Public Turns Out for Charter School Hearing

Those of us who expected the public hearing for the Lefferts Gardens Charter School last night to be a love-in for the new environmental science school were in for a surprise: the opposition to placing the school at P.S. 92 was passionate and vocal.

Most of the opposition stemmed from parents of students at P.S. 92. The overwhelming concern was that sharing the space would create problems for kids already attending the school. "If your child can't take the seat next to my son, find another spot," said one of the charter school's critics.

To my mind, the most persuasive argument against locating the school at PS 92 was one raised by a few people who spoke at the hearing: though the Department of Education and LGCS insist that the charter school will only be at PS 92 for a few years while they raise money to build a permanent site, odds are that the permanent site will never materialize, the DOE won't kick LGCS out, and PS 92 will become overcrowded as LGCS continues to grow. At least, that's the typical pattern.

There were lots of positive things said about the charter school, too, but I was too busy chasing my toddler to write them down… and, frankly, I'd be preaching to the choir here.

In the end, the supporters of the school outweighed the opposition by a sizable margin: 21 pro, 10 against, and 3 neutral (arguably positive) by my count. That said, it was hard not to be troubled by the racial dynamic at play, with white people tending to support the school and black people opposing.

If the DOE elects to locate LGCS in the same building as PS 92, LGCS needs to seriously step up its community outreach beyond the Manor. The PS 92 student body is 0%  (yes, that's zero percent) white and 83% black. The Lefferts supporters are about as white as the PS 92 students are black, a situation that's bound to create tensions. As one friend of mine who attended the hearing wondered, "Are they planning on hiring bodyguards for all the rich white kids so they don't get beat up?"

LGCS also needs to do serious fundraising to raise the hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to build their promised "green" permanent facility. All the more reason for LGCS to get its house in order and rebuild its flagging board of directors.

A flyer posted on apartment buildings along Winthrop Street by one of Lefferts Gardens Charter School's critics

RELATED:

Board Members Resign From Lefferts Gardens Charter School
Update on the Lefferts Gardens Charter School

Comments

[BCTOBK]

Great reporting hawthornestreet.com. Me and my husband attended the hearing last night and were also shocked by the passionate oppostion. The racial dynamic was particularly distressing. As one speaker noted "LGCS needs to step up" and ensure a balanced mix that is representative of the community. That's the reason we are moving to PLG because of the fantastic mix of people. We are in full support the LGCS, but I want a well integrated mix of kids.

Finally, we absolutely understand the passion of the parents of PS92. Their kids should not go without anything as a result of a charter school being housed in the building. That's the responsibility of the adults running both PS92 and LGCS to show how both can benefit and as a number of people stated last night, we adults should step up, "work together" and show our kids how good we are at "sharing" too.

[babs]

Interesting how that flyer first criticizes charter schools for running like businesses and then mentions that LGCS is a "non-profit group." Seems a bit of a contradiction, no? There is clearly a lot of misinformation about the LGCS that has been spread (I imagine by the usual charter school opponents) and yes, LGCS does need to increase its outreach to overcome these out-and-out lies, but I fear the damage may already have been done.

[Tim Thomas]

I agree that Hawthorne Street has really stepped up its reporting...thanks for being a voice of reason and information in the community!

The vocal opposition from stakeholders at PS92 shouldn't surprise. Angry meetings and protests have been taking place since the start of the charter school movement here and across the country. It's important to recognize that charters were always meant to be a direct challenge to the status quo; but the irony is that a lot of the people who are so angry now were once the very people fighting the (old) status quo. These are old-school protesters who have always had to raise their voices to be heard.

Let's not be shocked that a gentrifying neighborhood's bold new idea is not being embraced by everyone. Last night we heard a lot of "where were you when..." But a sizable but mostly quiet group of parents and kids DO want an alternative, and they're side is getting what it wants. It doesn't have to be perceived as being at the expense of others, but sadly that's how some people see it.

Not for nothing, I spoke to one older gentleman who used to be on the district's school board. After that failure of locally controlled schools (too much corruption and incompetence), the pendulum swung back to centralized control (the mayor and superintendent). Some of the people you heard from last night lost their power during that squabble, and they've been nursing their wounds ever since. Don't lose heart! Change can be painful, but the school building does not belong to any one person or group. It belongs to all the citizens of the community, and we should never let intimidation rule the day.

Then again, Fat Albert's Warehouse has a nice space in the back that could house the school AND a nice selection of inexpensive plastic household items.

[q*bert jones]

I really hope that letter wasn't written or proofread by a student of PS 92.

D-

[jessica]

Tim I do think that the charter school movement actually is, in many ways, getting something at the expense of others. Charter schools DO take money away from the "traditional" public schools, which does put parents (and thus children) who are less informed, or don't have the time to do the research or work on the application process etc. etc., at a disadvantage.

I find myself supporting LGCS, primarily because I have a soon-to-be-school-age child and I want there to be as many options as possible, but I'm definitely feeling a bit hypocritical. Against charters in general, but for one in my neighborhood? Hm.

The one strong feeling I did get out of the hearing is that I would love to see everyone in this neighborhood working together to improve ALL of the public schools: 92, 375, 91 (91 is not strictly in our 'hood, but much of PLG is zoned in that district). Yeah, I know, Pollyanna of me, but I do hope to at least consider the local public schools, in addition to LGCS, when the time comes.

[Lisa J]

I was there, watching and taking notes - funny how the evening became about race, the haves and have nots - I don't think with all that passion that people have learned anything from the past or anything about sharing. The only think I understood was that every parent was looking out for the best interest of their child.

BTW: I was the only Asian Indian there and I was for the Charter School, beyond the Maple Street School and the Children's Center at SUNY Brooklyn, District 17 does not give me any options (in my humble opinion). It is sad - as I mentioned on my own blog - for the children.

Thank you HS for good reporting.

[Michael]

I'm very curious about the racial mix. I'm wondering, if the charter school was never proposed in the first place, or does not take off, would the white parents throw themselves wholeheartedly into improving the community public schools and send their children to PS92? Or would their students head to a private school or use a relatives address elsewhere in the city?

I'm a public school teacher. I do believe in reform, but I think we must be wary of the effect of charter schools, magnet schools, and specialized schools have on a brain drain in communities. Not only do these options cause the smartest students to not attend the public school, they also cause the parents who have the cultural and political capital to flee the public school system. I feel that the system that is being built is designed to have public schools constantly fighting with the odds stacked against them.

So, parents who are for the charter school: If the school does not start, will you enroll your kid in PS 92? Just curious...

[babs]

As has been mentioned elsewhere, much of PLG is not zoned for PS 92. My house, for example, is zoned for PS 91, on Albany and East NY Aves., not even in PLG.

I do agree that parental involvement and commitment are the keys to any school's success. Look at PS 8 in Brookyn Heights as an example. Ten years ago PS 8 was not a desirbale school at all; all of the kids in Brooklyn Heights attended private schools (St. Ann, Packer, Brooklyn Friends, etc.) and PS 8 was attended only by children whose parents couldn't afford private school.

With the increase in real estate prices, however, private school tuition became less affordable and parents turned their attention to PS 8, resulting in a remarkable turnaround for the school.

However, the splitting up of PLG into multiple school zones (of which only PS 92 is even in PLG) pretty much negates any such possibility here.

[carrie]

Thanks for you comment, Babs. This is good to know. I'm not sure we should give up on the local schools, though. Even though they're split into different zones, they're all in the same district, and it's much easier to get into a school in-district than out-of-district (in Park Slope, for instance). This would especially be the case if one of the schools had a special program (such as gifted & talented) that could draw in out-of-zone kids.

As for whether the desirable school would be 92, 371, or 91 is an open question. I'm personally interested in learning more about all of the schools, though, and in talking to the school leaders to find out their educational philosophy and their openness to parental involvement. The one substantial criticism I've heard of the local schools is that parents have no voice, and I wouldn't want my kid to go to a place like that.

[Seth]

The charter school is open to any student by lottery. Speaking for myself only, the charter did not create the problems cited by many people. It did not create the lack of any racial diversity in PS 92. It did not create the controversy over charter schools.

I believe the intention of LGCS is to provide a great environmental science school that utilizes the remarkable intersection of facilities we have in our community: The Brooklyn Botanic Garden, the Prospect Park Zoo, the Audubon Center and the vast ecology that is Prospect Park.

While the formation of the school must take many of the stated issues into account and must reach out to the community, I wonder if people are starting to make the charter the focal point for all these problems and expect them to solve them?

[CityPragmatist]

Great balanced coverage of an issue that can tear neighbors --- and neighborhoods --- apart. We hope our post on www.citypragmatist.com sheds some more light.

[Kim]

I don't get it. Charter Schools aren't bad. Charter Schools are great. But if the idea is equity, and improving standards, why could that not have existed before? There will be a racial issue, because yes, the school building previously had no white students, and now there will be white students housed in the same building at a school that has better resources. If you wanted your kids to truly mix with people of other socioeconomic backgrounds, PS 92 shouldn't have been a barrier.

The suggestions to convince the neighborhood of what a great school this will be sound elitist and not truly cooperative. Cozy up to the religious leaders, show them why we're right and their masses are sure to follow is essentially what the tips boil down to.

Students from boths sides of the fence will benefit from the charter school, but the ones that lose out will undoubtedly be black and Hispanic students from the neighborhood. If a better educational tool enters a neighborhood, then everyone should have access to it. I'd hate to be the kid that didn't win the lottery, and is watching the other kids walking down the hallway with better resources.

[Kim]

Michael,

I agree. I expressed this sentiment on Brownstoner a few months back. It's great that there's a charter school, but why not work on improving the existing public school. If parents are so willing to be involved in these other efforts, they can be involved in their children's education at PS 92 or wherever else. PARENTS, not teachers.....
YOU CANNOT HAVE SEPARATE BUT EQUAL within the same school. There were several cases in the late 1940s-1970s that were one based on this principle. Knowing several educators, and reading on the issue there are several little differences imposed on the students. Entering through different doors, etc....Are we going to have different fountains in the schools as well.

[Coco]

I'm a middle class Latina single mother with a four year old in Bed Stuy. I applied to LGCS and nine other charters because my local school is really unacceptable. I also spent four years leading a block association that was accused of "gentrifying" by old timers simply because we enlisted support from politicians and police to deal with a serious problem of drug related violence on our street - and we got results that benefit everyone living there, from those in public housing, to formerly homeless people in a residency run by a non-profit to the many white and black middle class families who have recently bought brownstones there. Gentrification takes many forms and not all of it is about whites taking over or corporate greed - much is about a diverse coalition of homeowners making grassroots efforts to improve life in neighborhoods that previously were neglected by politicians and managed by absentee landlords (with great connections to local officials). Those neighborhoods feature dismal school options that any parent of any ethnic background should know are unacceptable. Just because you know a teacher or school official at a local school, or went there 30 years ago, it doesn't mean the school serves children well. The parent coordinator at my zoned school refuses to set up meetings with parents! What does that tell you?

The dirty little secret about improving neighborhood schools is that it frequently requires a lot of time - free time donated by middle class mothers who cut back on job time or stay at home and volunteer at schools in a number of capacities. Not all of us in Brooklyn are affluent enough to do that.

Like it or not, despite the fact that there are some caring dedicated teachers in the regular public school system, there are very serious problems with the way the DoE and the United Federation of Teachers manage public education. Resources, including high performing teachers, are hoarded and doled out to majority white, middle class neighborhood schools. It is still virtually impossible to remove low performing teachers in the union from classrooms. Neighborhood schools are under pressure to increase enrollment in already crowded classrooms. Studies show that perfectly competent kids who are subject to bad teaching for three years end up under-performing for many years afterward and can require intervention.

Before charters, parents fought back against poor public education all over New York by creating alternatives within the public school system - so "improving your neighborhood school" was never the sole option. I am really surprised that anyone would believe that charter schools in New York are primarily about whites gentrifying neighborhoods! Most charters that have opened in NYC have 90-100% Black and Latino students, the vast majority of whom qualify for free lunches, which means they come from low income families. In short, working class Black and Latino parents are clamoring to get their kids into these schools. It's harder to get into many of them in Harlem than it is to get into Harvard statistically speaking. I visited 10 charters and "school of choice" in Brooklyn and found they were all majority Black and Latino - but a few were actually the most diverse schools I saw in Brooklyn. Poor kids of color are doing much better academically in charter schools and that is a fact that neighborhood schools and the teachers' union doesn't like to talk about. I think anyone complaining about charters should ask why!

A recent NY Times article stated that some neighborhood schools in Harlem are waking up and realizing that they will have to do better marketing and offer better services to compete with Charter Schools because their enrollment is dropping. I say FANTASTIC.

[anonymous]

I have lived in PLG for Thirty Years. This movement is basically for well off Whites, Blacks (not from the neighborhood) and Foreign interests. The goal is to push Longtime residents like myself out of the neighborhood that we kept up when Whites considered it horrible to live in Brooklyn alongside Blacks. I feel sorry that the way of life we have msde for ourselves and our children, that is is once again being systematically destroyed by Racism. This is not a Plan for neighborhood residents, only the New Influx.

[local resident]

Some parents want their kids to go to a more traditional school (like PS 92), while some parents want kids to go to a more progressive school (like the charter school is aiming to be). Both systems have their pluses, and are suitable for different types of children and desired by different parents. That is what this discussion should be about - not race, not gentrification, not charters vs public - they are both open to all the public. When my son was 2 I sent him to a small traditional daycare - popular and well run - where he was kept very clean and safe, was taught the alphabet and singing etc, but he hardly went outside and when he came back in he was washed and changed into new clothes. We then moved to maple street school - where he plays outside most days, comes home dirty with paint all over his clothes, and may play trains all day all week. This suited him much better. Parents want different things for their (different) kids -and those 2 different preschool choices were offering those choices. The LGCS aims to fill the need of those parents who want their kids to learn through doing and going outside and playing in the mud a lot. I think it will be a very diverse school- look at Community Roots Charter School in Fort Greene - very diverse racially and economically, and also has a progressive curriculum. I do think PS 92 has a reason to complain if their own desired expansion is curtailed by the LGCS - but online info says they are only at 60% capacity - and DOE statements say the 2 schools could coexist in the building with full capacities.

[carrie]

"Local resident" makes an important point -- the different educational approaches is a key issue, and the reason many parents have supported the charter school. Unfortunately, this point wasn't clearly articulated at the public hearing. I think there was some concern that giving a specific reason for preferring the charter school would seem arrogant ("my educational approach is better than yours") but avoiding the specifics and speaking only in euphemism ("ps. 92 is a good school, we merely want another option") sounds like bullshit... and, imho, contributed to the charges of racism.

btw, the book I posted about earlier (about PS 92), Ms. Moffett's First Year, turned out to be very, very good. It illustrates pretty clearly the rationale for (and benefits of) a traditional approach. The thing is, schools need active parental involvement in order to pursue more progressive approaches, and it's tough for them to do that when the kids who have involved parents leave the public schools for charters.