Testimony before the NYC Council Education Committee on the City’s Proposed 5-Year Capital Plan for Schools
(for this testimony as a word document, complete with citations and more charts, click here:
December 2, 2008
Thank you, Chair Jackson. My name is Leonie Haimson, and I am the Executive Director of Class Size Matters, a citywide organization dedicated towards achieving smaller classes in the NYC public schools. Unfortunately, if this capital plan is approved, I fear that NYC children will never receive their constitutional right to smaller classes, as the State’s highest court said would be necessary for them to receive a sound and basic education.
Despite the city’s claims, most NYC children continue to be in overcrowded schools with excessive class sizes -- and the new proposed capital plan will produce only 35% of the seats needed to reduce class size and eliminate overcrowding.
According to DOE’s own latest available data in the “Blue Book”, 38% of NYC students are housed in schools that are overcrowded. More than 3,000 elementary and middle school students are taught in temporary and/or transportable units – and thousands more in HS.
About 60% of general education students in K-3, more than 160,000, are in classes of twenty-one or more –exceeding the goals of the city’s state-mandated class size plan. 70-80% of middle and HS general ed students have class sizes exceeding 23 students per class –the city’s goals for grades 4-12.
86% of NYC principals say they are unable to provide a quality education because of excessive class sizes, and 50% say the overcrowding makes it unsafe for students and/or staff.
Yet the new proposed capital plan says that “in most cases overcrowding and larger class sizes are very local phenomena, reflecting school admissions zones that are poorly designed…and or reflecting deeply popular schools into which the press of parents creates larger class size.” (p. 21)
In early October, we formed the Campaign for A Better Capital plan. A coalition of more than 70 advocacy groups and elected officials on the local, state and federal level signed a letter, urging the city to adopt a capital plan with the following goals:
A- Aim to provide enough seats to eliminate and reduce class size to the levels in the city’s class size plan (20 students per class in grades K-3, 23 in grades 4-12);
B- Be proactive and plan for growth at the neighborhood level;
C -Correct the official capacity estimates, so that schools can have the room for smaller classes class size and dedicated space for art, science, special services and other specialty rooms necessary for a well-rounded education.
In late October we released a report called “A Better Capital Plan.”
Based on the capacity data in the “Blue Book” from 2006-7, we calculated that approximately 166,000 new seats would be needed to eliminate overcrowding and to reduce class size to the levels in the city’s state-mandated class size reduction plan. We estimated the seats deficit per elementary school; at the district level for middle schools; and at the borough level for high school seats. Our estimates are attached to this testimony.
Our calculations did not account for the rise in enrollment in many areas since 2006-7 or which is projected to occur in the future. Nor did it reflect the reality that the DOE capacity data underestimates the actual level of overcrowding, according to many principals and objective observers.
In our report, we also showed how the DOE enrollment projections have numerous flaws.
These projections, from the Grier Partnership, do not account for changes in birth rates, housing starts, neighborhood overcrowding, or trends in enrollment at charter schools, parochial schools or daycare/preK centers. They are based only on district forecasts, assuming current trends will continue into the indefinite future.
Other evidence casts in doubt Grier’s projections of continued enrollment decline citywide.
•
In two of the last four years, General education Kindergarten enrollments have increased.
In two of the last four years, General education Kindergarten enrollments have increased.•According to the Mayor’s Management Report, between 2006-7 and 2007-8, there was a sharp increase in the percent of overcrowded elementary schools
According to the Mayor’s Management Report, between 2006-7 and 2007-8, there was a sharp increase in the percent of overcrowded elementary schools •City Planning projects an increase in the number of 5-9 year olds between 2010 and 2020.
City Planning projects an increase in the number of 5-9 year olds between 2010 and 2020.•The DOE’s own budget projections project no decline in Kindergarten enrollments over next four years, based upon rising birth rates.
The DOE’s own budget projections project no decline in Kindergarten enrollments over next four years, based upon rising birth rates.In our report, we suggest how forecasts in enrollment could be improved by collecting and analyzing data on birth rates, housing starts, parent surveys, trends in preK, charter, parochial and private school enrollment, and other critical information. We propose that these projections should be undertaken by an independent city agency, separate from the DOE – which appears to have a vested interest in underestimating the amount of growth occurring in many areas of the city.
We also discuss the need to correct the methodology used by DOE to assess school capacity and utilization:
•The target class sizes in the Blue Book should be aligned with the city’s class size goals.
The target class sizes in the Blue Book should be aligned with the city’s class size goals.•Trailers and temporary spaces should be more sensibly integrated into the school’s utilization estimates, rather than considered as entirely separate buildings, as they are now.
Trailers and temporary spaces should be more sensibly integrated into the school’s utilization estimates, rather than considered as entirely separate buildings, as they are now.•When a facility is shared by several schools, the use of the common spaces should be carefully analyzed to see if they can support the total population.
When a facility is shared by several schools, the use of the common spaces should be carefully analyzed to see if they can support the total population.•The formulas should be revised to ensure that all schools have sufficient dedicated rooms for art, music, science for the student population, according to NY state standards.
The formulas should be revised to ensure that all schools have sufficient dedicated rooms for art, music, science for the student population, according to NY state standards.•A new space assessment survey should be required, similar to the Building Condition Assessment survey, to be completed after walkthroughs in each school by the School Leadership Team.
A new space assessment survey should be required, similar to the Building Condition Assessment survey, to be completed after walkthroughs in each school by the School Leadership Team.Instead of taking our recommendations to heart, and complying with the state law that requires that the city’s capital plan and class size reduction plan be aligned, the new proposed capital plan is significantly smaller than the current plan.
$1 billion less is invested in new capacity than in the current plan – despite inflation, and the higher cost of construction. Only 25,000 additional seats will be created– compared to 63,000 seats in the current plan – only 40% as many. This is about 15% of the estimated seats required to reduce class size and eliminate overcrowding are included. [note: together with the 34,000 seats rolled over from the last plan, this will produce about 35% the number of necessary seats.]
Meanwhile, the record of this administration has been mediocre at best at completing new schools. About 50% fewer seats were created during the first six years of the Bloomberg administration than the last six of the Giuliani administration –15,440 compared to 10,585 per year, according to Mayor’s Management Reports (FY 2000, FY 2004 and FY 2007.)
Moreover, there is a substantial backlog in terms of the number of seats that will be created from the current plan. Fewer than half of its 63,000 seats will be finished when the plan ends in June. In fact, while an estimated 21,000 seats of the current plan will be completed by June 2009; another 34,000 seats are due to be completed over next four years through Sept. 2012. 8,000 seats will be rolled over into next plan.
Other problems in the proposed new capital plan include:
•Nearly $1 billion is for unspecified “technology” –more than allocated to build new schools in Brooklyn or in Queens. For what purpose? The plan does not say.
Nearly $1 billion is for unspecified “technology” –more than allocated to build new schools in Brooklyn or in Queens. For what purpose? The plan does not say.• $1 billion is reserved for “site specific/environmental/code costs”; a troubling sign that DOE intends to build many new schools on contaminated land.
$1 billion is reserved for “site specific/environmental/code costs”; a troubling sign that DOE intends to build many new schools on contaminated land.•More than 10% of the new seats are supposed to be reserved for preK and D75 students– which, while important, will further diminish the availability of general education seats needed to reduce class size.
More than 10% of the new seats are supposed to be reserved for preK and D75 students– which, while important, will further diminish the availability of general education seats needed to reduce class size. •The city is asking that state pay for half the costs up-front -- as in the previous capital plan; but that payment was considered to be part of the state’s CFE settlement. What if state does not agree?
The city is asking that state pay for half the costs up-front -- as in the previous capital plan; but that payment was considered to be part of the state’s CFE settlement. What if state does not agree?•The projected cost per seat is very high. In its March 2008 report ("Fiscal Brief: Higher Costs, Delays in Amended School Construction Plan"), the IBO estimated the cost per seat at $85k for new construction, and $55k for leased seats. This averages at about $75,000 per seat. Yet in this plan, the estimated cost averages at about $148,000 per new seat – almost twice as high. Even if $1 billion is deducted for environmental clean-up, this would still average $108,000 per seat– about 32% higher.
The projected cost per seat is very high. In its March 2008 report ("Fiscal Brief: Higher Costs, Delays in Amended School Construction Plan"), the IBO estimated the cost per seat at $85k for new construction, and $55k for leased seats. This averages at about $75,000 per seat. Yet in this plan, the estimated cost averages at about $148,000 per new seat – almost twice as high. Even if $1 billion is deducted for environmental clean-up, this would still average $108,000 per seat– about 32% higher.Now, how is school construction financed? The costs of building schools are highly leveraged. The financing is done by issuing bonds that are repaid over thirty years – with only a fraction of the cost paid annually. Moreover, the state automatically reimburses 50% of every dollar city spends on new school construction. Both of these factors make school construction comparatively economical – even during an economic downturn as we are currently experiencing.
Even assuming that state does not agree to pay for 50% of this plan upfront, will mean the city is investing only about $100 million per year on school capacity projects – probably an all-time low as percent of total city capital spending.
In fact, if this capital plan is approved unchanged, it will mean a continuation in the overall declining share of city dollars invested in schools, as part of its overall capital spending. (See Chart A for the trend from 2000-2009.)
And the trend continues. While city capital spending on schools decreased between FY 08 and FY 09, in nearly every other category, capital spending rose -- often dramatically. Overall, city capital commitments increased more than 75%, from $9.1B to $16B. (See Charts B and C)
•Economic Development has more than doubled (from $398M to $1.1 B)
Economic Development has more than doubled (from $398M to $1.1 B)•Police has increased by more than ten times (from $101M to $1.7 B)
Police has increased by more than ten times (from $101M to $1.7 B)•City operations nearly tripled (from $2.6B to $6.2B).
City operations nearly tripled (from $2.6B to $6.2B). And though capital spending has been stretched from four to five years, there will still be major increases for nearly every city agency other than the DOE. Despite the economic downturn, there are apparently no major projects that have been eliminated. For example:
•The city is still planning to spend up to $3 billion in capital funds to redevelop Willet’s point.
The city is still planning to spend up to $3 billion in capital funds to redevelop Willet’s point.•The city still intends to spend $440 million in capital funds to reopen and expand the Brooklyn house of detention.
The city still intends to spend $440 million in capital funds to reopen and expand the Brooklyn house of detention.•The city will still spend over $1 billion to build a new police academy in Queens.
The city will still spend over $1 billion to build a new police academy in Queens. So how could an expanded capital plan for schools be funded?
If the DOE re-allocated the $1 billion for unspecified new technology; $1 billion for environmental remediation (and instead, built schools on non-contaminated land); redirected half of the $305 million for “facility restructuring” (which means putting new schools in existing school buildings, which exacerbates overcrowding rather than relieves it) and cancelled the $440 million that is supposed to go to expand the Brooklyn House of Detention, that would yield about $2.65 billion in capital funds.
Given 50% state reimbursement for new school construction, this would provide an extra $5.3 billion for school construction – enough to triple the number of seats in the proposed plan to 75,000.
By finding costs savings elsewhere – for example, cutting in half the projected increased enrollment in new charter schools over the next three years, the city could save about $180M in annual operating funds over the next three years. Shifted into the capital budget and amortized over 30 years, with 50% reimbursement from the state, this amount could finance another 91,000 seats, which together could pay for the166,000 new seats that are needed.
166,000 new seats is not an unprecedented figure for a capital plan – either for New York City or the nation as a whole. As we point out in our report, the city built 100,000 new seats from
1902-5 and nearly half a million new seats during the 1920’s.
More recently, the Los Angeles United School District adopted a $20 billion capital plan that will produce 160,000 new seats – in a system 60% the size of NYC’s – and the district has already created 80,000 of these seats since 2003.
According to the Mayor’s office, the Bloomberg administration has funded over 82,000 units of affordable housing; with the goal of creating 165,000 overall. Isn’t the goal of improving public education by building new schools equally important?
We must invest in new schools if we care about our children and the economic future of this city.
Building more schools will also provide needed stimulus to the city’s economy during a difficult period – and 50% reimbursement from the state will bring in more state funds – whatever else in education cuts the state budget may involve. Alleviating overcrowding and reducing class size will also strengthen our middle class tax base.
Finally, State education law requires that the city’s capital plan and class size reduction plan be aligned, but this has not yet occurred. Given the ongoing crisis in overcrowding and class size, we have both a legal and moral obligation to expand the proposed capital plan for schools. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
