Parents packed the room for a rezoning hearing last month.
Two groups of parents and educators that have been pushing for a broader plan to desegregate Upper West Side schools registered disappointment in a rezoning plan from the local school board. We’ve posted their full letter below.
The District 3 Equity in Education Task Force and the NYC Public School Parents for Equity and Desegregation want and the city to consider a school admission process on the Upper West Side called “controlled choice” that takes into account things like race, language and socioeconomic status in determining school placement. While a person’s address would matter, it would not be the only thing that matters, as it is now. All public schools in the district would be open to all families. The Equity group explains controlled choice in more detail here.
The plan from Community Education Council 3, the UWS version of a school board, was outlined in a letter to the city on Oct. 18. That plan is not final — only the city can propose zoning lines — but it holds substantial weight because the CEC3 can reject city plans if it doesn’t agree with them.
That letter outlined a plan that explicitly attempts to desegregate the southern end of the district by shifting zoning lines, but it rejected controlled choice, at least for the time being. To the Equity groups, that was a mistake: “we disagree with the CEC that its rezoning plan is a ‘desegregation’ plan; it does not represent the interests of low-income families of color throughout the district.”
CEC3 President Joe Fiordaliso responded to the groups’ letter in an email to us excerpted below:
Let me start by saying that the Council shared its thoughts with Chancellor Farina in our letter of October 18 but the letter is just that. As much as I would like to present or posture otherwise, CEC3 doesn’t have the authority to introduce or pass its own zoning plan. We need to sit here like everyone else and wait for DOE to do its job and formally propose something. I’m as frustrated as anyone by DOE’s inaction and continue to prod DOE every day to act on behalf of our district.
With regard to the specifics in this letter, let me start by saying I respect the advocacy efforts of this group and the passion of many of the individuals involved. That said, we have reviewed “controlled choice” multiple times and found more questions than answers. Their claim that CEC3 has “never pursued answers” is patently false and frankly disingenuous. In fact, I submitted a lengthy note to this group last May with specific questions about operational and logistical aspects of how this diversity model would work in District 3 – I have never seen answers. Moreover, in my capacity as President, I established a Diversity Committee last July to more fully examine many of the issues this group is discussing and establish a forum to work on them collaboratively. Unfortunately, this task force has repeatedly declined CEC3’s invitation to take advantage of the opportunity afforded to them. Going back even further, to the 2013-2015 Council, which I also presided over as President, we invited this task force to present on “controlled choice” which they did. Following that presentation there was no groundswell of support from the Council to pursue “controlled choice” further. Despite the task force’s thinly veiled references to “leadership of the CEC” and “undemocratic” processes, the FACT is that if a majority of the Council ever wanted to pursue “controlled choice”, I – as President – would be obliged to support and facilitate it. The fact that no majority on the Council has ever emerged, and that no groundwell of support has ever emerged from PTA’s SLT’s, principals, and parents generally, is NOT a referendum on democracy or my leadership. Instead, it would seem to speak to the merits – or lack thereof – of “controlled choice”. The fact is that I’m extremely proud of my record of achievement as President of CEC3 over the past six years. I’ll stack my record up against anyone’s.
With regard to PS241, CEC3 is working to respond to DOE’s plan to close the school and merge it with PS/IS76. We have been overly critical of DOE on this issue and are committed to making the schools in the northern portion of District 3 successful. Based on their letter, the group seems misinformed on this issue. CEC3 doesn’t have power to prevent DOE from merging 241 with 76. To my dismay, DOE is proceeding with this move. CEC3 DOES have power over zoning and we intend to use it to make sure that if the merger does proceed, all of the schools wind up stronger and that 241’s STEM program is preserved.I’m not going to respond in detail to baseless accusations about violations of the Open Meetings Law – these have been debunked and no violations occurred.
The next meeting on the school rezoning plan is set for Thursday at 6:30 p.m. at the Joan of Arc complex, 154 West 93rd Street.
See the full letter below.
Final – Joint Letter Psped-d3tf – 10-28-16 by westsiderag on Scribd
you got me at: “That plan is not final — only the city can propose zoning lines — but it holds substantial weight because the CEC3 can reject city plans if it doesn’t agree with them.”
just playin’ the System
…or is it “Just gamin’ the System”?
i’m getting lost in the playin’, gamin’…
“playin’, gamin’ all with our children’s education. Wonderful.
“The fact is that I’m extremely proud of my record of achievement as President of CEC3 over the past six years. I’ll stack my record up against anyone’s.” – CEC3 President Joe Fiordaliso
i mean “in my capacity as President, I established a Diversity Committee last July” when this segregation thing started!
dannyboy here: Now I gotta’ write my letter to Carmen and tell some truth.
A diversity committee? Maybe to make sure diversity is not discussed at PS 199 or Anderson where their own kids actually attend school. We need controlled choice! It is the only solution for the entire city.
Though not a fan, I am not totally opposed to controlled choice – I think strong preferences must be maintained for neighborhood kids, but I am OK with opening things up a bit more. However, to implement it properly, based on the recommendations from the other, smaller, zone that has it shown on their web site, it will take a lot of analysis.
Based on my observations of how the DOE has done “analysis” for the current iteration of rezoning, I am extremely skeptical that this analysis can be done at a reasonable pace and accurately. We will end up with countless meetings debating whether a “nearby school” should be 9 or 10 or 11 blocks and the definition of minority, and nothing will actually get done.
“I’m not going to respond in detail to baseless accusations about violations of the Open Meetings Law – these have been debunked and no violations occurred.”
Ummm according to a letter sent by New York State yesterday to the parent’s group the opinion was that the CEC was IN VIOLATION of the Open Meeting Law. I can’t believe he could come out and say this, then again I guess I can.
I saw the letter, it was from the The NYS Committee for Open Government. Apparently, CEC and DOE do not believe in open government, LOL.
Mr. Fiordaliso is quoted as saying “I’m not going to respond in detail to baseless accusations about violations of the Open Meetings Law – these have been debunked and no violations occurred.”
I am a 452 parent and received an email from a concerned parent’s group. The email contained an advisory opinion from the Committee on Open Government of the Department of State of the State of New York. The opinion states:
“As you point out in your email, on page five (5) of the Council [CEC3] stated, “for these reasons, an overwhelming majority of the Council supports this plan. In my opinion [this is the opinion of the Assistant Director of the Committee on Open Government], the decision to approve the submission of the proposal to the Chancellor was an action that required the Council to vote during an open meeting subject to the requirements of the OML.”
In light of this advisory opinion, I’m not sure how he can say with a straight face that no violation occurred.
WTF is going on on the UWS? This is not USSR, at least I thought.How can the CEC & DOE blatantly be trying to work the system together and then have the audacity to deny any wrongdoing when the State of New York, State Department are saying they broke the Open Meetings Law?
Am I the only one taking offense at the repeated use of “privileged” families of District 3? Last I checked, my husband and I, both working parents by necessity, have difficult choices to make each and every day- not attend a childs activity, never eating dinner as a family because one of us is working late. However, the time we do have at home with our children, we prioritize and choose to spend reviewing their days activities and helping with any homework. I go to bed at 1am most nights since I choose to spend earlier hours with my child and attend to other household, work issues in the wee issues of the night. I then wake up early as most parents to prepare my children for their day, spending 5 minutes maybe, getting myself presentable for work. I’m not really sure what is privileged about our circumstances- we went to school, earned our jobs but by no means “skate through” every day. We sacrifice any time to eat lunch so we can run to our childs school and help volunteer in some activity, as many of our school parents do also, not because we are privileged and don’t have to work, but because we sacrifice and make tough choices- some of which are not always “popular” ones at our jobs, but important enough for our children. We recognize the support we give to our childrens school and teachers is an investment in them and our community, so we make those tough decisions and because of that, go without other things we might otherwise like, but know are not necessary. Our school is rich in a diversity of cultures with most families I know of, a blended cultural heritage, backgrounds, experiences. Why is only socioeconomic diversity being given any credence in the above letter? Why is socioeconomic diversity basically defined as the difference between free/reduced lunch or not? To me that seems to be generalizing an entire portion of our District 3 population and assuming many things about our lives. What gives this group the right or insight to do that?
Sincerely, A dedicated, but exhausted parent who is tired of being lumped in as privileged.
Can’t agree more. I grew up poor, had to work multiple cleaning/babysitting jobs till in my 30s to ensure better life for my self and now my children. They now go to PS199. In what world we are considered privileged? The simplistic “diversity” definition is obsolete and is dragging all hard-working families down.
Fwiw, cleaning/babysitting jobs into your 30s is admirable and worth acknowledging. And remember that privilege can present differently for different aspects of our identity. A person can face racial discrimination in housing/hiring/policing/socially/etc (less privileged), earn less than US median income of $52K (less privileged), but have educated parents (privileged), grow up loved in a stable family (privileged), grow up with adequate nutrition in a healthy environment (privileged), live in an area full of jobs and opportunity (privilege), not being exposed to drug use disorders (privileged), not being subjected to physical or emotional trauma (privileged). No one is defining privilege as one dimensional (race), but the reality is that average UMC person has more privileged aspects than someone who lives in public housing.
The most comical part is Helen Rosenthal, who lives in a 7+ million dollar apartment and whose daughters went to one of the most elite private schools in the city, insinuating that public school parents are privileged.
People who are steeped in privilege can be powerful champions for the underprivileged.
Keep in mind this isn’t a testosterone contest. This is about the privilege that is gifted to children through no fault of their own. Some 5 year old children are simply not gifted the same amount of privilege as others. Most would agree that a 5 year old deserves a fair shot in life.
Well said! And I’m right there with you!
I’m with her! I wish more people would spend their time reading with their children, discussing their homework, etc. as well as getting involved at the schools and trying to scrounge together a few more dollars to contribute to the school rather than posting on the internet about how unjust the world is and demonizing those who have played by the rules, worked hard their entire lives to make a middle class salary, and tried to do something for their children.
It ia groaaly unfair to split up 3 schools in the Lincoln Towers community,
If you insist on this, it might be wise to split up the teachers from 199 and send them to work there. I don’t know the caliber of the teachers at either school, but often the fault lies with the teachers. Perhaps parents should be given a choice of where to send their children. Having small kindergartners go to new school is to far for them to walk. I don’t feel they should be bused. Also, to having the school on 77th St. go there is ludicrous.
Re: “I don’t know the caliber of the teachers at either school, but often the fault lies with the teachers.”
Yup, blame the teachers, as always!
And can we blame a teacher for your HORRIBLE MISTAKES IN ENGLISH:
1) It ia groaaly unfair (groaaly???)
2) school is to far (too far)
3) to having the school on 77th St. go there is ludicrous (HUH??????)
Go back to school, do NOT pass GO, do NOT collect $200 dollars.
Same old story:
https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2016/10/upper-west-side-school-integration-fight-goes-back-50-years-106679
Reality Check Here!
1- K-Connect opens on 11/30. That is 29 days away. The rest of the city will not wait on D3’s inaction.
2- PEP is hearing about the proposed PS191 move on 11/15.
3- PS 241 is closing at the end of this year and incoming K students need a zone.
4- The PS342 building is opening in 9/17 and needs a zone for capacity issues long identified.
5-This specific zoning progress has been in public process for over two years. If you just discovered this and live in D3, your cave does not have broadband yet. If you just moved in, you have failed to do any homework and probably forgot to buy groceries as well.
6-Forget FOILS, open meeting laws and whatever because DOE has enough cause here to act without CEC. Kids need schools and that is their first obligation. DOE has imposed plans before and they will do it again if we don’t act collectively in our collective children’s interests. Legal maneuvering doesn’t get anyone a seat anywhere. Anyone remember the lawsuit regarding G&T testing a few years back? Kindergarten enrollment must proceed. All this legalistic maneuvering is intended to preserve a status quo that is already gone.
7-If someone wants a path to run for public office, let them identify themselves, the office and announce their candidacy. If they want to start a coalition, identify yourselves or at least you and your cat. The CEC is at least an elected body with identified members, a governance structure and obligations.
8-The controlled choice discussion has been around for many years. It has never built the critical mass although with it has had wide exposure. Even though it has some good points, in the end, most people still prefer a neighborhood school for an elementary school. Yet another argument to preserve the status quo as this can’t been implemented in two weeks or two years even with support.
9-If you don’t want a plan from the CEC, don’t worry. The Chancellor will provide one because the status quo no longer exists.
I find this this statement from the article interesting: “That letter outlined a plan that explicitly attempts to desegregate the southern end of the district by shifting zoning lines, but it rejected controlled choice, at least for the time being. To the Equity groups, that was a mistake: “we disagree with the CEC that its rezoning plan is a ‘desegregation’ plan; it does not represent the interests of low-income families of color throughout the district.” This issue should also involve the northern end of the school district above West 96 Street. I don’t see how residents can ignore the fact that the area north of West 96 Street is a socio-economic segregated community. This issue is about balancing low-income housing within the district and giving people the opportunity to an enriching experience and a multitude of opportunities. Changing or shifting zoning lines does not solve the problem of segregation….it is a bandaid strategy. The fact is that the Upper West Side has an impoverished and disadvantaged community above West 96 Street and everybody is ignoring this fact. Lets develop a comprehensive plan to have inclusive low-income housing within the entire Upper West Side rather than shifting boundaries.
Joe sounds like a kid caught in a complicated lie.
I was at the CEC meeting (I think in 2015?) where Joe sent Community-Controlled Choice to the Zoning Committee, not the Diversity Committee. He only did that under a lot of pressure from parents, advocates, and a few CEC members. At least some of the people on this letter participated in the Zoning Committee, which is how we got as far as those painful forums last March that even the panelist understood was designed not to answer any questions. At the PS145 forum, parents were barely allowed to speak.
The CEC Diversity Committee that Joe touts as the place where equity-seeking parents should have shown up was looking at schools’ access to libraries, last I checked. Not even sure what happened after that since its chairperson left the CEC to do other work.
The clear message from the letter, Joe’s response, and the comments here is that a CEC that’s run like a private fiefdom can’t accomplish anything. DOE needs to step in and put the CEC out of its misery. Set some actual standards for what fair, well-used schools look like, and require the CEC to figure out how it wants to meet them. Require the CEC to hold some legitimate public conversations that aren’t among parents from one neighborhood. Maybe even *exclude* parents from that neighborhood just for a minute, so the rest of us can talk about what matters to our kids.
Setting parameters before asking people to make choices is basic parenting! If you say to a bunch of kids “discuss amongst yourselves and decide how you want life to be for the next while” you end up having Halloween candy for dinner and watching cartoons instead of going to school. The kid who proposes that candy isn’t actually dinner will always be shouted down. (Metaphor complete!)
And please god let some new people run for CEC this year.
You just know what the upshot of all this is going to be, especially if the Clinton woman wins the WH to continue the liberal policies of Obama’s past eight years.
In short order either the federal government and or some local group or parent is going to bring a civil rights lawsuit against NYC’s supposed “segregation” of public schools. Given the recent SCOTUS ruling regarding disparate impact and the push from federal housing officials (they are preparing to sue Westchester and other suburbs to “bust” them open), the ground has already been cleared.
“NYC’s supposed “segregation” of public schools.”
B.B. be honest with yourself.
Even those without children might be aware that this neighborhood is segregated, especially as gentrification took over and displaced the middle class, the poor, the poor and aging were driven out of once affordable buildings. The “single occupancy” hotels were sold to developers, the rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments were sold to “luxury” developers, etc.
The much-beloved Alexander Hamilton is rolling over in his grave.
It is not exactly a secret that large parts of NYC are “segregated”.
Pick an area of Manhattan; UES, UWS, West Village, Tribeca, Soho, Greenwich Village, Financial District, and rapidly now the East Village and LES. Out in the boroughs large parts of Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island are “segregated”.
While there surely some old fashioned racism is still out there (how many African American or Latino/Hispanic households do you think make it past the boards of co-ops on UES or Sutton Place?), what is happening today is pure economic displacement.
As you yourself noted the working and increasingly middle class is being driven out of certain areas due to rising costs of housing.
Problem for public elementary and middle schools is that NYC has largely left them zoned. So they reflect the demographics of local population.
There are really only two ways to address that problem; transport minority students into the school (and move white students out to make room if necessary), or “bust” open the housing by forcing in minority families.
Need I point out both methods have been used since the 1960’s and look what that has gotten us. By most accounts the United States is more racially segregated today than it was prior to the 1960’s.
Certain people will put up with lots of things from government, but when you start messing with their children’s future that is where they draw the line.
If people went to their zoned schools, Harlem schools would be integrated. The point is that they don’t. “Neighborhood schools” is only a thing when privileged people want them to be.
And sorry to those who don’t like to be called privileged. We all make sacrifices, and of course NYC sucks too much out of everyone. But some families have far more choice about what sacrifices to make. Should you spend all your money on exorbitant rent to live on a nice street? Should you sacrifice sleep to make sure our kids get enough parenting time? Meanwhile other parents are working three jobs, and getting neither sleep nor parenting time, and everything they have is consumed by the rents you’d call low. That’s what “privileged” means, and that’s why it’s so ugly when people who do have choices deny that they’re privileged. It’s about power.
Instead of demonizing those who have worked hard and been a bit lucky in life, why don’t you do something about it? Join the CEC? Volunteer at a school? Donate money to a school? I agree that change is necessary and everyone deserves a great education, but I am really tired of being criticized for wanting what is best for my kids and my family by armchair quarterbacks.
Hear, hear. CEC, 452 administration, I am tired of the judgement. You can’t look at someone’s skin color and address and assume you know what’s going on in their life, financially, health-wise, family-wise, or anything else. Stop judging people’s situations and motivations unless you actually know something about them.
Then, it is an issue of semantics. “Privileged” is a loaded word and it is marginalizing. Having known several trust fund babies who didn’t have to work and didn’t, I know what “privilege” really looks like. They are 1% of the population, if that. The other 99% of us do not fit that description. If you want to use the phrase “those who have choices” or “people who have choices,” I think that is a more apt description.
Dannyboy – I think you have nailed it. It’s all about Power and Influence.
I stepped outside my little “zoning” world yesterday and attended the CB7. What I am learning (maybe too late unfortunately) is that civility, decency and reason seem to have gone right out the window for all conversations. It’s all about victory at all costs.
I’ve heard over and over again through this zoning process that it is all about the parents and it shouldn’t be a political exercise. Yet today, I’ve come to find out that our council member, Helen Rosenthal, is going to Steven Wise to speak to their pre-k parents about the benefits of the CEC plan. How is that not making this a a political issue.
I’ve also found out that at the recent PS 87 PTA meeting, Joe and Kim (from the CEC) spoke and then when Noah Gotbaum (also from the CEC) was finally afforded an opportunity to speak and challenge the plan, Joe and Kim got up and left.
I am at a loss for words, other than to say there are no winners in this “discussion”. Maybe the CEC’s plan will work out in 5 years, who knows. By the end result certainly does not justify the means they have taken to get there.
Beth,
If you are having trouble with the semantics, just use the word that above 96th street suggests: POWER
Then it will be clear that it is POWER that is behind the School Rezoning decision, it is POWER that is behind the bicycling zones, it is POWER that is behind the Presidential election.
Not decency, but raw POWER.
While all of this grandstanding and rallying has been going on, most people probably haven’t noticed that there was a small (but I think very important) amendment to the Chancellor’s regulations that posted on September 22nd.
Chancellor’s Regs A-101(D)(1) [which deals with admission to zoned schools] has been amended to read:
“In some cases, dependent upon the timing of the approval of a rezoning plan, a student’s zoned school may change during the application period. In such cases, the student’s zoned entitlement would be to the zoned school in effect at the time of enrollment.”
If you read this new language in light of the UWS rezoning, it could be very troubling. In essence, the provision states that if you register your child today for your zoned school, you could end up at a different school if your zone changes during the period between registration and enrollment. Imagine when you go to drop your child off at P.S. X only to find out your child is now going to P.S. Y because of a zoning change.
Has anyone following this issue been alerted to this change? I can’t recall hearing about this at any of the meetings.
This doesn’t appear to be a change made in the most recent version of the regulations. At times, this seems to have read “… admission” rather than “… enrollment” (I won’t hazard a guess at the import of this change) but otherwise it looks like this provision has been there for several years.
Neighborhood schools are already built into controlled choice through parent preferences. School test scores will have fewer extremes under controlled choice because of less extreme school demographics. Also, most parents will prefer a closer school (that is the “choice” part of controlled choice). The point of it being, though, that the sum total of these individual choices can create systemic imbalances, and therefore there has to be a cap on these preferences to preserve equitable access to schools.
The pragmatist in me says the CEC3 proposal is doable now and is better than the old approach, but controlled choice would certainly help prevent new wounds opening up (requiring future band aids) and stop the perverse incentive to create winners and losers in real estate and schools.
Looks like the CEC3 calendar has changed on their website. The calendar no longer indicates that 11/9 is a vote on the DOE’s final plan. No surprise, looks like this is going to continue to slip…..
A good listen on the topic
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with
Just got an email that tomorrow’s CEC3 zoning meeting has been cancelled. Glad to see this process is smoothly moving along….
disappointing.
i have encouraged my better half to join me in our expression of disappointment. She, of course, knows better than I about the motives of The Players.
Will try to get her to the next meeting to share what she knows.
i think the covers are coming off of this.
Dannyboy – please do have her come. I feel like these “players” are on the ropes but are too arrogant to see the error of thier ways. I would like nothing more to see this process exposed for what it is – a political and lobbying disaster.