Source: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume54/d16727
Timestamp: 2019-08-18 15:34:45
Document Index: 729543532

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853']

Decision No. 16,727 | Office of Counsel
Decision No. 16,727
Appeal of HARLEM CHILDREN’S ZONE PROMISE ACADEMY II CHARTER SCHOOL from action of the New York City Department of Education regarding school utilization.
Shearman & Sterling LLP, attorneys for petitioner, John Gueli and Juliana S. Clay, Esqs., of counsel
BERLIN, Acting Commissioner.--Petitioner, Harlem Children’s Zone Promise Academy II Charter School (“petitioner” or “the school”), challenges the New York City Department of Education’s (“respondent” or “DOE”) failure to offer it a co-location site in a public school building or space in a privately owned or publicly owned facility at respondent’s expense and at no cost to petitioner, as required by Education Law §2853(3)(e). The appeal must be sustained.
Petitioner is a charter school authorized by DOE to serve kindergarten through grade ten during the 2014-2015 school year. The school’s initial charter was issued in April 2005 for a five year term. The school’s charter was subsequently renewed in April 2010 for an additional five years. It is unclear whether, at that point, the school was authorized to serve up to grade twelve during that term, but it was at least authorized to serve kindergarten through grade ten. In February 2015, a second renewal charter was approved, effective April 2015, for an additional five years during which the school will serve students in kindergarten through grade twelve.[1]
Petitioner is located in Community School District (“CSD”) 5 and enrolled students in kindergarten through grade nine during the 2013-2014 school year. The school expanded to serve students in grade ten in the 2014-2015 school year and expects to continue to add a grade level each year until it serves students in kindergarten through grade twelve in the 2016-2017 school year.
By letter dated August 26, 2014, respondent was notified of petitioner’s anticipated need for space for its expansion to serve grades ten through twelve. In the letter, petitioner noted that it was authorized to serve kindergarten through grade ten during its 2010-2015 charter term and that it intended to expand to start serving kindergarten through grade twelve, beginning with the 2014-2015 school year. By letter dated January 26, 2015, respondent acknowledged the August 26, 2014 request for space but stated that it would “not be extending an offer of co-located space in a DOE building in Community School District (CSD) 5 at this time.” This appeal ensued.
The record indicates that, in its January 26, 2015 response to petitioner’s request for public space, respondent indicated that it would “not be extending an offer of co-located space in a DOE building in Community School District (CSD) 5 at this time.” However, in the event that respondent did not offer petitioner a co-location site in a public school building, it was nevertheless required by Education Law §2853(3)(e)(1) to offer petitioner space in a privately owned or other publicly owned facility at the expense of the city school district and at no expense to petitioner. Instead, respondent stated only that it would not be extending an offer of co-located space. As it did not offer petitioner space in a privately owned or other publicly owned facility at the expense of the city school district and at no expense to petitioner, respondent failed to comply with the requirements of Education Law §2853(3)(e)(1).
The record in this case indicates that petitioner was approved by its charter entity to serve students in kindergarten through at least grade ten during its 2010-2015 charter term, and that it served students in kindergarten through grade nine in the 2013-2014 school year. Thereafter, in the 2014-2015 school year, it expanded to serve students in the tenth grade, for which it required additional space. Therefore, on the record before me, I find that petitioner has established that it requires additional space due to an expansion of grade level in the 2014-2015 school year that was approved by its charter entity, albeit in a charter action that occurred prior to the enactment of Education Law §2853(3)(e). In this instance, DOE subsequently approved another renewal of petitioner’s charter, effective April 2015, thereby determining that the grade level expansion of grade ten in the 2014-2015 school year should continue. There being no language in the statute limiting its applicability to expansions of grade level approved by a charter entity on or after the effective date of Education Law §2853(3)(e), I find that petitioner has met all the statutory criteria and is entitled either to a co-location or to an offer of private or other publicly owned space (see Appeal of Bushwick Ascend Charter School, 54 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 16,717).
Therefore, pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5), DOE must pay petitioner, for newly added grades commencing with the 2014-2015 school year and, for each remaining year of the charter term, the lesser of the actual rental cost of an alternative privately owned site selected by petitioner or 20 percent of the product of the charter school’s basic tuition for the current school year and the positive difference of the charter school’s enrollment in the current school year minus the charter school’s enrollment in the school year prior to the first year of the expansion. As noted above, respondent is obligated to pay for the facilities for the charter school’s grade level expansion in each year of the charter term, as renewed and extended in February 2015.
IT IS ORDERED that respondent comply with the requirements of Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5) in accordance with this decision and pay petitioner an amount attributable to the grade level expansion that is the lesser of the actual rental cost of an alternative privately owned site selected by petitioner or 20 percent of the product of petitioner’s basic tuition for the current school year and the positive difference of the charter school’s enrollment in the current school year minus the charter school’s enrollment in the school year prior to the first year of the expansion.
[1] Although it is unclear at what point the school was authorized by DOE to serve up to grade twelve, for purposes of this appeal, the record indicates that, for the 2014-2015 school year, the school was authorized to serve up through at least grade ten.
[2] I note that, although respondent generally denies petitioner’s assertion that the appeal is timely, it does not raise timeliness as a defense. In any event, petitioner commenced this appeal on February 25, 2015, within the time period required by Education Law §2853(3)(e)(2).