The document discusses the crisis of school overcrowding in New York City. It finds that over 500,000 students, nearly half of the total student population, are enrolled in overcrowded buildings or buildings with temporary structures. Specifically, 391 main school buildings have utilization rates over 100%, enrolling over 380,000 students. An additional 215 buildings rely on temporary annexes, transportables, or mini-schools to house over 32,000 more students. Elementary schools make up the majority of overcrowded buildings. The overcrowding has negative impacts on class sizes and specialized instructional spaces. It also discusses the history of underfunding for school construction contributing to the crisis.

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