Community Board 11 education committee finalizes schools survey, plans outreach to principals

The Community Board 11 Education, Culture and Youth Services Committee reviewed and revised a draft survey for local school principals at a virtual meeting, agreeing to finalize the questionnaire and circulate it to principals this month to begin building relationships and identifying needs.

Committee Chairman Alex Ellison said the committee had “made some edits and suggestions” and that the plan was to “send that out to local schools and hopefully we get some responses.” Members worked through wording and response options for questions about physical infrastructure, instructional and classroom technology, special education services, school safety and the schools’ relationships with elected officials and the local police precinct.

The survey was refocused during the discussion from asking principals broadly about “infrastructure” to asking whether schools could use help applying for discretionary grants and whether they have the resources to implement programs. Members said the committee’s likely role would be to provide letters of support for grant applications and to put principals in contact with officials and departments that could address building or technology issues, not to prepare grant applications on behalf of schools.

Member Wendy Hewlett Betts raised concerns about recent federal funding cuts and asked for clarification about how federal or city funding changes might affect local programs, saying she had not seen guidance from the chancellor and wanted elected officials to be asked to explain any impacts on pre-K and voucher programs. The committee did not adopt new policy in response to that concern but agreed the committee could investigate funding questions separately.

Members asked specific, practical questions to add or clarify on the form: whether a school provides special education services (including ICT or district 75 programs), how schools would rate resources for academic programs and extracurricular activities, whether they need help applying for grants, the state of instructional technology and Wi‑Fi connectivity, and the schools’ relationship with their local police precinct. The committee also discussed keeping an open-ended question asking principals to describe any challenges not covered by the questionnaire.

Participants noted recurring operational barriers. Members described cases where smart or Promethean boards could not be replaced because of asbestos concerns, and discussed how DOE device imaging and security requirements limit teachers’ ability to install new apps without IT assistance. The committee used an example of a vendor‑installed hydroponics lab as an illustration of the cost scale for some capital projects (members said such a system can cost roughly $140,000), and several members raised persistent shortages of speech, occupational and physical therapy staff as an ongoing concern.

The committee agreed that the survey’s immediate purpose is to start conversations with principals and gather information that will guide follow‑up, including targeted outreach, letters of support for discretionary grants and potential site visits depending on response volume. Member Sean said he would put the final questionnaire into a Google Form and reshare it for a last review before distribution.

During the meeting’s gallery session, community board constituent Kate Cardona urged the committee to seek input from all school staff who “see and hear” student needs and suggested including school safety personnel and NCOs (neighborhood coordination officers) in outreach about safety, drop‑off and street conditions near campuses. Cardona asked that the committee include staff and PTA perspectives as the committee moves from surveying to possible site visits and relationship building.

Next steps the committee recorded: finalize the survey in the shared Google document, circulate the form to principals, collect responses and plan follow‑up outreach (letters of support, targeted contacts to School Construction Authority or DOE IT units, and potential site visits based on survey responses).