New York City School Overcrowding Crisis




                                110 William Street, Suite 2602
              ...
Explore the extent to which overcrowding exists
 across the city and identify schools with severe
 over-utilization rates...
Chronic underfunding by the State for
 reimbursable school aid
Over recent decades the city built few schools
After th ...
Note: From “Building Aid Shortchanges the Big Cities: The Distribution of Building Aid to New York State 
   School Distri...
1901‐1910                                       97
                            1911‐1920                                  ...
1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973

City Total *       324     316     358      448    ...
 In 1995, CFE won a major victory when the Court of
  Appeals, New York s highest court, decided that the
               ...
 Limited ability to expand state funded programs
  such as p  pre-kindergarten or early g
                       g       ...
 Utilization Rates >100%
 Temporary Structures (TAMs)
          Transportables (Trailers)
                p         (  ...
 School capacity and utilization data contained in DOE/SCA
  Enrollment – Capacity – Utilization Report for 2006-07
  (AK...
“Overcrowding is even worse than indicated above
because the ECU (Enrollment-Capacity-Utilization)
                    (En...
12
www.cfequity.org
 501,632 students out of 1,042,078 (48%) are
  enrolled in overcrowded buildings or have
  temporary structures associate...
14
www.cfequity.org
 391 overcrowded main school buildings with
  utilization rates greater than 100%
 Enrollment of these overcrowded schoo...
391 Overcrowded Buildings                 391 Overcrowded Buildings
               By School Level                       B...
OVERCROWDED SCHOOL BUILDINGS

                   BOROUGH                      PS    MS       HS        TOTALS

           ...
18
www.cfequity.org
 Transportables, Annexes, and Mini-schools (TAMs)
 215 buildings have a total of 252 TAMs
 Of the 207,236 enrolled stud...
215 School Buildings with                          Student Enrollment in 215
      TAMs By School-level                   ...
SCHOOL BUILDINGS USING TAMS
                   Borough             Main Buildings                Temporary Structures
    ...
22
www.cfequity.org
 105 low performing schools on the 2007-08
  SINI/SRAP list are overcrowded
 25% of 2007-08 SINI/SRAP schools are
  over...
 75 low performing schools on the 2007-08
  SINI/SRAP have 86 TAMs
              h       TAM
                       SINI/...
25
www.cfequity.org
School Buildings with
 28schools h
       h l have utilization
                    ili i         Utilization Rates Greate...
OVERCROWDED SCHOOL BUILDINGS GREATER THAN 150%

                        Borough                    PS         MS     HS   ...
OVERCROWDED SCHOOL BUILDINGS BETWEEN 125% AND 150%

                      Borough                    PS    MS      HS     ...
29
www.cfequity.org
   Prioritizing Relieving Overcrowding
    through New School Development
    funded by the FY10 14 Capital Plan
        ...
 DOE Capital Plan for FY05-09 contained funding to
          ,
  build 63,000 new seats
   • HOW ARE THEY DOING?
        ...
 Plan does not provide a blueprint to eliminate
             g
  overcrowding
 New school projects in many overcrowded d...
 308 school buildings identified in the DOE
  Utilization Report with utilization rates below
  75%
 42 with utilization...
 Limitations
   • Neighborhoods with the worst overcrowding have
     few under-utilized buildings
   • School buildings ...
 If DOE enrollment projections prove correct Districts 17,
  18, and 19 in Brooklyn and District 6 in Manhattan may
  see...
36
www.cfequity.org
The DOE Capital Plan must
                 p
   prioritize eliminating school
      overcrowding in the 51
     highest pr...
 20 school buildings with utilization rates
  greater than 150%
 13 SINI/SRAP schools with utilization rates
  between 1...
 Overcrowded SINI/SRAP schools not on 51
  Super Priority List
 All other SINI/SRAP schools with TAMs
 School buildings...
◦ 5 historically overcrowded SINI/SRAP
  schools, 4 of which have utilization rates
  schools
  between 125% and 150% and ...
o   53 historically overcrowded schools
     o 18 overcrowded SINI/SRAP schools
     o 25 are with utilization rates125%- ...
o 28 overcrowded SINI/SRAP
o 43 SINI/SRAP with TAMs
o 27 overcrowded for 11 years
                        y
o 19 schools w...
Plans for new schools must target
 urgent overcrowding problems.




                                    43
 www.cfequity....
 Target new schools to relieve overcrowding in
  the high priority schools
 Re-evaluate the overcrowding conditions city...
Capital plan timelines
      should be re-examined to
                re-
       prevent backloading of
      urgently nee...
 Aggressively advance the development of new
  schools, particularly in neighborhoods with
  schools
  severe and chronic...
Projected declines in
        enrollment should not be
          relied upon to solve
              overcrowding.



     ...
 Projected declines in enrollment should not be
  relied upon to solve overcrowding
    li d      t    l           di
 I...
The DOE must do a better
   job targeting under-utilized
                 under-
         space to combat
          overcr...
 Identify school buildings with significant available
  space, or space that will become available because of
  space    ...
Plans to combat
   overcrowding must address
      temporary structures.



                               51
www.cfequity...
 DOE should immediately provide the following:
   A list of all and how they are currently being utilized
      li t f l...
The DOE must develop a
          long-
          long-term strategy to
         eliminate overcrowding.



               ...
 Develop specific targets with clear priorities
 Identify needed resources
  Id tif      d d
 Establish a timeline for ...
55
56
57
58
59
CFE’s new website is a companion to this report.
Visit the site for a copy of this report and to view
             the ove...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Maxed Out Ppt Final With Boro Maps(2)

843 views

Published on

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

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
843
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Maxed Out Ppt Final With Boro Maps(2)

  1. 1. New York City School Overcrowding Crisis 110 William Street, Suite 2602 New York, NY 10038 212-867-8455 www.cfequity.org
  2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 9.  Utilization Rates >100%  Temporary Structures (TAMs)  Transportables (Trailers) p ( )  Annexes  Mi i h l Mini-schools 9 www.cfequity.org
  10. 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. 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. 12 www.cfequity.org
  13. 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. 14 www.cfequity.org
  15. 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. 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. 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. 18 www.cfequity.org
  19. 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. 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. 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. 22 www.cfequity.org
  23. 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. 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. 25 www.cfequity.org
  26. 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. 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. 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. 29 www.cfequity.org
  30. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 36 www.cfequity.org
  37. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 43. Plans for new schools must target urgent overcrowding problems. 43 www.cfequity.org
  44. 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. 45. Capital plan timelines should be re-examined to re- prevent backloading of urgently needed projects. 45 www.cfequity.org
  46. 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. 47. Projected declines in enrollment should not be relied upon to solve overcrowding. 47 www.cfequity.org
  48. 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. 49. The DOE must do a better job targeting under-utilized under- space to combat overcrowding. 49 www.cfequity.org
  50. 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. 51. Plans to combat overcrowding must address temporary structures. 51 www.cfequity.org
  52. 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. 53. The DOE must develop a long- long-term strategy to eliminate overcrowding. 53 www.cfequity.org
  54. 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. 55
  56. 56. 56
  57. 57. 57
  58. 58. 58
  59. 59. 59
  60. 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

×