By Gus Saltonstall
The Manhattan School for Children on the Upper West Side will learn the fate of its middle school at the end of the month.
On April 29th, the Panel for Educational Policy (PEP) will vote on the proposed shuttering of MSC’s middle school within the Joan of Arc Educational Complex, located at 154 West 93rd Street, beginning in the 2026-27 school year. If approved, there will be no new sixth-grade class at MSC, and the students headed into their seventh-and eighth-grade years will be the final graduating classes of its middle school, before the school switches to serving only kindergarten through fifth-grade students.
West Side Rag spoke with multiple parents at the Manhattan School for Children about their frustration with the seemingly shifting reasoning given by city education officials to justify the closure proposal.
“Our parents are extremely troubled by the ongoing pattern of changing justifications for the phase out of MSC middle school grades, and the lack of any serious attention to the direct harm the closure of MSC’s middle school grades will cause to our students, particularly those with disabilities,” Olivia Greer, a parent with a fourth grader at the school and twins who will be in kindergarten next year, and the chair of the school’s parent leadership team, told West Side Rag.
According to Greer, sometimes the closure is explained as necessary “because there’s not enough space in the building. Sometimes it’s that our test scores are low, even if they exceed citywide average. Last night they floated an entirely new reason around enrichment space.”
Parents also spoke about the school as a “valued community” with unique aspects.
Within MSC’s middle school population, 35 percent of students have a documented disability, according to school data.
“One of the very unique aspects of MSC, but hardly the only, is that we have built a deep expertise in serving students with disabilities and in particular, mobility challenges,” Greer told the Rag. “We have students in wheelchairs. We have students on ventilators. We have students who use walkers. And we have built infrastructure to serve those students.”
The Rag reached out to the Department of Education for its reasoning in moving forward with the proposal to phase out MSC’s middle school. In an April 15th email, a spokesperson for the agency wrote, “Enrollment in the middle school grades has been low and declining for years, with very few fifth-grade students choosing to stay, limiting the school’s ability to offer a robust middle school experience.”
“This proposal would allow the school to focus on strengthening its K-5 program while supporting District 3 students in accessing middle schools with broader academic and extracurricular opportunities,” the spokesperson added.
On April 6th, Upper West Side District 3 Superintendent Reginald Higgins delivered the following explanation to the Upper West Side’s Community Board 7.
“At MSC, the conversation has understandably centered on class size and co-location, particularly with Lafayette Academy [another school within the Joan of Arc Educational Complex],” Higgins said. “When the Chancellor [Kamar Samuels] and I toured the building with the PEP members, he made clear that MSC prioritizes its enrichment spaces and service learning programs.”
“These are not to be owned by any one school, they must be shared by student need,” Higgins added. “Lafayette serves a similar student population, demonstrates strong outcomes along subgroups and yet their service providers are currently forced to deliver services together in a single room. That is not equity.”
Higgins’s testimony suggested that the allocation of rooms for special education, which falls under the umbrella of enrichment services, was lopsided in favor of MSC, in comparison to Lafayette Academy — a different school that it shares the West 93rd Street building with.
Higgins made no mention of declining enrollment at MSC in those remarks, while the DOE made no mention of overcrowded enrichment spaces within the school building in its statement to the Rag.
Following that meeting, CB7 passed a resolution calling on the DOE to withdraw the proposal to begin closing down MSC’s middle school in the 2026-27 school year.
“Given the way the arguments in favor of this proposal have shifted and evolved over the past few months, I can no longer give the benefit of the doubt that they [DOE] even THINK they have treated us as partners,” Jessica Lane Weiss, a co-president of MSC’s PTA, wrote to the Rag in an email. Weiss is a parent of three students who are in the school’s seventh, fifth, and second grades at the school,.
MSC currently serves 407 students — 275 in kindergarten through fifth grade and 132 in sixth through eighth. The school’s sixth-grade class in 2025-26 is 44 students, which reflects a four-year high, data provided by the school’s leadership team show.
Laurie Kalinowski, the co-vice president of MSC’s PTA and a parent of a first and fourth grader at the school, who says she would keep her children at MSC for middle school, said she values the school’s inclusive learning environment.
“Children not only have tolerance for different learning needs but they embrace it as the norm DAILY, understanding that differences should be celebrated and valued, and something they can learn from because they are encouraged to do so,” Kalinowski wrote to WSR in an email. “MSC intertwines all levels of learning in their Integrated Co-Teaching [ICT] classrooms, with all children given the support they need from two teachers at all times in order for children to maximize their learning.”
Both Weiss and Kalinowski, along with Community Board 7, expressed concern about whether MSC students can find a comparable middle school to meet the social-emotional and physical requirements of current students, if MSC’s middle school were to close.
On April 15th, families were notified which public middle schools their children were accepted into, including 46 students who were given acceptance letters to MSC’s middle school, according to the school’s leadership.
When the Rag asked the DOE about this seemingly challenging set of timing, given that the MSC middle school might no longer exist after the vote on April 29th, a spokesperson responded:
“Students who applied to this school for sixth grade are being supported through the admissions process, including offers to other schools on their list and extended deadlines to accept offers, ensuring families have flexibility as the proposal is considered.”
Despite the help the DOE might be lending families of possible incoming middle school MSC students, Greer still questioned the timing of the process.
“There was no official proposal [for the MSC middle school closure] until March and the vote will be at the end of April, two weeks after families get their middle school placement,” Greer wrote to the Rag. “We will have a fully enrolled sixth grade. Families were notified on April 15, and then potentially be notified two weeks later that there is no MSC middle school.”
The April 29th PEP vote will determine the fate of the future of the Manhattan School for Children, along with that of two other Upper West Side schools: the Riverside School for Makers and Artists, and the Center School.
Read More:
- Member of Panel That Will Decide Fate of Three UWS Schools: ‘It Clearly Wasn’t Enough Time’
- City Halts Plan to Close Upper West Side Middle School: ‘Our Focus Must be on Healing’
- Racist Remarks Shock Participants at UWS Schools Meeting: ‘We Take These Matters Very Seriously’
- UWS Middle School Fights Against its Possible Elimination: ‘We Are Not Just Going to Roll Over’
- UWS Middle School Meets With DOE Reps to Discuss Possible Move: ‘We Want to be Heard’
- An UWS Middle School is Pushing Back Against Possible Relocation: ‘This School is Our Home
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
My daughter is one of the rising 6th graders who was given an offer at MSC for next year, and the DOE’s statement that we have been given offers at other schools on our list is disingenuous at best. We have been placed on the waitlist at other schools we ranked, not necessarily given offers of enrollment. We are 127th on the waitlist for one school. Some families didn’t rank any other schools, because they were choosing to remain at MSC. The DOE is, frankly, lying about the supposed “support” they are offering to families.
It’s awful that the DOE has placed you and other families in this position, and doubly awful that they are lying about it. I don’t doubt your description, because they have repeatedly and blatantly lied throughout this entire process, about all the pending proposals (MSC, 191, Center, and CAS before they withdrew that one). This is the opposite of family engagement and undermines any trust families may once have had in the DOE. The PEP is notoriously a rubber stamp, but I really hope that in this case they hold the DOE to account, reject these proposals and demand a better process and outcome for families.
The principal at MSC came in just after the pandemic and dove right into making it stronger. She deserves more
time to make her mark
on the middle school. This seems
like ramming through a decision from
above, with post hoc reasons that keep
changing. Why the rush?
Very heartbreaking. Typically, when messaging or the rationale for a decision is inconsistent it’s because those in charge are not telling the truth. And there is insufficient buy in down the ranks. At least this is what you see in a corporate environment. When it comes to DOE who knows. But my guess is that they have other plans for this building and are trying to “manage the situation.” I understand more why parents often choose to send their kids to private. If they can afford it.
100% correct. DOE is lying and hiding info. That’s what they’ve been doing the whole time. There are tons of unanswered questions. They keep changing their explanations and the explanations they do give make no sense. If it was all on the up and up, we’d have seen a multi year district wide plan before middle school applications closed. Ask what the plan is for Anderson, Wess, PS 165 building – where. Kamar Samuels has a conflict of interest that maybe explains why it’s “not available” for center even though it has space – and other schools throughout D3. Anyone who thinks this year’s proposals is the end of it is delulu!! Of course people who can afford it and care even a little bit about stability opt out and go to private – and the way the DOE is acting will keep making that problem worse!
Some of the changes being considered to schools could have merit. However, the timing of them is absolutely awful. As noted in the article, middle school offers just went out for this fall. So this is a dumb time to be changing plans for this fall. Now is the time to be actively figuring things out for September, 2027 so decisions can be made in the fall and families have time to digest them and make informed decisions.
It seems like MSC fulfills a particularly important niche so should be given some preference, assuming it maintains a critical mass of students, which it seems to do. And I believe the DOE has spent a lot on infrastructure to serve these students – I don’t think other buildings can support them.
The article mentions Lafayette (which I have heard is an up and coming gem) but isn’t there another school in that building as well? What is the status of that school?
And just to stir things up a bit, the need for elevators, ramps, adaptive playgrounds, etc. for kids with disabilities is truly a “need” for these students. Unlike an auditorium for Center School, which is a “nice to have” – I think efforts should be made to accommodate them as well and the decision on Center School should also be delayed a year so they have more time to react, but their whining and divisiveness has been out of control.
As a parent at RSMA, the school that would get kicked out if this proposal for Center school to move goes through, i can speak up and say the LAST thing center can be accused of is being divisive. They have given RSMA their full support. Are you aware of what happened at 191, would you like me to tell to you? Because in order to understand what this move really means and how unfair it is to our students you would have to include them- is center being divisive or are you being exclusive? Do only certain students matter?
Whining and divisiveness? An auditorium for a theatre arts-based school is a need.
The other school in the building with Lafayette and MSC is Commubity Action School. The DOE initially planned to close it as well, on the same terrible (and legally deficient) timeline, but withdrew that plan after all the attention from the “hot mic” racist moment at a CEC meeting. Purely because they didn’t want national spotlight on these closures, but we should expect they’ll return to that proposal once attention has died down.
Thank you for acknowledging the timing concern for Center as well even though you don’t accept their position on the curricular need for the auditorium. These comment sections have too often become about that sole issue and this is an article about MSC, so I won’t say more about that. I will say the DOE intentionally stokes divisiveness between school communities, pitting them against each other as part of its strategy (it is doing so with Lafayette, MSC, and CAS and absolutely did this with PS9, Center and 191). I wish parents across the board could stand together in asking them for a coherent district-wide plan that treats all schools as important and where all families have the same access to same information at the same time.
The fact of the matter is, this city ultimately wants a UWS that is not different than some of the “elite” suburban school districts. The UWS as a whole is no different than the suburbs, just denser.
What a beautiful job MSC does in serving all their students in an inclusive environment. PS 9 could learn a lesson here – receiving services in view of other students is not stigmatizing – as PS 9 service providers and parents argue – when “Children not only have tolerance for different learning needs but they embrace it as the norm DAILY, understanding that differences should be celebrated and valued, and something they can learn from because they are encouraged to do so.”
are you an educator yourself? do you know anything about child development? little kids should not have to receive mandated IEP services in view of other students. this is a ridiculous statement and it is NOT the same thing as celebrating differences and being tolerant of others. these statements are exactly why CS parents are being blamed for their whining and divisiveness.
Children with high economic needs learning English as a new language and seeking asylum whose DOE failed to provide Title I funded programs and legally mandated bilingual education should not have their entire school closed and consequently scattered across the city during their middle school years. This is what has to happen to 191 middle school students for PS 9 to gain more space. So the tears you have for services in hallways – do you have any for 191 middle school students?
191 being truncated is because of enrollment and performance. you can blame another school for this but numbers are numbers. 191 students should have more opportunities to thrive and succeed but their school is failing them. they should not have to wait another year for these issues to get worse. 1 more year for your family may have limited impact but for many, 1 more year will be lasting.
I agree with you – that 1 more year for RSMA families means their kids can graduate from their middle school or spend 7th grade, a crucial year for high school applications, at the school they already know. That 1 more year will provide lasting positive impact for RSMA families.
The school did not fail them, it was the DOE. The DOE did not provide legally required bilingual education and violated Title 1 requirements. This is all documented. If this proposal goes through, the current principal will stay to helm K-6. If the school failed them, the current principal staying doesn’t make sense. The DOE should invest resources and actually provide the legally required bilingual and Title I programs and educate RSMA middle school students at their own school, rather than closing the school to make more space for PS 9.
That 1 more year means a lot to PS 9 families as well. Center families have requested other available sites to move into so that RSMA middle school students aren’t displaced. There is a world where RSMA students can stay at their school, Center can move, and PS 9 can gain more room. It’s an option that requires investment in all three schools. Imagine what could happen if PS 9 parents used their privilege to find a workable solution alongside RSMA and Center parents.
Believing the DOE narrative that what happens to 191 is separate from PS 9 is convenient – but it’s not right.
I hear your perspective, but I don’t agree with how you’re framing the situation or assigning blame. There are multiple communities and constraints involved here, and I don’t think it helps to reduce this to privilege or intent. I’m not interested in framing this as one group versus another.
GL. Stop hiding behind initials. You have something to say about it come forward
On the irony,, “Smart Mom”. Demanding of others what you don’t do yourself. This exemplifies why families at all the affected schools have been saying the outspoken PS9 parents are entitled, tone deaf, and lack self-awareness. Even then, we recognize it’s a minority of PS9 parents and that many others, who are embarrassed by their school’s insensitivity in all this, have been bullied into silence – another problem with how the DOE intentionally pits families against each other
This is the divisiveness from Center School parents that I referenced above – thanks to this poster for making it clear. What does PS9 have to do with this? Why does Center show such hatred towards PS9. Especially since a decent percentage of students at Center came from 9?
PS9 is not why Center is moving. Being angry at them will not help your cause. I 100% agree that this should not have been thrust upon you at the last second and should be delayed a year. Hopefully they can find a school with an adequate theater for you. Many have suggested moving Anderson which would easily solve the problem.
But regardless, this childish angst towards PS9 is not OK. It reflects poorly on Center and eliminates any empathy others might feel towards your situation. Grow up.
And by the way, the services that PS9 is referring to are completely different from what you are referring to. Like PS9, MSC pulls kids out of the classroom to other rooms for specialized services. And they need space for that. Through ICT classes (which PS9 also has and embraces), kids with differences also interact with other kids throughout the day. But for one-on-one or small group Speech, OT, PT and related services, these have to be done outside the regular classroom. Preferably not in a hallway.
Carlos center moving to Anderson doesn’t solve EVERYONE’s Problem. Because then Anderson would move to RSMA. Do our children not matter? I need for the parents of 9 to STOP excluding our children from these conversations. Center has found 3 other viable schools that support all of the children, without doing it on the backs of RSMA. While we are at it, 35% of students at RSMA have an IEP with a guesstimate that 60% need one. Also our asylum seeking children are risking their lives to just to come to school and that’s 40% of our school along with 35% being in temporary housing, imagine the only real stable home you have .being your school, and it being taken away at 12 years old! So please don’t make comparisons of vulnerability between 9 and MSC- excluding RSMA- when in fact the only 2 schools being erased are MSC AND RSMA. Your children are not at risk, and your school is safe.
PS 9 parents and service providers have testified at multiple public meetings that providing IEP services in sight of other students are HIPAA and FERPA violations (which is false) and stigmatizing. These are their own words.
your own words were “no change in the school’s location will shake that. Depending on where the school lands, it will have to make adjustments initially. but the core is comprised of teachers, principal, students, and families. we are all close. that won’t change.” interesting point
NO CHILD from ANY school should have to receive services in a hallway. no matter if it violates any laws. this should not even be a conversation. end of story.
I agree, but no child should be kicked out of their school with no school waiting bc the district has failed, and neglected them and ignore parents and staffs concerns for 3 yrs. PS 9’s needs should not be met at the expense of RSMA the most vulnerable students. Any one being quiet to this fact is complacent! Our students have IEP’s, half of our students are asylum seekers. There’s a solution here where every child can get what they need without RSMA kids being sacrificed.
Once again, commenting under an article about MSC, total inability to think beyond yourself. Where is your outrage at the DOE abruptly closing MSC and 191 on this timeline, with no plan for their vulnerable students?? Do you agree that NO CHILD from ANY school should have their school and supports yanked out from under them at the eleventh hour, with no plan to provide the supports and transition they need, and only vague promises that a seat will be found for them somewhere?
True. And it happens at many, many schools in a city grappling with budget and space constraints. It’s one of many things the city should use its resources to fix, including PS/IS 191 which is a Title I school with 92% high economic student population, 40% student population living in temporary shelters, 40% student population asylum seeking and English language learning to whom the city failed to provide legally mandated Title I and bilingual education. This school has to be closed and displaced – and Center’s theatre arts-based curriculum must lose the auditorium – for PS 9 to gain more space. So, in the list of priorities, some people might say the city should use resources to meet PS/IS 191’s needs before PS 9’s, which is blessed with a parent association that raised $750k from their families last year and requested an eye popping $2500 per student in family giving this year. Plus, receiving services in hallways – which is a choice in a school with 5000+ sq feet of office space – is not stigmatizing in an inclusive setting unless that hallway services occurs among ableists.
I think there are likely a lot of therapists on this message board who can help you deal with your rage towards PS9. It is truly scary. I wish you would channel your angst and time and energy towards something more productive. Your energy is better channeled towards either getting DOE to postpone changes for a year and/or finding another location for Center School and/or finding another theater.
What is even more scary is that I have spoken to several Center School parents who have also bought into this. By raging on PS9, you are not helping your cause. As a parent whose child was accepted to Center School but chose not to send them there, my decision seems to be confirmed – I don’t think I would want to be around these people (I know plenty of nice, levelheaded Center parents, but apparently they were in the minority).
So can we go back to discussing MSC, where kids with real disabilities might be losing resources?
Leon- can you focus on both MSC and 191? We both stand to lose our schools with vulnerable children being kicked out with no plan as to where they will go. The DOE is sacrificing their most vulnerable students. Can you imagine being a parent of a child with mobility disabilities getting kicked and the only other school with accessibility is being truncated? Or an asylum seeking parent being told your child will commute 1-2 miles more away from their siblings? Or in my case being a part of a school for 7 years, actively welcoming 500 asylum seeking children with NO Provisions having my child’s academic time cut in half, the superintendent forcing us to go I. In the middle of this influx, stretching our teachers to the point where teaching is almost impossible, so 50 teachers leave, 4 AP’s and now being told we aren’t coming to help we are coming to kick you out. Your children and all of their friends will be scattered across the city. That’s our reality. I understand it seems like center against 9- but can you do what center has done and advocate for MSC and RSMA, even though if it means center gets a year to find a school that fits their needs? Or is the war with center getting out so strong your willing to ignore our children? Stand with us!
Tiffany – I’m with you. I’m not happy with what is happening to 191 either. But the article is about MSC, then GL is getting really nasty about 9. So that is why I am focused on that.
As I have said before, I think the whole thing is a disaster. PS9 clearly needs more space to meet class size mandates. But they can survive for a year so this can be done right. Jamming it down people’s throats at the 11th hour is a horrible idea. Horrible for Center. Horrible for MSC. Horrible for 191.
But long term, 9 needs more space. It is a neighborhood elementary school. Otherwise redraw the district lines, but no one wants to go through that nightmare again.
It has been said repeatedly here. Keep 191 and MSC where they are. Move Center to where Anderson is (nearby, with a nice auditorium). Find a space elsewhere in the city for Anderson. It is a city wide school – it should be the most geographically agnostic. And implement this in September, 2027 so all those being impacted have time to adjust.
It isn’t that hard. I understand that it is scary to have your school uprooted and/or closed on no notice. But treating parents at other schools as the bad guys is not OK. I have been hearing that the most from Center parents. And it is horrible and does not reflect well on the school.
Im glad you agree our school shouldn’t be closed and that 9 should get an adequate space. I know it seems like there are a lot of center parents speaking but a lot are speaking up for 191, mostly because half of our school families are asylum seekers and are afraid to come forward. Center has been advocating alongside of us. I don’t know enough about 9’s spacing issues, I have visited and it’s a huge school, and both center and 9 seem like amazing schools. And if 9 says they need space then they need space. I would hate to see center change because of a building that can’t accommodate them. Ps9 is not my enemy, I would love for them to publicly advocate for us and tell the district to give center another year. I think together we can come together and get the best outcome for ALL students , instead of ignoring that center school moving to give 9 the space is ONLY possible if 191’s middle school children are thrown out and sprinkled across the city. Are you a parent at PS9?
Btw my child will be in high school next year. I have no personal interest in this other than justice in the face of institutional racism. If you are not able to be on the right side of institutional racism, yes, you are better off at another school.
People who sit in privilege dismiss the advocacy of the marginalized as “angry.” Easier than facing the cost of your comfort and convenience.
PS 9 parents campaigning for a fast track outcome that requires the closure of a middle school that serves predominantly Black and Brown students with high economic and academic needs, English as a new language learner students, students living in temporary shelters, asylum seeking students, students who the DOE failed to provide federal and state law mandated Title I and bilingual education – yes, that bothers me. Does that not bother you?
Disagreement on policy doesn’t equal indifference to equity. I don’t accept the assumption that opposing a proposal is the same as supporting harm or injustice. This is a complex situation affecting multiple communities, and I think it deserves a less divisive discussion.
GL-you were at the closed door meetings years ago hearing about these issues. Maybe you should have spoken up then…
Relocating Center school was only first mentioned in November, 2025, and there were several scenarios, some involving Center and some not. And Kamar Samuels said there were no plans to. move Center in September 2026. And we were instructed not to discuss the contents of the meeting. So not sure what I could have and would have spoken up about – that I’m not allowed to discuss the meeting, or that there are no plans to move Center in September 2026?
Nope. Lies. 9 parents want this done sooner rather than later. Perhaps they could be more patient. But I think many of them are OK with it waiting a year. They want Center out because they need more space. They are not specifically targeting 191. I know many 9 parents. A huge number of 9 kids have historically gone to Center so there is generally a very close relationship between the two and lots of overlapping parents. I’m not sure who is feeding you this information. And I’m not sure why you are so worked up about this.
Your anti-9 language sounds like the stilted propaganda from Fox News. It is truly scary. Kind of Trumpy. I have heard this from a few other Center parents I have spoken to. Glad I didn’t send my kids there. Though I know a number of former Center parents who are much more rational.
Leon this whole comment is contradictory- we can’t say that 9 isn’t targeting 191, if they are ok with our students who have been horribly neglected by the DOE for 3 years HAVE to leave their community school in order for 9 to get their space. We, RSMA are the target. If the parents at 9 ignore our student, don’t acknowledge the neglect and stay silent, then they are just as complacent as the DOE. I’m asking that 9 advocate for us. I’m asking that they acknowledge they can and are willing to wait the year so that our children can all receive what they are entitled to. I don’t think that 9 knows how badly our students have been hurt and what this closure means to them, I’d be more than willing to have a conversation. Do you think they will be interested?
Leon, I hear you, but your comment ignores (and you may not know) that a bunch of PS 9 parents and administrators ARE lobbying very hard for this to be done immediately, this year. They claim that waiting even one year would be intolerable and tragic for PS9 children, without any regard for the kids at 191. They have said this forcefully at CEC meetings, PEP meetings, and community board meetings, as well as privately lobbying. They have said things that are untrue while accusing Center of lying (such as about the DOE plans to expand enrollment at PS9). I agree with you that many PS 9 parents would be OK with waiting a year. I have heard that myself privately – AND that they are being bullied by the others and the admin not to speak up. No one is hearing from those families at the public meetings though. So most families at Center School, 191 and MSC are only hearing what’s said to officials by the PS9ers who ARE insisting this cannot wait even one year. That doesn’t reflect well on the rest of PS9, and it is driving animosity and affecting how people throughout the district (not only at Center) perceive them.
Fair enough. I am a former PS9 parent whose child has been out of the school a few years. My child received services at PS9 so I am very familiar with how that works, though it might have changed since that time. I know some kids who received services related to attention issues, so I cannot imagine those being done in a busy hallway.
I still know many parents at the school and since this doesn’t directly impact me, this is not something we actively discuss, but based on the discussions I have had, they all are OK with waiting a year. I trust the comments of others here and I’m sorry to hear that a less patient group seems to be acting as the voice of PS9. That is not cool.
As I have said repeatedly, I think this should wait a year. The situation at PS9 is not good. But it is not so horrible that these changes should be rammed down the throats of other schools with zero notice – PS9 can manage. Perhaps Center has some space that it doesn’t use 100% of the time that it could lend to 9 next year for small blocks of time? I’m trying to come up with creative, win-win solutions…
The DOE needs to get its act together and come up with a plan in the next few months and have a decision in place by mid-fall. I think that is a reasonable timeline.
All that being said, I still believe that the nasty, divisive attitude towards PS9 by GL and other Center parents (some of whom I have spoken to in person) is not OK – two wrongs don’t make a right and your attitude is not going to change nor improve things.
Leon, the public hearing was tonight at PS9. Even after RSMA parents (I think including Tiffany, if it’s the same Tiffany) spoke about what was at stake for their kids, NOT ONE SINGLE PS9 parent or staff member, among the many who spoke, was willing to support waiting a year or even to acknowledge the harm to 191 families or even really acknowledge their existence — except for the parents who have kids at both Center and PS9 who, tellingly, uniformly say it’s more important to wait a year and do this right.
Coming back to add that there’s a joint public hearing tonight (Monday) at the PS9 building. If there are PS9 families who agree the school can wait one year so the process can be done on an appropriate timeline and with consideration to PS 191 families (and I agree with you Leon that a decision by mid-fall is reasonable), I do hope they’ll speak tonight. The parents I’ve heard from who are upset by the process have also been intimidated by school leadership and fellow parents, which is incredibly sad, but I’m hoping that at least a couple of brave souls will speak up.
Thanks Leon. As additional info: Center School *has* offered some of its space to PS9 for next year (2 rooms, I think) to use for providing services, to help address those concerns. It was rebuffed without explanation. PS9 has been completely inflexible about finding a temporary solution for just one year, and the DOE is encouraging that inflexibility.
It upsets people who are looking at the situation holistically (all the affected schools) that the admin and vocal contingent at PS9 is presenting space for student services as a dire situation necessitating this rushed timeline, when it’s well-known that they have rooms available to make different space allocation choices if student privacy is really their top concern. They were advised by the DOE to make it about IEP services because that would be more compelling to the PEP than (temporarily) losing art rooms or library space or admin space. I want to be clear that I don’t to think any school should have to sacrifice art rooms or libraries or space for students receiving services, but in the overall context of compromises made at other schools, PS9’s public position has come across as both dishonest (at least to those who know) and entitled.
I’m not sure if you were referring to me specifically when you referenced “your attitude.” I have always tried to confine my comments to the PS9 commenters who ignore the impact on 191 (and MSC)(and even tried to refocus earlier comments to MSC above), and to acknowledge that it’s not all PS9 parents. But PS9 families have also been very nasty and dismissive to Center and 191, including very offensive and uncaring comments about the latter. It’s one of the many reasons the DOE’s approach is upsetting and counterproductive- it is designed to pit families against each other and unfortunately it works.
For the record I am a CS parent of a child with disabilities who has not felt any shame about his need for services in years — until he sat through a meeting where he heard parents from PS 9 insisting that he should be afraid to let others know he got services.
Your complaint seems to be that, despite this language, despite parents at 9 actively pushing at these meetings, CS parents shouldn’t point out that the language is harmful or dishonest or that PS9 has other options whereby they could avoid harming our children and the children and families at 191. (And yes, I am an educator, and having been in this process of evaluations and testing since he was two years old yes, I know a good deal about child development.)
The language the PS9 parents at these meetings are throwing around in an effort to push this move *is* harmful and dishonest and I wish they would show even a touch of awareness of anyone else’s children; or that other more reasonable PS9 parents would come show their support for CS to get a year and move to a place that works for the CS curriculum, and for 191 to get support instead of closure, or at least a gradual draw-down so fifth, sixth, and seventh graders wouldn’t be suddenly stuck with no school.
There’s maybe four of you who comment on these articles, often to say CS parents are complaining for no reason or being divisive, sometimes to say we should get a year. By the way, ignoring our curriculum, insisting that theater is simply an extra at CS and ignoring all our statements about the central social emotional learning role it plays, that is also harmful and divisive.
Then there are 4-6 PS9 parents who regularly comment at those meetings, who insist there can be *no* pause and that anyone else knowing about children receiving therapy is automatically shameful. You might be reasonable. They are not.
If those parents at the meetings don’t represent you, come show us that. Please come tell the DOE that ps9 deserves space but it can wait one year for CS to move, and that you don’t need 191 to close its middle school.
Tonight was the JPH. PS9 parents who are willing to acknowledge that 191 should not be closed for their space, that they can afford *one year* to send Center to a location that works and does not displace 191, can still write letters to the PEP. Unfortunately, what we heard tonight did not reflect the statements of the PS9 commenters here. To the contrary, most PS9 speakers actively stated they support *both* proposals, including closing 191’s middle school.
As one speaker pointed out, there are many parents with children at both schools. Not a single one supports these proposals.
interesting that there was one incredible parent who advocated for her child but where are the others? 87% are considered economically disadvantaged but where were the other 13%? would you keep your child at a school like this even if promises were made to fix it in the next year? you would not.
Quite a number of 191 families were at the hearing that was held at their actual school, which you would know if you had bothered to go. Why were you not there?
As has been said many times – including at the hearing on Monday night that you apparently attended and the one last week that you did not – many do not come because they are AFRAID. Many are asylum seekers and/or do not speak English and/or live in temporary housing. Some may have needed to work at that time, or were exhausted after long shifts. Many have younger children (also at 191, who they want to keep together with older siblings) and do not have resources for childcare to attend multiple evening meetings.
But go ahead and blame and shame them for not coming to an unfamiliar and uncomfortable setting to subject themselves to hearing directly how little care their neighbors have for them and their children.
It has been failed to mention that the 2024-2025 NYC Schools Survey (from RSMA families) stated that only 70% of their students feel safe in their hallways and bathrooms, 82% think bullying happens most or all of the time, and 46% of these teachers would recommend their school to other families. One more year of them struggling at this school is detrimental. They need schools that are well run and supported.
So, as I stated above, here we see PS9 parents who are actively pushing. I hope Carlos, Leon, and everyone else who keeps thinking PS9 parents are just hapless victims are watching.
Every parent and child deserves the chance to choose to apply out rather than being surprised with this decision and crammed in anywhere DOE can find room. 191 has confronted amazing challenges that were created by DOE. The parents and children there deserve support, not abandonment.
Even if we take your comment at face value, devoid as it is of the context behind those numbers (which you know, so the omission is intentional), the DOE has ZERO plan to actually move those kids to schools that are well run and supported. If that had been the plan, they would have published the proposals in the fall and worked on a plan to move those students to seats at strong schools that are equipped to support them. If you genuinely cared about them going to schools that are well run and supported, you would be advocating for a different approach by the DOE. You are not. That you are advocating for THIS proposal, which will deal them an abrupt closure with kids dispersed to whatever leftover seats remain now that middle school placements are done, says everything about how much you care about their outcomes.
Mayor Mamdani and Chancellor Samuels, what happened to your promises to listen to families? Three school communities have been yelling into the DOE void about their documented, data-driven parent concerns about these rushed closures (phase-outs; truncation) and relocation to no avail. Where is Mayor Mamdani? Even Mayor Adams was more responsive to parents.
On 4/15, Lafeyette – the middle school co-located with MSC – made 60% more offers of 6th grade seats than last year, in direct displacement of MSC 6th grade seats. The proposal to phase out MSC 6th-8th grade seats has not been voted on, yet the DOE is operating as if it is a done deal. There is no transparency in Mayor Mamdani, Chancellor Samuels, and Supt. Higgins’ DOE. It’s business as usual under Mayor Mamdani.
This is awful and shocking— though also sadly not shocking after seeing everything else the DOE has done in this process. It’s worse than business as usual! As said in an earlier comment, Mayor Mamdani & Kamar Samuels’ DOE is proving to be less transparent, less responsive, less honest, less ethical, and less equity-driven, and than under Mayor Adams.
Will the PEP do anything or just rubber stamp as always? I hope the State is hearing parents’ anger and frustration and reconsiders extending mayoral control when this is how it’s misused.
There are very few schools accessible to kids in wheelchairs, if MSC is one of them it should be protected from closing
There’s only 2 in district 3- RSMA is the other.
I wish there were an response, because so many comments I have “liked,” I don’t like at all. Thank you for being such a strong advocate for vulnerable students with disabilities.
The DOE will try to say MSC students can just stay in the building and go to Lafayette (the DOE’s darling) at the same time that they already overenrolled based on the comment earlier and even though Lafayette has ZERO expertise in serving these students with true inclusion. It’s so disheartening that there are ANY readers/commenters who are defending and pushing for all of this.
(My comment above was meant to say I wish there were an ANGRY response option!!)
So horrible to hear what DOE has been doing to this school and students as well as what DOE is doing to other West Side schools.
There is so much more stratification in NYC these days and City policies and City agencies have their “preferences” (like helping the restaurant sector but not helping local retail).
Nor is the City honest in its messaging and communication about its decisions and policies.
Hypocritical and depressing.
If there is a way WSR readers can help, for example contacting elected officials, please post that.
Thank you!! The public notice says that members of the public can provide written or oral comments on any of the proposals:
• Written comments can be sent to D03Proposals@schools.nyc.gov
• Oral comments can be left at 212-374-3466
The PEP will vote at the PEP meeting on April 29. There is info for signing up to speak at that meeting or submit written comment to the PEP ahead of time on their website (https://www.schools.nyc.gov/get-involved/families/panel-for-education-policy/panel-meetings)
Of course you can also contact the Mayor, Gale Brewer and other elected officials, but the PEP is the body that votes yes or no on these proposals
Thank you Gus for your great reporting as usual. The hardest working guy in the journalism buzz! I am one who worked for 26 years at a specialized school for kids, tweens & teens with disabilities. I’ve heard that MSC’s programs are good. You can’t just move these young one’s to another school. BOE, cut costs somewhere else. Also, who can I call about this, Gail Brewer?
These proposals are going nowhere. Too much backlash. They’ll be voted down by PEP.
And forget moving Anderson; no DOE official has ever gotten anywhere against that powerful parent body. It’ll continue forever as a public/private school oasis for a handful of very lucky parents who literally won a lottery.
I hope you’re right! The PEP almost never votes down a DOE proposal – it’s why people keep saying they’re a rubber stamp. I hope you’re right that this is an exception.
Funny thing is parents in D3 know that changes need to happen and they’re ready to work with the DOE. But it should we well-planned not piecemeal, and transparent not shifty, and on a timeline that lets people manage their lives, and then parents will live with the outcomes and still have trust in the DOE and city. The way this is going makes people run for the hills if they have means to do so!