Finance.
    ...the more that those new apartments sell for, the happier NYC Dept of Finance will be.

    (insert Wonder Twins reference here)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Twins

  • maggie
    maggie

    District 13 - all of which would benefit from a new middle school - covers a lot of ground, including Dumbo and Downtown Brooklyn, which are also dense with new condos and many current, present and real voters. :)

     

  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    edited June 2015
    My sense is that Pacific Park isn't -alone- going to generate 600 elementary and middle schoolers.
  • maggie
    maggie

    Exactly.

  • pheightsresident
    pheightsresident
    Oh, wow. I knew that District 13 went into Bed Stuy, Clinton Hill, and Fort Greene, but wasn't aware that it went into Dumbo and Downtown. I'd hope that the school would give priority to District 13 students first (and based on distance at that), but we'll see. 
  • pheightsresident
    pheightsresident
    edited June 2015
    Yeah. I actually think that the 78th taking over Pacific Park makes a lot of sense. The 78th headquarters is just much closer than the 77th headquarters is; I wouldn't want the already overburdened 77th to have to take on so many more new residents. Still, it would be interesting to see how things develop with the DOE. 

    Edit: while the 77th has formally ceded most of west of Vanderbilt, I've seen a lot of cross-collaboration between the two precincts. 
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    edited June 2015
    I think it is only a matter of time before CB8 loses the area west of Vanderbilt to the CB that covers Park Slope.

    I think it makes sense.

    CB8 has gone on record in opposition. It does not want to lose the power the arena and Pacific Park bestows.
  • pheightsresident
    pheightsresident
    edited June 2015
    CB2 (Clinton Hill and Fort Greene) already tried that, but CB8 fought back hard (I don't think its settled, though). See: http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2014/04/community-board-8-expresses-strong.html and http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140411/fort-greene/community-board-bid-take-over-atlantic-yards-compared-crimea-invasion. And as CB8 has been overseeing this project for a while, I think they are best equipped to keep it up with it. Politically, I don't see how having CB6 (Park Slope) assume oversight of the area would go down, as the city government would be accused of race politics (regardless of any truth to that), moving an up-and-coming district from a predominately black community board and moving it into one that isn't, despite no allegations of mismanagement by that board, etc. Given that CB6 only covers a very small portion of the project, I'd be shocked if they did that. Quite frankly, I think there's a stronger argument for CB2, which actually covers most of the project area (though, to be fair, and this favors arguments to have CB8 control everything, "most" of this area is currently the rail yards, and, so, CB8 has actually had the most impact on the area up until present . . . not to mention that the project is nearly almost all in Prospect Heights and CB8 covers the bulk of Prospect Heights), to cover everything.
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    Yes, those are the meat of CB8's objections.   My guess is that Park Slope will get it in about 2020, when the very numerous and very wealthy residents of Pacific Park somehow utilize their power to somehow secede.

    Even though said residents don't yet exist, this school battle will help or hinder their future fight.

        
  • crownheightster
    crownheightster
    Haha, you don't think that the Pacific Park residents will want their kids to go to school with the kids of the gentrifying west crown heights types? cB8 will never let go of the Barclays center and pacific park. Though they might be willing to let go of their district past Kingston Ave or Utica.
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    Correct.

    ...I do not believe this will happen at CB8's choosing.
  • pheightsresident
    pheightsresident
    edited June 2015
    While I can't see into the future, I wonder what their reason for wanting to secede would be, especially given that CB8 has been reasonable in how they handle business from what I can tell. Pacific Park residents and other new residents of the area will have the opportunity to drastically transform CB8, while they'd likely be back-benchers to the more entrenched residents comprising CB6 in my view.

  • pheightsresident
    pheightsresident
    edited June 2015
    @crownheightster: I think you may have a good point. I could more readily see the newer residents of CB8, once they get a stronger hold over the board, be more willing to let go of parts of their district to the east as the district becomes more affluent than letting go anything in the northwestern corner of the area. If anything, I see CB8 making an aggressive push to take over all of Pacific Park for the reasons I outlined. Moreover, and I'll reiterate, given the makeup current and projected "progressive" makeup of the City Council (I believe any plan revamping the community board boundaries has to be approved by them), I don't see how CB2 taking over Pacific Park happens politically. Of course I could be wrong. Time will tell! 
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    edited June 2015
    The various CBs have so little power that I do not see any residents getting particularly excited over what CB they are in.   Even if I am correct, this will be a slow, boring secession.  No one should buy or scalp tickets to the event.

    However, a redrawing of School District 13 would cause some ruckus.   The politician who pulls that off could ensure him/herself a nice donation from the firms that market Pacific Park.
  • pheightsresident
    pheightsresident
    edited June 2015
    True, the boards have little formal power, but I think you undersell their influence in the decision-making process, something that activist residents (i.e. the type who would be making any appeal to move Pacific Park from CB8 to CB6) would understand full well.

    In a city of over 8 million, everyone wants something done and everyone has complaints. But, apart from the extremely rich and politically connected, city departments pay special attention to the concerns/needs of community boards. In fact, if you take what the DOT told the joint CB8-CB2 transportation committee meeting regarding the pedestrian safety improvements at Atlantic/Washington/Underhill as an indication, the city won't even move on many projects unless the board gives its approval (the DOT spokespeople said that the plans would not move forward if the boards didn't approve them). And, then, there's zoning. The community board's request for zoning studies, etc., will often carry a lot of weight, even if the city doesn't adopt the board's plans verbatim. Its a matter of prioritizing. City departments can't please everyone and have limited resources, which is why they value/often rely the support of community boards (comprised of community representatives chosen by duly elected officials who are said to have the "voice" of the community) over just any random Joe on the street. 

    And this doesn't even get into the fact that the formal process for a lot that goes on in the city generally has to go through the community boards first . . . and board disapproval, while not having the ability to completely shut something down, can have a lot of sway. 
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    edited June 2015
    I don't completely disagree with you.

    I just greatly admire the "person" who created community boards:   Their existence allows city government to make decisions largely undisturbed.   They provide the do-gooder types a needed illusion of input, power and democracy.  

    When they don't come to conclusions that agree with those elected by the city's one party system, or fail to keep the do-gooders sufficiently entertained, their members are replaced.

    ...and the "activist public" then concludes that progress has been made.  

    As a result, I would never advocate for them to be abolished.
  • pheightsresident
    pheightsresident
    edited June 2015
    Agreed to a large extent, except that, from my experience, the BP/city council members generally don't try to micromanage the boards/members; they generally seem to only want members to take a particular stance for key, hot button issues. Although, I have to say that I was shocked that Tim Thomas (whom I love, by the way, both for his blog and for his contributions to his board) was reappointed to CB9. After publicly bashing BP Adams and Mathieu Eugene (I could be confusing the council person he had choice words for), I thought he was a goner for sure. Then again, he ultimately supported and voted for a proposal that I'd imagine Adams and Eugene support as well? 
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    Having controversial figures on boards is sometimes necessary to achieve the ultimate goals.   

    To the extent required, I have seen such a system created at places I have worked:   Endless meetings are scheduled between powerless cogs representing the various departments, until the members beg the boss to make a decision.  

    The clever boss can then state s/he received everyone's input, without having to actually attend said meetings.     S/he needs only feign they reviewed the minutes.   For quickest results, schedule the meetings during the traditional lunch hours.

    Time shall tell whether the DOE has the skills to implement same.

  • ltjbukem
    ltjbukem
    is there any danger of rezoning of school districts, a la ps 321, when ppl freaked out?

    let me know if this is a good or bad thing, the opening up of the new school. thanks,

    will they push the ps 9 boundaries further east?
  • pheightsresident
    pheightsresident
    ^^I'm not quite sure that I'm following?
  • maggie
    maggie

    The funds for building out the new capacity have been granted to District 13. That is no ironclad guarantee, but that usually means the seats have to be retained for the District. There would be some fights if the building was used significantly for other Districts.

    They could redistrict, yes, but there's really no logic to that from the DOE's perspective - it would be unprecedented and without compelling reasons.  The school districts are not contiguous with the Community Boards so almost any reconfiguration driven toward pulling Pacific Park into District 15 would be so transparent as to be a very politically unpalatable very last resort.  

    I think it's safe to say that there would be objections to redrawing zone lines. It is a different situation from rezoning PS 321. This would be more akin to creating a new exclusive zone like PS 321, rather than adjusting a zone that already exists. New zones based on geography are out of favor in the education policy world due to their segregation-like effects. A new zone would be especially objectionable here where it would grant entitlement to a brand new school almost exclusively to new, very likely disproportionately affluent, residents. 

    I doubt that boundaries of PS 9 would be pushed east, because that would mean changing not only the zone but the District lines between D13 and D17, which would probably upset D17. The DOE could have incorporated some or all of the North Slope part of D13 (and the school buildings over there) in order to handle some of the overcrowding in central Park Slope in D15, but it did not. And there'd be no reason for it to do that here.      

  • crownheightster
    crownheightster
    Maybe we will get lucky and this could be a school that allows students from both District 13 and District 17! They have a school like this in Park Slope, where they allow kids from District 13 and District 15 to enroll, and it is supposed to help keep Park Slope schools diverse. I'm going to argue for this when I go to the meeting tomorrow. 
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    edited June 2015
    Should be interesting to see who shows up.

  • maggie
    maggie

    I'll see you there, crownheightster.  At some point we will have real community meetings on this issue to hopefully collaborate on community needs. The reality is that after this meeting and the various processing of comments, there will be years where normal folks have no direct input. Without a strong community direction the next thing that would happen would be that the DOE will announce some wacky plan with a month notice before an approval vote, about 6 months before the school becomes operational, and everyone will freak out.  Our goal will be to gather enough political support for a community plan or plans after this hearing so that they become part of closed-door discussions while they still has a chance of coming to fruition.

  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    edited June 2015
    I hope they have a 27 year old standing in the front of the meeting writing things down on a flip chart, to make people believe they are being heard.

    arts
    diversity
    after school
    recreation
    experiential learning
    light/ high ceilings



Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories