Maxed Out Ppt Final With Boro Maps(2)

New York City School Overcrowding CrisisNew York City School Overcrowding Crisis

110 William Street, Suite 2602New York, NY 10038

212-867-8455www.cfequity.org

Explore the extent to which overcrowding exists across the city and identify schools with severeacross the city and identify schools with severe over-utilization rates and temporary structuresExamine the impact on overcrowding of:Examine the impact on overcrowding of:

• New York City Department of Education’s FY10 14 5 year Capital PlanFY10-14 5 year Capital Plan

• Enrollment projections Underutilized space• Underutilized space

Recommend ways to enhance capital planning efforts to solve overcrowding problem

2www.cfequity.org

efforts to solve overcrowding problem

Chronic underfunding by the State for reimbursable school aidreimbursable school aidOver recent decades the city built few schoolsAft th 1970’ fi i l ltd b th itAfter the 1970’s financial meltdown by the city –

the city’s contribution for school capital aid substantially dropssubstantially drops

3www.cfequity.org

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.

4www.cfequity.org

1901‐1910 971911‐1920 571921‐1930 2111931‐1940 961941‐1950 261951‐1960 1691961‐1970 1741961‐1970 1741971‐1980 901981‐1990 121991‐2000 472001‐2006 26

“ ’ ”

5www.cfequity.org

Note: From “Capital Promises: Why NYC Children Don’t Have the School Buildings They Need,” Educational Priorities Panel, 2007.

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 2001City 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

6www.cfequity.org

from the NYC Comptroller s Financial Statements

Note: From “Castles in the Sand : Why School Overcrowding Remains a Problem in NYC,” Educational Priorities Panel, 2002.

In 1995, CFE won a major victory when the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, decided that theAppeals, New York s highest court, decided that the New York State constitution requires that the state offer all children the opportunity for a "sound basic

d i "education" The NYS Supreme Court 2001 decision found that

overcrowding and large class sizes were measuresovercrowding and large class sizes were measures of inadequacy

Overcrowding, large class sizes and the lack of 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

7www.cfequity.org

2003

Limited ability to expand state funded programs such as pre-kindergarten or early grade class size p g y greduction

Larger class sizes S i li d ( t d i Specialized spaces (art and science

rooms, libraries) are used for general education classrooms

Challenges in planning space for special education students

S t d t ti l l t th hi h h l Some students, particularly at the high school level, attend school in double or triple sessions

Lunch periods can begin as early as 10 AM

8www.cfequity.org

p g y

Utilization Rates >100%

Temporary Structures (TAMs)

Transportables (Trailers)p ( )

Annexes

Mi i h l Mini-schools

9www.cfequity.org

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 reportsreports

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 LLCp g

DOE FY10-14 Five Year Capital Plan New Capacity Program

10www.cfequity.org

“Overcrowding is even worse than indicated above because the ECU (Enrollment Capacity Utilization)because the ECU (Enrollment-Capacity-Utilization) formulas actually overstate schools’ capacity. This inflation occurs because the formulas adjust forinflation 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 l th it f linto classroom space, the capacity formula indicates increased capacity.”

Judge Leland DeGrasse

11www.cfequity.org

Judge Leland DeGrasse

12www.cfequity.org

501,632 students out of 1,042,078 (48%) are enrolled in overcrowded buildings or haveenrolled in overcrowded buildings or have temporary structures associated with them

515 out of 1 139 school buildings (45%) are 515 out of 1,139 school buildings (45%) are overcrowded across the city

13www.cfequity.org

www.cfequity.org 14

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 d d i h l b ildiovercrowded main school buildings

15www.cfequity.org

391 Overcrowded Buildings By School Level

391 Overcrowded Buildings By Student Enrollment &

School LevelSchool Level

High Schools

5%

18%

55%

38%

(72)

(20)

(146 604)

Middle Schools

High Schools

Elementary Students

High School Students

77%

55%

7%

(299)

(146,604)

(209,948)Elementary Schools

Middle School

Students

77% of overcrowded school buildings 55% of students in overcrowded school buildings are elementary

(25,030)

gare elementary level

g ystudents and 38% are high school students

16

OVERCROWDED SCHOOL BUILDINGS

BOROUGH PS MS HS TOTALS

Manhattan 36 5 15 56Manhattan 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

www.cfequity.org 17

www.cfequity.org 18

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 f th 215 h l b ildi h lti l TAM 31 of the 215 school buildings have multiple TAMs:• 27 buildings have 2 TAMs• 4 buildings have 3 TAMs

19www.cfequity.org

215 School Buildings with TAMs By School-level

Student Enrollment in 215 School Buildings with TAMs

6%5%

(13)(11)

Middle Schools

High Schools

High School Students

89%75%

8%

17%

(17,170)

(35,686)

(191) (154,380)

Elementary Schools

Elementary Students

Middle School

Students

(191)

89% of school buildings that have 75 % of students in school buildings ith TAMS are elementar st dentsg

TAMs are elementary level with TAMS are elementary students and 17% high school students

20

SCHOOL BUILDINGS USING TAMSBorough Main Buildings Temporary Structures

Manhattan 13 13Manhattan 13 13

Bronx 64 73

Brooklyn 52 58

Queens 76 94

Staten Island 10 14

TOTALS 215 252

ENROLLMENT OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS USING TAMsENROLLMENT 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 32 717 207 236

www.cfequity.org 21

TOTALS 174,519 32,717 207,236

www.cfequity.org 22

105 low performing schools on the 2007-08 SINI/SRAP list are overcrowdedSINI/SRAP list are overcrowded

25% of 2007-08 SINI/SRAP schools are overcrowdedovercrowded

SINI/SRAP Schools with Utilization Rates Greater than 100%

BOROUGH NUMBER OF BUILDINGS ENROLLMENT

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

23www.cfequity.org

TOTAL 105 162,274

75 low performing schools on the 2007-08 SINI/SRAP h 86 TAMSINI/SRAP have 86 TAMs

SINI/SRAP Schools with Temporary Structures

BOROUGH NUMBER OF BUILDINGS

NUMBER OF TEMPORARY STRUCTURES

BUILDINGENROLLMENT

TEMPORARY STRUCTURESENROLLMENT

TOTAL 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

24www.cfequity.org

www.cfequity.org 25

28 h l h ili i School Buildings with 28 schools have utilization

rates greater than 150%, impacting 32 794 students

School Buildings with Utilization Rates Greater

than 125%

impacting 32,794 students 85 schools have utilization

rates between 125%rates between 125% -150%, affecting 94,511 students

71%

3%

26%

(29)

(4) (80)

Elementary Schools

High Schools

studentsMiddle Schools

26www.cfequity.org

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


TOTALS 18 1 9 28

ENROLLMENT GREATER THAN 150%ENROLLMENT GREATER THAN 150%


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


TOTALS 6 423 424 25 947 32 794

www.cfequity.org 27

TOTALS 6,423 424 25,947 32,794

OVERCROWDED SCHOOL BUILDINGS BETWEEN 125% AND 150%


Manhattan 7 1 0 8

Bronx 16 1 3 20

Brooklyn 10 1 6 17

Q 22 0 10 32Queens 22 0 10 32


TOTALS 62 3 20 85

ENROLLMENT BETWEEN 125% AND 150%


Manhattan 5,374 413 0 5,787

Bronx 9 179 421 11 234 20 834Bronx 9,179 421 11,234 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

28

TOTALS 40,627 2,663 51,221 94,511

www.cfequity.org

www.cfequity.org 29

Prioritizing Relieving Overcrowding Prioritizing Relieving Overcrowding through New School Development funded by the FY10 14 Capital Planfunded by the FY10-14 Capital Plan

Using Underutilized Existing Space Managing Enrollment Declines

Projected in Many Neighborhoodsj y g

30www.cfequity.org

DOE Capital Plan for FY05-09 contained funding to build 63,000 new seats,• HOW ARE THEY DOING?

• Approximately 21,000 have come on line34 239 d d ill b l t d b 2012• 34,239 are underway and will be completed by 2012

• 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 eyear 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 Planrolled over from the FY05-09 Plan

31www.cfequity.org

Plan does not provide a blueprint to eliminate overcrowdingg

New school projects in many overcrowded districts have been back-loaded – will not come on line until end of plan, if at all

32www.cfequity.org

308 school buildings identified in the DOE Utilization Report with utilization rates belowUtilization Report with utilization rates below 75%

42 with utilization rates below 50% 42 with utilization rates below 50%The excess capacity is 128,618 seats

33www.cfequity.org

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 limitationsAt the high school level, geographic limitations are not as important as at lower levels

34www.cfequity.org

If DOE enrollment projections prove correct Districts 17, 18, and 19 in Brooklyn and District 6 in Manhattan may

i ifi t d ti i h l disee significant reductions in school overcrowdingDeclines in enrollment will not have a significant impact

on mitigating school overcrowding in other parts ofon mitigating school overcrowding in other parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan nor Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island

Th j t d ll t i i b fThere are projected enrollment increases in a number of 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

35

• Districts 31 & 75 in Staten Island

www.cfequity.org

36www.cfequity.org

The DOE Capital Plan must The DOE Capital Plan must ppprioritize eliminating school prioritize eliminating school

overcrowding in the 51overcrowding in the 51overcrowding in the 51 overcrowding in the 51 highest priority schools highest priority schools identified in this reportidentified in this reportidentified in this report.identified in this report.

37www.cfequity.org

20 school buildings with utilization rates greater than 150%greater than 150%

13 SINI/SRAP schools with utilization rates between 125% and 150%between 125% and 150%

18 SINI/SRAP schools that have utilization t t th 100% d l hrates greater than 100% and also have

temporary structures

31 OF THESE 51 SCHOOLS HAVE BEEN OVERCROWDED

FOR MORE THAN A DECADE

38www.cfequity.org

FOR MORE THAN A DECADE

Overcrowded SINI/SRAP schools not on 51 Super Priority ListSuper 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%125%Overcrowded schools with TAMs Schools with multiple TAMsp

91 OF THESE SCHOOLS HAVE BEEN OVERCROWDED FOR MORE THAN A DECADE

39www.cfequity.org

OVERCROWDED FOR MORE THAN A DECADE

◦ 5 historically overcrowded SINI/SRAP schools 4 of which have utilization ratesschools, 4 of which have utilization rates between 125% and 150% and 1 has a TAM6 historically overcrowded with utilization◦ 6 historically overcrowded with utilization rates 125% -150% & and TAMs1 d d SINI/SRAP ith lti l TAM◦ 1 overcrowded SINI/SRAP with multiple TAMs

40www.cfequity.org

o 53 historically overcrowded schoolso 18 overcrowded SINI/SRAP schoolso 18 overcrowded SINI/SRAP schools o 25 are with utilization rates125%- 150%o 6 overcrowded with TAMs

3 ith tili ti t t th 150%o 3 with utilization rates greater than 150%o 1 school with multiple TAMs

o 2 SINI/SRAP with multiple TAMso 2 SINI/SRAP with multiple TAMso 2 overcrowded SINI/SRAP with TAMs

5 overcrowded schools 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%

41www.cfequity.org

g

o 28 overcrowded SINI/SRAPo 43 SINI/SRAP with TAMso 27 overcrowded for 11 yearsyo 19 schools with utilization rates between

125% and 150%o 23 overcrowded with TAMso 12 schools with TAMso 12 schools with TAMs

42www.cfequity.org

Plans for new schools must target Plans for new schools must target urgent overcrowding problems.urgent overcrowding problems.urgent overcrowding problems.urgent overcrowding problems.

43www.cfequity.org

Target new schools to relieve overcrowding in the high priority schoolsthe high priority schools

Re-evaluate the overcrowding conditions city-wide annually and adjust the priorities and goalswide annually and adjust the priorities and goals, if needed

44www.cfequity.org

Capital plan timelinesCapital plan timelinesCapital plan timelines Capital plan timelines should be reshould be re--examined to examined to

preventprevent backloadingbackloading ofofprevent prevent backloadingbackloading of of urgently needed projects.urgently needed projects.

45www.cfequity.org

Aggressively advance the development of new schools particularly in neighborhoods withschools, particularly in neighborhoods with severe and chronic overcrowding, so capacity-building programs are not stalledg p g

Provide annual updates on the siting of new schools and use as a critical component in peliminating overcrowding

Identify issues that may affect siting new schools Identify issues that may affect siting new schools and have potential to delay construction

46www.cfequity.org

Projected declines inProjected declines inProjected declines in Projected declines in enrollment should not be enrollment should not be

relied upon to solverelied upon to solverelied upon to solve relied upon to solve overcrowding.overcrowding.

47www.cfequity.org

Projected declines in enrollment should not be li d t l direlied upon to solve overcrowding

If declines materialize as projected:• Projected declines will only relieve overcrowding in

some parts of the City

• Some districts will still have overcrowding

48www.cfequity.org

The DOE must do a betterThe DOE must do a betterThe DOE must do a better The DOE must do a better job targeting underjob targeting under--utilized utilized

space to combatspace to combatspace to combat space to combat overcrowding.overcrowding.

49www.cfequity.org

Identify school buildings with significant available space or space that will become available because ofspace, or space that will become available, because of school phase-outs

Identify all of the overcrowded school buildings that are 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 buildingsovercrowded school buildings

Develop specific goals and timelines Provide annual updates until overcrowding is eliminated

50www.cfequity.org

Provide annual updates until overcrowding is eliminated

Plans to combat Plans to combat overcrowding must addressovercrowding must addressovercrowding must address overcrowding must address

temporary structures.temporary structures.

51www.cfequity.org

DOE should immediately provide the following: A li t f ll d h th tl b i tili d A list of all and how they are currently being utilized

Progress report on removing TAMs older than 20 years by 2012years by 2012

DOE should use this information to: P i iti th l f TAM t Prioritize the removal of TAMs at:

• All SINI/SRAP schools with TAMS

91 d d h l b ildi ith TAM• 91 overcrowded school buildings with TAMs

• 31 school buildings with multiple TAMs

52www.cfequity.org

The DOE must develop a The DOE must develop a longlong--term strategy toterm strategy tolonglong term strategy to term strategy to

eliminate overcrowding.eliminate overcrowding.

53www.cfequity.org

Develop specific targets with clear priorities Id tif d d Identify needed resources Establish a timeline for meeting targets:

• Solving the overcrowding at the Priority schools identified in thisSolving 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 th bli t d ti t tthe public on progress toward meeting targets

Restore appropriate educational and support spaces to all school buildingsall school buildings

54www.cfequity.org

CFE’s new website is a companion to this report.Visit the site for a copy of this report and to view

the overcrowding situationthe overcrowding situation by borough, by district, by school.

CContact:Helaine Doran, Deputy Director

212-867-8455 x218 [email protected]@cfequity.org

110 William Street, Suite 2602New York, NY 10038

212-867-8455www.cfequity.org

Maxed Out Ppt Final With Boro Maps(2)

Documents

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