Source: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume56/d16947
Timestamp: 2020-01-23 02:12:01
Document Index: 325989200

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

Decision No. 16,947 | Office of Counsel
Decision No. 16,947
Appeal of SUCCESS ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOLS - NYC, on behalf of SUCCESS ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL – NYC 1, from action of the New York City Department of Education regarding school utilization.
Emily A. Kim and Jessie M. Ferguson, Esqs., attorneys for petitioner
ELIA, Commissioner.--Petitioner, Success Academy Charter Schools - NYC, challenges the New York City Department of Education’s (“DOE” or “respondent”) failure to offer 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 Success Academy Charter Schools – NYC (“Success Academy”), a charter school management organization that currently operates 41 charter schools in New York City, and which brings this appeal on behalf of Success Academy Charter School – NYC 1 (“SA NYC 1” or “the school”), a charter school operated by Success Academy. According to the record, the charter for SA NYC 1 was approved by the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York (“SUNY”) in October 2014 to serve students in kindergarten through grade five. The school is scheduled to commence instruction in the 2017-2018 school year. When it opens in the fall of 2017, the school will serve students in kindergarten and grade one and will add one grade in each subsequent year of its charter term.
By letter to DOE dated June 10, 2016, petitioner requested co-location space for the school in a public school building in Community School District (“CSD”) 1 pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e). By letter dated July 1, 2016, DOE acknowledged the June 10, 2016 request for co-located space but stated that “[w]e will not be extending an offer of space at this time....” This appeal ensued.
Petitioner asserts that DOE failed to offer it any facilities in violation of Education Law §2853(3)(e). As relief, petitioner seeks an order directing DOE to pay rental assistance in accordance with Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5)
The record indicates that in its July 1, 2016 response to petitioner’s request for public space for the school, DOE indicated that “[w]e will 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 for the school 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 stated only that it would not be extending an offer of space at this time. 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 the school will first commence instruction in the 2017–2018 school year with an estimated enrollment of 165 to 185 students. Accordingly, pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5), DOE must pay petitioner in each year of the current 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 school’s basic tuition for the current school year (e.g., the 2017-2018 school year in the first year) and the school’s enrollment for the current school year (e.g., the 2017-2018 school year in the first year). As noted above, DOE is obligated to pay for all the grades in the newly-opened charter school in each year of the initial charter term; the amount payable must be based on the charter school’s actual current year enrollment (Appeal of International Charter School of New York, 54 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 16,691; Appeal of Rosalyn Yalow Charter School, 54 id., Decision No. 16,690).