|
|
||
|
To The Editor: I am a parent of two children who attend PS89. I returned to the community one week after the 9/11 attacks to work, like many other parents, to make our children's lives as secure, healthy and, as much like their lives were before 9/11 as possible. For the past three months we have worked diligently with the Board of Education and other public agencies to accomplish just that. Returning to a safe and educationally productive environment at the remarkable facility of PS89 has always been at the top of the list for most of us, and for most of our children. The BOE has now mandated a target return date of 2/4 for PS 89, promising (but not explaining in a concrete way how) the school will be rendered completely safe inside and out in this timeframe for our elementary school children and the educators who have given so much of themselves this year. It is in that context that BOE spokesperson Catie Marshall's recent statements regarding the (non-negotiable) return date of February 4th can only be viewed as appallingly inaccurate and insensitive. They have heightened my concern that the BOE will move our children and the staff of PS 89 back into the building before the work has been done. The BOE may well intend to do the work, but we are now faced with a breach of trust after repeated commitments from Chancellor Levy and his most senior deputies that the agency would operate with complete transparency to the school community and would make decisions in consultation with that community. And yet, no matter how many times we ask, we cannot seem to get replies from the BOE with a practical outline of how the work will be done and on what timeframe. It is not the date of the return that is inherently troubling, it is the lack of a basis for confidence that the work to be done will be done, or be done thoroughly and safely by February 4th. What worries me is that as a community we are now in the potential position to be misperceived: we're now the sole school fighting what is clearly an arbitrary return date, and can thus appear isolated and unreasonable. That's the result of the BOE's apparent loss of "transparency" in working with us and their decision to work by fiat. I'm sure at this point that we in the PS89 community are a total irritation to the BOE, but apparently they don't see that by simply sharing their project information with us for review they could go a long way towards making us more comfortable. As a result, one could argue that they have no plan (which is not likely), or more likely, that it's less than competently designed, and thus will be less than competently implemented. But how can we know -- when the BOE won't communicate these things to us? All of this must be seen in light of the following fact: Unlike any other affected school, there is no inherent urgency from an educational or financial perspective that requires the PS 89 community to vacate NEST. Ms. Marshall's reply to this point states that PS89 is a "guest" of NEST just like 234 is a guest of the Archdiocese, PS 150 is a guest of PS3 and the high schools are similarly guests of other facilities. She totally misses the point that we're comfortably ensconced in a BOE school and we are NOT doubled or tripled up -- conditions that really do add urgency to all the other schools. The lack of respect by public servants for a community that has worked so faithfully and diligently with those public servants is, in the end, a stunning disappointment. I'm sure that those officials do not believe their behavior constitutes a lack of respect, but it is clear that when they are forced to choose between a political constituency that says "make it look normal" and a local constituency that says, "demonstrate to us -- parents, voters, tax-payers, educators -- that you have a plan to ensure the fundamental safety and well-being of our children, their teachers and staff," "making it look normal" is what matters more. I would imagine that the BOE will do anything and everything to rationalize to themselves that both are being achieved. They would be kidding themselves, and I'm afraid the joke will be on our families and our wonderful educators. Sincerely, |
|
|
RESPOND TO ROBERT GEHORSAM'S LETTER HERE
|
