Source: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume54/d16770
Timestamp: 2020-01-19 23:54:03
Document Index: 679199750

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

Decision No. 16,770 | Office of Counsel
Decision No. 16,770
BERLIN, Acting Commissioner.--Petitioner, Metropolitan Lighthouse Charter School (“the school”), challenges the New York City Department of Education’s (“DOE” or “respondent”) failure to offer it a co-location site in a public school building or space in a privately owned or publicly owned facility at DOE’s expense and at no cost to petitioner, as required by Education Law §2853(3)(e). The appeal must be sustained in part.
Petitioner is a charter school authorized by respondent’s Chancellor (“Chancellor”) and currently located in private space[1] in Community School District (“CSD”) 9. Its initial charter was issued on September 15, 2009 for a five-year term up through and including September 14, 2014.
Petitioner was authorized to serve students in kindergarten through sixth grade during the term of its initial charter. When it first opened for instruction in the 2010-2011 school year, petitioner served students in kindergarten through second grade; it expanded one grade level in each succeeding school year and, in the 2014-2015 school year, began serving students in sixth grade.
In May, 2014, prior to the expiration of its initial charter term, the Chancellor recommended to the Board of Regents that petitioner’s charter be renewed for a five-year term and that petitioner expand to serve students through grade 10.[2] On May 19, 2014, the Board of Regents extended petitioner’s provisional charter up through and including June 30, 2019 and granted petitioner’s renewal charter as proposed by the Chancellor. Commencing in the 2015-2016 school year, in addition to serving students in kindergarten through sixth grade, petitioner will expand to serve students in seventh grade, and will add one grade each year until it completes its expansion in the 2018-2019 school year, when it will serve students in kindergarten through tenth grade.[3]
By letter to DOE dated April 24, 2015, petitioner requested co-location in a public school building pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e) for its expansion to grade six starting in the 2014-2015 school year.[4] By letter dated May 4, 2015, DOE responded to petitioner’s April 24, 2015 request, indicating that it would “not be extending an offer of space at this time.” This appeal ensued.
Petitioner asserts that DOE failed to offer it facilities in violation of Education Law §2853(3)(e) and that such failure was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. As relief, it seeks an order directing DOE to pay rental assistance in accordance with Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5) for its sixth-grade expansion beginning with the 2014-2015 school year and continuing thereafter.
Here, petitioner made a written request for co-location space in a public school building on April 24, 2015. Specifically, petitioner requested space for its expansion to sixth grade beginning with the 2014-2015 school year. The record indicates that in its May 4, 2015 response, DOE stated that it would “not be extending an offer of space at this time.” However, in the event that DOE 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, DOE indicated in its May 4, 2015 response only that it would not be extending an offer of 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, DOE 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 tenth grade. The record further indicates that petitioner commenced instruction in the 2010-2011 school year serving students in kindergarten through second grade and added a grade in each succeeding school year. Commencing in the 2014-2015 school year, petitioner began serving students in sixth grade, an expansion for which it requires 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). 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 Great Oaks Charter School, 54 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 16,692).
Accordingly, having failed to make such an offer, DOE must, pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5), pay petitioner in each remaining year of the current charter term, commencing in the 2014-2015 school year, rental assistance based on student enrollment in the newly-added sixth grade for which petitioner has been approved to provide instruction. Specifically, with respect to an existing charter school whose expansion of grade level is approved by its charter entity before October 1, 2016, “if the appeal results in a determination in favor of the charter school, the city school district shall pay the charter school an amount attributable to the grade level expansion ... that is equal to the lesser of: (A) the actual rental cost of an alternative privately owned site selected by the charter school or (B) twenty percent of the product of the charter school’s basic tuition for the current school year and ... (ii) for a charter school which expands its grade level, pursuant to this article, before [October 1, 2016], 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” (Education Law §2853[3][e][5]).
Therefore, pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5), DOE must pay petitioner, an amount attributable to its expansion to sixth grade, commencing with the 2014-2015 school year and for each remaining year of the charter, that is equal to 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 2014-2015 school year and the positive difference of the charter school’s enrollment in the 2014-2015 school year minus the charter school’s enrollment in the 2013-2014 school year, the school year prior to the first year of expansion. As noted above, commencing with the 2014-2015 school year, DOE is obligated to pay for the facilities for the charter school’s grade level expansion in each year of the current charter term.
IT IS ORDERED that DOE comply with the requirements of Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5) in accordance with this decision and pay petitioner an amount attributable to petitioner’s sixth-grade 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 expansion.
[1] According to the school’s principal, petitioner currently occupies private space and is incurring rental costs and expenses.
[3] In a previous appeal, petitioner challenged DOE’s failure to offer co-location space in response to its September 18, 2014 request for space for its expansion to grades 7 through 10, and also sought relief for its addition of grade 6 in the 2014-2015 school year. On April 20, 2015, I issued a decision ordering DOE to comply with the requirements of Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5) with respect to petitioner’s expansion to grades 7 through 10, but not for its expansion to grade 6 as petitioner’s September 18, 2014 request for space did not include a request for co-location space for its expansion to grade 6 (see Appeal of Metropolitan Lighthouse Charter School, 54 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 16,745).
[4] I note that petitioner’s request for co-location space was submitted after the commencement of the school year. However, DOE did not raise any objection, such as laches, and the issue is not before me.