United

Federation
Marc Stemberg
of Teachers
Division of Portfolio Planning
52 Broadway Tweed Courthouse
New York, NY 10004 52 Chambers Street
212.777.7500
w . u f t .org
New York, NY 10007
officers:
Mchael Mulgrew
Dear Mr. Sternberg,
Pr'dent
Michael Mendel We have reviewed the proposed revisions of Chancellor's Regulation A-190. We
Secretary take note that the Department of Education has responded positively to a number of the
M d Aaronson concerns raised by the plaintiffs who filed suit against the Department of Education
Treasurer
regarding its failure to follow Education Law 52590 in its proposal to close 19 schools
Robert Astrowsky
Assistant Secretary last Spring. However, several important issues remain:
Mona Romain
Assistant Treawrer 1 This regulation needs to apply to programs that operate as schools as well as
Vice Pddents: schools that experience a change in space utilization. (page 1; section IG)
Karen Afwd
Carmen Alvarez
Leo Casey
2. Regarding notification of the School Leadership Team, the appropriate school staff
Richard Farkas person to be notified of the proposal to change the school's utilization is the "chair of the
Aminda Gentile SLT(s) of the impacted school(s)," not "the principal(s) of the impacted school(s) in his or
Sterling Roberson her capacity as a member of the SLT." (pages 3-5; sections llA3, llA4, IIBI, llB3)

3. As written, this regulation gives the Chancellor ultimate decision-making authority

with regard to the scheduling of the joint public hearing. The law, however, does not
provide the Chancellor with this authority; instead, it requires that the hearings be joint.
The CEC, the SLT, and the DOE must work together to ensure that the needs of all
community members that will be affected by the proposed change shall be met. By
entrusting the Chancellor with such authority, attempts at building consensus may be
limited and restricted. (page 4; section llB2(b))

4. By affording the Chancellor unilateral authority on the revision of the EIS, this
regulation limits the ability of the public to fully engage in the process. Education Law
s2590-h.2-a.dl specifically requires a second public hearing if the EIS is revised. Since
the joint public hearing provides an opportunity for those who will be impacted by a
change in a school's space utilization to respond to the proposal, those impacted should
certainly have a chance to respond to any proposed revisions. (page 4; section 1185)

5. To be most effective, a campus building committee must have representatives of the

main constituencies of the school. Such a committee should be comprised of the same
representatives, whether or not there is a charter school sited on the campus. To that
end, we assert that the Building Council is unnecessary and the Shared Space
Committee should be created for each campus and perform the responsibilities assigned
by the regulation to the Building Council. If there will be two committees, we maintain
that the campus building council should have teacher representation in the form of the
UFT chapter leader or his or her designee. The UFT chapter leader (where applicable),
his or her designee, or a teacher representative (in the case of a charter school that
does not have union representation) of each school should also serve on the Shared
Space Committee. Likewise, the PTA president or designee of each school or program
should replace the parent on the shared space committee. (page 6; section lllA1 and
page 7; section IIIB1)

6. To effectively support school communities, the DOE must have the capacity to share
all efforts taken to intervene prior to the decision to close or phase out any school. This
information must be presented, in writing, to all impacted community members in the
EIS. (Attachment 1A, page 1 section I)

7. In instances of phase out and re-siting, the DOE uses the tern "community" without
presenting a definition. We are concerned that this will lead to either an unnecessarily
narrow or inappropriately broad definition of community, when applied in practice.
(Attachments IA, IB, IC)

8. The DOE must include PSAL, noteworthy academic and CTE programs,
extracurricular activities, CBO engagement. (Attachment 1A, page 1 section Ill a and
Attachment I C , page 1 section Ill a)

9. Enrollment projection and change in geographic community school district, if any

should be presented when the information about the building is proposed for co-location.
(Attachment 1B, page 1 section II)

10. In cases of the reconfiguration of a school's grades, the DOE must list possible
schools (including selection criteria, location, and enrollment) that are similar to the
school being impacted located within the neighborhood, community school district and
borough. (Attachment 1A, page 2 section Ill b and Attachment 1C, page 2 section Ill a)

11. Over the past few years, there have been several instances of temporary placement
of schools for incubation purposes as well as to address construction needs. In cases of
re-siting and co-location, the length of time for the expected siting should be included.
The expected final site of the school must also be included. (Attachment IC, page 1
section I)

12. In cases of co-location and re-siting, since there is an undeniable impact on existing
schools, the DOE must consider the space it could have used to reduce class size.
Specifically, the DOE should explain whether an existing school has class sizes in
excess of C4E targets and if citing of new school will limit the existing school's ability to
reduce class size in the future. (Attachments 1A, 1C, and 2)

The aforementioned changes will, we are sure, allow engaged community members to
participate in a process that is transparent, fair, and just. We welcome the opportunity to
discuss these issues with you.

Sincerely,

W L
Michael Mulgre