Maxed Out Ppt Final With Boro Maps(2)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Maxed Out Ppt Final With Boro Maps(2)

on

  • 719 views

PowerPoint I created from CFE\'s Maxed Out study on overcrowding in NYC schools.

PowerPoint I created from CFE\'s Maxed Out study on overcrowding in NYC schools.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
719
Views on SlideShare
711
Embed Views
8

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

2 Embeds 8

http://www.linkedin.com 6
https://www.linkedin.com 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Maxed Out Ppt Final With Boro Maps(2) Presentation Transcript

  • 1. New York City School Overcrowding Crisis 110 William Street, Suite 2602 New York, NY 10038 212-867-8455 www.cfequity.org
  • 2. Explore the extent to which overcrowding exists across the city and identify schools with severe over-utilization rates and temporary structures Examine the impact on overcrowding of: • New York City Department of Education’s FY10-14 FY10 14 5 year Capital Plan • Enrollment projections • Underutilized space Recommend ways to enhance capital planning efforts to solve overcrowding problem 2 www.cfequity.org
  • 3. Chronic underfunding by the State for reimbursable school aid Over recent decades the city built few schools After th 1970’ fi Aft the 1970’s financial meltdown b th city – i l ltd by the it the city’s contribution for school capital aid substantially drops 3 www.cfequity.org
  • 4. Note: From “Building Aid Shortchanges the Big Cities: The Distribution of Building Aid to New York State  School Districts, 1992‐1999,” Educational Priorities Panel, 2001. 4 www.cfequity.org
  • 5. 1901‐1910 97 1911‐1920 57 1921‐1930 211 1931‐1940 96 1941‐1950 26 1951‐1960 169 1961‐1970 174 1971‐1980 90 1981‐1990 12 1991‐2000 47 2001‐2006 26 Note: From “Capital Promises: Why NYC Children Don’t Have the School Buildings They Need,” Educational  “ ’ ” Priorities Panel, 2007. 5 www.cfequity.org
  • 6. 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 City Total * 324 316 358 448 443 502 466 485 487 574 739 1,107 1,119 1,278 BOE Total * 61 67 75 91 110 140 139 112 98 91 133 190 212 255 % of Total 18.8 21.2 20.9 20.3 24.8 27.9 29.8 23.1 20.1 15.9 18 17.2 18.9 20 City Eff Ratio 11% 13% 13% 12% 10% 10% 11% 17% 22% 25% 29% 28% 27% 25% BOE Eff Ratio 11% 14% 14% 11% 12% 10% 9% 15% 20% 22% 23% 25% 16% 18% 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 City Total * 1,581 1,687 894 691 521 626 836 1138 1295 1293 1524 1688 1733 1907 BOE Total * 274 242 127 67 40 54 91 90 108 122 125 152 134 135 % of Total 17.3 14.3 14.2 9.7 7.7 8.6 10.9 7.9 8.3 9.4 8.2 9 7.7 7.1 City Eff Ratio 27% 24% 19% 17% NA NA NA 14% 16% 17% 15% 16% 15% 20% BOE Eff Ratio 19% 15% 6% 6% NA NA NA 4% 5% 3% 4% 5% 7% 10% 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 City Total * 2231 3142 3751 4233 3893 3617 3343 3741 3878 3858 4151 4841 4809 4233 BOE Total * 144 208 380 694 681 754 722 875 807 613 1233 1568 1296 694 % of Total 6.5 6.6 10.1 16.4 17.5 20.8 21.6 23.4 20.8 15.9 29.7 32.4 27 32.2 City Eff Ratio 19% 18% 18% 19% 19% 19% 18% 18% 18% 17% 15% 26% 29% 29% BOE Eff Ratio 8% 1% 6% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 14% 9% * from the NYC Comptroller s Financial Statements Comptroller’s Note: From “Castles in the Sand : Why School Overcrowding Remains a Problem in NYC,” Educational Priorities Panel, 2002. 6 www.cfequity.org
  • 7.  In 1995, CFE won a major victory when the Court of Appeals, New York s highest court, decided that the York's New York State constitution requires that the state offer all children the opportunity for a "sound basic education" d i "  The NYS Supreme Court 2001 decision found that overcrowding and large class sizes were measures of inadequacy  Overcrowding, large class sizes and the lack of specialized spaces were the prime facilities’ deficiencies cited by the State’s highest court in June 2003 7 www.cfequity.org
  • 8.  Limited ability to expand state funded programs such as p pre-kindergarten or early g g y grade class size reduction  Larger class sizes SSpecialized spaces ( t and science i li d (art d i rooms, libraries) are used for general education classrooms  Challenges in planning space for special education students SSome students, particularly at th hi h school t d t ti l l t the high h l level, attend school in double or triple sessions  Lunch periods can begin as early as 10 AM p g y 8 www.cfequity.org
  • 9.  Utilization Rates >100%  Temporary Structures (TAMs)  Transportables (Trailers) p ( )  Annexes  Mi i h l Mini-schools 9 www.cfequity.org
  • 10.  School capacity and utilization data contained in DOE/SCA Enrollment – Capacity – Utilization Report for 2006-07 (AKA “The Blue Book”)  Historic Data from 1997-98 through 2006-07 of the ECU reports  The 2006/07 and 2007/08 SINI/SRAP school lists issued by New York State Department of Education  Enrollment projections contained in Enrollment Projections 2007 to 2016 New York City Public Schools prepared by The Grier Partnership and Statistical Forecasting LLC p g  DOE FY10-14 Five Year Capital Plan New Capacity Program 10 www.cfequity.org
  • 11. “Overcrowding is even worse than indicated above because the ECU (Enrollment-Capacity-Utilization) (Enrollment Capacity Utilization) formulas actually overstate schools’ capacity. This inflation occurs because the formulas adjust for overcrowding by adding to schools’ capacity non- classroom spaces if such space is in fact used for classrooms. For example if a crowded school is forced to convert its gymnasiums or auditoriums i t classroom space, th capacity f into l the it formula l indicates increased capacity.” Judge Leland DeGrasse 11 www.cfequity.org
  • 12. 12 www.cfequity.org
  • 13.  501,632 students out of 1,042,078 (48%) are enrolled in overcrowded buildings or have temporary structures associated with them  515 out of 1 139 school buildings (45%) are 1,139 overcrowded across the city 13 www.cfequity.org
  • 14. 14 www.cfequity.org
  • 15.  391 overcrowded main school buildings with utilization rates greater than 100%  Enrollment of these overcrowded school buildings is 381,582  Approximately 37% of students attend an overcrowded main school b ildi d d i h l buildings 15 www.cfequity.org
  • 16. 391 Overcrowded Buildings 391 Overcrowded Buildings By School Level By Student Enrollment & School Level High Schools 18% High School (72) Students Middle Schools 5% (20) Elementary 38% Students (146,604) (146 604) 55% Elementary Schools (209,948) 77% (299) Middle School 7% Students (25,030) 55% of students in overcrowded 77% of overcrowded school buildings g school buildings are elementary g y are elementary level students and 38% are high school students 16
  • 17. OVERCROWDED SCHOOL BUILDINGS BOROUGH PS MS HS TOTALS Manhattan 36 5 15 56 Bronx 66 1 9 76 Brooklyn 74 6 21 101 Queens 101 6 24 131 Staten Island 22 2 3 27 TOTALS 299 20 72 391 OVERCROWDED SCHOOL BUILDING ENROLLMENT BOROUGH PS MS HS TOTALS Manhattan 25,164 3,544 17,851 46,559 Bronx 45,638 421 20,866 66,925 Brooklyn 52,695 7,909 41,813 102,417 Queens 72,620 9,747 57,545 139,912 Staten Island 13,831 3,409 8,529 25,769 TOTALS 209,948 25,030 146,604 381,582 17 www.cfequity.org
  • 18. 18 www.cfequity.org
  • 19.  Transportables, Annexes, and Mini-schools (TAMs)  215 buildings have a total of 252 TAMs  Of the 207,236 enrolled students in these learning environments, 174,519 learn in their main school buildings and 32,717 in TAMs  31 of th 215 school b ildi f the h l buildings h have multiple TAM lti l TAMs: • 27 buildings have 2 TAMs • 4 buildings have 3 TAMs 19 www.cfequity.org
  • 20. 215 School Buildings with Student Enrollment in 215 TAMs By School-level School Buildings with TAMs High Schools Middle 5% Schools 6% (11) High School (13) Students 17% Middle (35,686) Elementary Elementary School 8% Students Schools Students (17,170) 75% 89% (154,380) (191) 75 % of students in school buildings 89% of school buildings that have g with TAMS are elementary students ith elementar st dents TAMs are elementary level and 17% high school students 20
  • 21. SCHOOL BUILDINGS USING TAMS Borough Main Buildings Temporary Structures Manhattan 13 13 Bronx 64 73 Brooklyn 52 58 Queens 76 94 Staten Island 10 14 TOTALS 215 252 ENROLLMENT OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS USING TAMs Borough Main Buildings Temporary Structures Total Enrollment Manhattan 9,508 1,716 11,224 Bronx 51,261 11,834 63,095 Brooklyn 36,234 7,490 43,724 Queens 70,992 10,322 81,314 Staten Island 6,524 1,355 7,879 TOTALS 174,519 174 519 32,717 32 717 207,236 207 236 21 www.cfequity.org
  • 22. 22 www.cfequity.org
  • 23.  105 low performing schools on the 2007-08 SINI/SRAP list are overcrowded  25% of 2007-08 SINI/SRAP schools are overcrowded SINI/SRAP Schools with Utilization Rates Greater than 100% NUMBER OF BOROUGH ENROLLMENT BUILDINGS Manhattan 15 15,009 Bronx 31 36,452 Brooklyn 27 47,012 Queens 27 53,090 Staten Island 5 10,711 TOTAL 105 162,274 23 www.cfequity.org
  • 24.  75 low performing schools on the 2007-08 SINI/SRAP have 86 TAMs h TAM SINI/SRAP Schools with Temporary Structures NUMBER OF TEMPORARY NUMBER OF BUILDING TOTAL BOROUGH TEMPORARY STRUCTURES BUILDINGS ENROLLMENT ENROLLMENT STRUCTURES ENROLLMENT Manhattan 10 10 8,249 1,412 9,661 Bronx 36 41 33,225 6,655 39,880 Brooklyn 12 13 10,219 1,453 11,672 Queens 15 20 27,669 2,475 30,144 Staten Island 2 2 3,426 306 3,732 Totals 75 86 82,788 12,301 95,089 24 www.cfequity.org
  • 25. 25 www.cfequity.org
  • 26. School Buildings with  28schools h h l have utilization ili i Utilization Rates Greater rates greater than 150%, than 125% impacting 32 794 students 32,794  85schools have utilization rates between 125% - High Schools 26% Elementary Schools 150%, affecting 94,511 (29) 71% (80) 3% (4) students Middle Schools 26 www.cfequity.org
  • 27. OVERCROWDED SCHOOL BUILDINGS GREATER THAN 150% Borough PS MS HS Totals Manhattan 3 1 1 5 Bronx 3 0 1 4 Brooklyn 3 0 3 6 Queens 8 0 4 12 Staten Island 1 0 0 1 TOTALS 18 1 9 28 ENROLLMENT GREATER THAN 150% Borough PS MS HS Totals Manhattan 1,162 424 523 2,109 Bronx 1,463 0 487 1,950 Brooklyn 920 0 12,499 13,419 Queens 2,444 0 12,438 14,882 Staten Island 434 0 0 434 TOTALS 6,423 6 423 424 25,947 25 947 32,794 32 794 27 www.cfequity.org
  • 28. OVERCROWDED SCHOOL BUILDINGS BETWEEN 125% AND 150% Borough PS MS HS Totals Manhattan 7 1 0 8 Bronx 16 1 3 20 Brooklyn 10 1 6 17 Queens Q 22 0 10 32 Staten Island 7 0 1 8 TOTALS 62 3 20 85 ENROLLMENT BETWEEN 125% AND 150% Borough PS MS HS Totals Manhattan 5,374 413 0 5,787 Bronx 9,179 9 179 421 11 234 11,234 20 834 20,834 Brooklyn 7,816 1,829 10,826 20,741 Queens 14,273 0 26,461 40,734 Staten Island 3,985 0 2,700 6,685 TOTALS 40,627 2,663 51,221 94,511 28 www.cfequity.org
  • 29. 29 www.cfequity.org
  • 30.  Prioritizing Relieving Overcrowding through New School Development funded by the FY10 14 Capital Plan FY10-14  Using Underutilized Existing Space  Managing Enrollment Declines Projected in Many Neighborhoods j y g 30 www.cfequity.org
  • 31.  DOE Capital Plan for FY05-09 contained funding to , build 63,000 new seats • HOW ARE THEY DOING? • Approximately 21,000 have come on line • 34 239 are underway and will b completed b 2012 34,239 d d ill be l t d by • 8,000 seats rolled over to FY10-14 Plan  In November 2008 DOE issued its proposed new five o e be 008 O ssued s p oposed e e year capital plan for FY10-14 that includes the creation of 25,194 new seats but includes 8,000 seats “rolled over” from the FY05 09 Plan rolled over FY05-09 31 www.cfequity.org
  • 32.  Plan does not provide a blueprint to eliminate g overcrowding  New school projects in many overcrowded districts have been back-loaded – will not come on line until end of plan, if at all 32 www.cfequity.org
  • 33.  308 school buildings identified in the DOE Utilization Report with utilization rates below 75%  42 with utilization rates below 50%  The excess capacity is 128,618 seats 33 www.cfequity.org
  • 34.  Limitations • Neighborhoods with the worst overcrowding have few under-utilized buildings • School buildings are currently being restructured g y g and are in transition  Opportunities • Districts with limited overcrowding may be able to re-zone to use available capacity • At the high school level geographic limitations level, are not as important as at lower levels 34 www.cfequity.org
  • 35.  If DOE enrollment projections prove correct Districts 17, 18, and 19 in Brooklyn and District 6 in Manhattan may see significant reductions in school overcrowding i ifi t d ti i h l di  Declines in enrollment will not have a significant impact on mitigating school overcrowding in other parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan nor Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island  Th There are projected enrollment i j t d ll t increases i a number of in b f districts, some are significant: • Districts 2 & 3 in Manhattan • Districts 7, 8 & 75 in the Bronx • Districts 15 & 20 in Brooklyn • Districts 24, 26 & 75 in Queens • Districts 31 & 75 in Staten Island 35 www.cfequity.org
  • 36. 36 www.cfequity.org
  • 37. The DOE Capital Plan must p prioritize eliminating school overcrowding in the 51 highest priority schools identified in this report. report 37 www.cfequity.org
  • 38.  20 school buildings with utilization rates greater than 150%  13 SINI/SRAP schools with utilization rates between 125% and 150%  18 SINI/SRAP schools that have utilization rates greater than 100% and also h t t th d l have temporary structures 31 OF THESE 51 SCHOOLS HAVE BEEN OVERCROWDED FOR MORE THAN A DECADE 38 www.cfequity.org
  • 39.  Overcrowded SINI/SRAP schools not on 51 Super Priority List  All other SINI/SRAP schools with TAMs  School buildings that have been overcrowded for 11 years  Schools with utilization rates greater than 125%  Overcrowded schools with TAMs  Schools with multiple TAMs p 91 OF THESE SCHOOLS HAVE BEEN OVERCROWDED FOR MORE THAN A DECADE 39 www.cfequity.org
  • 40. ◦ 5 historically overcrowded SINI/SRAP schools, 4 of which have utilization rates schools between 125% and 150% and 1 has a TAM ◦ 6 historically overcrowded with utilization rates 125% -150% & and TAMs ◦ 1 overcrowded SINI/SRAP with multiple TAM d d ith lti l TAMs 40 www.cfequity.org
  • 41. o 53 historically overcrowded schools o 18 overcrowded SINI/SRAP schools o 25 are with utilization rates125%- 150% o 6 overcrowded with TAMs o 3 with utilization rates greater th 150% ith tili ti t t than o 1 school with multiple TAMs o 2 SINI/SRAP with multiple TAMs o 2 overcrowded SINI/SRAP with TAMs o 5 overcrowded schools with TAMs: o 4 have utilization rates between 125% and 150% o 1 has a utilization rate greater than 150% g 41 www.cfequity.org
  • 42. o 28 overcrowded SINI/SRAP o 43 SINI/SRAP with TAMs o 27 overcrowded for 11 years y o 19 schools with utilization rates between 125% and 150% o 23 overcrowded with TAMs o 12 schools with TAMs 42 www.cfequity.org
  • 43. Plans for new schools must target urgent overcrowding problems. 43 www.cfequity.org
  • 44.  Target new schools to relieve overcrowding in the high priority schools  Re-evaluate the overcrowding conditions city- wide annually and adjust the priorities and goals goals, if needed 44 www.cfequity.org
  • 45. Capital plan timelines should be re-examined to re- prevent backloading of urgently needed projects. 45 www.cfequity.org
  • 46.  Aggressively advance the development of new schools, particularly in neighborhoods with schools severe and chronic overcrowding, so capacity- building p g g programs are not stalled  Provide annual updates on the siting of new schools and use as a critical component in p eliminating overcrowding  Identify issues that may affect siting new schools and have potential to delay construction 46 www.cfequity.org
  • 47. Projected declines in enrollment should not be relied upon to solve overcrowding. 47 www.cfequity.org
  • 48.  Projected declines in enrollment should not be relied upon to solve overcrowding li d t l di  If declines materialize as projected: • Projected declines will only relieve overcrowding in some parts of the City • Some districts will still have overcrowding 48 www.cfequity.org
  • 49. The DOE must do a better job targeting under-utilized under- space to combat overcrowding. 49 www.cfequity.org
  • 50.  Identify school buildings with significant available space, or space that will become available because of space available, school phase-outs  Identify all of the overcrowded school buildings that are proximate to the seriously underutilized buildings  Establish re-zoning strategies to eliminate overcrowding  Establish new schools or programs in underutilized school buildings and prioritize students from nearby overcrowded school buildings  Develop specific goals and timelines  Provide annual updates until overcrowding is eliminated 50 www.cfequity.org
  • 51. Plans to combat overcrowding must address temporary structures. 51 www.cfequity.org
  • 52.  DOE should immediately provide the following:  A list of all and how they are currently being utilized li t f ll d h th tl b i tili d  Progress report on removing TAMs older than 20 years by 2012  DOE should use this information to:  P i iti th removal of TAM at: Prioritize the l f TAMs t • All SINI/SRAP schools with TAMS • 91 overcrowded school b ildi d d h l buildings with TAM ith TAMs • 31 school buildings with multiple TAMs 52 www.cfequity.org
  • 53. The DOE must develop a long- long-term strategy to eliminate overcrowding. 53 www.cfequity.org
  • 54.  Develop specific targets with clear priorities  Identify needed resources Id tif d d  Establish a timeline for meeting targets: • Solving the overcrowding at the Priority schools identified in this report by completion of FY 10-14 Capital Plan  Provide regular reporting to parents, elected officials and the bli th public on progress ttoward meeting t d ti targetst  Restore appropriate educational and support spaces to all school buildings 54 www.cfequity.org
  • 55. 55
  • 56. 56
  • 57. 57
  • 58. 58
  • 59. 59
  • 60. CFE’s new website is a companion to this report. Visit the site for a copy of this report and to view the overcrowding situation by borough, by district, by school. Contact: Helaine Doran, Deputy Director 212-867-8455 x218 hdoran@cfequity.org 110 William Street, Suite 2602 New York, NY 10038 212-867-8455 www.cfequity.org