Sarah Turchin, the director of planning for Manhattan and Queens at the Department of Education, explains the proposed district.
CEC3, the Upper West Side’s version of a school board, voted this week to delay a decision on a controversial rezoning plan proposed by the Department of Education. CEC3 had been scheduled to vote on the plan on Nov. 19, but delayed any action until Dec. 2. Parents have said at public hearings that the plan was poorly designed, and that the city is moving too fast.
The rezoning proposal would shrink the zone for PS 199 on 70th street, which has overcrowding problems, while sending more students to PS 191 on 61st street and PS 452 on 77th street. We explained it in detail here.
Parents have begun to propose alternate ideas, including the possibility of splitting PS 191, PS 199 and the under-construction PS 342 by grades (one school would hold pre-k to 2nd graders, one school would hold 3-5, etc.).
CEC3 president Joe Fiordaliso sent out a notice on Tuesday about the delayed vote, with information on the current state of affairs:
Here’s a recap from CEC3 meetings last night and last Wednesday to help you figure out where we are and where we’re going on the issues of overcrowding, waitlists and zoning.
– Last night, a majority of the Council voted to delay any formal action on zoning until December 2. Following that vote, the Council unanimously set November 19 as the date of a DOE presentation.
– Last night, the Council agreed unanimously to form a sub-group of the Zoning Committee to focus on data. Zoning Chair Kim Watkins will make this a focus of Friday’s Zoning Committee meeting – much of this work I believe has been done already, first by Barbara Denham and more recently by Kim and others on the committee. We shall see what new conclusions they come up with and how their numbers might help us either validate or challenge DOE’s numbers.
– Last night, the Council by unanimous consent asked SCA (through Superintendent Ilene Altschul) for an update on 342 construction
– Last night, the Council by unanimous consent asked DOE to begin a search for a 342 principal
– Last night, the Council by unanimous consent called for a suspension of DOE’s right of return policy for waitlisted families who accepted alternate offers last year
At CEC3’s October 28 meeting, the Council agreed by voice vote to the following (I am anticipating that CEC3 will memorialize its position via recorded vote or resolution):
– Grant sibling priority for any zoned out siblings
– Cap K sections at PS199 at 5 for the next three years
– 200 West 67th Street and 170 Amsterdam Avenue will not be zoned to PS199, and 200 Amsterdam Avenue will not be zoned to PS199 unless/until commitments are received that the building will include new school seats
– A PS191 Committee should be established to develop & implement a package of programatic changes & enhancements designed to support the school population. This committee would include representatives of the PTA/SLT, the principal, CEC, DOE and the surrounding community.Speaking only for myself, I’m not sure what delaying until December 2 buys us. I have remained steadfast that we need time to adequately plan and implement a long-term vision for our district – and not just the southern portion. To buy that time, we need to act now to prevent the current overcrowding crisis from repreating next year. Acting in the short term does not diminish the need to develop a long-term plan. Quite the opposite – a temporary fix is just that. The plan I put forth last week balances these short and long term needs and is still on the table. If you do a side by side comparison of the measures the Council has agreed to and the plan I have put forward, much of this plan has already been agreed to. In the event we do not find that elusive silver bullet in the next three weeks, we need to be prepared to execute this plan for 2016 and immediately begin working on the long-term framework which would explore the many intriguing options that have been presented, including the 191 SLT proposal, zone pairing, zone splitting and others; and also endeavor to answer vexing questions like the wisdom of maintaining three schools in the O’Shea campus. The 191 SLT came out with a thoughtful articulation of what it wants for its school community. That SLT understands that what they envision in the long-term is not achievable in the next handful of weeks. No one is calling them “defeatist” for it, on the contrary they came across as pragmatic and realistic. CEC3 should follow suit.
Is 199 a private school?
PS stands for public school, so no. Also public schools have nothing to do with zoning issues.
What is the O’Shea campus?
Building next to the 77th/Columbus flea market. Currently holds PS 452 (K-5 but may not have to 5th yet), the Computer School (a 6-8 middle school), and Anderson (citywide G&T K-8)
The PTA 191 has supported a two school split between 191 and new 342 school – but the proposal has to be reversed. The new building (whether you call it 191 or 342) needs to be the lower school. That’s the key to getting a critical mass of parents interested in going to the 191-342 zone.
The current plan does not give parents any incentive to try out 191. Being able to go to the new school in 3rd grade is not an incentive to go kindergarten at 191 at the old building. This plan, unless reversed, will only make the situation worse.
Also, how does this plan help make 199 more diverse? The DOE is going to have to rethink the lines for 199, and possibly bring in more of the NYCHA buildings.
I ask “West Sider” which plan he or she is speaking of so we know what he or she is referring to.
Regarding the first comment about whether 199 is a “private” school, it’s these kinds of comments that do nothing but provoke a serious problem that needs to be solved both short and long term. 199’s success, like many in district 3, first results from parental involvement which, in turn, has led to fundraising. Simply put, the parents at 199 like so many other schools in district 3 show up and get involved. That has been the key to the school’s success and why so many parents clamor to have their kids sent there. Indeed, if one looks back 15-20 years ago, he or she would realize it was hardly the high performing school it now is.
Regarding the stark differences between 191 and 199, here again, we can look to parental involvement which seems to be finally coming around at 191 – unfortunately after the State of New York labeled the school ‘persistently dangerous’. While 191’s defenders argue that the ‘persistently dangerous’ label results from an erroneous analysis of the data giving rise to the designation, that argument totally fails because virtually no other school in district 3 has the kind of incidents, violent or otherwise, that have occurred at 191. And to say these incidents are down 70% means nothing because the fact remains that the incidents continue to exist at 191. Indeed, no other school except for 191 has this kind of data available which as led the Commissioner of the NYS Department of Education to label same “persistently dangerous”. And to say the Commissioner is wrong belies the fact that the State Department of Education is located at least 180 miles from 191 and is charged by State and Federal law to make these designations to any school having the kind of data 191 has. Solving 191s problem here requires the parents of this school to get involved by showing up and attending PTA meetings, and holding their children accountable in the same way that the parents of other kids in district 3 do whether its 199 or any other school in the district. If one of my kids came home with bad grades or engaged in disruptive behavior at the school, that’s not the school’s problem. And I, as the parent, absolutely MUST properly teach my child so that he or she understands that bad grades and disruptive behavior is not tolerated. Children primarily from their parents’ actions. The “do as i say, not as i do” parenting style only leads to children who do as their parents did and nothing more. If we brought children into the world, then we have the responsibility to ensure that our kids are contributing members to society, not outcasts.
Notably, it appears that no one from Amsterdam Houses has shown up at any of the CEC meetings which have been scheduled on weekends, during business hours on weekdays and on weekday evenings. While we can attribute some of the no shows to single parent families who can’t afford child care and parents who work night and weekend jobs, not all parents from the Amsterdam Houses have these issues. If 191 is going to succeed, parental involvement is required along with proper funding from DOE which is akin to that which the other schools in district 3 have received. Until that happens, 191 will remain on the course it has been for years.
I do agree with West Sider that the solution to this problem is two-pronged, namely, short term and long term. Short term solutions should not only include finding ways to trim the wait list, but also embrace the idea of temporary classrooms as that is how the dangerous overcrowding will be immediately eliminated. To be sure, trimming wait lists does nothing to address the excess population that already exists at 199. And to think that allowing the bubble of kids to matriculate out of the school overlooks the issue of what happens in the event a calamity such as a fire or other emergency occurs during the time these students matriculate out. Long term solutions must include the building of additional schools. Any argument that DOE is disinterested in this idea or that the money isn’t there has to fail given the growing population in the district and the ever expanding tax base. To be sure, few if any of the new buildings on the west side of Amsterdam Avenue or the Trump buildings contain low/middle income housing. MOst of these residents pay upwards of 50% of their income in taxes to NYC, NYS and the IRS. The money is there to build new schools. Moreover, DOE’s disinterest is also another loser if for nothing else the fact that the Chancellor’s regulations currently require all kids who reside in the zone to attend the school that they are zoned into. If DOE is going to promulgate this kind of requirement then DOE has the absolute responsibility to provide funding for school facilities needed to educate our kids. And since NYC has allowed and continues to permit housing to be built for new families to move into the neighborhood, the City through DOE has to provide the much needed school facilities as a matter of public policy. It is ridiculous to think that anyone can tell parents of children who move into the district that they can’t send their kids to their locally zoned school as the Chancellor’s regs make clear has to occur. A good education is a right, not a privilege. Our future rests on it. As such, the school facilities in district 3 must grow in accordance with the student population that resides within the district. As such, i call on DOE to provide the funding necessary to accomplish this objective.
Finally, as West Sider correctly comments, short term fixes are just that – bandaid solutions designed to temporarily resolve an otherwise persistently growing problem that can’t be ignored anymore. As such, i would respectfully ask the CEC for district 3 to consider forming a task force to study this problem and devise a proposal that corrects the complex situation we face long term. While i realize that who makes up the task force presents its own set of problems, the fact remains that the answer to district 3’s problems can only be permanently solved by those who live in district 3. We understand the needs of our neighborhood better than DOE or anyone outside the district because we live here. Indeed, the defeat of the current DOE proposal would be the 3rd since 2008. While the Chancellor’s regs make clear that it is the district superintendent’s responsibility to propose new zoning plans, we cannot afford another ivory tower defeat from someone or a group of people who does not know the inner workings and needs of the district. A community based plan would be wholly consistent with the mandates of Home Rule located in Article IX of the NYS Constitution. Indeed, a short and long term plan that is devised by the residents of the district and written in accordance with State and Federal laws, as well as DOE’s goals and participation is the ONLY way the problems of 191, 199 and the rest of district 3 will be solved – at least for a generation.
While my thoughts here are exclusively my own and not that of any entity involved in trying to resolve these complex problems, I sincerely hope that what i say here will be given serious consideration by those charged with finding a solution. No one in our district disputes the fact that every child deserves a great education which we know district 3 is fully capable of providing. Our future depends upon it. We need to only look at the successes in many of the schools already in the district to know what this district is capable of. With that said, the politicization of the problems we have here has to stop. No one is purposefully segregating, whether racially, religiously or economically, district 3. Indeed, one need only look at the isolation of race, religion and economic prowess that exists with the school districts located outside of NYC such as Long Island and Westchester for example. To be sure, the situation district 3 is currently dealing with is de facto at best. To say anything else does nothing but create yet another distraction to the real problems we have to solve. And we can solve these problems if we work together as a community. A CEC task force rooted in the community would be the best step we could make because this would enable us to review all the plans and ideas coming out of the community and ensure a timely resolution of our problems without the outcry, stonewalling and defeat that has been persistently pervasive with every plan proposed by DOE.
Jeez, let me introduce you to the concept of paragraphs. They really are quite handy, resident ranter.
It’s this: ‘I got mine and you deserve less than me, because I got mine’ is what prompted my asking if 199 is a private school.
Public Schools in the USA are intended to develop Citizens of the USA with common cause. I see none of that in your longwinded rationale for exceptionalism for YOUR CHILD and elitism for YOUR CHILD.
Disgraceful. And if you care to have a longer critique of your values, just ask.
The truth is what it is. Sorry we disagree.
Ken, your “truth” includes the charge that bad parenting has resulted in “Outcasts” at 191, while your good parenting has created “contributing members of society”. Can you be more hateful and divisive? Truth!!!
And you defend your right to continue this wrong because the United States Constitution provides you these rights under Home Rule!
Your values are way off. Further of than a simple Tale of Two Cities. More like a nightmare.
where Dannyboy’s comment is concerned.
There are also some comments below that essentially are blaming the families attending 191 for their own segregated situation. Let’s be clear here. The problem here is that 90% of the families in the 191 zone have turned their backs on public education. They are going to private school or charters instead.
The solution is not throwing more money at a segregated school. The solution is finding a way to to bring these other families back into the public schools.
We have an amazing opportunity here with a brand new state-of-the art building coming online in 2018. This resource is something we all can be excited about and where we can all learn together. Whether the creative solution that Joe is talking about is a 2 building (191, 342) or 3 building (191, 342, 199) split – let’s make this new building the point of entry into the public school system for hundreds of kids. A critical mass of parents from all backgrounds would be excited to send their kids to a pre-k to 2 in the new building.
Correct. Some idealists (Noah) keep saying you need more wealthy families in 191 to balance the school, but they are already there but choosing not to go to the school. Expanding 191 to pick up some 199 families is not going to change that, they will just join the others in 191 who opt out of NYC schools. The DOE’s zoning numbers only include students that decided to stay in NYC schools. This is why the zone population for 191 is about a fourth of 199 even though the zones are geographically about the same size. Until 191 improves or 342 opens, the only result of pushing people to 191 will be the rise of charter schools.
Mike is right.
Expanding 191 to pick up more “wealthy” 199 families is not going to change the 191 problem because the “wealthy” families will just join the other “wealthy” families in the current 191 zone who opt out of NYC schools. Either that or they will move into a better school district.
But it’s easier for DOE to change zone lines and pretend that that fixes things than to actually fix things.
Yes, the relative demand for the schools are driving overcrowding and underenrollment, not the zone sizes like the DOE focuses on. The DOE’s analysis essentially assumes that 191 is under enrolled because the zone is too small for the school, so it tries to expand the zone. But the problem isn’t that the 191 zone is too small for the school, it is that most in the 191 zone are not convinced that it is a reasonable option. 191 would likely be fully enrolled or even overcrowded if it was performing at the same level as 199, 87, and others. Despite requests for the data, the DOE has not provided any estimates of how many kids are in the current 191 zone who have chosen not to go to NYC public schools because 191 did not seem like a viable option for them.
The DOE’s analysis is so simplistic that they also assume all 199 families rezoned to 191 will stay in the NYC public school system despite clear indications to the contrary. While it is true that zoned out siblings will stay at 199, the non-siblings will likely join the many others in the 191 zone who leave the system.
To increase demand for 191, you need to do something more convincing than saying “give us a shot” to make people want to go there. Ask yourself what would make you feel *excited* — not just ok — about sending your child to 191. Such a proposition is likely impossible for next year with the dangerous designation, but it sounds like there are quite a few 199 families in the (voluntary) 191 pre-K who like the school. Perhaps focus on trying to understand what would make them willing to stay with 191 and build from there.
You are right. Families will can will find alternatives for their kids. It’s unreasonable to ask parents to put kids in dangerous or poor performing schools without a fight. Who would accept that for their child?
Joe is right to focus on a plan for 2016 now while exploring long-term proposals. Contrary to Joe’s summary, however, only he agreed to “Cap K sections at PS199 at 5 for the next three years” — Joe raised this idea at the end of a very extended CEC meeting last week and others were too tired to respond. The Community Superintendent (who is actually responsible for creating zoning plans and putting kids in seats) correctly noted that such a proposal would make the problems worse in 2016 as it would add 25 more 199 zoned kids to the list of kids needing a seat. It also doesn’t make much sense as the 199 class typically consolidates to 5 1st grade classes of 30, which would happen if there are 5 or 6 K classes (of 25). Missing from Joe’s summary is that he said he would not expand the 191 zone while the persistently dangerous designation was in effect (that is, no rezoning to 191 in 2016) which others indicated that they agreed with. This is a critical part of the proposal and needs to remain unless the goal is to kick families out of the NYC public schools or into charters to the benefit of the few who remain at 199.
This delay until 12/2 when kinderkinect goes live on 12/5 is a GROSS MISUSE of CEC’s power. Why are they jerking around poor prospective parents to keep extending an important decision that will directly affect families starting 2016??? Do they intend to use the two weeks to rush a plan past parents after leaving them hanging? And some CEC members have the nerve to propose delaying decisions until 12/21 or even 1/2/2016? This is so thoughtless and plain mean to the prospective parents! Unbelievable.
Hear, hear. The CEC members other than Joe keep dismissing the immense headache the delays are causing families trying to plan for next year by saying they went though the same thing. They have not. It is November now and I have no idea what zoning proposals are even under consideration at this point. It is one thing to be potentially on a wait list, it is very different to be completely zoned out. I don’t understand how it is “defeatist” – as Kristen asserted – to set a plan for 2016 now and then take our time to appropriately develop and vet a long-term rezoning plan, particularly as Kristen didn’t set forth any ideas for a long-term proposals during the 2+ hours of talks on Monday. Just make a decision for 2016 now so we can take whatever action is best for our families,rather than hurting us more by coming to a decision after the opportunity to secure other alternatives closes.
Yes!! Only Joe and Nan of the CEC seems to understand how unfair this is to delay the decision. They know that ramming anything in for 2016 is not a good idea, whether it’s by 11/19 or 12/2 (really, the two weeks is going to make a difference other than give potential parents a heartburn?)??? So let’s not waste time on 2016 and try to get something in for 2017. RELEASE the potential 2016 parents from this prison choke hold!!!! Noah, Kristen and Lucas — who are advocating delaying the process even past Decemebr, do you even have a heart?!?!?
It does not have to be an all or nothing situation. That’s what a lot of people do not get. The CEC can vote to rezone some families to 342 for 2016 to provide some relief, and then get to work on a longer term solution.
Quickly rezoning to 191 does not help because you cannot force families to go there next year because of the Persistently Dangerous designation. Even worse, families who want to be re-assigned cannot do so until after the 2016 year begins.
What that means is that he DOE’s previous proposal (that the 199 PTA so loudly got behind) – was a recipe for pure chaos. Dozens of families being reassigned to 199, 87, 452, and 9 after the school year already begins. Joe and the CEC members get these complexities, which is why they voted it down.
The 199 PTA knew this too, but they are not concerned with those matters. The only thing they care about is getting their number down to 125 next year. We all want 199 to solve its overcrowding, but let’s not do it in a haphazard way.
And by the way, current proposals to do a 2 or 3 school district split ALSO involve reducing overcrowding at 199 and they don’t affect kids currently going to 199 (or their siblings).
So PTA 199, why don’t you let us get to work on finding a long-term and equitable solution to this problem?
I wholly support Joe’s and the majority of the CEC member’s efforts to find solutions to these complex problems.
Correct Mike, though I heard Joe saying that they would not force anyone to 191 while the dangerous designation remained, not just that the zone would not be expanded. He suggested making sure wait listed families had options at other D3 schools other than 191, such as 452. I’m not sure how it would work, but if that is not part of any plan, then there will just be ugliness again.
Most ugly is the derogatory comments about PS 191. It is a school with children and their teachers. There are also parents of these children.
This derision is ugly.
I think we agree dannyboy. I certainly agree that some of the nastier comments about 191 are unacceptable and just inaccurate. I don’t think it is a derogatory statement, however, to say you are concerned about sending your 5-year-old child to a school where data collected over a two-year government review indicated a high number of serious incidents and 191 teacher surveys say bullying/discipline is a problem. Everyone should be concerned about that, no matter what zone you are in. That is why the government allows ALL parents a right to leave the school if they don’t feel comfortable. I don’t think it is fair or good policy to ignore that designation, and force more families into the school.
It’s a bit ridiculous/depressing how the PS 191 and PS 199 students might be used in an experiment (like split grades) to try and quickly fix a problem caused by the DOEs failure to build/grow quality schools in the neighborhood over the last decade plus. Why not approach this from a well thought out and planned perspective that would include the following:
(1) PS 199 is overcrowded. Kids are not sardines. Brains need room to expand. They can’t wait for this rezoning debacle to resolve itself. Restrict the incoming K size going forward and bring in a few trailers (as you see everywhere outside of NYC) so current students have a safe place to learn.
(2) Demand funding from the DOE to sufficiently improve PS 191. There needs to be a solid commitment to improving educational outcome. Kids in good schools shouldn’t have to pay for underperformance by being rezoned or sent to “split schools”. This is on the DOE, not on PS 199 kids. Give PS 191 three years, and if it can’t improve, then it gets closed or people get canned (oh wait, it’s the DOE, that can’t happen, people don’t get fired). Great schools have been built in this city by closing weak schools and opening new ones with improved management, teaching and resources.
(3) Newly constructed buildings have two options. Commit a few floors to new schools. Or pay a meaningful tax (in the millions) that gets sent directly to PS 191.
(4) Have a working group that helps oversee the improvement of PS 191. It involves teachers and parents from 191, 199 and any other school in District 3.
And I’m open to other ideas. It’s just silly that PS199 zoned parents and their kids are being asked to “sacrifice” to improve PS 191. It sucks and is unfair that there is disparity between the schools. But it is hardly their or their kids fault. It is a DOE problem that is being forced upon our community. Let’s demand better action from the City!
Everyone agrees that it takes a critical mass of families to change a school. We disagree on how it should be accomplished. I do not think a measure that forces parents to go to a school other than what they consider their zoned school will work. Like it or not, people move to an area for a zoned school. Educationally, it is unclear if there is a benefit to splitting up a school K-2, 3-5 especially when 3-5 are testing years. Practically, pairing/superzoning was tried for at least 20 years from 1964-mid80s. The result was a PS199 with a 1/3 Black/Latino population becoming a majority Black/Latino school by the mid-80s. The school then started a campaign to recruit from Lincoln Towers & elsewhere.
Some history behind Amsterdam Houses and PS191 – Amsterdam Houses were built in 1948 and PS191 in 1956 to accommodate the Amsterdam Houses. The Annex was built in 1974, and the Annex was and is zoned to PS199. The Amsterdam Houses started off as a multiracial community, changing by the late 50s. PS199 was built in the 70s with Lincoln Towers as part of the Lincoln Square urban renewal plan.
The declining enrollment in PS191 is demographics-driven. Few people leave NYCHA housing, the majority of the tenants are over 65. There are over 200,000 families on the NYCHA waitlists. The market rate apartments in PS191 zone are not much cheaper than those zoned for PS199. I speculate that because the school was so closely identified with the Houses that the market rate population has never tried in big numbers to attend PS191.
Typo – P.S. 199 was part of the Lincoln Square renewal project which included Lincoln Center & Lincoln Towers & Laguardia HS. They replaced the San Juan Hill tenements in the early 1960s, not 70s.
History is truly fascinating. Lincoln Towers was built by Zeckendorf, same company that built 15CPW. There was a proposal at the same time by the Lithographers of America, a trade union to build on the Hudson Rail yards (now Riverside Blvd), rental buildings. This proposal failed.
Thanks for the info, Angeline.
It’s interesting.
So you’re saying:
PS 199 was built for Lincoln Towers (mostly white people).
PS 191 was built for the Amsterdam Houses (mostly black people).
Pairing/superzoning was tried from from 1964-mid80s. It resulted in 199 becoming a majority Black/Latino school by the mid-80s.
I’m not sure exactly what to make of all this, but it surely is interesting.
As a side note, my friend, who is black, was zoned for 199 in the early 1990’s. She got a variance (as they were called then) to enable her kids to go to PS86 because 199 was, in the early 1990’s, a “bad school.”
Can’t speak for everyone but I for one would like to hear more about the history of this school district, how it became what it is today, what was tried and failed (and succeeded). Thank you!
PS: We need people like you in public office
I agree she would make a great politician. Sound bites, simplistic historical references, and fear mongering are some popular political tactics.
Reciting back the history of a place is easy. Understanding how to apply historical facts to current day analyses is not. That takes a deeper understanding of context, including current and past conditions and constraints.
Again, you are making simplistic generalizations. Pairing schools didn’t work in the good old bad days so it isn’t going to work now. Not sure if you were here, but a lot didn’t work back then – we had random murders, regular muggings, adult shops, riots, heroine, crack, vandalism, graffiti, a broken subway system, a bankrupt city…
And your reasoning about how fair it is to not be able to go to your zoned school makes me think you have not been paying attention to the trajectory of this news story. There is no alternative proposals still on the table where someone living in the smaller 199 zone would not be able to go to 199 (i.e. the failed super zone proposal with a lottery). Only the failed proposal, which simply zones nearly half of 199 out does that – by forcing families out of the school all together.
The most popular proposal is to pair 191 and 342 for diversity. But keep on posting so you can scare the little panties off of those mommies too. Let your kids learn side by side with 2 to 4 kids of color and it will be the good old bad days all over again.
I am not sure which proposal you support. Supposing you are for the paired proposal, the reconstituted PS199 which takes grades 3-5 would no longer be the same K-5 school that it is today (I am not speaking about demographics). I chose a K-5 school in one physical building, not another model in which families are split k-2, 3-5. I do not know if that is an educationally sound model – all I have read indicates that this has been done in recent years to save money in some areas.
I have laid my cards on the table, my kids attend PS199 – any new proposal will likely not affect my kids. I am not concerned for the long term value of my home. I am worried that my school community will be split, that paired schools without community support will not result in 2 or 3 great schools, that parents’ energies will be diluted.
What specific analysis will allay my concerns?
“(3) Newly constructed buildings have two options. Commit a few floors to new schools. Or pay a meaningful tax (in the millions) that gets sent directly to PS 191.”
FYI/NEWS FLASH: The people in the new buildings in the neighborhood pay real estate and income taxes. Perhaps the DOE/NYC should provide something like more classrooms for the money? There is a large EMPTY building on WEA between 64th & 65th that could be outfitted as a school in short order.
Riverside Boulevarder…yes, in theory they do. In reality, many don’t. I simply refer you to this tax abatement map and zoom in to the 60s West of Amsterdam.
https://www.mas.org/urbanplanning/421a/
Lots of nice tax breaks in the trump building and others on the far west side of Lincoln Square. They may have expired in some instances, but those were dollars lost that should have gone to building schools in that same area.
The tax abatements were bought for by developers – you can buy 421-a certificates that promote off-site affordable development and in return, you get tax breaks on your building project. Even though certificates have been discontinued, they continue to trade on the private market. One57, in addition to some of the Riverside Blvd (btw, Trump only had a role in building the earlier ones). The tax abatement $ has never gone to schools.
Yes, Realistic Parent there were (in our case 10 years ago)/are tax abatements for the the new Riverside Blvd. condominiums. That was in exchange for developers to donate the land to extend Riverside Park from 72nd to 60th street and to pay for the construction of the park. In addition, a portion of our maintenance bill pays for the park employees south of 72nd and the upkeep. We’ve paid our fair share. The NYC/DOE has not.
How come Alex Rodriguez got to pay only 1,200 taxes per year in his Riverside Boulevard penthouse?
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/02/25/a-rod-tax-loophole-has-new-yorkers-seeing-pinstriped-red/
Agreed Realistic Parent. I’m tired of the sacrifice argument that falls only on the handful of families that are being forced to 191 over the next couple years before 342 opens on the gamble that they can improve 191. If there has to be a sacrifice, then EVERYONE should be involved in the sacrifice, not just a few new families. Current 199 families have more experience building great schools, shouldn’t they be the ones going to 191? Drop the sibling policy and send them to 191 to build up the school. Instead of sacrificing, those remaining at 199 get the windfall of being at a better school while also getting less crowding. Let’s make sure everyone has equal skin in the game before saying someone has to sacrifice for the greater good.
Sorry, in limbo, I disagree with your conclusion. Let’s not have this devolve into if any family has to sacrifice than all do. That’s a race to the bottom. No PS 199 family – let alone their siblings – should have to sacrifice, period. They and their communities, together with strong teachers and staff, built the school to what it is today. They shouldn’t be punished. The onus should be on the DOE to fix the school, not any family or any kid. They created this problem. And they should solve it responsibly, by using their own efforts to improve the school. Not by stealing other students. This narrative has shifted to demanding 199 parents and students have the responsibility to solve 191 problems. They don’t. The DOE does. A simple rezoning is not enough. 191 Parents should demand more from the DOE, not just a stop gap solution of rezoning or split schools, which is forcing 199 parents to pay for the DOE’s mistakes.
Also, I think anyone who is opposed to sibling grandfathering is living in bizarro world. What ever happened to family? Community? You really want a K and a first grader being in separate schools? Not only is it bad for the kids, it’s just impossible for the parents.
Getting from: “No PS 199 family – let alone their siblings – should have to sacrifice, period.”
to: “What ever happened to family? Community?”
really blows my mind. But it does help clarify who my neighbors are now.
Clearly they care so much about their own children that they have no capacity remaining to give others a hand up.
My children first!
Me first!
Mine!
Gimme!
This Discussion has been eye-opening for me.
And yes, that means that I better understand my “neighbors”. Some are awfully selfish.
Danny Boy,
Your neighbors are people who care about their children.
Realistic Parent, from a strictly practical perspective, how do you imagine the DOE can ultimately “fix the problem”? Building a new school takes probably the better part of a decade, while, guess what, there is *unused capacity* all over our city in schools exactly like PS191.
Rather than advocate building entire buildings for folks who just don’t want to go to 191, why not think of a solution which has potential benefits for everyone?
Benefits like reducing overcrowding. Benefits like being exposed to a more diverse community (in a balanced demographic ratio which the combined 199/191 would be with ~30% free lunch students as opposed to 77% in 191 and 7% in 199).
To put this entirely on the DOE is part of what got us in this position.
Realistic Parent,
Respectfully, I understand the frustration. And actually I respect some of Bloomberg’s policies in terms of transparent measurement of performance and making sure low performing teachers in particular exit the system.
However, to say the solution here is to “shut it down” I don’t think gives due respect and consideration to the community at 191. I have visited the school and spoken to the new principal and seen the kids. They, from all I can observe, love their new principal. They want to have hope that it can work out.
Shutting it down would throw them back into the turmoil that they are trying so hard to emerge from.
So what’s an alternative? Honestly, I don’t know for sure. I personally think splitting by grade is the most equitable and effective solution but that’s me. And it won’t work if it’s just me, let’s be honest. So who else has an equitable solution that takes into consideration as many different incentives as possible and tries to maximize for the net benefit of the entire community rather than just a small (albeit powerful) segment of it?
Practically, I would close 191 and replace it with another school. Immediately. This is exactly what Mayor Bloomberg’s small school initiative did. Underperforming schools got closed over the summer and in the fall, a new school or schools were put in the same exact physical space. Just new pedagogy. Greater resources. Unfortunately the current administration abandoned that policy.
That’s what should happen here – a school that is “persistently dangerous” with bad scores should be closed. The residents of the 191 district and particularly Amsterdam Houses deserve better solution than a patchwork zoning solution that doesn’t really solve any problems and instead displaces kids from their communities.
I agree a better solution should be pursued than sacrificing anyone. I’m just responding to the ridiculous argument that someone has to be sacrificed to change 191. I don’t think that is right — 191 can improve on its own without whatever benefit people think a few bitter families will add to the school. If people are going to continue the sacrifice argument, however, everyone should make a sacrifice. Let us see the CEC members sacrifice their kids to 191 (one recently pulled her child OUT of 191 rather than help build the school). On siblings, while I think keeping families together is a good goal, people are way overusing it as a tool to get what they want (staying at 199 while kicking others out to reduce crowding). Families somehow make do sending siblings to different pre-K, G&T, and middle schools; families could also always move their older children to 191 if they really thought it was a priority to keep siblings together. Again, I don’t think forcing anyone to a school they don’t want to attend makes sense, but people should be potential sacrificial lambs before they advocate for sacrificing a few for the greater good.
Realistic Parent, I understand your concern about the kids being used in an “experiment” but the fact of the matter is they are already in an experiment.
Is it realistic to think that one school that has 2% Black students and another that has 41% is not having some impact on the fundamental world view of either of those communities?
This is an experiment of the worst design as it is one nobody seems to acknowledge as being preventable and most important, not working. The overcrowding 199 and the tragic state of 191 are undeniable proof to this fact.
And as for sacrificing for 191. Who was going to sacrifice when DOE and CEC unilaterally decided that decades of participation in 199 were suddenly not needed and they were kindly shown the door via a massive rezoning of 50% of 199 population? Who was sacrificing then?
Improving schools – I think it is useful to see how schools have turned around. 3 principals ago, PS199 had to go outside its zone to recruit students. There was an active recruitment strategy to get parents to try the school. Ditto PS87. Other schools like PS9 and 166 have really successful G and T to achieve critical mass. PS84 had the first French bilingual program – the French government threw in support because there are a lot of French expats in NYC that cannot be accommodated by the Lycée.
The pattern follows in brownstone Brooklyn. Aging neighborhoods experiencing an influx of families which can no longer fit into the existing “good” schools.
Schools have generally improved slowly over years.
Very interesting, I didn’t know that
Angeline and Mike are smart and have good ideas. I wish they were the DOE.
As to Andrew C, you write “Consider an alternative where “achievement” isn’t simply measured in test scores, academics or college applications, but instead measured by what you are willing to do to help your fellow man?” In the current context, this view is problematic. Parents don’t want to send their kids to unsafe, low-performing schools in the name of “helping your fellow man”.
If PS191 were a high-achieving school despite its lack of diversity, should it be forcibly integrated to be diverse? There are high performing schools on the Lower East Side that are not diverse with a high free lunch immigrant ELL population. Diversity by itself does not translate into a better performing and a high free lunch student population also does not doom a school.
As a person of color, I find it repugnant to be told that my child can or cannot attend a school because of a racial quota.
Angeline
Your experience as a wealthy Asian woman at 199 is very different than the vast majority of families at P.S. 191. The children of Asian immigrants on the Lower East side that you write about do not have very much in common with the Black and Latino kids at P.S. 191.
Your writing is very knee jerk and it is consistent with the community’s resistance to change in general. Actually, research shows that segregation is disabling and that students of color do better when they are learning alongside White students. You know that, and perhaps that is why you chose to put your child into 199.
Research also shows that White children do not perform worse on testing when they are in diverse classrooms. The National Education Center for Statistics just released a report, as written about in the Atlantic.
https://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/10/school-diversity-doesnt-hurt-white-kids-test-scores/411550/?utm_source=nextdraft
And nobody is talking about quotas here. The alternative proposals that are on the school are about sharing resources and not about some people being winners and some people being losers in a lottery with a quota.
The only quota being proposed lately is the PTA’s demand for a cap of 5 classes, of which you as a PTA member are well aware.
Mike – Definitely! Please spread the word! Appreciate it, and again, if anyone has questions and concerns. Please let them know that we are open to discussions.
Even what we proposed in petition is incomplete. It necessarily needs broader discussion and input from the community.
Top down just doesn’t work. The inverse is really hard, trying to get community consensus, but I think given the stakes here it is worth trying. May not work, we may decide to keep status quo, but i’ll be darned if I don’t try.
Thanks!
Andrew, I hope it is okay that I have reposted the link to the shared site petition so others are aware of it. I think it deserves discussion.
Please visit and read our petition to the Mayor for a “3 school split-sited” solution at https://www.bit.do/taleoftwoschools. In speaking to CEC members, there is growing interest in such a solution, but a HUGE factor is whether there is community support, so if you are for a logical solution which also helps to break from a decades long trend of de facto segregation, please support our petition! Thank you!
Angeline –
Those programs sound great. They really do, and they are certainly part of the solution. 191 is trying a version of this with the Museum Magnet school and its still not working. Maybe they picked the wrong magnet, maybe it should be Math. Or maybe Mandarin. But you and I both know if they change that or build it it would take years.
But PS199 needs a solution *now*. We hear it. The CEC hears it. The DOE hears it.
PS199 demands a solution b/c it is at a breaking point.
And there is a potential solution nine blocks down West End Ave.
So why not consider it?
And to Mike – thank you. I mean, I come to westsiderag and it just makes me sad. Think of all the energy, the frustration, the fear, the vitriol, the anxiety that we spill into these comments every week.
What if we could take, admittedly, an imperfect and incomplete solution b/c not all stakeholders are willingly at the table and focus those energies, those emotions into problem solving for our *children*?
Let’s have a discussion! All of us! But let’s set our expectations as well that no solution will be perfect, that something must be done, and then maybe *maybe* we might have a snowball’s chance of actually coming to a rational, effective and maybe even a socially just solution.
Thank you both for the in-depth review of historical cases and your ideas. I wish the DOE zoning discussions had even a tenth of this depth and hope these thoughts get a better forum than the comments section. I also agree with both of you that the only way someone is going to send their child to a school is if they want to send their child to the school.
Yes, Asians on average perform better than Whites, so my comment about putting your kid at 199 for that reason was uncalled for and I apologize.
My point is that it’s unfair to generalize the minority experience because being White (as I am) or Asian is very different than being Black or Latino. Your and my experience is more alike than it is dissimilar.
You wrote that the studies on the efficacy of integration “ignore the historical story of busing and school desegregation.”. The elephant in the room is actually that what we liberals on the Upper West Side have allowed is a replication of the 1950s and 1960s “White Flight”. Only this time we don’t have to move to the suburbs. We can “protect” ourselves behind zoning lines or with the private/charter school options that eat away at our public educational system. Unfortunately, it has taken a critical mass of White and Asian parents, who are about to get zoned out, for our segregation practices to come into question.
You wrote that you find it “repugnant to be told that my child can or cannot attend a school because of a racial quota”. There are many ideas on the table and none of the ideas remaining are about quotas or excluding kids from going to a particular school. Instead, these proposals are about reducing exclusion, sharing resources, eliminating winners and losers, and learning together.
Actually, the essential problem here is that many people find it repugnant that their child cannot attend a good school because: 1) they don’t have the money necessary to live in the right zone (like you and I do) or because 2) some people think that the mere presence of a few low-income minorities interacting with their children will “cost [them their] hard-won high performing schools”
You write that integration doesn’t work, because the achievement still persists in integrated schools. It is true that the gap persists, but the studies show that the gap is larger in segregated communities. Studies also show that as segregation increases, so has the achievement gap. And segregation has increased. We also live in the most segregated state in America (UCLA Civil Rights Project) and clearly this is one of the most segregated areas of the state.
The highest goal is not simplistic diversity. The goal is about getting a critical mass of people in a zone of 2 or 3 schools to overcome their fear of sending their kids to school with 25 P.S. 191 zoned kids in each grade. We cannot integrate 25 kids among 11 kindergarten classes (in a 3 school split) or 6 kindergarten classes (in a 2 school split)?
Negative postings about busing, quotas, and costing someone’s education aren’t going to help people overcome unnecessary fears.
With the new school coming online, we can all come together to share this resource.
Andrew – agree that top down does not work. What does work are programs that attract families to schools outside your garden variety good neighborhood school.
G&T, bilingual programs (French, Hebrew, Spanish), enhanced math programs, music/dance schools, charter schools or even a gym-focused school (kids at gened barely get half an hour of gym/week).
There are already parents willing to travel greater distances to get into those programs.
Yes, Asians perform better than Whites, so my comment about putting your kid at 199 for that reason was uncalled for and I apologize.
My point is that it’s unfair to generalize the minority experience because being White (as I am) or Asian is very different than being Black or Latino. Your and my experience is more alike than it is dissimilar.
You wrote that the studies on the efficacy of integration “ignore the historical story of busing and school desegregation.”. The elephant in the room is actually that what we liberals on the Upper West Side have allowed is a replication of the 1950s and 1970s “White Flight”. Only this time we don’t have to move to the suburbs. We can “protect” ourselves behind zoning lines or with the private/charter school options that eat away at our public educational system. Unfortunately, it has taken a critical mass of White and Asian parents, who are about to get zoned out, for our segregation practices to come into question.
You wrote that you find it “repugnant to be told that my child can or cannot attend a school because of a racial quota”. There are many ideas on the table and none of the ideas remaining are about quotas or excluding kids from going to a particular school. Instead, these proposals are about reducing exclusion, sharing resources, eliminating winners and losers, and learning together.
Actually, the essential problem here is that many people find it repugnant that their child cannot attend a good school because: 1) they don’t have the money necessary to live in the right zone (like you and I do) or because 2) some people think that the mere presence of a few low-income minorities interacting with their children will “cost [them their] hard-won high performing schools”
You write that integration doesn’t work, because the achievement still persists in integrated schools. It is true that the gap persists, but the studies show that the gap is larger in segregated communities. Studies also show that as segregation increases, so has the achievement gap. And segregation has increased. We also live in the most segregated state in America (UCLA Civil Rights Project) and clearly this is one of the most segregated areas of the state.
The highest goal is not simplistic diversity. The goal is about getting a critical mass of people in a zone of 2 or 3 schools to overcome their fear of sending their kids to school with 25 P.S. 191 zoned kids in each grade. We cannot integrate 25 kids among 11 kindergarten classes (in a 3 school split) or 6 kindergarten classes (in a 2 school split)?
Negative postings about busing, quotas, and costing someone’s education aren’t going to help people overcome unnecessary fears.
With the new school coming online, we can all come together to share this resource.
I’m aware of some of those precedents. Boston stands out as a model of how not to go about any process of desegregation, but that said out of the rubble of what they tried came their model of Controlled Choice which seems to be working well for them.
I think that is a key here, it’s imperative that any community go through the necessary introspection to understand what is the right model for them. And so, here, I am in full agreement with you. The reason why Boston failed was because it was a top-down decision.
Unless the average PS199 member of the community (I don’t know how you average a community, but nonetheless) is open to a concept of 199/191 pairing, it won’t work. This I am fully aware. It’s also why I am honestly just looking for a conversation.
Whereas Controlled Choice worked for Boston and other models worked elsewhere, what works for us? That’s the question fundamentally. But we can’t have that conversation if everyone is sniping each other from their respective foxholes and playing a zero sum game.
There is a unique set of circumstances here and again I would argue, respectfully, that we as a community are very different now in 2015 compared to the community that was geographically located here in the 60’s.
So let’s start with a clean slate. We have a school that has a “good problem” a “great problem” even, it has phenomenal scores but due to that, it is literally bursting at the seams. Unless the physical plant of this building literally doubles in the next 1-2 years, this problem is unavoidable unless a) more space is found elsewhere to manage the demand or b) demand is artificially reduced in some fashion. Since demand is not likely to come down organically and space is not likely to double (trailers are not an option for DOE as they go from temporary to permanent very quickly, taking up space intended for other purposes like playgrounds), these leads us, unsurprisingly to the outcome we see today. Reducing demand.
The issue I have is how is reducing demand based on really any means not a top down decision unlike top down desegregation? You will have a perception of winners and losers. You will have, as we saw firsthand, a community divided by definition.
Again, unique to 199/191, there are no bordering schools with comparable space. 452 is being used as an option but you ask the 3 schools in that building and they will tell you it certainly should not be an option.
So we are in a bind.
But then you look nine blocks to the south where there is an abundance of space. 200 seats worth of space and really the only thing keeping anyone from talking about it or considering it is exactly the fears you are describing. Which are *totally valid*.
But in the face of these other alternatives, isn’t it worth at least considering? And btw, if it works, not from a top-down perspective but from a community wide buy in perspective, won’t we all actually feel, I don’t know, better for it?
I don’t know, it seems like a huge potential win win for the entire community. And I agree, anything pushed down is not going to work. It’s like telling capitalists that they’re now communists, not going to happen.
But even a capitalist can consider the benefits of a net positive gain vs. a zero sum game.
Andrew – I do not think you have attacked me personally, and anyway, you are not hiding under a handle.
The issues you have raised are serious and we do have inequity in the system. Personally, I think diversity should be one goal but not the only one. My concerns stem from my survey of history and previous attempts at making schools both diverse and good. As a starting point, I recommend looking at the desegregation efforts of the 60s in NYC, Boston and Philadelphia. PS191 and 199 have been paired before along with 20+ other schools. Also look at the controlled choice implementation in SF, Cambridge. Also the removal of quotas at Lowell HS, Berkeley, top 10% TX admission policies.
Bottom line, given human nature, I don’t think highly of forcing people to go to one school for the sake of diversity when they had a chance to go to a less diverse but good school.
Angline, not attacking you here, am following that logic. What does help the achievement gap? If diversity is a proven measure that doesn’t remove it, but certainly shrinks it, isn’t it worth pursuing as a goal?
The reason I ask is because if you follow the logic that the achievement gap will persist and effectively, why poison the well of our good schools with elements that will introduce an achievement gap, then, I really don’t see a long-term outcome that avoids segregation over time.
Consider an alternative where “achievement” isn’t simply measured in test scores, academics or college applications, but instead measured by what you are willing to do to help your fellow man? To recognize that others, yes, for various reasons, do have a gap, they do have a disparity, and they do need help.
We are not founded on being a welfare nation, but that doesn’t mean we can’t care about the welfare of others.
You seem to be concerned about a “poison the well” scenario. Which is valid, maybe that is an outcome. Given the ratios of 199 to 191 I don’t think it is a high outcome, but maybe it is.
Now consider the alternative, maybe then the reverse is possible, where existing 199 students are not sacrificing but in fact *enriched* by interacting with people from different backgrounds, with different interests and different beliefs.
And consider an outcome where the particularly vexing issue of our largely abandoned public school system actually can scale and take *one* good school and make it *two* or *three* or *four*. Has anyone been able to successfully do this before? Is that a goal worth striving for?
anon, It is called the Halo Effect. Because white classes receive better treatment, the black children placed in the same class benefit.
why do children of color perform better when in school with white children (as opposed to children of color)? I’ve long wondered about that.
I’d prefer that people not hide behind their handles, especially if you are calling me out personally.
The achievement gap persists even in integrated schools and high achieving schools. Test scores are available for each school in NYC by race. If you are saying that my children are benefiting by being around white children, then perhaps you haven’t seen the data which shows that Asian children have higher test scores than white children in southern D3 schools :)? I have read the same studies that you are talking about but those studies also ignore the historical story of busing and school desegregation. The forced desegregation in the 60s destroyed many city school systems. The benefits were highest for the earliest “integrated” children. Diversity as the sole and highest goal will not fix the achievement gap and MAY cost us our hard-won high performing city schools.
I am also a person of color and I 100% agree.
I also think the catchword of “diversity” is also being thrown around too casually and with the guise of moral authority by certain advocates of combining the 199 and 191 population. Please just call a spade a spade; it’s not diversity you want. It’s a better 191. That makes 100% sense. But let’s just admit it…
Is anyone else ticked off by this:
“Last night, the Council by unanimous consent called for a suspension of DOE’s right of return policy for waitlisted families who accepted alternate offers last year”
This means waitlisted kids who cant get into K would no longer have the right to come back in 1st grade. Another nice (hidden) blow to waitlisted families from the CEC / the existing familities at 199.
Yeah, that was sketchy and done without any discussion with the public or really among the CEC. It is also short-sighted as it makes families less willing to accept alternative school placements if it also means giving up your right of return to 199. If the CEC/DOE wants 199 zoned families to try other D3 schools, such as 191, then they should keep the right of return option intact. Indeed, they should give a priority right of return to 199 zoned families that try 191 so they can feel more comfortable giving the school a chance. It is unclear what the CEC’s vote actually meant as it doesn’t have the authority to suspend the right of return policy — I guess they are just asking the DOE to do so.
The best solution would be expanding the good school options in the district- ie expanding 452 and moving Anderson
Yes!
All arguments aside, ALL parents should be enraged that the CEC is delaying the decision until 12/2:
1. Vote just three days before enrollment starts.
2. DOE cannot guarantee that the new zones will be available when enrollment starts.
3. Still not giving the public enough time to comment before ramming in a change for 2016 school year.
4. Nothing is stopping the CEC from delaying it past 12/2! Kim and four other CEC members wanted to delay the vote until 12/2 and Noah and two other CEC members wanted to delay the vote until 1/2/2016!!!!
We need to let the CEC know that delay for 2016 is unfair!!!!
Yes! If you are not helping, then get out of the way. The meeting on Monday was completely unproductive; why are we delaying planning for 2016 to have discussions about how long it takes to hire a principal at 342 when it opens in 2018? Unfortunately, we do not have time in the next 2-3 weeks to fairly consider all the ideas currently being formed, so let’s just make a plan for 2016, so families can make plans with all the other families in the NYC public school system.
Hypothetical question: if the dangerous designation were removed (and you believed the school was safe), would that make you more likely to consider 191?
Absolutely NOT!! Have you seen the literacy ratings for this school? It is rated 2,117th in the state out of 2,300 schools. It is one of the worst in the STATE which I blame on the dept of Education and CEC. Both schools receive our tax dollars… why can’t they use these funds to help fix the schools and FIRE the teachers and staff that allow this travesty of a school to remain the worst?!?
To sum up your proposal:
1. Blame the DOE for everything.
2. Threaten and then FIRE everyone.
3. Demean an entire school by calling it a “travasty” and the “worst”.
I guess your proposal is about average of the proposals put forward so far.
I agree dannyboy.
I know 191 hired a new principal. She’s instituted new regulations and rules which apparently make the school calmer and better run. She’s also done a lot of curriculum redesign. What we don’t know is if/when the academics will show improvement in the test scores. Any principal will be in the same position – it’ll take time to measure success.
This takes it back to my first Comment above: “Is 199 a private school?”
These are NYC Public Schools. The one place where people are mixed together with their fellow New Yorkers. The one place where people learn to work and cooperate with people who are different from them.
Is this dead on the UWS?
No one sent their kids to 191 before the “persistently dangerous” designation so removing it isn’t going to change anything. It was actually a good thing for those who were placed there and didn’t want to attend bc it forced the DOE to find them other placements. The only long term solution is to divide the Amsterdam houses among the three schools in the southern end of the district (191, 199, and 342). Solutions that worked for building up other schools like adding a g&t or magnet program have not worked for 191. Having another viable school in the southern part of d3 would eliminate overcrowding at 199.
I’m curious about how many kids from Amsterdam Houses actually attend 191. It may be less than people assume. Is there a way to find out?
That information speaks to public housing in general, not specifically the Amsterdam Houses. On a different zoning post, someone claimed that 35 children from the 191 zone entered Kindergarten this year. I am not sure how accurate that is. I do know (from touring 191) that there are currently 2 classes per grade with about 25 kids per class. This seems to have held steady for the past 5 years or so.
Angeline has certainly done her research. She is also a 199 parent.
No need to inform the discussion with: “Angeline has certainly done her research. She is also a 199 parent.”, as she has announced her values by writing:
“I do not think a measure that forces parents to go to a school other than what they consider their zoned school will work. Like it or not, people move to an area for a zoned school.”
This is the creedo driving this Discussion. I paid a lot of money for my expensive apartment so I want the best school for my special child. And the hell with everyone else (especially those 191 Types).
The Amsterdam Houses qualifies for NORC-SSP services. Based on my brief perusal of this document https://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/moved/pubadvocate/GotbaumAlternativeSeniorHousingReport.pdf, this means that at least 50% of households are headed by seniors.
I think I saw a DOE slide that claimed that 70% of PS191 students are from the zone.
I just see a post above that I didn’t notice before. It’s from Angeline who seems to be a wealth of knowledge. The part about demographics answers my questions. On another note, there are so many responses and people replying up in the middle of the thread – it’s hard to keep track.
FROM ANGELINE (above):
“The declining enrollment in PS191 is demographics-driven. Few people leave NYCHA housing, the majority of the tenants are over 65. There are over 200,000 families on the NYCHA waitlists. The market rate apartments in PS191 zone are not much cheaper than those zoned for PS199. I speculate that because the school was so closely identified with the Houses that the market rate population has never tried in big numbers to attend PS191.”
LIFE IN NYC IS SO MUCH BETTER WITH BILL DE BLASIO AS MAYOR.