A Seat of One’s Own

Class Size Reduction in the Lowest
Performing Schools in New York City

Report prepared by:

The Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc.

November 2007

The Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. (CFE) is a leading non-profit organization working to protect and promote the constitutional right to a sound basic education—defined as a meaningful high school education-- for every public school child in the State of New York.  CFE was founded in 1993 by a coalition of concerned parents and education advocates who filed the landmark case CFE v. State of New York, which established this right.   To make this right a reality, CFE works to ensure that the neediest students in low performing schools make academic progress, graduate high school and become active civic participants who can compete in the global economy.  CFE works to educate and engage the public and policy makers to ensure that the historic school budget increases, accountability reform and meaningful public participation that resulted from the landmark CFE court decision and law reform are fully implemented. 

Geri D. Palast
Executive Director

Board of Directors
Norm Fruchter, Director, Community Involvement Program, Annenberg Institute for School Reform
Robert Hughes, President of New Visions for Public Schools
Heather Lewis, Assistant Professor, History of Education, Pratt Institute
Luis Miranda, CFE Chairperson and President of Mirram Group
Geri D. Palast, CFE Executive Director
Steven Sanders, former chairman of the New York State Assembly's Committee on Education
Rodney Saunders, Member/Parliamentarian, Community Education Council 11
Thomas Frey, former member of New York State Board of Regents and former County Executive of Monroe County

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Helaine Doran, CFE’s Deputy Director, conceived and directed A Seat of One’s Own.

Patricia Zedalis, Deborah Etzel and Samira Ahmed, consultants to CFE,
participated in the preparation of this report.

Liza Biscette-James, CFE’s Office Manager, provided statistical assistance.

Executive Summary

Over a decade after the Campaign for Fiscal Equity litigation began and a year into the new education legislation that resulted from a decisive court victory, students across the City of New York have yet to see the benefit of reduced class size. Today, thousands of our highest-needs students still go to school every day in overcrowded classrooms where teachers face the challenge of meeting the needs of our most vulnerable students under less than optimal conditions.

With the new 2007-2008 Education Budget and Reform Act, the Governor and legislature are determined to change that. New regulations require New York City and 55 other high-needs districts across New York State to submit a Contract for Excellence detailing strategies for improving teaching and learning, including how to reduce class size. The new legislation specifically requires New York City to develop a “class size reduction plan for low performing and overcrowded schools.” These plans must identify the strategies the district will use to reach the smaller class sizes. The New York State Commissioner of Education must review and approve these plans and also establish a panel to set class size targets for all grades.

Because of the complexity and size of the New York City school system, a class size initiative must be phased in. Driven by the new legal imperative that class sizes must first be reduced for the most educationally at-risk students, this report provides policy analysis, strategies and recommendations designed to inform the DOE, the State Commissioner, policymakers and especially the public -- who have a role in the design of the City’s plan -- on how to address the needs of these vulnerable students.

This report examines the class size conditions in New York City’s lowest performing schools -—the 408 Schools in Need of Improvement (SINI) or Schools Requiring Academic Progress (SRAP) identified by the state. This report examines a detailed analysis of class size and enrollment data for each grade in each of these schools, to the extent it was available, and determines how many classes are needed, including pre-Kindergarten, to reduce class size at all grade levels. The targeted class sizes used (Kindergarten through 5th grade at 20; 6th through 8th grade at 23; and 9th through 12th grade at 24) are the state-wide averages (excluding New York City) for the 2000-2001 school year that were cited in the BRICKS proposal (Building Requires Immediate Capital for Kids) contained in CFE’s Facilities Report of April 2004.[1] Further, the report makes recommendations, where possible, on how to meet the needs of each SINI/SRAP school within existing building space and through re-zoning . Finally, the report factors in the impact of the City’s Capital Plan through the creation of new classrooms.

Given the priority in the law of serving the high needs students in low performing schools, CFE recommends that the strategy for class size reduction in New York City prioritize the SINI/SRAP schools, the state designated low performing schools. The analysis and recommendations provide a roadmap for implementing this approach.

Major Findings

The analysis finds that 2,522 classrooms are needed to reduce class size in the 408 SINI/SRAP schools to the BRICKS class size standard.

• 62 SINI/SRAP schools are already at reduced class size.
• 152 SINI/SRAP schools can reduce class size with 537 available classrooms within their buildings.
• 43 SINI/SRAP schools can utilize 152 classrooms in neighboring schools to reduce class size through re-zoning.
• 122 SINI/SRAP schools still need 1,546 classrooms to reduce class size that can not be provided within existing capacity. The impact of the new schools funded in the Capital Plan is to reduce the classrooms needed by 680. There will still be 866 classrooms needed that will not be met by the strategies evaluated in this report.
• 122 SINI/SRAP schools need 157 additional classrooms to expand pre-Kindergarten to a full day program for 4 year olds.
• 2 SINI/SRAP alternative high schools need additional classrooms to reduce class sizes. No strategy was recommended for these 2 schools given the special nature of the alternative high school programs.
• 27 SINI/SRAP schools have no class size data.

Summary of Recommendations

1. Develop a plan for reducing class size in the SINI/SRAP schools
   at all grade levels.
   There is no systematic approach to reducing class size in the City’s public schools. DOE should consider developing a plan that targets SINI/SRAP schools as the highest priority for reducing class size and establishes targeted class sizes for all grade levels. DOE should consider conducting a school-by-school analysis of space availability and expansion possibilities based on student needs, special programs, and support services.
2. Reduce class sizes in SINI/SRAP schools with
   available classrooms.
   Supported by the increased State Operating Aid, the DOE should consider reducing class size in the 152 SINI/SRAP schools with currently available space. Implementation planning to reduce class size within existing space at these schools could begin immediately.
3. Identify available space in community school districts and high schools to create a space sharing plan to reduce class sizes in SINI/SRAP schools that need additional classrooms.
   There are another 43 schools the report identifies that are either overcrowded or have limited available capacity to reduce class size. The analysis in this report suggests a space-sharing plan within the community school district and at the district level for the high schools. CFE acknowledges the difficulties that this approach represents. However, DOE should consider examining and utilizing its existing space inventory to maximize its educational use. A number of strategies will be necessary to implement a comprehensive space sharing plan, including: evaluating space allocation of multiple organizations occupying the same building, evaluating non-school uses, re-zoning, capping enrollments, grade reconfigurations, creation of annexes and creation of programs to re-distribute students.
4. Target capital plan projects to reduce class sizes
   in the SINI/SRAP schools.
   The DOE’s data reporting on the progress on the Capital Plan capacity program shows that 52,260 seats, of the 63,300 planned, are still not completed and are projected to come on line beginning in 2008. This report identifies a need for an estimated additional 1,546 classrooms beyond any opportunities to use existing capacity and also identifies a potential of 680 classrooms in new schools that could benefit the SINI/SRAP schools.
5. Identify the SINI/SRAP schools that need longer-term space strategies.
   This report concludes that there will still be a need for 866 additional classrooms in some community school districts and high schools after all of the strategies recommended in this report are implemented. Most of the additional space needs occur in currently overcrowded districts, such as Districts 6, 10, 24 and the high schools. As DOE initiates the planning process for its next capital plan, it should consider prioritizing the needs of the SINI/SRAP schools.
6. Develop a plan for a full day pre-Kindergarten program
   for 4 year olds in the SINI/SRAP schools.
   The half-day universal pre-kindergarten program already exists in 81 of the 122 SINI/SRAP schools. The DOE should consider developing a plan that establishes projected enrollments in all SINI/SRAP elementary schools, undertake a space analysis to implement this program in the public schools and work with outside providers to assist in the expansion of their facilities to accommodate this program.
7. Issue a semi-annual report on plan goals and benchmarks in
   reducing class sizes in the SINI/SRAP schools.
   A semi-annual report could provide all stakeholders with the plan to reduce class size for the new school year and a follow up report, issued during the school year, could show how well the plan worked in implementing strategies to reduce class size. This follow-up report could be important in identifying what worked, what benchmarks were or were not met, and could also assist in formulating goals for the following school year.

THE CONTEXT

Litigation and Legislation: Rights into Reality

In 1993, the Campaign for Fiscal Equity Inc. (CFE), filed a lawsuit against the State of New York for its failure to provide New York City’s children with their constitutional right to the opportunity for a sound basic education*. During the long years of litigation, CFE echoed what research has proven and what parents and community members across New York have long known: to provide a sound basic education to our children, the state must ensure that students have high-quality teachers in the classroom; that schools be equipped with adequate resources such as textbooks, libraries, and, computers; and that children be taught in schools with small class sizes. In its 2003 decision, the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, strongly agreed and ordered the State to reform its education funding system to provide all children with an opportunity to receive a “meaningful high school education” with a key component being small class sizes especially for children with high-needs who are often attending underperforming, overcrowded schools.

In April 2007, Governor Eliot Spitzer and the New York State Legislature responded to the Court’s decision and passed momentous education legislation, the 2007-2008 Education Budget and Reform Act, that provided a multi-year infusion of new school funding; the creation of a clear cut system of accountability that will focus on implementing key educational strategies; and a fair and simple funding formula, known as Foundation Aid, to distribute school aid to districts based on the needs of students.

In 2007-2008, this legislation provides a down payment and makes a four-year commitment to provide adequate resources for a sound basic education to districts across the state. By the 2010-11 school year, annual statewide school aid will increase by $7 billion, with $3.2 billion for New York City, including $2.35 billion in new Foundation Aid. In 2007-08, that translated into a statewide increase of $1.76 billion in education funding with $712 million of that increase earmarked for New York City, including $469 million in Foundation Aid.

In order to make certain that these new monies are being spent wisely to improve teaching and learning for students with the greatest needs, the legislation establishes a new accountability system. The law requires that this year 56 high-needs districts, including New York City, complete an annual Contract for Excellence (Contract), a plan developed with public input that lays out how each district will spend its new additional Foundation Aid subject to the Contract. The New York State Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) must approve a district’s Contract before the plan can be implemented. Reducing class size for high-needs students is among the five key strategies of the Contract. The first Contracts were submitted in July 2007.

The 56 Contract districts are selected for two reasons. First, at least one school in the district is identified by the state as a school requiring academic progress (SRAP), a school in need of improvement (SINI), a school needing corrective action, or restructuring. Second, each of the Contract districts received an increase in Foundation Aid of $15 million or at least 10%, whichever is less, compared to last year or, as in the case of Yonkers, received a supplemental educational improvement plan grant. For New York City, both the Department of Education (DOE) as well as each New York City Community School District (CSD) must prepare a Contract. In 2007, only the Department of Education prepared a Contract.

Districts are required to explain how new Foundation Aid covered by the Contract will be spent to support new or expanded research-proven programs and activities in five specific areas:

• Reducing class size
• Increasing student time on task
• Improving teacher and principal quality
• Re-structuring middle and high schools
• Establishing full day kindergarten for five year olds or full-day pre-kindergarten for four year olds

The Contract must specify how these choices will be used to benefit student achievement. Further, there are a number of rules that each district must follow when spending the new money. First, new money must “predominately,” or mostly, benefit students with the greatest educational needs including those in poverty, with disabilities, and with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). Second, the new money must expand, not replace existing program funding. Third, districts must show per pupil spending from all funding sources (local, state, and federal). Fourth, districts must report all spending on a school-by-school basis.

With the successful conclusion of the litigation that establishes the constitutional right to a sound basic education and sets statutory minimums for operating and capital aid, and the subsequent enactment of implementing legislation, CFE will now work to ensure that the law is fully implemented. The new law, the product of the fourteen-year effort to gain adequate resources and strong accountability to ensure educational excellence, acknowledges the importance of the public’s role and requires public input, comment, review and enforcement as part of implementation. CFE takes this watchdog responsibility seriously. CFE will provide the policymakers and the public with information, analysis, and reports designed to elucidate policy decisions, and provide these partners with the tools to ensure that the money is spent according to the law. With clarity on the policy choices and the facts on the ground, we can make CFE law into a reality, and, together, provide a meaningful high school education to every public school child that prepares them to effectively participate in the global economy and in civic life.

Classes are Larger in New York City than in the Rest of the State

Throughout New York City, on average, class sizes are much larger than the averages in New York State. According to the September 2007 report by the Independent Budget Office (IBO), “Distribution of Classes and Students, by Class Size, New York City 2005-06 and 2006-07,” the numbers tell the startling story of how our neediest students continue to be underserved[1]. For example, for grades K-3, the targeted State and City class size goal is 20 students per classroom. However, currently, in NYC, only 37% of students in grades K-3 attend school in classrooms with 20 or fewer students. The remaining 63%, an astounding 170,000 students, go to school in classrooms with more than 20 students, leaving the city woefully short of its stated goal. Further, nearly 237,000 New York City students in grades 4-8 or 70% of all enrolled children in those grades, are going to school everyday in classes with 25 students or more. This is in stark contrast to statewide averages for the elementary grades as well as for core subjects in the 8th grade that hover between 22-23 students per class.

Looking specifically at Community School District 6, a historically overcrowded and high-needs district, the IBO data further reveals the salience of casting a bright light on the ongoing need for class size reduction. In CSD 6, we find that 75%, or 6,777 students in grades K-3 are in classrooms with over 20 students and an additional 8,000 students in grades 4-8 are going to schools in classrooms of over 25 students—all of this over a decade after the CFE litigation began.

Examining the class sizes in courses with required Regents exams, continues to paint a picture of the differences between New York City and the rest of the state and gives further evidence to the needs and challenges of class size reduction in New York City. According to data from the State Education Department (SED)[2], students in New York City consistently attend Regents courses with class sizes significantly larger than the rest of the State. At the end of the courses selected below, students take Regents exams that are required for graduation.

While reducing the large class sizes in the early grades has been an initiative funded by the State since 1999, thus far the efforts have been neither systematic nor sufficient. Class sizes for kindergarten through third grade have been lowered according to the IBO analysis of the Department of Education audited enrollment for the 2006-07 school year and data reported in the Mayor’s Management Report. However, even with several years of funding for class size reduction there are thousands of students in these grades in classes larger than the target size of 20. Further, there has been no system-wide efforts or dedicated funding to reduce class size for grades 4-12. The new education funding is a vital opportunity to develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the large class sizes that are prevalent in New York City public schools.

Implementation: Counting Class Size Where It Counts the Most

The legislation directs the Department of Education to prioritize reducing class size in low performing or overcrowded schools and identifies a number of ways for the DOE to accomplish smaller class sizes. First, in existing schools where space is available, the City can add new teachers and form additional classrooms. Second, where there is no space available, new classrooms can be constructed. Third, the Department can also assign more than one teacher to a classroom to reduce student-teacher ratio. CFE sees this last strategy as a temporary measure since the priority should be to create new individual classrooms as proven most effective by research.

Considering the various methods to reduce class size, this report analyzes the class sizes in the 408 SINI/SRAP schools in New York City– the lowest performing schools in the City and thus a priority for class size reduction in the new law. This report determines how many classrooms would be needed in SINI/SRAP schools to achieve class sizes at the Statewide averages identified in CFE’s Facilities Proposal, BRICKS, issued in April 2004 and submitted by CFE to Justice Leland DeGrasse’s court appointed Special Masters[3]. Looking at both capacity and current utilization, the report determines whether schools can reduce class size within existing capacity or whether they need to rezone with neighboring schools that have available capacity. Finally, reviewing the City’s 2005-09 Capital Plan, this report analyzes the extent to which the City’s strategy to create 63,000 new seats in 20 districts and in the high schools will benefit overcrowded SINI/SRAP schools.

The 408 SINI/SRAP schools are a sizable number measured by any school district but in New York City these schools represent approximately 30% of all of the City’s public schools. The multiple strategies that are recommended in this report to reduce class size in these 408 schools – maximizing available capacity, creating space sharing plans through re-zoning and capping enrollments, and prioritizing the use of new schools now being planned and built - will be challenging and difficult to implement. But this is a beginning – the first step in an effort to reduce class size for all of New York City’s one million students. The strategies explored in this report and others that may arise will be needed to create smaller classes in the remaining 1000 public schools.

SINI/SRAP Schools in New York City

According to the federal No Child Left Behind Act, Title 1 designation for a school indicates that it is in a high poverty area and educates students who are at-risk of not meeting educational standards and therefore is eligible for additional funding. The New York State Education Department (SED) identifies Title 1 schools that have not made adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward meeting educational goals for two consecutive years as SINI. A SRAP school is not a Title 1 school, but is designated by the State as requiring progress because it has failed to make AYP. The following summarizes the current list of SINI/SRAP schools by grade level.

Fulfilling the Contract for Excellence: Reducing Class Size in
New York City’s Lowest Peforming Schools

As indicated earlier, to meet the requirements of the new education legislation, the Department of Education created a five-year plan to reduce class size[4]. For the current school year, 2007-08, the City must show progress in reducing average class size for all grades from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade. The Commissioner will then convene an expert panel to set mandatory goals for the city’s class size reduction plan for the next four years.

As required by the legislation, in New York City, class size reduction must be targeted at the neediest students in low performing and overcrowded schools. Schools labeled as SINI/SRAP clearly meet this requirement and thus it is imperative that the new influx of education dollars in New York City first be used to reduce class sizes in these schools. However, thus far, the City’s plan to reduce class size seems to fall short of the basic criteria to serve these very students. CFE believes this report will provide concrete information about where these needs exist and hopes this report will fulfill four valuable aims:

1. to inform the State Education Commissioner’s response to the DOE’s class size reduction plan;
2. to educate and inform the class size panel to be appointed by the State Education Commissioner per the legislation which will set class size reduction target ranges and to inform the panel about the significant capital needs in New York City;
3. to inform the development of the City’s next five year capital plan for the schools; and,
4. to guide policymakers in their decision-making about the use of and additional need for capital funds.

The questions that this report asks are very simple. If there are 408 New York City schools on the SINI/SRAP list, with an enrollment of 436,888 representing approximately 42% of New York City’s public school students, how is the Department of Education meeting their needs? What are class sizes in these schools today? How can the necessity to create smaller class sizes be quantified? What are the options to reduce class size immediately in those schools? If there are not immediate options, what are the long-term opportunities? Ultimately, the goal is to, first, understand what the class size conditions are and, next, to direct class size reduction initiatives to the schools and students most in need with the urgency they deserve.

*In the text of this report words that appear in bold are defined in “Terms to Know”

METHODOLOGY

Overview

An examination of reducing class size in the SINI/SRAP schools required several levels of analysis:

• Class size and enrollment data for each grade in each school are analyzed to determine how many classes exist on grade.
• With this information it is possible to quantify the number of classrooms needed to reduce class size in each grade and for the entire school.
• The space needs of an expanded full day pre-Kindergarten program are folded into the analysis for each elementary school.
• In tandem with the previous analysis the school system’s space inventory provides a picture of where there is available space.
• Because New York City has a large building program, the potential impacts of new space on class size reduction needs are also factored into the analysis.

Data contained in a number of publicly available documents are analyzed:

• The 2006-2007 SINI/SRAP school list issued by New York State Department of Education[1]
• Enrollment for each school as reported in the State school report cards[2]
• Class size data for each grade in a school in the Average Class Size Report, issued by the New York City Department of Education (DOE)[3]
• School capacity and utilization data contained in DOE/School Construction Authority (SCA) Enrollment - Capacity - Utilization Report[4]
• State-wide class size averages in Campaign for Fiscal Equity’s (CFE) BRICKS proposal[5]
• Plan for building new schools in the DOE Capital Plan and two 2007 Proposed Amendments to the Capital Plan[6]
• Status of new school projects in the DOE’s proposed Contract for Excellence.[7]

Data Sources

This report presents a school-based analysis of classrooms needed to reduce class size organized by community school district for elementary, middle schools and by district and borough for high schools. Data on enrollment, capacity and utilization are from the 2005-06 school year. The average class size data used is for the 2006-07 school year, the first year these data were made public. All of the data used in this report is publicly available; CFE has not independently verified any of the data. The following provides an overview of the reports and the data they contain.

2005-06 Enrollment

The starting point is the annual SED report cards for all schools in New York State. The report cards provide enrollment data for the entire school organization including students in the main buildings, leases, mini-schools, annexes, temporary classroom buildings and transportables and in programs like gifted and talented. For this report, CFE used enrollments as reported by grade. Average class size is also included, but this report is not the source of the class size data used.

2006-07 Average Class Sizes

The DOE published an average class size report for the first time for the 2006-2007 school year. The report provides the class size data on 4 levels: Citywide, by Region, by District and by School. School-based average class size data are used for this report. The DOE report provides class size data for each grade level of a school by distinguishing whether it is a general education, gifted and talented and/or collaborative team teaching program. The class size data on grade level for general education classrooms are the basis for the analysis in this report. For high schools the class size data are provided for the core subjects in each grade – English, mathematics, social studies and science for general education or special class programs. The general education program average class sizes are used. The class size information used is based on the preliminary register for October 31, 2006. The final report using the audited register is now available.

School System Space Inventory

Information on the school system’s space inventory is published in the DOE/SCA Enrollment - Capacity - Utilization Report (Utilization Report) for the 2005-2006 school year. This annual report provides the following information for each school building and school organization[8]: enrollment, capacity, the number of seats over or under the maximum capacity and the utilization rate.

• Enrollment data is derived from the audited register.
• Capacity. The capacity of a school is calculated based on system-wide room standards and data provided by the principals of each school in an annual survey document. In the survey the school reports on the use of each classroom. The report provides both a historical and target capacity[9]. The present report on class size utilizes the target capacity.
• Utilization Rate. This is a comparison of the enrollment to the capacity for each school. If there are more students enrolled than the current capacity, the utilization rate will be above 100%. If fewer students are enrolled than the listed capacity, the utilization rate will be below 100%.

Changing class size modifies the capacity of a school. Reducing class size reduces the capacity of a school and its utilization rate will increase. Increasing class size has the opposite effect.

The Utilization Report provides a district-wide utilization summary for all spaces used for educational purposes in the district as well as a separate summary for the elementary level district-wide and one for the middle schools. The Report provides region-wide summaries at the high school level. The summary includes all spaces occupied by schools and information on the over-all capacity of all educational spaces.

The core unit of the public school system is the DOE school building. However, in a system as vast and as complex as New York City’s, schools also occupy leased spaces, generally, privately owned spaces that DOE leases or licenses for a set period of time. Leases can include stand-alone buildings, a portion of an office or former industrial building or available classrooms of another institution. Because of overcrowding over the years, there are mini-schools, temporary classroom buildings and transportables or trailers, generally located in school yards. There are also annexes to schools which can be located in another school’s building, a lease or mini-school or other temporary space. All of these are included in the district-wide summaries.

In providing summaries, DOE and SCA are aggregating seats for all educational spaces. In some districts, there may be a significant number of seats available in a particular building. However, the count of available seats can be misleading as seats are generally spread out over multiple classrooms. The analysis in this report focuses primarily on available capacity in individual schools and the analysis discounted space available in an individual school by 10% and did not round up fractions to make adjustments for the dispersal of seats throughout a school.

Where there are few space solutions for the SINI/SRAP schools, the analysis examines district-wide available capacity. In most of these districts cited, available capacity district-wide looks promising although there is often significant available space concentrated in only a few schools. As a result, the suggested space solutions focuses only on the schools with a significant amount of available space.

The Utilization Report has been criticized for over-stating a school’s capacity. Judge Leland DeGrasse declared in his decision in CFE v. The State of New York -- “Overcrowding is even worse than indicated above because the ECU[10] 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 into classroom space, the capacity formula indicates increased capacity.”[11] CFE did not modify the capacity data contained in the Utilization Report as there is no published data base to identify non-classroom spaces being used for classrooms.

Targeted Class Sizes

The targeted class sizes used are the state-wide averages for the 2000-2001 school year as shown in SED’s two-part annual report, commonly referred to as the Chapter 655 Report from July 2003[12] and cited in CFE’s Facilities Report of April 2004.[13] The statewide averages used do not include New York City’s class sizes. In its Facilities Report, CFE developed a plan for New York City schools to determine what physical resources are needed to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education; CFE called it the BRICKS (Building Requires Immediate Capital For Kids) Construction Fund. The BRICKS proposal responded specifically to the Court of Appeals decision regarding school buildings’ issues and was submitted to the Special Masters panel appointed by the State Supreme Court. The judicial panel endorsed the BRICKS proposal[14].

The BRICKS proposal of $9.2 billion is different from the DOE’s current $13 billion, 5-year Capital Plan. There is considerable overlap but BRICKS’ goal is to respond to the Court of Appeals decision only. For example, BRICKS does include the 63,000 new seats[15] that the DOE proposes to build in its Capital Plan but BRICKS adds thousands of additional new seats to reduce class size at all grade levels. The DOE Capital Plan includes a building plan for a class size reduction initiative in kindergarten through third grades only. BRICKS includes a few other components of the capital plan, such as the science lab program in the high schools and some work on the existing buildings. In addition to its class size reduction program for all grades, BRICKS also goes beyond the capital plan by developing system-wide approaches to specialized spaces, including a science lab program in the middle schools, and library and auditorium programs.

An important finding of the Court of Appeals was the impact of class size on educational outputs – “Some facts that the trial court classified as purely ‘physical’ facilities are inseparable from overcrowding and excessive class size – conditions whose measurable effect on students plaintiffs have shown. One symptom of an overcrowded school system is the encroachment of ordinary classroom activities into what would otherwise be specialized space: libraries, laboratories, auditoriums and the like. There was considerable evidence of a shortage of such spaces[16].”

In the BRICKS proposal CFE quantified the additional resources, which would be needed to reduce class size at all grade levels in New York City to the then statewide averages. The present report examines the impact of reducing class size to the statewide averages cited in the BRICKS’ proposal. The following chart shows the class sizes used in the BRICKS proposal compared with the standard class sizes found in the DOE/SCA Utilization Report:

Because 80% of the schools examined in this report are Title 1 SINI schools, the analysis in this report uses the Title 1 class sizes. The non-Title 1 class sizes are larger (see chart), so using the Title 1 class sizes in the analysis will result in available capacity as slightly larger than is appropriate for 20% of the schools.[17]

The DOE Capital Plan FY2005-2009, the Proposed February 2007 and November 2007 Amendments to the Capital Plan

The DOE Capital Plan and the Proposed Amendments provided information on the new classroom space that is underway or planned to be built. The Capital Plan and its 2007 Amendments articulate the City’s strategy to build 63,000 new seats in 20 community school districts across the City as well as high schools in all boroughs except Manhattan. With these new seats, the DOE’s stated goal is to eliminate existing overcrowding, accommodate projected enrollment growth, reduce class size to 20 in grades K through 3, and remove some temporary spaces.

The Capital Plan is the school system’s statement of major physical improvements needed and expected to be accomplished over a five-year period. The Plan funded at $13 billion identifies all projects to be funded. In addition to new schools, the Plan encompasses a wide scope of other projects: upgrading infrastructure at existing buildings, such as new roofs, windows, electrical systems; supporting educational initiatives; and improving accessibility pursuant to the American with Disabilities Act, among many other projects.

The 2007-2008 DOE Draft Contract for Excellence

As part of the DOE’s Draft Contract for Excellence submitted to the state, the DOE is required to develop a class size reduction plan. Included in this plan is a chart[18] with an update on the new capacity program funded by the DOE Capital Plan. The chart contains a timetable for identifying sites for new schools and the costs of the program. Also included are existing and projected utilization and enrollment data. For elementary and middle schools, information is organized by community school district; for the high schools, information is provided on a borough basis. This chart is used in conjunction with the Capital Plan and its 2007 Amendments to determine the status of the new capacity projects.

Expanded Pre-Kindergarten Initiative

Also incorporated into the analysis is the proposed expansion of the pre-Kindergarten (pre-K) program to full day for 4 year olds. The assumption made is that the potential enrollment for a full day program is equivalent to the current kindergarten enrollment. The kindergarten enrollment is derived from the State school report cards.

Approach to Analysis and Calculations

How the schools are chosen

As documented in both the CFE litigation and subsequent education legislation, smaller class sizes are recognized as an important tool to improving educational performance. Given the size of the New York City school system and its space constraints, a phase-in to reduce class size is necessary. The most realistic approach for this analysis is to look at a sub-set of schools with a focus on the vulnerable students who are most in need of early intervention. The SINI/SRAP schools meet these fundamental criteria. The 408 SINI/SRAP schools are on the 2006-07 list issued by SED[19].

There are 27 schools on the SINI/SRAP list that do not have published average class size data[20]. They are included in the analysis to a limited extent. Their enrollment and capacity information is included where that is available and the analysis identifies the classroom availability in these 27 schools.

Calculating the classrooms needed to reduce
class size to targeted levels

Each school’s enrollment[21] by grade and class size is analyzed to determine the number of classrooms currently occupied by each grade. The grade enrollments from the state’s school report card are divided by the average class size by grade from the DOE’s Average Class Size Report to calculate the number of classrooms currently occupied in a school. The number of classrooms needed to reduce class size to the targeted levels is then calculated. The difference between them is the number of additional classrooms needed.

Classrooms needed to expand the Pre-Kindergarten program

Many schools currently have a pre-K program, and, in most schools, it is a half-day program. The pre-K enrollment for 2005-06 is analyzed and, assuming a class size of 18, a calculation is made for the number of classrooms currently occupied[22]. Even though the existing pre-K program is a half-day program, it is assumed that the current pre-K students did not share classrooms, i.e., one class in the morning and another in the afternoon in the same classroom. The assumption this report made is that the enrollment for a full day pre-K program will be equal to the current Kindergarten enrollment.

The calculation of classrooms needed for Kindergarten enrollment is compared with the number of classrooms already occupied in the school by pre-K students. The difference is the additional classrooms needed for an expanded full day pre-K program for 4 year olds. This number is added to the over-all school need for additional classrooms.

The total classrooms needed at a school include the classrooms needed for an expanded pre-Kindergarten program. The only exception to this is in schools that have already reduced class size but need additional classrooms for pre-K; these schools are identified in the analysis.

The current State-funded half-day program mandates that at least 10% of the students be placed in not for profit and community based settings. In fact, in some neighborhoods, the community-based organizations (CBOs) enroll many more than 10% of the students. According to day care advocates working in New York City, the split between the CBOs and the public schools is approximately 60%/40%. This report analyzes the need for classrooms for 40% of the potential pre-K students. However, the resulting enrollment in the calculations is greater than 40% because of two assumptions:

1. If the existing pre-kindergarten enrollment is larger than the Kindergarten enrollment, there is no reduction made for the expanded pre-K program.
2. Class size for pre-K is 18; the enrollment numbers are adjusted to have full classrooms to the greatest extent possible.

This report did not analyze the impact of a full day program on outside providers serving the balance of the potential students, but it will be significant with a profound effect on the ability to implement this initiative.

Analyzing existing school capacity

The enrollment data in the Utilization Report is compared with the data from the school report cards to ensure that all students are accounted for, as a number of overcrowded schools use classrooms in more than one location.

The number of classrooms needed to reduce class size for each school is then analyzed using the over-all available capacity in the school. If the school’s utilization rate is above 100%, there is no space available to reduce class size. If the utilization rate is below 100%, the number of available seats is adjusted downward by 10% to reflect how schools are occupied. For example, there will be classes smaller than the standard room capacities and, as a result, extra seats are available over a number of classrooms. Also, as noted, 20% of the schools are non-Title 1 schools with larger class sizes; the 10% downward adjustment also helps to equalize the Title 1 vs. non-Title 1 differences.

The seats available in a school are converted to classrooms using the standard class sizes for Title 1 schools in the Utilization Report. It is assumed that each school had an equal number of sections for each grade in developing a standard class size for the entire school to calculate the available classrooms.

In a further attempt to provide as accurate an analysis as possible, any fractions in the calculation to determine available classrooms are eliminated and there is no rounding up. All available capacity that a school has is included in the analysis, including school buildings, leases, mini-schools, annexes, temporary classroom buildings and transportables.

The number of available classrooms is compared with the classrooms needed to determine if the school already has sufficient space or if other space solutions would be needed. This analysis is organized by community school district for the elementary and middle schools and by district and borough for the high schools.

Analyzing external space options

An examination of available capacity in neighboring schools is made for each school in need of space. Using the Utilization Report and maps showing the location of schools for each community school district and borough maps for the high schools, an analysis of where available space in the district exists and how accessible it is to the SINI/SRAP school in need of additional classrooms is performed.

At the elementary and middle school levels, available space is identified on an individual school basis; the priority is to focus on neighboring schools with available capacity within the district. The assumption is made that all high school students would remain within the district where their current high school is located. The high school analysis is, therefore, done on a district-wide basis; the goal is to identify nearby space sharing options although this is not as important as at the primary school level.

While this report assumes that reducing class size would be phased in and the class size needs of the SINI/SRAP schools prioritized, the class sizes of any school not on the SINI/SRAP list where a space sharing plan is under consideration are also evaluated. The premise is that the needs of all of the schools have to be calculated before determining if a particular space-sharing plan is feasible.

Zoning issues are not explored in the analysis. One of this report’s goals is to examine all potential space solutions and explore their initial feasibility. Another reason that space sharing is seriously examined is the high cost of building new schools. However, CFE recognizes the difficulties in re-zoning that may be required as a result of its analysis in this report. Most of the space sharing recommendations will depend on the development of new zoning plans and capping of enrollment at schools, which may not be feasible in all cases.

Analyzing new space under the Capital Plan

Twenty school districts and high schools in Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island are included in the DOE Capital Plan for new capacity. In this report, the analysis of the capacity program focuses on 15 districts, most with over-all utilization rates of 90% or higher. For the high schools, where there is significant overcrowding, the analysis examines all new high school projects.

A number of the new schools have already been built and others have been sited and are in the planning process. For these projects there is an evaluation of whether the projects already built and sited have had or could have a positive impact on reducing class size in the SINI/SRAP schools, particularly, the overcrowded schools. In most cases, the completed schools are not included in the analysis.

The analysis focused on the projects that are not yet complete, regardless of whether they are sited or not. For those new schools with identified locations, an evaluation is made as to whether the new school could help the SINI/SRAP schools; location is a key factor in this analysis. For the unsited schools, the evaluation focuses on the grade level and the potential number of classrooms.

The Capital Plan contains the number of new schools or school additions, the over-all grade level and the number of seats for each community school district and high schools on a borough basis that are allocated new capacity. Using this information, CFE calculated an estimated number of classrooms in each new school project based on the standard class sizes in the Utilization Report and the Instructional Footprint issued by the DOE[23]. The Instructional Footprint issued by the DOE is a guide to how space is allocated and programmed in school buildings of varying grade levels. There is no published program for new schools; the number of classrooms in this report is an estimation and in reality may vary from the numbers used in this report.

The next level of analysis is to determine the potential benefit of a new school to reduce class sizes in SINI/SRAP schools. In some districts, the analysis concludes that several unsited new schools should be built at grade levels specifically targeted to reduce class sizes in the SINI/SRAP schools. New school projects are examined to determine if they could benefit individual SINI/SRAP schools and to what extent. This report provides a school-based analysis of the potential impacts of building new schools. A district-based summary for the elementary and middle schools and a borough-wide summary for the high schools identify the total number of classrooms needed, the classrooms that could be allocated in the new schools to the SINI/SRAP schools and the remaining classrooms still needed.

Zoning Issues: In our analysis, we identified 43 schools that the DOE should consider utilizing 152 classrooms in neighboring schools to reduce class size through rezoning. CFE suggests this as a strategy but acknowledges the difficulties in implementing such a policy.

In 1994, the then Board of Education hired consultants to develop a plan to redraw community school district lines to facilitate better usage of school buildings and a more streamlined and equitable district level management system. The Board held hearings in all five boroughs. Thousands of parents attended each hearing and loudly voiced their overwhelming rejection of the proposed plans. The plan was quietly thrown out.

In certain community school districts throughout the city, community school boards – acting upon recommendations from their superintendents – held hearings to rezone schools to cap overcrowding or implement new policy initiatives like removing 6th grade classrooms from elementary schools. Community school board members were subject to intense pressures in making their decisions to implement the rezoning.

That said – it is a fact that the city does have underutilized school buildings in pockets of the districts and the city. And with the recent $11.2 billion commitment by the state legislature in April 2006 to fund the city’s five year school capital plan – the city will be hard pressed in simply offering the building of new schools as the only way to reduce class size.

CFE presented a study as evidence in the trial authored by the Public Advocate’s office that documented the usage of space in 43 elementary schools. The study was exploring the difficulties elementary schools would have in implementing the new state initiative to reduce class size in the early grades. The study documented the cannibalizing of cluster rooms, the usage of less than appropriate spaces for learning, the logistical nightmares associated with organizing lunch periods in an overcrowded school to the shipping of kindergarteners to other less crowded schools in another part of the district.

CFE is not recommending that we simply dump one school’s students into another school’s unoccupied space. Instead, we are urging the thoughtful development of multiple plans that begin to orderly redefine school boundaries in order to cap school sizes and achieve lower class sizes. From 1996 to 2002, the Board of Education rezoned significant amounts of schools in very overcrowded districts like 6, 21, 22, 27 and 29 to achieve a better balance in school enrollments.

FINDINGS

Overview

Summary of Class Size Reduction Needs in
SINI/SRAP Schools across New York City

The analysis found that reducing class size in the 408 SINI/SRAP schools requires a total of 2,522 additional classrooms across New York City. If multiple strategies are employed, smaller class sizes are achievable in many of the SINI/SRAP schools within current, reorganized and planned capacity. If the current capital plan is fully implemented, the remaining classroom need is for 866 new classrooms.[1]

1. Schools where reduced class size targets have been achieved
   Sixty-two schools have already reached smaller class size[2]. These schools in 20 districts and at the high school level in all boroughs except for Staten Island include 26 elementary schools, 14 middle schools and 22 high schools.
2. Schools where reduced class size targets can be achieved
   with existing capacity
   Another 152 schools can reduce class size with existing capacity[3]. The analysis found that each of these schools have sufficient capacity to add classes to reduce class size. The 152 schools located in all districts and boroughs except for District 26 and alternative high schools include 58 elementary schools, 75 middle schools and 19 high schools.
3. Schools where reduced class size targets can be achieved with
   space-sharing plans with other neighboring schools
   Forty-three schools do not have sufficient capacity to reduce class size but could achieve smaller class size if there is a space-sharing plan with other neighboring schools.[4] At the elementary and middle school levels, the space sharing plan sought out the closest school with additional capacity. At the high school level, the few opportunities identified for sharing space are within the same district. In some overcrowded districts, finding space for some SINI/SRAP schools requires shared space as well as new classrooms. The 43 schools represent 15 elementary schools, 18 middle schools and 10 high schools.
4. Class size needs of an expanded Pre-Kindergarten program to
   provide full day to 4 year olds
   One hundred twenty two elementary schools need 157 additional classrooms to expand pre-Kindergarten[5]. Note that there are already
   164 classrooms in these schools that are currently being used
   for pre-Kindergarten.
5. Alternative High Schools
   Two alternative high schools need additional classrooms to reduce class sizes. No strategy is recommended for these 2 schools given the special nature of the alternative high school programs.
6. New classrooms needed
   There are 122 schools, primarily those that are overcrowded or close to capacity, whose need for an additional 1,546 classrooms can only be met with the addition of new classrooms.[6] The elementary and middle schools in the community school districts need a total of 668 classrooms and another 878 classrooms are needed for the high schools. These schools are in 15 districts; DOE is planning to build new schools in 14 of these districts. At the high school level new classrooms are needed in all 5 boroughs. Manhattan is the only borough where there is no new high school seats planned except for replacement schools. The 122 schools represent 35 elementary schools, 38 middle schools and 49 high schools.
7. Impact of Capital Plan
   After an evaluation of the new schools proposed in the Capital Plan to determine how well the new schools can meet the needs of the SINI/SRAP schools, there are 4 districts (Districts 2 in Manhattan, 19 and 20 in Brooklyn and 30 in Queens) where the capital plan projects can meet the need for additional classrooms.
8. Remaining Need
   There still remains a need for 866 classrooms beyond any potential benefit of new schools in the following areas: District 6 in Manhattan, Districts 9,10,11 and 12 in the Bronx, District 22 in Brooklyn, Districts 24, 26, 27 and 29 in Queens, District 31 in Staten Island and at the high school level in all 5 boroughs. These classrooms are distributed as follows: 309 classrooms in the elementary and middle schools in the above 11 districts and 557 classrooms at the high school level.
9. No class size data available
   There are another 27 schools that have no class size data or in the case of one school incomplete data[7]. These 27 schools are mostly at the high school level; there are 18 high schools on this list and 9 middle schools.

Organizing Principles for the Findings and Analysis: Community School Districts and High Schools by Borough

Both the Findings and Analysis sections of this report are organized by community school districts, and for the high schools at the borough level. The findings are organized this way for several reasons. First, the districts are the legal underpinning of the New York City school system, and a key organizer for information about the schools. Second, the Contracts for Excellence require both a City-wide contract and plan as well as contracts and plans for every community school district. Third, using the geographic organizing principle of the districts and high schools by borough assists in developing ways to think about policy options for sharing space and siting new schools. As a result, the report organizes the findings and analysis into the following 4 categories:

1. Districts with reduced class size or sufficient existing space for schools to meet reduced class size goals
   These are districts where there is generally extra capacity in many schools in the district. Most of the districts have over-all utilization rates below 80%. The SINI/SRAP schools in the 2 districts that have higher district-wide utilization rates are exceptions to the general norm in these districts.
2. Districts with the capacity to create a shared-space plan to meet class size needs
   Most of these districts also have available capacity in a number of schools in the district; however, each district in this category has a few schools that do not have enough additional capacity to reduce class size. As a result, the analysis indicates that a plan can be developed to provide the additional classrooms needed in another school within the district. However, in each of these districts most SINI/SRAP schools are already at reduced class size or have sufficient available capacity to reduce class size.
3. Districts with utilization rates near or above capacity that require additional space to reduce class size
   A number of districts have experienced overcrowding since the 1990’s. All of these districts are in this category. Within these districts there are SINI/SRAP schools that are already at reduced class size or have available capacity within the schools to reduce class size; however, there are fewer of these schools than in other districts. There are also a number of schools that need to share space with other schools. But the distinguishing characteristic of the districts in this category is that existing capacity is not sufficient to reduce class size. As a result, there are 2 districts that are not overcrowded that are included because of the geographic constraints of 2 SINI/SRAP schools. Additional capacity must be provided to each of these districts if SINI/SRAP schools are going to achieve smaller class sizes; the most likely vehicle to provide new capacity is through new schools primarily funded through the DOE Capital Plan.
4. High schools organized by borough
   The DOE has historically organized the high schools by borough. The Capital Plan, for example, identifies the new high schools by borough. This report maintains that organizing principle although the analysis is done on a district basis within each borough.

Within each of these four categories, this report presents a school-by-school analysis organized by district for all grade levels.[8]. This study examines both existing enrollment and average class sizes. The number of additional classes that would be needed to reduce class size is calculated for each grade. Also included is an analysis of how many classrooms are needed to expand pre-Kindergarten to a full day program for 4 year olds. The building capacity of each school is then examined: is there space and, if so, how many classrooms are available?[9] For SINI/SRAP schools whose lack of space prevents them from reaching smaller class sizes, other schools in the district are examined for additional classrooms that could be shared. For districts and high schools that require additional capacity outside of existing capacity to reduce class size, this report includes an evaluation of the potential impact of the new school construction program on achieving class size goals in the SINI/SRAP schools.

In the community school districts, middle schools make up more than half of the schools on the SINI/SRAP list. Currently, many elementary schools are benefiting from class size reduction efforts in kindergarten through 3rd grade; however, the goal to reduce class size to 20 in these grades citywide is far from being fully realized. Further, there has been no systemic approach implemented at the middle school level to similarly reduce class size although many middle school buildings have available capacity. There are 155 middle schools versus 141 elementary schools on the SINI/SRAP list; with the middle schools representing approximately 38% of the total number of schools designated as SINI/SRAP. Two districts -- 29 and 31 -- have all of their middle schools on the list. With new funding targeted for class size reduction, middle schools should receive much-needed attention.

As with the middle schools, there has been no citywide approach to reduce class size in the high schools. The serious overcrowding that exists in the City’s high schools complicates any class size initiative. Of the 115 high schools on the SINI/SRAP list, 62 have utilization rates above 100% while another 9 schools are between 90% and 100%.

Additional Factors

Universal Pre-Kindergarten

Authorized by the legislature in 1997, universal pre-Kindergarten currently provides a half-day program for 4 year olds. Expanding this program to full day in the SINI/SRAP schools requires a total of 321 classrooms, assuming a projected enrollment of 5,859 4 year olds in the SINI/SRAP schools based on the 2005-2006 kindergarten enrollments. This represents an expansion of 157 additional classrooms over the existing 164 classrooms dedicated to pre-K in these schools. This enrollment represents approximately 48% of the anticipated pre-Kindergarten students in an expanded program. The assumption is that the balance of pre-K students will enroll in a full day program with not for profit and other day care providers, as is currently the practice.

SINI/SRAP Schools Missing Class Size Data

There are 27 SINI/SRAP schools that have insufficient or no class size data. Many of these schools have available capacity and it is likely that most of these schools can meet class size goals. However, there are 10 schools on this list that are overcrowded and it is probable that additional classrooms will be needed to achieve the targeted class sizes. For example, JHS143 in District 10 in the Bronx is overcrowded but there is no class size data; it could potentially need additional space. Herbert H. Lehman High School is overcrowded; there is class size data but no grade enrollment information available. Based on the class sizes and the overcrowding, this school will need additional classrooms but no estimates could be calculated. The analysis in this report did not make any calculations on the class size needs of these 27 schools.

Impact of the Capital Plan on Class Size Goals

The findings of this analysis are juxtaposed, where possible, with the details of the New York City Department of Education’s Five Year Capital Plan. This plan lays out the City’s strategy to create 63,000 new seats in 20 districts across the City as well as high schools in all boroughs except Manhattan.

If all 63,000 new seats are built within the next few years, class sizes will not be universally reduced to the target levels used in this analysis throughout New York City’s public schools except in the early grades. This report analyzes the ability of the Capital Plan’s proposed new capacity to reduce class sizes further than the early grades in the SINI/SRAP schools.

Based on the proposed February 2007 Amendment to the Capital Plan, the November 2007 Proposed Amendment to the Capital Plan and information in the DOE Class Size Reduction Plan,[10] a district-by-district analysis of the Capital Plan’s capacity program is undertaken. This analysis finds that it is unlikely that most of the completed projects would benefit SINI/SRAP schools unless they are in close proximity to a SINI/SRAP school and there is available capacity in the new school. The focus of this analysis is on projects that have not yet been completed.

With these proposed new schools, there are a number of opportunities to use new schools to realize class size goals in the community school districts and in the high schools where SINI/SRAP schools that need additional capacity are located. The proposed new schools, if planned strategically, can provide needed classrooms to meet class size goals in many of these schools.

An examination of the progress already made on completing the new schools in the Capital Plan shows that between September 2004 and September 2006, a total of 7,389 new seats are completed. Another 3,656 seats are projected to be complete this September, for a total of 11,045 new seats. The Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens High Schools benefited most with 6,726 seats. The new capacity program is back loaded in the Capital Plan with only 18% of the new seats scheduled for completion by September 2007. The remaining 52,260 new seats are projected for completion between September 2008 and 2011. Adhering to the published schedules and setting priorities on where new schools are to be sited becomes crucial to the SINI/SRAP schools that have no other options for additional capacity.

If the SINI/SRAP schools’ needs are prioritized in the Capital Plan and the new schools are built as proposed in the Capital Plan, there will be sufficient classrooms for schools in 4 districts to meet class size goals. In the remaining districts and in the high schools new schools can partially meet the needs outlined in this report.

If the remaining 52,260 new seats in the Capital Plan that have not been completed are delayed or are not built, smaller class size goals in many of the 122 SINI/SRAP schools throughout the City that need additional classrooms will not be met. Not only do these schools need to be prioritized, but DOE has to meet the commitments it has made in the Capital Plan.

Category 1: Districts with reduced class size or sufficient existing space for schools to meet reduced class size goals

There are 9 community school districts--1, 4, 13, 16, 17, 18, 23, 25 and 28 --with a total of 49 schools on the SINI/SRAP list. Thirteen of these schools are already at targeted class sizes and there is no class size data for 2 of the 49 schools. The remaining 34 schools have no need for additional space; each of these schools can reach targeted class sizes within their existing capacity. These 49 schools represent 12% of the SINI/SRAP schools.

Category 2: Districts with the capacity to create a shared-space
plan to meet class size needs

There are 8 community school districts where there is sufficient space in the district’s school buildings to develop a plan to share space to allow the SINI/SRAP schools to reduce class size[11]. These districts are 3, 5, 7, 8, 14, 15, 21 and 32, with a total of 71 schools representing 17% of the SINI/SRAP schools. Of these 71 schools, 15 are already at targeted class size, 40 have available capacity to reach class size goals and 14 schools will need to share available space within the district. Two schools have no class size data.

This analysis examined how existing space could be used to meet the class size goals in the targeted schools. In some districts, particularly, at the elementary school level, it is not possible to realistically use all existing space because of distance between schools and other geographic factors. Even with a careful approach to sharing space, many of the suggestions this report makes for space sharing will pose significant re-zoning challenges for schools, districts, and parents. Capping of enrollments and re-drawing zone lines will be required.

The analysis also looks at what the class size needs of all schools where space sharing is suggested. As part of the evaluation of a school with extra classrooms, its class sizes are examined. If the school’s class sizes are larger than the BRICKS standards, the additional classrooms needed to get to these standards are calculated and subtracted from the school’s available capacity before a space sharing plan is developed.

It is important to include this strategy in the analysis to underscore the need to use existing classroom space as efficiently as possible before resorting to the expensive option of building new schools. In the districts where the construction of new schools is scheduled, DOE should prioritize rezoning plans that support reducing class sizes in the neighboring SINI/SRAP schools. In these districts, space-sharing plans may be able to be developed in tandem with the re-zoning for new schools.

Category 3: Districts with utilization rates near or above capacity that require additional space to reduce class size

The remaining 15 districts: 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 22 24, 26, 27, 29, 30 and 31, need additional capacity to meet class size reduction goals in the SINI/SRAP schools. Districts 10, 20 and 24 are overcrowded and have over-all utilization rates above 100%[12]. Ten districts – 2, 6, 9, 11, 22, 26, 27, 29, 30 and 31 – have over-all utilization rates between 90% and 100% and three of those districts – 6, 11, and 27, have over-all utilization rates at or above 100% in their elementary schools. Districts 12 and 19 are not overcrowded districts but there is spot overcrowding in both districts. As a result of this limited overcrowding and the schools’ geographic locations, the only feasible option is to consider building additional classrooms.

There are 173 SINI/SRAP schools in these districts, representing almost 42% of the total; 55 of the SINI/SRAP schools in these districts are overcrowded.

Of the 173 schools in these 15 districts, there is no class size data for 5 schools; 16 have already met the targeted class sizes; 60 have available capacity to meet the goals and 19 schools can be accommodated with available capacity elsewhere in the district.

Additional capacity is needed to meet class size goals in 73 schools[13]. New schools in two districts – 6 and 26 – with a need for 91 additional classrooms in 9 schools, are not likely to have an impact on reducing class size in any of these schools because of grade level configuration in District 26 and completion dates in District 6. New schools in four districts – 2, 19, 20 and 30 –have the potential to provide the 71 classrooms needed to reduce class sizes at 7 schools in these four districts. The new schools in the remaining six districts have the potential of providing a portion of the new capacity that their SINI/SRAP schools will need. The total potential benefit of the new schools is to add 359 classrooms to the SINI/SRAP schools. There will still be an unmet need of 309 classrooms[14].

Category 4: High Schools organized by borough

High school buildings in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island need additional capacity to reduce class size in the SINI/SRAP high schools. These 5 boroughs have 107 high schools on the SINI/SRAP list, representing 26% of the total. The overcrowding in the SINI/SRAP high schools, including the 8 alternative high schools, is severe; 71 high schools out of a total of 115 high schools or 62% are at utilization rates of 90% or above.

In the 5 boroughs there are only 17 high schools at targeted class sizes; 17 have available capacity to reach the targets; 10 schools can share space with nearby high schools and there is no class size data for 14 schools. A total of 49 schools can reach reduced class size only through proposed new schools.

An analysis of the capital plan[15] found that 321 classrooms could benefit the SINI/SRAP high schools reducing the need from 878 classrooms to 557[16]. The high schools in every borough need additional capacity beyond the new schools identified in the Capital Plan.

The analysis for the high schools is organized on a district basis. While many high school students travel to high schools outside of their neighborhoods, students still have the option of attending high school in their home district. The district-based analysis is applied both to the evaluation of available capacity and the planned new schools. There may be more opportunities for space if the high school analysis is done on a borough wide basis but this report questions how feasible it would be to enact a zoning policy on a borough basis.

There are 8 alternative high schools (District 79) on the SINI/SRAP list; 5 of them are overcrowded. There is no class size data for 4 of these schools. Two schools are at the targeted class sizes and two, Edward Reynolds HS and Bronx Regional HS, need a total of 4 classrooms beyond the capacity in these schools. There is no 9th grade data for either of these schools so the classroom need may be undercounted. Because of the special nature of these programs, no capacity solutions have been identified.

ANALYSIS

Overview

For the following analysis that details the Findings, the 408 SINI/SRAP schools are discussed by borough and district within the 4 categories established in the Findings:

1. Districts with reduced class size or sufficient existing space for schools to meet reduced class size goals
2. Districts with the capacity to create a shared-space plan to meet class size needs
3. Districts with utilization rates near or above capacity that require additional space to reduce class size
4. High schools organized by borough

In all cases, where the text discusses schools that have or are at “reduced class size,” this indicates that the
school is at or near CFE’s BRICKS class-size reduction targets.

Total classrooms needed at an elementary school include
classrooms required to expand the pre-Kindergarten program.

Abbreviations for the school type are as follows[1]:

• PS: Elementary Schools (grades K-5)
• IS: Intermediate Schools (grades 6-8)
• JHS: Junior High Schools (grades 6-8)
• MS: Middle School (grades 6-8)
• MS/HS: Middle School/High School (grades 6-12)
• HS: High Schools (grades 9-12)
• ECC: Early Childhood Center (grades pre-K or K -2)
  

Category 1: Districts with reduced class size or sufficient existing space for schools to meet reduced class size goals

MANHATTAN

District 1

Elementary and Middle Schools
There are 2 elementary schools and one middle school on the SINI/SRAP list.

• PS15 has reduced class size and needs no additional classrooms.
• PS20 at 98% utilization needs one additional classroom. There are non-academic uses in the PS20 building including food service, district, and a multi-program use. Additional classroom(s) should be made available for PS20.
• JHS56 has a small enrollment with excess capacity and can easily accommodate its need for any additional classrooms. However, no class size data is available for JHS56.

Middle Schools/High Schools in District 1 Buildings

• East Side Community High School has reduced class size and needs no additional classrooms.
• Marte Valle Secondary School has sufficient existing capacity to reduce class size.

District 4

Elementary and Middle Schools
There are 3 elementary schools and 3 middle schools on the list.

• Three elementary schools, PS50, PS102 and PS155 have reduced class size but need additional classrooms to expand pre-Kindergarten. All 3 schools have available capacity to expand pre-K.
• Three middle schools, JHS13, JHS45 and Tito Puente Educational Complex, have available capacity to reduce class size.

High Schools in District 4 Buildings

• Central Park East Secondary School in IS13 is already
  at reduced class size.
• Urban Peace Academy in IS45 has sufficient capacity to add classes.

BROOKLYN

District 13

Elementary and Middle Schools
There is one elementary school and 4 middle schools on the SINI/SRAP list.

• PS67 and JHS265 have reduced class size and need
  no additional classrooms.
• JHS113, JHS117 and JHS258 have sufficient space to meet their needs for additional classrooms.

District 16

Elementary and Middle Schools
There are 4 elementary schools and 3 middle schools on the SINI/SRAP list.

• PS25 has reduced class size and needs no additional classrooms.
• PS35, PS81 and PS262 can add classrooms to reduce class size with existing capacity.
• JHS57 has reduced class size and needs no additional classrooms.
• MS143 and MS267 have sufficient capacity to reduce class size.

District 17

Elementary and Middle Schools
There are 3 elementary schools and 5 middle schools on the SINI/SRAP list.

• PS12 and PS316 have reduced class size and need no additional classrooms.
• PS375 has sufficient capacity available to reduce class size.
• IS391 has no class size data but it has available capacity to
  reduce class size.
• MS390 has reduced class size and needs no additional classrooms.
• MS2, MS61 and IS246 have sufficient capacity available to
  reduce class size.

District 18

Elementary and Middle Schools
There are 4 middle schools, IS68, IS211, IS232 and IS252, on the SINI/SRAP list. All of these schools have sufficient space to meet their needs for additional classrooms.

District 23

Elementary and Middle Schools
There is one PS/IS and 2 middle schools on the SINI/SRAP list.

• PS/IS323 has sufficient space to meet its needs for additional classrooms.
• IS55 and IS271 have reduced class size and need no
  additional classrooms.

QUEENS

District 25

Middle Schools
There are 5 middle schools, IS25, JHS168, JHS185, JHS189 and IS237, on the SINI/SRAP list. All of them can achieve smaller class size within their existing space.

District 28

Elementary and Middle Schools
There is 1 elementary school and 3 middle schools on the SINI/SRAP list.

• PS40 has reduced class size and needs no additional classrooms.
• JHS72, JHS157 and JHS217 can achieve smaller class size within their existing capacity.

Category 2: Districts with the capacity to create a shared-space
plan to meet class sizes

MANHATTAN

District 3

Elementary and Middle Schools
There is one elementary school and 3 middle schools on the SINI/SRAP list.

• PS185 and JHS44 are both underutilized and have available space to reduce class size.
• JHS54 needs 7 classrooms to reduce class size and has only 2 classrooms available in its existing building. Middle school buildings are underutilized in District 3. JHS44 needs 2 classrooms to reduce its class sizes and 13 available classrooms. There is sufficient capacity at this school to meet JHS54’s need for 5 classrooms.
  
  Note that this space sharing plan does not take into account zoning and other district issues. This is a space solution only. However, with the availability of space in District 3 schools, maximizing the use of existing capacity creates potential space options.[2]
• MS256 has no available capacity and needs two additional classrooms, which can also be accommodated at JHS44.

District 5

Elementary and Middle Schools
There are 4 elementary schools and 4 middle schools on the SINI/SRAP list.

• PS36, PS123, PS125 and PS194 have sufficient space to add classrooms to reduce class size.
• IS275 has no class size data available. There is potentially one
  classroom available.
• Powell Middle School for Law & Social Justice (M172) has reduced class size, and no additional classrooms are needed. There are 16 additional classrooms available in this school.
• IS195 needs 8 classrooms and has approximately 6 available. There are 2 classrooms available for IS195 in Powell.
• IS286 is overcrowded but needs only one classroom to reduce class size. This school shares a building with Powell, which has available capacity to provide 1 classroom for IS286. The DOE should examine the allocation of space in this building to enable IS286 to reduce its utilization and class size.

BRONX

District 7

Elementary and Middle Schools
There are 11 elementary schools and 4 middle schools on the SINI/SRAP list.

• PS157, PS161 and PS220 have reduced class size and no need for additional classrooms.
• PS5 and PS65 have reduced class size but need additional classrooms for an expanded pre-K program. Both schools have available capacity to expand pre-K.
• PS1, PS25, PS30, PS43 and PS156 all have available capacity to reduce class size.
• PS18 is at 98% capacity and needs 2 more classrooms. PS1 is the closest school and has approximately 3 classrooms available after its own need for 3 classrooms is met. The next closest school is PS49 with approximately 13 classrooms. PS49 is not on the SINI/SRAP list but it needs 1 classroom to reduce its class size; it has 12 classrooms available after its own needs are met. Either school has sufficient classrooms to provide 2 classrooms to PS18.
• IS222 has no class size data available. It is an underutilized school.
• IS184 has reduced class size and no need for additional classrooms.
• JHS151 and JHS162 have available capacity to reduce class size.

District 8

Elementary and Middle Schools
There are 6 elementary schools and 8 middle schools on the SINI/SRAP list.

• PS93, PS140 and PS152 have reduced class size and no need for additional classrooms.
• PS107 has reduced class size but needs additional classrooms to expand pre-K. This school has available capacity to expand pre-K.
• PS48 and PS75 have available capacity to reduce class size.
• JHS123, IS192, MS201 and MS301 can accommodate the need for additional classrooms with existing capacity.
• JHS125 needs 9 classrooms and has only 6 available, JHS131 needs 9 classrooms and has 7 available and IS174 needs 8 classrooms with only 4 available, for a total need of 9 additional classrooms. JHS123, which is close to all 3 schools, has approximately 12 classrooms. JHS123 needs 5 classrooms to reduce its class sizes, leaving 7 available classrooms. Further away from these 4 middle schools is IS192 with 10 available classrooms after its need for 7 classrooms is met and MS201, which has 24 available classrooms after its need for 2 classrooms, is met. These 2 middle schools have sufficient capacity to provide the additional classrooms that the 3 SINI/SRAP schools need.
  
  The District needs to re-examine the utilization of its middle schools, which district-wide are at 77% utilization with 2,738 available seats.
• MS302 has 4 classrooms available but needs 6. MS302 shares the building with XG16, which is not a school organization. The best solution would be to obtain the use of 2 classrooms from XG16. Otherwise MS301, also on the list, is close by and has 3 classrooms after its own need for 2 classrooms is met.

BROOKLYN

District 14

Elementary and Middle Schools
There are 2 elementary schools and 6 middle schools on the SINI/SRAP list.

• PS157 has reduced class size and no need for additional classrooms.
• PS19 needs 2 classrooms and has sufficient available capacity to reduce class size.
• JHS33 has already reduced its class sizes and has no need for additional classrooms.
• JHS49, JHS50, JHS71 and JHS126 can reduce class size with existing capacity.
• JHS318 has 5 available classrooms but needs 10 to reduce class size. The closest middle school is JHS71, which has 20 additional classrooms and needs 1 classroom for its own needs. There is sufficient capacity in JHS71 to provide 5 classrooms for JHS318.

District 15

Elementary and Middle Schools
There are 4 elementary schools, 2 middle schools and 2 MS/HS
on the SINI/SRAP list.

• PS32 and PS27 have reduced class size and there is no need for additional classrooms.
• Magnet School of Math & Science (K010) has sufficient space to meet its needs for additional classrooms.
• PS24 is close to capacity and needs 5 classrooms but has only 1 available. This school has an annex at IS136 across the street in a temporary classroom building. IS136 has approximately 10 classrooms available, a sufficient number for its own needs and for PS24.
• JHS88 and IS136 have sufficient space to accommodate their need for additional classrooms.
• School for Global Studies and School for International Studies (both in K293) have reduced class size and do not need additional classrooms.

District 21

Elementary and Middle Schools
There are 2 elementary schools and 3 middle schools on the SINI/SRAP list.

• PS226 and PS288 can meet their need for additional classrooms within their existing buildings.
• IS96 has sufficient space to expand within its existing capacity.
• IS303 has reduced class size and needs no additional classrooms.
• IS228 needs 12 additional classrooms. It has approximately 11 classrooms in its existing building. If this school needs more space, IS303 has reduced class size and has 16 available classrooms.

District 32

Elementary and Middle Schools
There are 4 elementary schools and 5 middle schools on the SINI/SRAP list.

• PS299 has reduced class size and needs 1 additional classroom for pre-kindergarten. The school has available capacity to meet this need.
• PS384 has available capacity to reduce class size.
• PS116 is overcrowded and needs 3 classrooms. There is space available in a neighboring school, PS377. PS377 is not on the list but would need 2 classrooms to reduce its class sizes. It has approximately 8 available classrooms to meet the needs of PS116 after its own need for 2 classrooms is met.
• PS145 has 4 classrooms available but needs 6. There are no elementary schools with space nearby. The closest school building is IS111, which houses 2 SINI/SRAP schools – IS347 and IS349. Each of these schools needs 1 classroom to reduce class sizes. IS347 has 1 classroom available after its need for 1 classroom is met, and IS349 has 7 classrooms available after its need for 1 classroom is met. There is available capacity in the IS111 building to create a small annex for PS145.
• JHS162, IS291, JHS296, IS347 and IS349 have available capacity to reduce class size.

Category 3: Districts with utilization rates near or above capacity that require additional space to reduce class size

MANHATTAN

District 2

Elementary and Middle Schools
There are 2 elementary schools, 2 middle schools and 1 MS/HS on
the SINI/SRAP list.

• PS225 has reduced class size and needs additional classrooms to expand pre-K. This school has sufficient available capacity to expand Pre-K.
• PS/IS217 has sufficient capacity to accommodate its
  additional classroom needs.
• IS131 has sufficient capacity to accommodate its additional space needs.
• JHS 104 is at 93% capacity and needs 14 additional classrooms to reduce class size; this school has only 2 classrooms available. Other District 2 middle school buildings will need their available capacity to reduce their class sizes. Two middle schools, MS167 and IS189, which are not on the list, need a total of 17 classrooms to reduce their class size; they have a total of 10 classrooms between them. School of the Future has only 1 available classroom.

On the elementary level there are several schools with excess capacity with more than 200 seats available before evaluating whether these schools would need to expand their use of their own classrooms to reduce class size. There may be some potential to create K-8 organizations to provide more middle school classrooms, but it is unlikely that 12 classrooms can be allocated for JHS104 with this strategy.

District 2

Middle Schools/High Schools

• School of the Future has reduced class size and
  needs no additional classrooms.

District 2 will need additional middle school classrooms to reduce class sizes in its middle schools. The immediate priority of additional classrooms for JHS104 is unlikely to be met with existing space within the district. The solution for this school will be in the creation of a new school.

DISTRICT 2: Potential Impact of the Capital Plan

District 2 is scheduled to receive 3,150 new seats in the amended Capital Plan. The original plan for this district was to build 1,890 new seats. There are 8 new schools planned for District 2: five are sited and one small 143 seat annex is the only completed project.

• PS59 is a replacement school for an existing organization. Its capacity is not included in this analysis.
• PS151 is a replacement school. Its capacity is not included in this analysis.
• Project at PS51 is a 630 seat new school. If this is built as a PS/IS, there will be approximately 22 classrooms with 7 classrooms for the middle grades.
• The Beekman School is also a 630 seat school. If it is built as a PS/IS, then there will be approximately 7 middle school classrooms.
• A 630 seat new school is unsited. Assuming that this is also a PS/IS, there will be approximately 7 middle school classrooms.
• There are 2 other unsited projects: one with 412 new seats and the other with 411 new seats. This is another opportunity to create middle school classrooms, approximately 12 classrooms for each project.

If the classroom needs of JHS104 are prioritized, this school will be able to reduce its class sizes with 12 of the new classrooms planned.

District 6

Elementary and Middle Schools
District 6 has 12 elementary and 5 middle schools on the SINI/SRAP list. For the 2005-06 school year, elementary school buildings are at 101% capacity with a shortfall of 213 seats and middle school buildings in District 6 are at 97% capacity with 861 seats available.

• PS 192 has sufficient available capacity to reduce class size.
• PS4 needs 5 additional classrooms to reduce its class size. It can meet this need with the 2 available classrooms in its main building and approximately 12 classrooms in its annex.
• PS98 has available capacity in its main building for the 3 classrooms it needs. There is no available capacity in this school’s mini-school.
• PS128 has available capacity in its main building for the 6 classrooms it needs. There is no available capacity in this school’s mini-school.
• PS5, PS8, PS28, PS48, PS115, PS132, PS153 and PS189 are either overcrowded or have capacities above 90% and do not have the space to reduce class size. There are no options in other schools to share space.
• JHS52 and IS218 have sufficient space to meet their need for
  additional classrooms.
• IS90 and IS164 are missing class size data. Both are underutilized; there are opportunities for additional classrooms if needed.
• JHS143 needs 13 classrooms to reduce its class sizes. It has 12 available classrooms in its main building and mini-school. Between the two it can meet most of its needs although it will be a classroom short. There is excess capacity in other middle schools to meet this need. For example, IS90, which has no class size data, has an enrollment of 423 and 25 available classrooms; there will likely be an available classroom for JHS143.

These schools need a total of 75 additional classrooms to reduce class size to meet the district’s needs that cannot be met with available capacity. All of the elementary schools in District 6 not on the SINI/SRAP list are overcrowded or at almost 100% capacity. New classrooms must be built to accommodate the needs of these schools.

District 6: Potential Impact of Capital Plan

District 6 is scheduled to receive 2 new buildings with a total of 1,103 new seats, an estimated 39 classrooms. In the adopted plan, this district was originally scheduled for 3 new buildings totaling 1,700 seats. The new school projects have been evaluated to determine whether they can help relieve the need for 75 new elementary classrooms in the District’s SINI/SRAP schools.

• PS210 with 500 seats – an estimated 18 classrooms - is scheduled to open this September. This school has 2 locations. The new school may be a replacement for these 2 locations. Assuming that this is a replacement school and because this school is already open, its capacity is not included in this analysis.
• PS/IS263 with 600 seats, an estimated 21 classrooms, has already been completed and is not too far from PS5, which is overcrowded and needs 10 additional classrooms. Because this school is already open, its capacity is not included in this analysis.

Both of these new schools can benefit SINI/SRAP schools; however, they are already completed, and there may not be available capacity. District 6 will still need an additional 75 classrooms to reduce class sizes in the SINI/SRAP schools if there is no available capacity in these 2 new schools. This analysis assumes there is no benefit to the SINI/SRAP schools.

BRONX

District 9

Elementary and Middle Schools
There are 16 elementary schools and 9 middle schools on the SINI/SRAP list.

• PS42 has reduced class size and no need for additional classrooms.
• PS4 and PS230 have reduced class size but need additional classrooms to expand pre-K. Both schools have available capacity to meet this need.
• PS55, PS58, PS110 and PS199 have available capacity to reduce class size.
• PS28 needs 7 classrooms with only one available. The closest elementary school is PS58 with approximately 8 classrooms available after its own need for 2 classrooms is met. All other nearby schools are overcrowded. PS58 can provide the 6 classrooms that PS28 needs.
• PS53 needs 5 classrooms. PS55 is the closest school with space available with approximately 9 classrooms; it needs 3 classrooms to reduce its class size. There should be sufficient space available to provide the 5 classrooms for PS53.
• PS64 is at capacity and needs 10 classrooms. PS199, a nearby school, has 7 available classrooms and needs 1 to reduce its class size. There should be 5 classrooms available to meet a portion of PS64’s needs. The balance needed for this school is not available in nearby schools.
• PS70 is overcrowded and needs 16 classrooms. There are no options nearby.
• PS73, PS90, PS114 and PS126 each need classrooms for a total of 17 classrooms. All are neighboring schools. There are no options for space nearby.
• PS132 needs 5 classrooms and has 1. The closest school with space is PS63, which is not on the SINI/SRAP list; it has 3 classrooms and needs 1 classroom to reduce its class sizes. There is a potential of 2 classrooms at this school for PS132. The next closest elementary school with space is PS110, which has 4 available classrooms and needs 1 to reduce its class sizes. The remaining 3 classrooms could be used for PS132. It is necessary to use all available capacity after their own needs are met at PS63 and PS110 to provide the 4 classrooms needed by PS132.
• IS229 is at reduced class size and needs no additional classrooms.
• JHS166, IS219 and IS232 can accommodate their space needs within their existing capacity.
• JHS22 needs 5 classrooms and has 3. IS166 is nearby and has 15 available classrooms; it needs 7 of these classrooms to reduce its class size. There is sufficient capacity available to provide 2 classrooms for JHS22.