The Board of Education's Jan. 9 official response to parents

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Below is the Board of Education's
Jan. 9 response to a request made on behalf of the
P.S. 89 PTA to delay the school's return to its building
in Battery Park City, now scheduled for Feb. 4.
It is followed by the P.T.A.'s Dec. 20 letter of request.)

Dear Staff, Parents and Friends of the PS 89 Community:

Thank you for your recent email to Chancellor Harold O. Levy regarding the reopening of PS 189 in Manhattan. Chancellor Levy has asked that I reply to your email. Since the attacks of September 11 the Board of Education, along with all of the other governmental agencies, has been working diligently to return to the schools that had to be vacated. We have hired the finest consultants, the most highly licensed private cleaning and scientific monitoring experts. We have spared no expense in making sure that the schools would be safe and ready for the return of the students, teachers and staff so that all safety concerns held by parents related to the return to these schools would be adequatelyaddressed. We have held numerous meetings with parents groups large and small and with the teachers and staff at each of the schools.

The professional community in the City that deals with emotional issues also was organized to provide assistance in preparing for the return to downtown schools. Michael Cohen, the psychological consultant whom we rely on most, has given us the following advice: once it is decided that there will be a return, the return should take place as soon as proper preparation can be made for the return. To that end, I believe that the return dates we have established for PS 89 and other downtown schools closed by the September 11th attacks are legitimate and based upon articulated needs. As you may know, we are also working with PS 150 and PS 234 which will also return on February 4, The High School for Leadership and the High School for Economics and Finance which will return on January 30 and IS 89, which, of course is in the same building as PS 89, will return on January 22. The leadership of each of those schools believes that gives them enough time to prepare for the return.

The request to postpone the return to PS 89 is far from unanimous. We have received letters, phone calls and emails asking that we return to the school as soon as possible. We have tried the best we can to weigh all of the many considerations about the timing of the return to each of the schools and while there are some distinctions that can be made we do not believe that they provide the basis for saying that PS 89 should goback later than the other schools in light of Dr. Cohen's advice and the number of people who want to return to the school as soon as possible.

I appreciate your concern and thank you for writing.
Very truly yours,

David Klasfeld
Deputy Chancellor

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Below is the letter to
Schools Chancellor Harold Levy from the
P.S. 89 PTA co-chairs which requests a
delay in the school's return to its building in Battery Park City.

December 20, 2001

MEMORANDUM

To: Chancellor Levy

From: Sharon Sprague and David Bushman, PS 89 PTA co-chairs

Subject: PS 89 return to Warren Street

We have received official notification of your decision to return PS 89 to its building at 201 Warren Street on February 4, 2002. We are concerned that this decision has been made without complete knowledge of and consideration for the length of time necessary to accomplish the numerous tasks required for a safe return. In addition, this decision contradicts numerous reassurances given to us that we would be allowed to stay at NEST+m as long as necessary in order to plan a safe and orderly return.

On December 13, the Board of Education met with the PS 89 and IS 89 Facilities Committees and with other parents and faculty members to discuss possible return dates. The Board presented the dates of January 7 for the return of IS 89 and February 4 for the return of PS 89. As we went through the schedule, it became apparent to all present that the January 7 date was not realistic and that even the February 4 date was problematic, given all of the necessary testing required after completion of the building cleanup and the upgrading of the HVAC systems. Furthermore, our Principal, Ronnie Najjar, spoke of the necessity to understand and include the needs of her teaching staff, who have already been through so much this year. Ms. Najjar asked the Board to be open to discussion of a later return date that would give adequate time for her staff to prepare themselves and their students for the return. Mr. Burt Sacks assured her that he understood her concerns and would present them to you. The meeting ended with our feeling that the Board was interested in working with our community to resolve all of theproblems and to arrive at a mutually acceptable date. Instead, our co-chair Sharon Sprague received a telephone call from Mr. Sacks that evening in which he stated that you had informed him that the February 4 date was "non-negotiable." We ask that you reconsider this decision.

As Deputy Chancellor Klasfeld went through the list of problems, which our community believes must be resolved before our return, it appeared that the Board was working to address and resolve many of those problems. Two primary issues, however, the Board apparently believes it cannot address or be responsible for: the relocation of the barge and trucking route; and the provision of a safe outdoor recreation space. These issues are intertwined since, as you know, the current trucking route runs directly past the only outdoor playground at the school, making it unsafe for the children. Mr. Klasfeld suggested that the children could use the school gymnasium for recess; however, this will not work. Children have the right to a safe outdoor playground. Moreover, two schools share this gymnasium and it is in use all day by classes. Attempting to fit daily recess periods in would be impossible and is unfair to the athletic classes of both schools.

We also asked that, before our return, a system be in place to warn the schools of significant air quality changes and of any changes in the demolition process, such as the removal of Freon tanks, which could potentially pose a safety issue for our community. Mr. Sacks seemed to doubt that this could be achieved. We ask that the Board work with the city on this, as the lower Manhattan communities are also asking for this through the WTC Emergency Environmental Group.

We understand that the Board does not have the power to move the barge or the trucking route. Why, however, would you insist on the children's return to a facility where they cannot have recess and athletic classes, when they are now in a location where they can? The school facilities of NEST+m, include an expansive, secure playground, giving the children opportunity for fresh air and exercise without interfering with indoor athletic classes. When you met with our parents on October 24, you told us that you would work with us to determine a mutually acceptable return date and that we could remain at NEST+m as long as necessary. This is an uncrowded, city-owned facility. We know that remaining at NEST+m until conditions at the Warren Street site improve is in no way detrimental to the interests of the Board. We need a written explanation from you as to why you are pushing us back so soon and why you are suddenly so unwilling to work with us.

In addition, we are distressed and angered by Mr. Klasfeld's insensitive dismissal of our teachers and their requests. These teachers are the heart and soul of our school! They are the heroes who kept our children calm during the attacks and who ushered them to safety while the Towers were collapsing behind them. Despite their personal trauma they have continued to work tirelessly to ensure a safe and stable learning environment for our children. Many of our families are still not back in their homes and the classroom is the most "normal" environment these children have. The teachers have serious, legitimate concerns that a premature return to Warren Street will have adverse physical, psychological and educational consequences for the children as well as themselves. They presented their concerns in a thoughtful, well-reasoned statement to the Board on December 17. Their concerns deserve a thoughtful, well-reasoned response. Instead, Mr. Klasfeld dismissed them, saying he heard no compelling reason why we should remain at NEST+m past February 4. What "compelling reason" is there for our forced return on that date? We have heard none, particularly in light of your earlier reassurances to us.

We want to continue to work with the Board to resolve our concerns, or at least have them addressed in a thoughtful manner. Instead, we are given arbitrary dates with no explanation and no consideration of the impact this premature return will have on our students, our parents and our teaching staff. We are not trying, and do not want, to turn this into an adversarialposition, but we firmly believe that we must be included and heard during this entire process. We ask that you reconsider your decision to force our return on February 4, and that we continue to work together to return to Warren Street in a safe and secure manner when all of the issues have been resolved. We ask for your written response as soon as possible.

Sharon Sprague David Bushman