IS A PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL BEING SHOVED OUT OF THE BRANDEIS COMPLEX TO MAKE ROOM FOR A GROWING CHARTER SCHOOL?

Innovation Diploma Plus (IDP) is a high school designed to give students a second chance. A “transfer school,” it accepts people under-credited and over-aged—typically 18 years or older—who had a rough time in their original school, and are at risk of failing. Of its 189 students, many come from unstable homes. Some have children of their own and work to support their families. All are Black or Latino.

The Department of Education recently sparked a fierce debate when it proposed the relocation of IDP from its current place in the Brandeis Education Complex at 145 W. 84th St. to a building uptown at 601W. 183rd St. The Brandeis Education Complex currently houses five schools in one building: four other small high schools and Upper West Success Academy, a charter elementary school. The Washington Heights building will be vacated next school year, so if IDP were to move, it would be the only school in the building.

According to DOE, giving IDP students their own educational space would be beneficial. “The students will get more space, having their own building, and be closer to their community-based partner,” DOE spokesperson Marge Feinberg said in an e-mail. That “partner” is Alianza Dominicana, a nonprofit community development organization at 2410 Amsterdam Ave. Feinberg also noted that many students will have a shorter commute: 21 percent of students live in school district 6, whereas 7 percent live in the school’s current district, 3.

In October, the DOE released a 10-page educational impact statement that detailed the anticipated effects of the move on students and the school’s community. “The DOE does not anticipate that this proposal will impact the partnerships, programs, extracurricular activities and/or clubs offered at Innovation,” the statement said. “Students would continue to have the opportunity to participate in a variety of extracurricular programs, though the specific programs offered at a given school are always subject to change.” The statement added DOE’s intention to provide facilities for science and physical education classes, which do not currently exist in the building.

Many parents and administrators involved with Innovation, however, disagree that the move would benefit students. Leading up to a public hearing on the proposal on Dec. 4, Innovation community members began speaking out against the relocation, and questioning DOE’s intentions.

“As soon as the [relocation] announcement came out, the writing was on the wall,” said Christine Annechino, president of Community Education Council District 3 (CEC 3). Like many of the move’s opponents, she suspected that DOE’s hope for relocation might be motivated by a desire to cater to the interests of Success Academy, the educational complex’s lone charter elementary school. Success is a prominent educational power in New York, with schools open across the city. The Upper West branch moved into the Brandeis complex last year against the protests of many parents and school officials, who went as far as signing a lawsuit to block the school on the grounds that it would overcrowd the complex and take over arts resources.

Tensions between Success and the other co-located schools remain. With many young, high-achieving students and plans for expansion in the complex, opponents to the move reason, Success has a clear motive for favoring the relocation of IDP’s students.

In an e-mail exchange, Upper West Success Academy did not respond to questions about allegations of favoritism. “We are hopeful and confident that IDP, Success Upper West and the other schools that share space in the Brandeis building can continue to work cooperatively and collaboratively to offer the best education to all students,” the school said.

Favoritism or not, though, opponents to the relocation argued that students at IDP and the Brandeis complex in general both would suffer if IDP moved uptown. “You feel bad for the kids. They’re in a really disadvantaged position,” Annechino said. “Innovation students are going to lose a good, proper school environment. They’re being shifted around without any consideration. I don’t think the DOE takes them seriously.”

“The whole thing is just ridiculous,” said Robin Klueber, president of the Parent Teacher Association for Frank McCourt High School, one of the complex’s other high schools. The four high schools share resources, she explained, so IDP’s extracurricular activities would by necessity be affected. Students from the different schools interact and contribute to the same programs, such as sports teams and clubs. A group involved in an inter-school theater production set to premiere this week, she said, was dismayed that they might not be together after this year.

“The after-school programs are just fabulous,” Klueber added. “We share a community with Innovation.”

Numerous elected officials also have added their voices to the protests. “On its face, it appears that the DOE’s primary impetus for moving Innovation is to accommodate the elementary charter school that co-located in the building against strenuous community opposition,” Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal said. “That opposition was rooted in the fear that the charter school would eventually squeeze out the existing high school students in a quest for more space. Transfer schools such as Innovation Diploma Plus provide motivated students with a last-chance opportunity to receive a high school diploma. Innovation students, having found stability at Brandeis on the Upper West Side, are now having the rug pulled out from under them by the DOE.”

With the loss of access to Brandeis’ science, arts, sports and theater programs, Council Member Gale Brewer contended that “the health of [IDP’s] students in the broader sense will decline.” She added that parents of students at IDP had approached her and were “adamantly opposed” to the move.
IDP Principal Casey Jones did not respond to a request for comments. Some opponents to the move claim Jones’ support, but he has made no public statements against the proposal.

In light of the strong opposition, West Side Spirit asked DOE spokesperson Feinberg to address some of the specific complaints that the community surrounding IDP was raising. In addition to a loss of sports and arts resources, for instance, opponents have also voiced concerns that IDP students will lose access to a program called Lyfe, which provides day care for children so that their young parents can gain enough credits to graduate. Feinberg declined, and stated that all the move’s benefits were explained in the impact statement, which can be read online at schools.nyc.gov.

Opponents note that the proposed Washington Heights location Street is 90 years old, with 10 full-size classrooms and currently none of the amenities that Brandeis shares, such as a gymnasium, science lab, auditorium and black box theater. According to the impact statement, DOE intends to invest $1.5 to 3 million to bring the building up to code for physical education and science.
CEC 3 Councilmember Laurie Frey contended that regardless of facilities, the move would still be “socially isolating” for IDP students. “The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee us quality of success, but quality of access,” she said. “What gets you coming to school? The sports, the arts, your friends—those are the little pieces that get you up in the morning.” She argued that at-risk students like those at IDP need all the incentives they can get. To remove their support network, she suggested, is to cast them out from New York’s education system.

“There’s no apparent reason to move IDP unless you have a civil collusion between DOE and Success Academy,” she said. “There’s a real appearance of cronyism.”

Following last week’s hearing, DOE said that it is reviewing the community’s comments. The department will continue to accept oral and written opinions through Dec. 19, and then DOE’s Panel for Educational Policy will vote on the proposal on Dec. 20.

Members of the MTA Board Meeting.

By Mayara Guimaraes

This morning, dozens of people, including subway riders, elected officials, and representatives of transportation unions, lobbied the MTA at a board meeting to restores several lines of bus service around the City, which were cut in 2010. Almost two years ago, the MTA decided to cut the bus lines B61, B77, B64, B82, and express bus service to Manhattan, all operating out of Washington Heights and Southwest Brooklyn, in an effort to cut expenses. During the board meeting, the transportation authority’s board members were presented with petitions filled out by the thousands of people who have been directly affected by the cuts.

“The reductions of bus service to our neighborhood have severely hurt seniors, people with disabilities, students, and small neighborhood businesses. People are now not able to use public transportation, many times feeling trapped in their home, and are unable to go to doctors appointments. I brought in 2,000 signatures from people in such conditions. Public transportation has got to be the priority of the MTA,” shouted William Colton, a New York State Assemblyman, at the meeting.

John Paul “JP” Patafin, a member of the Transit Workers Union Local 100, said that over 50 percent of the people that reside in Southwest Brooklyn don’t own a car and rely heavily on public transportation. He added that the over 200 service cuts in 2010 caused some riders to wait for over two hours to reach their destination. Before the cuts, Patafin noted, the wait was usually around 30 minutes. “Putting these lines back is an investment in the people of New York City,” said Patafio.

An MTA press representative Charles Ceaton confirmed today that there are no plans at this time to reinstate the discontinued service lines, however, Patafio promised to return for the June board meeting.

By Adam Garrett-Clark

You don’t know me, and you don’t know my bike, but the story of my bike and me is too beautiful not to be told. It’s a story of defying expert advice, of loyalty to inanimate steel and of creating my own personal mythology.

It was probably once blood was drawn and the emergency room bill was in the mail that I realized that my bike and me have an unhealthy yet mystical attachment to each other.

I met my bike on the edge of a curb on W.178^th Street. I had just moved to the city with little more than a duffle bag and a $1,000 loan from dad. At that point the exploitative sales job for peanuts and sketchy roach apartment were scratched off the list and all that was left was a cheap dependable ride. There it was, one morning, strewn like a piece of trash, dusty, a bent wheel, kinda Schwinny but not, with a thin grass green road frame and yellowing white taped handle bars. It was perfect. The two people on my stoop, agreed it was probably trash, but I thought it was good enough for me. Before someone else realized what a steal it was, I rushed it up four flights to my apartment.

With the exception of the roaches that kept me up at night, my bike became my pet. And despite my better judgment I would do or pay anything to keep it alive. Most mechanics hated us because the bike was so old and obscure. “You’re better off buying a new bike with the money you’re going to pay me to fix this,” was typically what I’d hear from them. “Its trash.” But trashing my bike never crossed my mind. That is, until the night of the missing tooth, but we’ve put that behind us now.

After hundreds of dollars and hours arguing with mechanics in broken Spanish my bike developed a problem in the bottom bracket that could not be fixed with money and insistence. Not taking “no” for an answer I yelled, and pleaded with the only mechanic in Washington Heights who could stand me, until somehow I managed to convince him to think creatively and find a way. He ended up welding parts together that normally wouldn’t fit which resulted in a working bike that could never be disassembled without a saw.

A few months later the crank completely seized and would no longer rotate. Every mechanic I talked too said the same thing, the bike was too old and the parts weren’t made any more. It’s over. Say goodbye. Time to get a new bike. Depressed and riding the subway now, I gave up.

I started shopping Craigslist and eventually found a guy who sold and repaired used bikes out of his garage deep in Brooklyn. He claimed he could fix it. I told him about the weld, sent him pictures, told him about all the other mechanics that said it couldn’t be done, he said no problem. Come on down. So I did.

It was an ominously cold Saturday in February, Valentines Say. I remember because I was hoping to get my bike fixed in time to make a 6 o’clock Valentine’s Day ride from Union Square that I saw on FreeNYC.

We sawed through the crank arm, he took it apart and inspected the hub. The bike was much older and rarer than he thought. It would be impossible to find replacement parts, he said. No hope. I bought a bike from him and left my bike in his back yard, strewn on the ground again, naked and exposed, like a piece of trash.

No time to mourn my loss, I was late for the ride. I raced to the subway. The train was pulling in on the elevated rail above me as I get there. I raced up the stairs as fast as I could. Fantasies were swirling in mind of meeting a pretty cycling girl on the ride, falling in love and spending our free time gliding through Jackson Heights, occasionally stopping for curry, in love with each other and our bikes. But none of that would happen if I missed the train.

I trip. My new bike jams against the stairs as I fall forward. My face lands directly into the sharp angle of the handlebar stem. One tooth is sheered off, another chipped, as I stand dazed, lips bursting with blood; just another Crazy on the subway to the indifferent New Yorkers rushing past me on the stairs.

Later I went back for a refund. This foreign bike isn’t for me, I thought. Out of pure stubbornness I decided to take the corpse of my best friend along with me, maybe I could get something for the salvaged parts I figured.

Bruised and dejected, we headed to the Village where I remembered seeing a vintage bike shop near the Nuyorican, maybe they’ll give me something for this. They didn’t. But the mechanic gave me a small drop of hope and rough directions to another shop that might, maybe, possibly have some parts for the bike. It was a tiny shop near the Brooklyn Bridge, or was it the Manhattan Bridge? I couldn’t tell you how to get there now and I’m not even sure if it was the one he was talking about, but they knew their bikes and they had the parts.

Assembly Member Linda Rosenthal endorsed her colleague Adriano Espaillat of Washington Heights in the race to succeed State Sen. Eric Schneiderman. Schneiderman, who has also endorsed Espaillat, created a rare open seat when he threw his hat in the attorney general race.

Rosenthal called Espaillat a partner in pushing for pro-tenant rent laws and supporting same-sex marriage in New York State.

“Adriano shares our values, knows how to get the job done and will keep leading the fight to reform Albany,” the Upper West Side legislator said in a statement.

Vouching for Espaillat’s support of “our values” is important for gaining
support in the Upper West Side portion of the district. Schneiderman’s seat used to be a West Side seat until the district lines were shifted to cover all of northern Manhattan, the population center for Dominicans in the city, and parts of the Bronx.

Other candidates include Miosotis Muñoz, a former aide to Rep. Charles Rangel, and Washington Heights district leader Mark Levine.