Feb 2012 CWC Letter

7/27/2019 Feb 2012 CWC Letter

1/8

February 24th, 2012

Dear Krupa Desai,

At the suggestion of your Lead Applicant, we are writing to offer feedbackon your proposal to open two Citizens of the World Charter Schools in schooldistrict 14, Brooklyn, NY in the Fall 2013.

We object to your proposal for the following reasons: No one knows who you are. The first charter school in your network hasonly been in operation for one full school year in the Los Angeles area. YourLetter of Intent (LOI) that was submitted to SUNY in January 2012 for

your charter school proposals does not reflect any knowledge, insight, oreven a scant understanding of our community, its history, and its cultures.

There has been no public outreach to date. Aside from posts from yourlocal Lead Applicant and an additional parent seeking market research infoon your behalf (What does your dream school look like?) on a private,closed listserv of mostly white, affluent residents, there has been nocommunity notification about the schools you propose to open next

year. This is demonstrating a lack of regard for our states process forcharter issuance, as SUNY RFP Guidance Handbook clearly states:...SUNYs proposal review process must generally consider the demand forcharter schools by the community, per Education Law 2852(9-a)(b).And:Per Education Law 2852(9-a)(b)(ii), the SUNY Trustees are not toconsider any proposal that does not rigorously demonstrate that theapplicant has conducted public outreach in conformity with a thorough andmeaningful public review process designed to solicit community inputregarding the proposed charter school and to address comments receivedfrom the impacted community concerning the educational and programmatic

need of students.In order for the Institute to recommend any proposal to the SUNYTrustees for approval, the proposal must include evidence that:The community was informed of the intent to develop a school proposal in atimely fashion;The community had meaningful opportunities for input on that proposal; and


2/8

There was a thoughtful process for considering community feedback andincorporating it into the final proposal.Please note that seeking input about the proposal is distinct from seekingsupport for the proposed school. While applicants will also be required to

show evidence of community interest in and support for the school (responseto Request 16(d)), that support alone does not demonstrate that thecommunity was given the opportunity to provide input into the design of theproposed school or how such input was carefully considered by the applicant.

The evidence of community outreach in your LOI is insufficient andnarrow. Out of the three Community Based Organizations (CBOs) listed inthe Community Outreach Addendum to your Letter of Intent: GreenpointYMCA, Williamsburg Neighborhood Nursery School, and Padre Kennedy, only

the latter is a Head Start Program. There is no copy of the letter sent toPadre Kennedy, no mention if the letter was addressed in English or Spanish,and no name to whom the letter was sent. The letter to the GreenpointYMCA asked only that the recipient consider and share with parents as yousee fit the contents of the letter. There was no follow up with any of thosethree organizations.Finally, your Community Outreach Addendum claims that your proposals werediscussed by community blog authors. This is patently untrue. Williamsburgand Greenpoint have a vocal presence in the online world. There has been nomention on any blogs of these two proposals, let alone a mechanism forfeedback on these two proposals.

There is no demand for charter schools in our community, save for avocal minority, some of whom have already enrolled their children in theirlocal schools. The recent two hearings in our district regarding SuccessAcademy Williamsburg showed an overwhelming community opposition tocharter network chains like yours. In addition, by the Fall 2012, our districtwill already have five elementary charter schools.

There has been no venue for legitimate feedback on your proposal. Twolocal parents wrote to you recently to inquire about hearings, informationsessions, or any other venue where they could give feedback on yourproposals. One parent was told that there would be no more informationsessions before the application date, and another was given an evasive non-answer.


3/8

Your online feedback form is buried way below the fold on an interior pageof your new website in a small cropped window that gives no indication ofanything below. When finally found, the survey does not provide anyopportunity for feedback, as its merely pre-selected multiple choice

questions designed to collect information for your marketing data.(http://cwcschools.org/newyork.html)Parents have become aware of your intentions because of postings your LeadApplicant made on a private neighborhood listserv. Some parents haverepeatedly requested that the Lead Applicant hold public meetings in ourcommunity to gain feedback on your two charter school proposals, but herefused. The Lead Applicant also refused to work with our elected officialsto arrange a community forum to discuss the proposals, and made it clearthat he would not hear from the community at large until AFTER the

proposal was accepted by SUNY. It is our understanding that denying thecommunity the opportunity for feedback before the proposal is submitted isagainst Education Law 2852(9-a)(b)(ii).

Your information sessions have been exclusive and limited. The onlyinformation sessions that your Letter of Intent submitted were held inSchaefer Landing and Northside Piers, two new high-rise condominiumbuildings populated with wealthy residents. These sessions were notpublicized; the only notification was on a small, private email list. Your claim of outreach to low-income housing is not true. According tothe Community Outreach Addendum to your Letter of Intent, you claim thatpart of your outreach was to buildings offering mixed- and low-incomehousing. Yet the evidence you submit of outreach (sign-in sheets frominformation sessions) do not support this. Both Schaefer Landing andNortside Piers are luxury condominiums that maintain affordable housingunits for tax abatement purposes. The subsidized portion of thesecondominiums, including the 80/20 mixed-income housing, are actuallyhoused in separate buildings with separate addresses than the location for

your information sessions.

Until Eric Grannis and Gideon Stein can explain their interests withTapestry Project, and their relationship to you and the schools you intend toopen next year, our community will have strong doubts about your intentionsand theirs. You were introduced to our neighborhood via a newly formedorganization with undisclosed intentions. While the Tapestry Project website


4/8

(http://tapestryproject.org/index.html) masks its intentions by using a .org,in its web address, which it is typically used for non-profit businesses,Tapestry is not a recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit business. Tapestry Projectis also not a community based organization (CBO). In fact, as you can see on

their website, Tapestry Project is led by the husband of Success AcademyCEO Eva Moskowitz, Eric Grannis, and is chaired by Gideon Stein, a realestate developer and a sitting board member at Success AcademyNetworks.Although Eric Grannis originally claimed on a private, closed listserv forWilliamsburg parents of young children to be merely volunteering his time tosupport the cause of bringing new charters to North Brooklyn; and your LeadApplicant has claimed numerous times that Eric Grannis is just acting as aneutral, third-party broker, trying to help people like him open charter

schools; and your Lead Applicant repeatedly insists that Eric Grannis andCitizens of the World Charter School have nothing to do with SuccessAcademy, we have recently learned that Eric Grannis is in fact claiming to bethe person who is opening the two new Citizens of the World CharterSchools in our district.(http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/35/8/dtg_successtwo_2012_02_24

_bk.html)There are many reasons to doubt Eric Grannis intentions, abilities, andmotivations. Please see Schoolfisher.com, a website developed by Grannisthat claims to help parents find great schools. On the Schoolfisher site,Grannis uses manipulative tactics, selectively using and at times falsifyingdata about our community schools in order to advance his agenda of openingmore charters. And, of all the charters he chooses to feature on his site, heconveniently only lists the Success Charters that his wife runs and a fewothers for which he serves on the board.Regarding Tapestrys board chair, Gideon Stein, there is also a lot ofskepticism about his intentions. In recent years, Williamsburg residentshave had numerous contentious battles with the city and real estatedevelopers like Mr. Stein over rezoning. We have also had two hearings this

year where an overwhelming number of local parents turned out to protestSuccess Academy (where Stein serves as board chair) in their proposed co-location at JHS 50. Considering the national trend for charter schools toexpand quickly, and for real estate developers to profit handsomely from it,our community has many questions.


5/8

Your stated goal of opening your schools in the Williamsburg andGreenpoint neighborhoods of our district belies your trueintentions. Applications for charter schools are by district only. OnlyAFTER your application is approved by SUNY does the DOE assign a

location. It is puzzling that both your Lead Applicant and Eric Grannis madeit quite clear that you plan to open in Williamsburg andGreenpoint. Williamsburg and Greenpoint represent prime real estate inincreasingly white, affluent and neighborhoods. Our district also includesBushwick and parts of Bed Stuy where there are greater concentrations ofpeople of color.(http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/35/8/dtg_successtwo_2012_02_24

_bk.html)

You have not disclosed who your charter management organization(CMO) will be. According to your board meeting minutes,(http://www.citizensoftheworld.org/agendas.html), your organization haslong had plans for rapid expansion, but in order to do so it needs to partnerwith an established CMO. Who have you contracted for this work? How isthis expansion going to be managed, and who will profit from it?

In your first year of operation, you violated conflict of interest laws inyour home state of California. According to your governance files, theCitizens of the World board unanimously voted to award a contract toWonder of Reading, an organization where your boards chair, Kriste Dragon,works as Executive Director. Although, when questioned by a fellow boardmember, you withdrew the contract, we have significant doubts about yourability to manage a non-profit, public institution ethically.(http://www.citizensoftheworld.org/docs/MYM_92310_letter.pdf) Your admissions policies in your California schools are highly suspect.New York State law does not allow preference for founding parents. Thehistory your charter school network has of embracing that policy is unethical.That you continue to embrace the policy of founding parents, offering

preferential admission outside of the lottery in exchange for fundraising orworking for the school, is unconscionable and demonstrates a blatantdisregard for the poorer population you pretend to serve.

Your financial health is highly questionable. According to the NewStudent Packet available through your website


6/8

(http://www.citizensoftheworld.org/docs/CWC-New-Student-Packet.pdf),your flagship charter school depends on significant support from families tosustain our program of small class sizes, teachers assistants for every class,art, music and p.e. amounting to an average family contribution of $1,300 a

year per child. With that degree of fundraising required to maintain yourpromises, your school model does not appear sustainable. You also mention inyour minutes (which have not been documented online in recent months)concern about your charter schools financial future.(http://www.citizensoftheworld.org/docs/06-09-11_SpecialBoardMeetingMinutes.pdf) Further, this tactic shows that you donot understand the pain and reality of those living in true poverty, as manyof our District 14 families do.

Your continued conflict of interest with Wonder of Reading, anorganization with a history of scandal and unaccountability, is unacceptable.Despite your issues in 2010 with Kriste Dragon and Wonder of Reading, yournewly formed national network of charter schools, Citizens of the WorldCharter Schools, elected Kriste Dragon as its CEO(http://cwcschools.org/ourteam.html), and is operating out of the exactsame address as her business, Wonder of Reading(http://www.wonderofreading.org/page.aspx?pid=223). Considering Wonderof Readings history of corruption and unethical behavior, the communitydoes not want Ms. Dragon to manage our public school funds.(http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/NBC4-Extra---Book-Wars-Episode-Two.html) We are very concerned by the ethical impropriety of the$5.2 million contract between Wonder of Reading and CWCS that isscheduled to extend to the 2014-2015 school year:http://citizensoftheworld.org/docs/WoR_admin_servs_contract8-17-10.pdf . This, doubled with (founder?) Eric Grannis recent financial scandalat another charter network that he founded make it impossible to trust youwith our public funds.(http://www.nytimes.com/schoolbook/2012/01/30/financial-improprieties-

found-at-all-girls-charter-school-network/)Our district has already seen more than one charter school close as a resultof financial mismanagement and ethical scandals. We would be remiss toinvite that kind of controversy into our district.

Our public schools do not need a lesson in diversity. Williamsburg and


7/8

Greenpoint do not need more socioeconomically diverse educationoptions. (http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/35/8/dtg_successtwo_2012_02_24_bk.html) We invite you to closely examine NYC DOE data for ourdistrict. You will see that our student populations are already quite

diverse. We have strong solidarity between different groups and cultures inour neighborhood schools for the first time as middle class families arechoosing to send their children to local schools rather than to neighboringschool districts.And, while our neighborhood schools are finally representing the diversity ofthe communities in which they are housed, we are concerned that yours willnot. According to your own meeting minutes, you are not meeting your owndiversity targets at your schools in LA.

Your staff is not experienced enough to earn our trust. By publishingyour back-to-school newsletters in full on your website, you exposed thefirst and last names of every single student at your school. That recklesslack of concern for the privacy of the children and families at your school isin contrast to the way our local schools conduct.(http://www.citizensoftheworld.org/news.html)

Our children are not a business, and our neighborhood is not amarket. The deep roots of all your senior management in Teach forAmerica is consistent with the philosophy of un-credentialed teachers andprincipals and a "free market" privatization of public education by"entrepreneurs." This is not a philosophy that the majority of parents in ourneighborhood support. We want our teachers well trained and credentialedwith labor protections.

There is no need or demand for more elementary schools inWilliamsburg. Your Lead Applicant repeatedly posted about a baby boom inthe Williamsburg and Greenpoint neighborhood to sow fears that there willbe no room for children in our overcrowded schools. There is no evidence of

a baby boom. Our district has seen a decline (- 2,719) in children under theage of 5 between 2000 and 2010. The majority of our schools are under-enrolled. We dont have enough children to fill up our schools. Thecompetition for students will have a deleterious effect on our thriving publicschools already in existence. (source: census.gov data for zip codes 11211,11222, 11206, 11237, 11221)


8/8

Your lead applicant has been making misleading and false claims aboutour existing local elementary schools. On a private listserv of localWilliamsburg parents, your Lead Applicant has repeatedly spread mis-

information, stating that Citizens of the World Charter Schools areprogressive while our neighborhood schools are not. When challenged byevidence of the pedagogy and programming in our neighborhood schools, yourLead Applicant revealed how little he truly knew about the choices that arealready available in our district. He also continuously sowed fears that ourschools are alternately not good enough for our neighborhood families and,when academically strong, not capable of addressing the achievement gap,while at the same time overcrowded. These claims are both disingenuous anddisastrous for our community.

It is our belief, after reading the Letter of Intent for Citizens of theWorld Charter Schools, that your charter schools will offer no substantialeducational benefit to our district.

A copy of this letter is being sent to SUNY, the DoE, our districtsuperintendent, numerous press outlets, and every elected official in ourdistrict.This letter will also be sent to the Community Education Council for District13 and their elected officials. As one of the proposed schools refers toeither District 14 or District 13 and there has been absolutely no communityoutreach or reference to community outreach in District 13, we are certainthat you can expect similar outrage from that community.

Sincerely,

Members and representatives of Williamsburg and Greenpoint Parents forour Public Schools,

!

Documents

Feb 2012 CWC Letter