Park Slope parents have created a group to fight the proposed school rezoning and are collecting signatures to support their cause, DNAinfo reported. Here’s the Coalition of Residents for Fair Rezoning proposal: Families who move out of the zone should no longer be permitted to send their kids to P.S. 321. The Department of Education should also better enforce the rules against fake addresses, they said. The St. Thomas Aquinas building that has been designated as a new K-5 school should be used as a pre-K and kindergarten for all students from P.S. 107 and 321, which would immediately relieve overcrowding. In addition, the DOE could create a new magnet and/or themed school with special programs that parents would voluntarily choose over P.S. 321. This approach would reward families who still live in the area. Because P.S. 321 is so valued, it’s common practice for parents to rent or buy in Park Slope until their children are established at the school, then move someplace more affordable. In fact, said the Coalition, the current policy creates “perverse incentives” that encourage families to move away, resulting in as many as 30 to 40 percent of children in each classroom living outside the neighborhood, and just feeds the overcrowding problem. A town hall meeting about education issues was held Monday night at M.S. 51. It was hosted by City Councilman Brad Lander.
Parents Rally Against Park Slope School Rezoning Proposal [DNAinfo]
Photo of P.S. 321 by carolynfisher96


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

  1. No offense, but the real problem with the rezoning is that ps 321 and ps 107 lose their 40-50% racially integrated blocks to other schools and only keep their 15% and under racially integrated blocks. The only school truly affected in this debacled rezoning plan is PS39 who loses over 20% of their student population and they do not even have an overcrowding issue. 321 and 107 still will have overcrowding & 107 will still have no Pre-k classes. The new school at St. Thomas will also not have a Pre-k & it will take years to built up a PTA that can support the additional programming that is provided in all thd above schools. I would ask the question: why is the DOE so deep in PS321’s pockets that everyone else suffers?

    • Hmmm…I’m a parent at 321. A few things

      1) the school is REALLY overcrowded, REALLY overcrowded, kids are no longer able to speak in the halls and have to whisper during part of lunch to deal with noise problems. When I’m in the school I sometimes feel like there’s a fire hazard type of situation.

      2) in terms of the rezone the principal has already said that if they don’t rezone most likely there will be k waiting lists and higher class sizes. Families won’t be guaranteed a spot.

      3) I think it’s crazy if public school parents give up this new school. If we don’t take it, it could easily go to a charter. The proposal now is to have an asst principal from 321, whose quite good, take over with guidance from Liz Phillips. She’ll most likely take some other 321 staff with her.

      4) with all due respect to the PTA, they largely pay for after school programming. This is not what makes the school. Liz Phillips and the teachers make the school. It’s the instruction that sets it apart from some of it’s peers IMHO. The AP has trained here and will take it with her. Remember that new schools get start up funds and should be eligible for grants as well.

      5) the main thing that is upsetting is that they chose to cut the most diverse blocks. I wish that they had down this differently. But given the tide, I doubt these blocks will stay diverse for too long.

      6) you can’t kick kids out a school when families move–it’s city wide policy tomprotect renters and low income kids. Also school instability (ie changing schools) is a predictor of lower academic achievement (in aggregate).

      7) lastly parents get a new facility. 321 is falling apart, it’s dirty. My kids tell me there’s no toilet paper and the bathroom doors don’t lock……

1 2 3 33