Source: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume55/d16815
Timestamp: 2019-03-21 20:29:56
Document Index: 300843586

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

Decision No. 16,815 | Office of Counsel
Decision No. 16,815
Appeal of MIDDLE VILLAGE PREPARATORY CHARTER SCHOOL from action of the New York City Department of Education regarding school utilization.
ELIA, Commissioner.--Petitioner, Middle Village Preparatory 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 currently located in private space in Community School District (“CSD”) 24.[1] It is authorized by the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York (“SUNY”) to serve students in sixth through eighth grade. Petitioner’s provisional charter was issued on January 1, 2013 for a term of five years.
Petitioner opened for instruction in the 2013-2014 school year serving students in sixth grade. It added seventh grade in the 2014-2015 school year and will add eighth grade in the 2015-2016 school year.
On May 14, 2015, petitioner submitted a written request to DOE for co-location in a public school building pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e) for its expansion to seventh and eighth grades.[2] By letter dated June 26, 2015, DOE acknowledged petitioner’s May 14, 2015 request for co-located space, but stated that “[w]e will not be extending an offer of co-located space in a DOE building in Community School District (CSD) 24 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), 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 May 14, 2015. Specifically, petitioner requested space for its expansion to seventh and eighth grades beginning in the 2014-2015 school year. The record indicates that in its June 26, 2015 response, DOE stated that it would “not be extending an offer of co-located space in a DOE building in Community School District (CSD) 24 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 June 26, 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 is approved by its charter entity to serve students in sixth through eighth grade and that it commenced instruction in the 2013-2014 school year serving students in sixth grade. The record further indicates that petitioner expanded to serve students in seventh grade in the 2014-2015 school year and will expand to serve students in eighth grade in the 2015-2016 school year, 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, commencing in the 2014-2015 school year with its seventh grade expansion, 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 charter term, commencing in the 2014-2015 school year, rental assistance based on student enrollment in any newly-added grade level(s) 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 for newly-added grades commencing with the 2014-2015 school year and for each remaining year of the current charter term, an amount attributable to its expansion 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 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. 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 respondent comply with the requirements of Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5) in accordance with this decision and pay petitioner, for newly added grades commencing with the 2014-2015 school year and for each remaining year of the charter term, 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 expansion.
[1] According to petitioner’s director of operations, petitioner currently occupies private space and is incurring rental costs and fees.
[2] I note that petitioner’s request for co-location space for its seventh grade was submitted after the commencement of the 2014-2015 school year. However, DOE did not raise any objection, such as laches, and the issue is not before me.