New York City Independent Budget Office 2013 Education Indicators Report

New York City Independent Budget Ofce
Fiscal Brie
New York City Public School Indicators: Demographics, Resources, Outcomes

May 2013
0 Table 2.3 e, 2009-201 icity by Grad Student Ethn
ic Table 2.6 Asian Hispan 20.2% udents 0.5% y Grade, Number of St % 24.1% .1 36 Program Placement of Eng 2.2% e % .4 ad .6 Gr 2 14 % ble lish Language Learner Stu58,805 N .5 t a o s 17 T t o E % 0.6% M LL .5 s e 24 e G dents, 2009-2010 38.7% N Languag rad .0% u,mber1.0% Pr-K e ELL % m .7 o 16 H 78,229 16 Fifteen P t e % 0.5% a rc .9 K e n 25 n e t 40.2% Spok Number 62,054 0.4% K Edu % 45 15.0%CommonlySpecial cati .5 on/ 15 0 7 81,0 9.3% 1 % 0.4% Percent .7 English as a Second 9-201 63,5 0 .8% 27 16,1 20 40s Bilingual 1 0.5% 76 20 vidualized 6.6 6% 14.8%Grad Dual Language e K-2, Indi % 60 .4 7 8 15 2 .7% 81,186 .4 3% Language Only % % .4 28 onal Prog 65,2 Educati 17,40. Number of 40.4% 5% 79 21 ram 7 0. % 8 .8 2 14 8 % % 0 44 3 .6% h .4% 3.1 15.1 71,5 2 3% % 0. nglis .8 E Years in 28 15,908 58,4 39.4% Cumulat 1 3 ive 84% 1.7% Cumulative 72,320 15.8% 4.3% 14.6% 32 0. Program 4% 9.6% nish Cumulat Number Percentage 13,110. 6ive Spaive 0,346 2 18.3 Cumulat 40.1% 29 Number Percentage 3% 0. % 8 .2 % 4 3 5 15 .5 .4% Num 2 % 1 ber Percenta % 91 .8 se ,5 13 e 69 9,528 ge in 3% % h 0. 1 Num .3 Percenta 59 C 40.1% ber 1,974 33.6% 30 ,612 8 1,788 ge 30.7% 25,967 15.0% 16.6% 0. 2 53% 6er) /Oth .7% 5 24.1 5,883 % % 1.9% .4 known 1,8230 13 n 69,519 54.4% 9 3% 6 (U 9 % 0. 0 ,9 .7 1,23 17.9 ,8 8 7 % 7 9 14.3 5 87 51.9% 19,719 3 39.9% 7 2% 0. .6 % % 4,428 % % 6% 1,004 70.0 % %8 ,526 15.4 42.5 13 6.6 992 8,644 0.4% % 1,8 ngali 69.0% 70 Be% 30.9% ) 27.7 8 1.7 4 16,226 12.4% 870. 57.5 2,972 39.6% 8 .8 3% n 1,26 % ri % 80.5 5 a .3 % 7 d 15 770 an .7% 40.1 % % 6 .5 8 (M % ,058 82.2% 73 4 ,6 11 ,3 .5 se 3 5 4% 1 13,3 5 e 8 0. 61 8 88.1 70.0 2,078 Chin 12.2% % 9832 87.98 % 3% 52.1 0.% 497 % % 40.01,22 %% 90.7% 10 9 8,700 0.4% 9 13.279.4 2,3 6 10,1 .0 95 6,55 11 30 8 % 1,158 n .2 % 1 ia 11.9% 1,16 34.5% 63.5 ss 92.0% 5 6 u 1 % .6 R 0 .7 289 % % 39 2% 95.7 0. % % 7 14,229 6,937 9 913 4,5 7 13.7 % 85.9% .2 752 2 1,144 32.6% 74.6 110,39 4% 94.6% % 0. 13 85 .1% 122 .4% 1.6 % 7 97.8% rabic.4%11 8 4,920 0.2% 15,870 % A 6 90.5 10 489 )2 16.0 % 37 834 tonese ,6 1 % 96.3% 9 73 .6 ,4 12 71 82.8 1 85 n 8 % 4% 4 % a 71 0. 1 .4% .7 .6 (C 99.2% % 2 34 % .0 se 9 3,46 % e 9 .1 in 37 h 93.7% C 345 6 9,5% 643 97.6%11 9 7% 88.2 0.7% 8,854 12.4% 89.1 27 99 14.8% .3 99.7% 14 78,85 TO 10 2,33 L .9% 95.9% rd 237 % TA29 .6% 0% 87 u .3 480 98.4% 12 9,302 5,4% 93.8 % U 39 14 8 .9 2 14 99.9% 11.8% 1 11 84.6% 1,71 15 97.4% 1,093, 7 164 335 99.0% %158,865 .4 97.0 n 0 4 % a re 100 L o .0% TA K 12 TO 1,018 1 5.4% 98.4 129 % 183 99.4% 98.8% 100.0% Over 12 0.4% 853 99.2% Polish 71 159 100.0% 99.5 % 100 .0% TOTAL 875 100.0% 28,322 n Creole 100.0% 0.4% 18.6% 5,826 Haitia49 3.8% 107,592 70.8% 10,230 n 6.7% 0.4% Albania i b 0.3% Punja
Table 2.5 English L ixed Race American Indian anguage White M 4% Black 20 09-2010 3.8% Learner Sta0. tus b
French
IBO
New York City Independent Budget Office Ronnie Lowenstein, Director
110 William St., 14th floor New York, NY 10038 Tel. (212) 442-0632
Fax (212) 442-0350 iboenews@ibo.nyc.ny.us www.ibo.nyc.ny.us
NYC Independent Budget Office
May 2013
Contents
1 2 3 4
Background and Introduction . . . . . . . . . 1 Who Are New York Citys Public School Students? . . . . . . . . . . 5 What Resources Are Made Available To Our Public Schools? . . . . . . . . . . 13 What Do Some Indicators of School Performance Show? . . . . . . 33
Appendix: List of Schools Opened And Closed Each Year Since 2005-2006 . . .39
May 2013
May 2013
Background and Introduction

In 2009, the state law granting the Mayor control of the New York City public school system was renewed. That renewal included a requirement that the New York City Independent Budget Office enhance official and public understanding of educational matters of the school system. The law also requires the Chancellor of the school system to provide IBO with the data that we deem necessary to conduct our analyses. That data began to flow to IBO at the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year.
The independent budget office of the city of New York shall be authorized to provide analysis and issue public reports regarding financial and educational matters of the city district, to enhance official and public understanding of such matters New York State Education Law 2590-u.
This report is our second annual summary of that data. Over the course of the last year, we have issued a number of detailed analyses of student achievement, graduation outcomes, the school systems School Progress Report methodology and school funding, and we will continue to produce those types of reports. This current report is designed as a descriptive overview of the school system rather than as an in-depth look at particular issues. It is organized into three main sections. The first presents demographic information on the students who attend New York Citys public schools. The next section describes the resourcesbudgets, school staff, and buildingsthat the school system utilizes. The final section describes the measurable outcomes of the school systems efforts for particular subgroups of students. While this report presents a great deal of information, it is not exhaustive. Some important questions cannot be answered in this type of purely descriptive format. IBO will address those issues in more detailed and analytically sophisticated reports. With the exception of the citywide budget information presented in section three, all data in this report refers to students and staff of the New York City public school system. This data does not include students or staff in public charter schools or in publicly financed private special education programs. A Few Notes on Data Sources With very few exceptions, the data presented herein represents IBOs analysis of individual student or staff data obtained from the Department of Education (DOE). Since the publication of our initial Education Indicators Report, in September 2011, we have experienced a number of issues with the student biographic data provided to us by the Department of Education. Students move in and out of the school system regularly throughout the year and there were inconsistencies in the selection of students included in the data files provided to us by DOE. Shortly after beginning work on the current volume, both IBO and DOE analysts identified this issue with the data that was being provided to us for the years 2001-2002 through 2010-2011. The inconsistencies were limited to the inclusion of individual students in the data files which affected the summarized results for various student cohorts; we did not find cases with inconsistent performance data for individual students. These data issues
May 2013
were not fully resolved until very late in 2012. This has a number of implications for the Education Indicators Report, both past and present: As the obstacles resulting from inconsistent DOE data files were overcome, we were able to obtain updated, consistent data for both 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, the school year that ended last June. We have chosen to present both years of student and staff data in this single volume. There have been fewer issues with budget and school building data, and this volume is current through school year 2011-2012 for those sources. We also present data from the citys adopted budget for fiscal year 2013, which represents spending planned for the current school year. The corrected data provided to us for 2009-2010 and earlier years has led IBO to update our findings on students and staff for those years; careful readers may note that some of our findings for 2009-2010 and earlier years differ from those published in last years volume. Student Demographics and Outcomes are derived from individual student records maintained by the Department of Education and provided to IBO for each of the last 12 years. These records include basic biographical information; achievement test scores; attendance records; and information on students entry to, exit from, and movement within the school system. Students move in and out of the school system throughout the school year. The files provided to us by the DOE include information on all students who were active on a schools register at any point in a particular school year. For this reason, we are often reporting on a larger number of students than are reported on the school systems official count of enrollment. That figure, called the audited register, is drawn by the school system on October 31st of each year, and represents the number of students enrolled on that day. The numbers of students reported in our tables will also vary depending upon missing data for a particular indicator. If, for example, we are reporting data on the ethnicity of students, we drop any students whose ethnicity was not identified in our data. Because we report information on all students for whom we have data, our achievement numbers also differ from the official numbers maintained by the New York State Education Department. These differences are very small, often amounting to no more than a tenth of a percentage point. Official achievement statistics are readily available on both the DOE and New York State Education Department Web sites. Budget data are derived from two sources. The Mayors Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provides information on the funding of the school system and on the broad allocations made to the system through the annual budget as proposed by the Mayor, and as amended and adopted by the City Council. Much of this data is available to the public in summarized form in periodic budget reports on OMBs Web site. We have access to the same information in greater detail and in real time through the citys Financial Management System. The second source of budget information is derived from data on the allocation of budgetary resources by individual school principals. The source of that data is an internal report provided by the DOE to IBO on a monthly basis called the School Leadership Team (SLT) View.
2 NYC Independent Budget Office May 2013
It provides a detailed accounting of the source and use of every dollar controlled by the principal of each public school in the city. We used the report from June 2012 to produce the summaries presented here. Principal and Teacher data is derived from individual personnel records maintained by the DOE and provided to IBO for each of the last 11 years. In addition to demographic and assignment data, these files indicate the use of alternative pathways to employment (Teach for America, Teaching Fellows, the Leadership Academy, etc.) by individual staff. Building and Class Size data has been taken from DOE reports that are available to the general public on the DOEs Web site, particularly the Blue Book and the Class Size Report. School Level data was taken from the DOEs Web site to classify schools as either new or existing schools, and to categorize schools based upon the poverty level of their students. When we refer to new schools, we are referring to schools that have opened since the beginning of the Bloomberg Administration in the 20022003 school year. We highlight these schools in some of the data because of the importance of creating new schools to the Bloomberg Administrations Childrens First initiatives. Student poverty level is derived from students eligibility for free or reduced-price meals, which is determined by their family income level. We have classified schools into three categories: high poverty includes schools in the top third of schools in a particular level (elementary, middle school, and high school) in terms of the percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals; medium poverty indicates that a school is in the middle third of schools in their level; and low poverty indicates that a school is in the lowest third. Given the demographics of the citys public schools, schools in the lowest third of poverty levels may still have as many as 70 percent of their students classified as low income.
May 2013
May 2013
Who Are New York Citys Public School Students?

Table 2.2 Twenty-five Most Frequent Birthplaces Outside the 50 States
2010-2011 Country/ Territory Dominican Republic China Mexico Guyana Bangladesh Jamaica Puerto Rico Ecuador Haiti Pakistan India Trinidad & Tobago Yemen Colombia Russia Korea Students Territory Dominican 35,614 Republic 20,266 China 10,287 Bangladesh 9,620 Mexico 9,552 Jamaica 9,468 Guyana 8,163 Puerto Rico 6,612 Haiti 6,573 Ecuador 5,734 Pakistan 3,905 India 3,317 Yemen 3,203 Uzbekistan Trinidad & 2,965 Tobago 2,535 Colombia 2,512 Russia 2,372 Philippines 2,143 Korea 1,760 Egypt 1,652 Honduras 1,645 Ghana 1,532 Albania 1,445 El Salvador 1,406 Poland 1,385 Ukraine 2011-2012 Number of Students 36,492 19,725 10,439 9,363 9,225 9,039 7,613 6,464 6,206 5,531 3,772 3,528 2,999 2,843 2,744 2,281 2,185 2,171 1,870 1,634 1,586 1,530 1,392 1,248 1,243 Number of Country/
New York Citys public school system serves a tremendously diverse student body, reflecting the citys standing as a port of entry for new Americans. Thus, the demographic picture of the citys schools is not just about race, but also ethnicity and nativity. While 83 percent of New Yorks public school students in 20112012 were born in the United States (Table 2.1), the remaining 17 percent hail from 197 other countries or territories (Table 2.2 lists the 25 most represented). In racial and ethnic terms, Hispanics form the largest group in the school system, at slightly more than 40 percent. Black students account for about 28 percent. There are more Asians (16 percent) than whites (15 percent) in the school system and other groups account for the remaining 1 percent of students. While the share of students who are Hispanic or Asian is fairly constant across the grades, whites are more highly represented in the early grades than in the higher grades. The opposite is true for black students (Table 2.3), with their share of enrollment higher in the high school grades than in the early grades.
Table 2.1 Birthplace of Students

2010-2011 Number Percent Americas United States Carribean South America Rest of North and Central America Asia Europe Africa Oceania Country Unknown 894,468 58,298 22,632 82.6 5.4 2.1 898,354 58,160 21,242 82.9 5.4 2.0 2011-2012 Number Percent
Uzbekistan Philippines Honduras Albania Egypt Ghana Poland El Salvador Ukraine
25,024 57,422 12,048 9,524 336 3,272
2.3 5.3 1.1 0.9 0.0 0.3
23,347 58,009 11,224 10,189 393 2,843
2.2 5.4 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.3
New York City Independent Budget Office
NOTE: Rest of North and Central America includes U.S. Territories. New York City Independent Budget Office
Reflecting this diversity, students in the citys public schools come from homes where over 185 languages are spoken. More than 42 percent of the students come from homes where English is not the primary language. Spanish is spoken in 25 percent of student homes and various languages/dialects from China
May 2013 5
are spoken in the homes of almost 6 percent of the students (Table 2.4). The school system provides a range of services to students who are classified as English Language Learners (ELL). These are students who speak a language other than English at home and who have not yet attained a certain level of English proficiency. There
Table 2.3A Student Ethnicity by Grade, 2010-2011
Grade Pre-K K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL Total Number 59,015 76,506 79,745 77,893 76,175 75,210 73,896 72,958 74,208 75,444 97,365 101,362 69,410 73,837 1,083,024 Asian 14.1% 15.6% 15.8% 15.3% 15.2% 14.9% 16.2% 15.0% 14.9% 15.3% 14.1% 15.2% 16.5% 16.0% 15.3% Hispanic 29.4% 41.7% 40.9% 40.8% 40.6% 40.6% 39.9% 40.4% 40.3% 40.3% 40.8% 39.9% 37.1% 37.8% 39.5%
were 158,180 such students in the school system in 2012, and they comprised 15.5 percent of the total enrollment (Table 2.5). We have program placement data for 2010-2011 for 95 percent of the ELL students that year. It indicates that more than 71 percent of them were being served in English as a Second Language programs (ESL). These students attend their subject classes in English while also receiving
Black 20.8% 23.8% 25.2% 26.1% 27.6% 28.6% 28.0% 29.7% 30.4% 30.4% 32.0% 32.7% 32.2% 32.9% 28.8%
White 18.4% 17.3% 16.7% 16.5% 15.6% 15.1% 15.1% 14.1% 13.6% 13.2% 12.1% 11.4% 13.6% 12.7% 14.5%
Mixed Race 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3%
Unknown 15.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 1.0%
American Indian 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5%
Table 2.3B Student Ethnicity by Grade, 2011-2012

Grade Pre-K K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL Total Number 60,710 78,621 79,912 77,976 76,906 74,694 73,564 74,387 72,941 74,790 94,184 97,221 70,554 77,301 1,083,761 Asian 15.5% 16.0% 15.7% 16.4% 15.6% 15.6% 15.5% 16.1% 15.2% 15.2% 14.4% 15.4% 17.2% 16.2% 15.7% Hispanic 39.4% 42.1% 42.0% 40.9% 40.6% 40.7% 40.6% 39.9% 40.4% 40.2% 40.7% 40.0% 37.5% 37.8% 40.2% Black 23.2% 23.0% 24.4% 24.9% 26.4% 27.1% 27.7% 28.6% 29.6% 30.1% 31.9% 31.8% 31.1% 32.6% 28.2% White 19.8% 17.3% 16.5% 16.6% 16.4% 15.8% 15.3% 14.7% 14.0% 13.7% 12.0% 12.1% 13.4% 12.7% 14.9% Mixed Race 1.1% 0.7% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% Unknown 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% American Indian 1.0% 0.9% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6%
NOTES: Students who only attended charter schools were excluded. Records for infants in LYFE programs were excluded, as were students who were over 21 and in programs outside the regular high schools. Students who left the school system on or before the first day of school were excluded. New York City Independent Budget Office 6 NYC Independent Budget Office May 2013
Table 2.4 Fifteen Languages Most Commonly Spoken at Home 2010-2011 and 2011-2012
2010-2011 Language English Spanish Chinese (Other/Unknown) Chinese (Cantonese) Bengali Chinese (Mandarin) Russian Arabic Urdu Haitian Creole Korean Albanian Polish Punjabi (aka Panjabi) French 2011-2012 Share of Total Language 58.1% English 24.6 Spanish Chinese 2.2 (Other/Unknown) 1.8 Bengali Chinese 1.8 (Mandarin) Chinese 1.7 (Cantonese) 1.6 Russian 1.1 Arabic 1.0 Urdu 0.7 Haitian Creole 0.6 Korean 0.5 Polish 0.4 Albanian 0.4 French Punjabi (aka 0.4 Panjabi) Share of Total 57.9% 24.5 2.3 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
due to more students entering that program in the most recent two years, and not be indicative of the rate at which students exit that program. Seventeen percent of students are classified as having special education needs (Table 2.7). These students are in programs ranging from classrooms serving a mix of special education and general education youngsters to classrooms designed to serve a very small number of youngsters with specific needs. Students in New York City public schools overwhelmingly come from lower-income households. More than 79 percent qualify for free or reduced cost school meals because they come from homes with income less than 185 percent of the poverty level or because they attend very high poverty schools where the federal government allows the city to simply qualify all students for subsidized meals (so-called universal feeding schools). The remaining 21 percent do not qualify for meal subsidies either because their family income is greater than the eligibility cut-off or they have failed to return valid eligibility forms. (In prior years, more detailed information available to IBO indicated that 60 percent of the students who were deemed ineligible for meal subsidies had been so identified because of the lack of a valid eligibility form.) Students generally enter kindergarten at the age of 5 and complete high school at age 17 or 18, if they proceed through the grades at the expected pace and if their education is not interrupted. This pattern is far from universal in the citys public schools, however. Some students transfer into city schools from other schools, districts, or countries, already behind their agepeers. Others are required to repeat a grade within the school system. Due to these and other factors, 20 percent of eighth graders in the system were over the standard age for that grade in 20112012, and that proportion grew to 39 percent in 10th grade. Because students begin to drop out in larger numbers after grade 10, there are fewer over-age students in grades 11 and 12. Much smaller numbers of students, 3 percent, accelerated their progress and reach 12th grade younger than the standard age. (Table 2.9 displays these data.) Enrollment in the city school system is dynamic, with varying birth rates and residential patterns affecting
May 2013 7
special instruction meant to bring them to English language proficiency. A little more than 18 percent of ELL students were in bilingual classrooms, where subject classes are taught in their native language. The remaining 10.8 percent of ELL students were in either dual language programs, where the emphasis is on a mix of English and non-English speaking students learning each others language, or in programs determined by their Individualized Education Plan (IEP), which is set for each youngster in special education programs. (Table 2.6 presents these data.) Nearly 73 percent of students in bilingual programs in 2010-2011 were in those programs for three years or less, while 59 percent of students in English as a Second Language programs were participating for three years or less. While this might suggest that students in bilingual programs move to English language proficiency quicker than those in ESL programs, data are also influenced by variation in the number of students entering a program each year. The higher percentage of students in bilingual programs for fewer than three years might simply be
Table 2.5 English Language Learner Status by Grade

2010-2011 Not English Language Learner Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL Number 59,995 62,755 63,799 62,304 62,332 62,628 62,734 64,310 65,140 83,438 85,953 61,180 65,014 861,582 Percent 78.4% 78.7% 81.9% 81.8% 82.9% 84.8% 86.0% 86.7% 86.3% 85.7% 84.8% 88.1% 88.1% 84.1% English Language Learner Number 16,511 16,990 14,094 13,871 12,878 11,268 10,224 9,898 10,304 13,927 15,409 8,230 8,823 162,427 Percent Grade 21.6% K 21.3% 1 18.1% 2 18.2% 3 17.1% 4 15.2% 5 14.0% 6 13.3% 7 13.7% 8 14.3% 9 15.2% 10 11.9% 11 11.9% 12 15.9% TOTAL 2011-2012 Not English Language Learner Number 62,231 63,036 63,784 64,090 62,304 62,656 64,837 63,456 64,944 81,068 82,481 61,677 68,307 864,871 Percent 79.2% 78.9% 81.8% 83.3% 83.4% 85.2% 87.2% 87.0% 86.8% 86.1% 84.8% 87.4% 88.4% 84.5% English Language Learner Number 16,390 16,876 14,192 12,816 12,390 10,908 9,550 9,485 9,846 13,116 14,740 8,877 8,994 158,180 Percent 20.8% 21.1% 18.2% 16.7% 16.6% 14.8% 12.8% 13.0% 13.2% 13.9% 15.2% 12.6% 11.6% 15.5%
important issues such as building utilization and class sizes. In recent years, some neighborhoods have seen waiting lists form for individual elementary schools. After rising steadily beginning in 1995-1996, citywide enrollment peaked at 1.1 million students in 2000-
2001. It then declined for eight straight years by a cumulative 7 percent to reach 1.03 million in 20082009. In recent years, total enrollment has fluctuated slightly around the 1.04 million student mark. Since 2006-2007, enrollment has increased in Queens (up
Table 2.6 Program Placement of English Language Learner Students, 2010-2011

Bilingual Number 9,137 7,222 3,971 2,725 1,753 1,147 599 438 291 222 153 94 129 27,881 Cumulative Percentage 32.8% 58.7% 72.9% 82.7% 89.0% 93.1% 95.2% 96.8% 97.9% 98.7% 99.2% 99.5% 100.0% 18.1% 6,125 4.0% Dual Language Number 1953 1512 875 718 477 293 167 65 54 7 4 Cumulative Percentage 31.9% 56.6% 70.9% 82.6% 90.4% 95.2% 97.9% 98.9% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% English as a Second Language Only Number 26,770 22,792 14,921 12,813 9,845 7,159 4,949 3,468 2,464 1,568 1,125 674 893 109,441 Cumulative Percentage 24.5% 45.3% 58.9% 70.6% 79.6% 86.2% 90.7% 93.9% 96.1% 97.5% 98.6% 99.2% 100.0% 71.1% Special Education/ Individualized Educational Program Number 1723 1006 1315 1262 1200 1188 901 678 517 338 158 64 40 10,390 Cumulative Percentage 16.6% 26.3% 38.9% 51.1% 62.6% 74.0% 82.7% 89.3% 94.2% 97.5% 99.0% 99.6% 100.0% 6.8%
Number of Years in Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Over 12 TOTAL
New York City Independent Budget Office 8 NYC Independent Budget Office May 2013
6.5 percent) and Staten Island (up 5.2 percent), while declining in Brooklyn (down 3.4 percent) and Manhattan (down 4.3 percent) and the Bronx (down 1.6 percent). (Table 2.10 and Figure 2.1 display these data.)
Table 2.7A Special Education Status of Public School Students, 2010-2011
General Education Grade Pre-K K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL Number 53,503 66,061 67,233 64,090 61,740 60,207 59,272 58,713 59,981 61,624 78,549 85,875 60,277 62,966 900,091 Percent 90.7% 86.3% 84.3% 82.3% 81.1% 80.1% 80.2% 80.5% 80.8% 81.7% 80.7% 84.7% 86.8% 85.3% 83.1% Special Education Number 5,512 10,445 12,512 13,803 14,435 15,003 14,624 14,245 14,227 13,820 18,816 15,487 9,133 10,871 182,933 Percent 9.3% 13.7% 15.7% 17.7% 18.9% 19.9% 19.8% 19.5% 19.2% 18.3% 19.3% 15.3% 13.2% 14.7% 16.9%
Table 2.8A Poverty Level of Public School Students by Grade, 2010-2011

Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Grade Pre-K K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL Number 28,517 64,793 68,227 67,241 66,235 65,780 64,546 62,650 63,608 64,648 75,990 78,682 51,337 53,347 875,601 Percent 48.3% 84.7% 85.6% 86.3% 87.0% 87.5% 87.3% 85.9% 85.7% 85.7% 78.0% 77.6% 74.0% 72.2% 80.8% Full-Price Lunch Number 30,498 11,713 11,518 10,652 9,940 9,430 9,350 10,308 10,600 10,796 21,375 22,680 18,073 20,490 207,423 Percent 51.7% 15.3% 14.4% 13.7% 13.0% 12.5% 12.7% 14.1% 14.3% 14.3% 22.0% 22.4% 26.0% 27.8% 19.2%
Table 2.8B Poverty Level of Public School Students by Grade, 2011-2012

Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Grade Pre-K K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL Number 27,983 64,912 66,926 65,434 64,958 63,452 62,817 62,496 61,003 62,362 72,189 73,846 51,192 53,583 853,153 Percent 46.1% 82.6% 83.7% 83.9% 84.5% 84.9% 85.4% 84.0% 83.6% 83.4% 76.6% 76.0% 72.6% 69.3% 78.7% Full-Price Lunch Number 32,727 13,709 12,986 12,542 11,948 11,242 10,747 11,891 11,938 12,428 21,995 23,375 19,362 23,718 230,608 Percent 53.9% 17.4% 16.3% 16.1% 15.5% 15.1% 14.6% 16.0% 16.4% 16.6% 23.4% 24.0% 27.4% 30.7% 21.3%
Table 2.7B Special Education Status of Public School Students, 2011-2012

General Education Grade Pre-K K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL Number 55,374 68,181 67,458 64,465 62,187 59,780 58,757 59,897 58,870 60,741 75,840 81,574 61,362 65,444 899,930 Percent 91.2% 86.7% 84.4% 82.7% 80.9% 80.0% 79.9% 80.5% 80.7% 81.2% 80.5% 83.9% 87.0% 84.7% 83.0% Special Education Number 5,336 10,440 12,454 13,511 14,719 14,914 14,807 14,490 14,071 14,049 18,344 15,647 9,192 11,857 183,831 Percent 8.8% 13.3% 15.6% 17.3% 19.1% 20.0% 20.1% 19.5% 19.3% 18.8% 19.5% 16.1% 13.0% 15.3% 17.0%
NOTES: All students in universal feeding schools are included in the Free or Reduced-Price category. In this table, students who did not return a completed school lunch eligibility form are counted in the FullPrice Lunch category. The data available to IBO does not allow us to count those students separately in all grades. New York City Independent Budget Office
May 2013
Table 2.9A Student Age Relative to Grade, 2010-2011

Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Under Age 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.3% 2.1% 3.7% Standard Age 97.1% 92.5% 89.1% 87.2% 86.0% 85.7% 82.6% 80.3% 77.5% 62.0% 58.3% 68.4% 68.0% Over Age 2.5% 7.3% 10.6% 12.4% 13.5% 13.7% 16.3% 18.5% 21.5% 37.0% 40.4% 29.5% 28.3%
Figure 2.1 Enrollment in New York City Public Schools

Enrollment in thousands
1,200 1,180 1,160 1,140 1,120 1,100 1,080 1,060 1,040 1,020
20
20
20
-2
-2
-2 20 09
19 9
20
Table 2.9B Student Age Relative to Grade, 2011-2012

Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Under Age 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.8% 0.9% 1.1% 1.0% 1.3% 1.6% 3.3% Standard Age 97.1% 92.4% 89.3% 87.1% 86.5% 85.4% 83.3% 81.0% 78.7% 63.3% 60.1% 68.3% 67.9% Over Age 2.8% 7.3% 10.5% 12.6% 13.0% 14.1% 16.0% 18.1% 20.2% 35.7% 38.6% 30.1% 28.8%
SOURCE: New York City Department of Education Annual Audited Register, October 31 each year New York City Independent Budget Office
NOTES: General Education population only. Excludes students in District 84 and 256 students whose age data was missing. New York City Independent Budget Office
10
20
20
20
20 11 May 2013
01 -
03
05
07 -
9-
20 12
00
00
01 0
02
00
08
Table 2.10 Public School Enrollment Trends, 1999-2000 Through 2011-2012

School Year 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Five-Year Change Since 2006-2007 Bronx 228,846 229,730 229,088 228,671 229,564 227,430 223,803 221,832 219,736 217,998 218,601 219,581 218,195 Brooklyn 355,957 355,631 352,263 347,952 344,378 337,949 328,964 320,753 316,702 311,244 312,681 312,656 309,770 Manhattan 172,570 171,328 169,344 168,759 168,614 168,834 165,867 163,861 160,588 158,502 158,431 157,770 156,824 Queens 282,515 287,293 286,032 283,961 282,016 279,616 276,688 275,051 276,991 279,806 286,024 290,602 292,940 Staten Island 59,549 61,258 62,105 62,374 62,314 61,509 60,664 60,581 61,389 61,909 63,004 63,277 63,708 TOTAL 1,099,437 1,105,240 1,098,832 1,091,717 1,086,886 1,075,338 1,055,986 1,042,078 1,035,406 1,029,459 1,038,741 1,043,886 1,041,437
-1.6%
-3.4%
-4.3%
6.5%
5.2%
-0.1%
SOURCE: New York City Department of Education Annual Audited Register, October 31 of each year.
May 2013
11
12
May 2013
What Resources Are Made Available to Our Public Schools?

contract schools, charter schools, and special education pre-kindergarten. In real, inflation-adjusted terms, perpupil spending rose by 26 percent from 2003 through 2010, but has decreased by 1 percent since then. In recent years, the DOE has followed budget policies directed toward school autonomy and principal empowerment. Funds are directed to schools andto the extent that restrictions on funding sources allow principals are granted discretion over the use of funds within their school. For the 2011-2012 school year, $9.6 billion was allocated to traditional public schools to be budgeted by principals, $54 million less than in 2012. (Our figures include an allocation of fringe benefit costs for all personnel spending even though those costs are paid centrally within the DOE budget.) The largest portion of this money, 66 percent in 2011-2012, was distributed under the fair student funding formula, which attempts to account for the relative needs of different types of students at each school (Table 3.4). The formulas funding stream mixes funds from the city and state budgets. This is also true of the much smaller Contract for Excellence funding stream, which is related to the settlement of the successful Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit in which the courts found that city schools had historically been underfunded and directed that state and city support for city schools should be increased. More than 60 percent of all money allocated to schools in 2011-2012 was spent on teacher costs (Table 3.5). Another 25 percent was split among leadership (administrators), paraprofessionals, counselors, and other school staff. Although related services for special needs students accounted for another 4 percent of the schools budgets, it is important to note that many of the additional services provided to students in special education programs do not flow through the portion of the departments budget controlled by principals.
Budgetary Resources The Department of Educations expense budget$19.7 billion in the 2012-2013 school yearhas grown by 16 percent since 2007-2008. In both absolute and percentage terms, the biggest increase has been in the nonpublic school payments category, which is up $1.5 billion, or 115 percent in five years (Table 3.1.) In the last complete school year, 2011-2012, city funding accounted for 47 percent of the DOEs expense budget; state funds, 42 percent; and federal, 10 percent. The remaining 1 percent included intra-city transfers and categorical funds from other than state or federal sources (Table 3.2). Two important spending categories, pension contributions for DOE employees and debt service for education capital projects, are accounted for elsewhere in the citys budget and do not show up in the DOEs expense budget. Table 3.3 adds these categories to the DOEs budget for city fiscal years 2003, and 2008 through 2013. In order to allow for meaningful comparisons across years, it also adjusts for inflation (all figures are presented in 2012 dollars). The additional costs for pensions and debt service are substantial. Annual debt service for education purposes more than doubled in real terms from 2003 through 2013, and is now over $1.7 billion. Pension costs for DOE employees increased by 241 percent, again in real terms, from 2003 to 2013. Pension costs are now about $2.7 billion, more than three times what they were in 2003. Some of the money allocated to the DOE actually flows out to private, special education schools and to public charter schools. Table 3.3 shows per pupil spending for the citys traditional public school system, including pensions and debt service but excluding spending on
May 2013
13
14
Table 3.1 Department of Education Program Budget, 2008-2013
Dollars in thousands
2007-2008 $15,102,679 $9,358,047 6,960,412 1,343,001 1,054,634 $2,605,295 562,044 2,043,250 $277,498 $2,861,839 898,925 400,270 204,086 966,878 391,680 $1,333,966 637,848 635,026 61,092 $540,389 $16,977,034 $17,903,053 $483,361 61,440 764,305 977,903 71,021 $500,427 $18,498,505 739,296 852,591 $1,565,041 $1,901,515 393,840 422,748 468,567 $2,174,310 943,426 1,161,576 69,308 $443,574 $18,938,929 968,460 995,662 1,017,219 217,002 294,679 297,900 413,358 483,747 459,839 1,043,866 1,105,610 1,033,358 931,603 425,007 298,111 1,073,697 456,961 $2,501,203 1,008,570 1,421,509 71,124 $368,850 $19,283,256 $3,036,526 $3,302,445 $3,276,882 $3,185,380 $285,748 $277,753 $172,252 $191,134 1,960,062 2,328,165 2,431,803 2,192,155 590,630 607,677 618,245 615,114 701,172 1,988,379 $179,621 $3,190,049 812,401 432,693 303,940 1,132,167 508,850 $2,864,843 1,193,402 1,600,295 71,146 $349,412 $19,725,068 $2,550,692 $2,935,842 $3,050,048 $2,807,269 $2,689,551 1,097,030 1,162,943 1,156,003 1,078,473 1,202,245 1,538,558 1,259,515 1,327,593 1,493,114 1,430,883 (62,232) 123,772 ($117,718) 86,058 (203,776) ($11,513) $4,670 (119,202) 7,685 5,828 58,470 51,889 $363,640 184,832 178,786 22 ($19,438) $441,812 7,346,096 7,158,064 7,338,267 7,657,833 7,818,464 160,631 $9,981,685 $9,580,522 $9,821,863 $10,229,420 $10,451,592 $222,171 $15,854,651 $16,096,563 $16,321,045 $16,413,203 $16,510,813 $97,610
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
Change from Change from 2007-2008 to 2012-2013 2012-2013 2011-2012 to Projected 2012-2013 Dollars Percent $1,408,134 $1,093,544 858,052 87,882 147,611 $84,257 139,128 (54,871) ($97,878) $328,210 (86,524) 32,422 99,854 165,289 117,169 $1,530,877 555,553 965,269 10,055 ($190,977) $2,748,034 9.3% 11.7% 12.3% 6.5% 14.0% 3.2% 24.8% -2.7% -35.3% 11.5% -9.6% 8.1% 48.9% 17.1% 29.9% 114.8% 87.1% 152.0% 16.5% -35.3% 16.2%
Services to Schools
Classroom Instruction
General Education Instruction
Special Education Instruction
Citywide Special Education Instruction
Instructional Support
Special Education Instructional Support
Categorical Programs
Instructional Admin-School Support Organizations
Noninstructional Support
School Facilities
School Food Services
School Safety
Pupil Transportation
Energy & Leases
Private and Other Non-Public School Payments
Special Education Pre-Kindergarten Contracts
Charter School, Contract School, Foster Care Payments
Nonpublic School & FIT Payments
Central Administration
TOTAL DOE BUDGET
NOTE: IBO has allocated spending on fringe benefits according to the rates implied by the Bloomberg Administration budget documents for each funding source.
May 2013
Principals and Teachers Over the past 10 years, the Department of Education has worked to develop new policies for recruiting, evaluating, assigning, and retaining or removing teachers and principals. The following tables provide descriptive data on the current and recent cadres of principals and teachers in the school system, as well as information on the systems use of alternative pathways to both professions. In addition, we report recent trends in staff turnover and retention. New York City public school principals today differ in a number of characteristics from those of 10 years ago, but most of the changes occurred at the beginning of the decade. The changes in demographics over the past five years have been modest (Table 3.6). During the school
years 2000-2001 through 2004-2005, as the principal corps saw an increase in the share who were female and a decline in total years of experience, it also became somewhat younger. Principals in 2011-2012 have more experience as principals than the principals of 2004-2005. The principal core also became somewhat younger since 2004-2005; half of the principals in 20112012 were below age 49 and 10 percent were below age 36. Finally, the number of principals in the school system has grown steadily, from 1,283 in 2000-2001 to 1,396 in 2004-2005 to 1,625 in 2011-2012. When we group schools by the highest third, middle third, and lowest third of poverty rates, there is no consistent pattern to the distribution of principals among elementary and middle schools (Table 3.7). For example, high- and medium-poverty elementary
Table 3.2 Department of Education Program Budget by Funding Source, 2011-2012

Percent of all funds for each program line
City Funds Services to Schools Classroom Instruction General Education Instruction Special Education Instruction Citywide Special Education Instruction Instructional Support Special Education Instructional Support Categorical Programs Instructional AdministrationSchool Support Organizations Noninstructional Support School Facilities School Food Services School Safety Pupil Transportation Energy & Leases Nonpublic School Payments SE Pre-Kindergarten Contracts Charter School, Contract School, Foster Care Payments Nonpublic School & FIT Payments Central Administration TOTAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 43.9% 48.0% 46.0% 38.1% 75.9% 15.8% 71.8% 0.1% 38.6% 55.8% 64.3% 18.4% 100.0% 37.5% 87.3% 62.7% 38.0% 78.5% 95.7% 67.2% 46.8%
State Funds 42.9% 51.5% 53.8% 59.5% 23.7% 26.2% 27.5% 25.9% 61.4% 28.8% 17.6% 5.7% 0.0% 62.5% 12.7% 37.3% 62.0% 21.5% 4.3% 19.9% 41.7%
Federal Funds 11.7% 0.6% 0.2% 2.4% 0.5% 54.7% 0.7% 69.8% 0.0% 10.4% 1.0% 75.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.4% 10.2%
Other Categorical Funds 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 4.7% 16.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% 1.1%
Intra-City Funds 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
Federal Community Development Funds 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
NOTE: IBO has allocated spending on fringe benefits according to the rates implied by Bloomberg Administration budget documents for each funding source. New York City Independent Budget Office
May 2013
15
and middle schools have principals that are slightly younger than low-poverty schools. Among high schools, medium-poverty schools have the youngest principals, followed by high- and low-poverty schools. Three programs prepare aspiring principal candidates for school leader positions in the citys public schools. The Aspiring Principals Program (APP) at the New York City Leadership Academy is a nonprofit that works collaboratively with the DOE to recruit, develop, and support school leaders. In addition to APP, the DOE partners with several other principal preparation programs including New Leaders Aspiring
Principals Program (New Leaders). New Leaders is a national independent nonprofit organization that DOE collaborates with to recruit, develop, and support school leaders. (Though New Leaders is a national program, we are only reporting data on its New York City project.) Both APP and New Leaders are year-long, full-time residency programs at a host school open to all interested eligible candidates. The third pathway is the Leaders in Education Apprenticeship Program (LEAP), which began in 2009. Developed in collaboration with the Leadership Academy, LEAP is an internal DOE leadership program
Table 3.3 Per Pupil Spending, Adjusted for Inflation and Payments to Nonpublic and Charter Schools
2012 dollars, in millions
20022003 DOE Expenditures DOE Operations (all funds) Other Expenditures (all funds) Debt Service Pension Contributions Less Intra-city Sales/ Interfund Agreements Total Funds Committed to DOE City Funds State Aid Federal Aid Private and Nongovernmental Aid City Share of Total Funds Committed to DOE Total Funds Committed to DOE Less Passthroughs to Nonpublic and Charter Schools Total Funds Committed to NYC Public School System Total Enrollment Less Enrollment in Charters, Contract Schools, and Special Ed Pre-K Enrollment in Traditional NYC Public Schools Per Pupil Spending Real 2012 Dollars Deflator Nominal Amounts $16,629 0.72 $11,971 764 795 (13) $19,300 $8,743 8,146 2,316 95 45.3% $19,300 (1,372) $17,928 1,112,279 $17,754
20072008 $19,062 1,448 2,127 (18) $22,619 $11,455 9,055 2,018 91 50.6% $22,619 (1,470) $21,149 1,081,831
20082009 $19,332 1,450 2,363 (15) $23,130 $11,682 9,342 1,873 232 50.5% $23,130 (1,670) $21,460 1,080,787
20092010 $19,392 1,646 2,571 (29) $23,580 $11,733 8,462 3,105 280 49.8% $23,580 (1,994) $21,586 1,098,535
20102011 $19,223 1,678 2,493 (35) $23,359 $12,221 8,245 2,837 56 52.3% $23,359 (2,207) $21,152 1,112,430
20112012 $19,283 1,726 2,672 (42) $23,639 $13,419 8,040 1,964 216 56.8% $23,639 (2,501) $21,138 1,119,064
20122013 $19,470 1,783 2,707 (14) $23,946 $13,646 8,323 1,922 55 57.0% $23,946 (2,608) $21,338 1,130,646
(34,181) 1,078,098
(56,066) 1,025,765 $20,618 0.89 $18,362
(61,676) 1,019,111 $21,058 0.93 $19,501
(66,882) 1,031,653 $20,924 0.95 $19,959
(78,100) 1,034,330 $20,450 0.99 $20,147
(86,721) 1,032,343 $20,476 1.00 $20,476
(98,029) 1,032,617 $20,664 1.01 $20,931
New York City Independent Budget Office 16
May 2013
Table 3.4 Funding Streams for School Budgets, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012
Dollars in millions
2010-2011 Source Fair Student Funding City Funds Federal Title I Federal Other Campaign for Fiscal Equity State Other Private TOTAL Amount $5,603 1,930 945 664 266 257 26 9,691 Percent 57.8% 19.9% 9.8% 6.9% 2.7% 2.7% 0.3% 100%
2011-2012 Amount $6,338 1,632 678 391 285 284 29 9,637 Percent 65.8% 16.9% 7.0% 4.1% 3.0% 2.9% 0.3% 100.0%
Changes Amount $736 (297) (267) (274) 19 27 2 $(54) Percent 13.1% -15.4% -28.3% -41.2% 7.3% 10.4% 8.7% -0.6%
consisting of a year-long, part-time residency program at the home school for current eligible DOE employees. In
2011-2012, LEAP enrolled and graduated more aspiring principals than APP or New Leaders combined.
Table 3.5 Summary of School Budgets, Use of Funds, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012
2010-2011 Use of Funds Teachers Leadership Other School Staff Paraprofessionals Counseling Services Related Services Before/Afterschool Professional Development Equip/Furn/Supp Parent Involvement Textbooks Summer School Contracted Services Other Classroom Staff Libraries/Librarians Instructional Supplies/ Equipment Other Transporation Bilingual/ESL Other Admin OTPS Attendance and Outreach Other Classroom OTPS TOTAL Amount $5,765,335,502 649,677,226 623,856,016 619,077,045 465,473,842 396,024,368 303,521,874 236,816,894 221,072,767 120,172,564 63,594,612 62,684,512 61,685,732 34,571,861 27,602,499 19,939,328 10,064,094 4,699,955 2,025,980 1,712,202 1,282,133 $9,690,891,006 Percent 59.5% 6.7% 6.4% 6.4% 4.8% 4.1% 3.1% 2.4% 2.3% 1.2% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 2011-2012 Amount $5,803,007,272 656,421,344 589,500,751 649,561,122 462,369,070 401,681,588 288,045,040 208,782,986 182,888,811 112,327,741 55,142,630 67,518,076 65,738,402 32,901,195 25,651,265 17,609,554 9,141,128 3,463,150 2,588,872 1,441,817 879,580 $9,636,661,394 Percent 60.2% 6.8% 6.1% 6.7% 4.8% 4.2% 3.0% 2.2% 1.9% 1.2% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Change Amount $37,671,771 6,744,118 (34,355,265) 30,484,077 (3,104,772) 5,657,220 (15,476,834) (28,033,908) (38,183,956) (7,844,823) (8,451,982) 4,833,564 4,052,670 (1,670,666) (1,951,234) (2,329,775) (922,966) (1,236,805) 562,892 (270,385) (402,553) $(54,229,612) Percent 0.7% 1.0% -5.5% 4.9% -0.7% 1.4% -5.1% -11.8% -17.3% -6.5% -13.3% 7.7% 6.6% -4.8% -7.1% -11.7% -9.2% -26.3% 27.8% -15.8% -31.4% -0.6%
May 2013
17
Table 3.6 Some Basic Characteristics of Principals: Demographics & Work History
20002001 Number of Principals Percentage Female Median Age 10th Percentile of Age Distribution Years as a Principal Years as a Teacher Total Years Work Experience in NYC Public Schools 1,283 57.6% 52 44 5.7 14.0 20022003 1,284 63.9% 52 42 5.0 13.5 20042005 1,396 67.9% 51 37 3.9 12.1 20052006 1,443 67.5% 50 36 3.9 11.3 20062007 1,463 67.3% 50 36 4.1 10.8 20072008 1,504 67.6% 50 35 4.5 10.4 20082009 1,553 68.0% 49 35 4.7 10.0 20092010 1,587 67.6% 49 35 5.1 9.7 20102011 1,608 68.5% 49 35 5.3 9.5 20112012 1,625 68.3% 49 36 5.6 9.3
25.2
23.8
20.8
19.8
19.2
19.2
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.2
The Aspiring Principals Program graduated 28 candidates for principal posts in New York City immediately prior to the 2011-2012 school year. All but one of these APP graduates was hired for jobs inside the school system: 19 as principals, six as assistant principals and two in other positions (Table 3.8). Nearly a third (six) of these principals were hired for low-poverty schools and just over half (10) for medium-poverty schools. New Leaders prepared eight graduates for the citys public schools and seven were hired by the school system, six as principals. Only one of those principals was hired for a high-poverty school.
The Leaders in Education Apprenticeship Program prepared 68 candidates for 2011-2012. All but two LEAP graduates were hired by the school system, 25 as principals, 21 as assistant principals, 11 as teachers and nine in other positions. Eleven out of 25 of the principals were working in low-poverty schools and 10 more were in medium-poverty schools. Over the last six years, as the number of graduates from the Aspiring Principals Program has declined, the number actually hired as principals in the citys public schools has also dropped steadily (Table 3.9). In school
Table 3.7 Different Types of Schools and Some Characteristics of Their Principals, 2011-2012 All Schools Elementary & Middle Schools 1,042 75.4 50 36 High Schools 472 52.3 45 35 High-Poverty Schools Elementary & Middle Schools 349 80.2 49 37 High Schools 157 55.4 46 36 Medium-Poverty Schools Elementary & Middle Schools 347 70.6 49 35 High Schools 159 47.8 44 34 Low-Poverty Schools Elementary & Middle Schools 346 75.4 51 36 High Schools 156 53.9 48 35
Principal Demographics Number of Principals Percentage Female Median Age 10th Percentile (Age distribution) Work Experience in NYC Public Schools Years as a Principal Years as a Teacher Total Years in School System Student Demographics at School Average Share of Students in Poverty
5.9 9.9 20.0
4.7 8.0 16.8
6.1 9.9 20.1
4.5 8.1 16.6
5.5 9.6 19.6
4.5 7.2 16.0
6.2 10.2 20.4
5.2 8.6 17.8
70.9%
66.5%
90.4%
81.3%
76.7%
69.1%
45.3%
48.9%
18
May 2013
Table 3.8 First Assignments for Recent Graduates of Principal Training Program, 2011-2012
Program Aspiring Principals Program Working in NYC Public Schools Working in High-Poverty School Working in Medium-Poverty School Working in Low-Poverty School School Poverty Level Unknown New Leaders Working in NYC Public Schools Working in High-Poverty School Working in Medium-Poverty School Working in Low-Poverty School School Poverty Level Unknown Leaders in Education Apprenticeship Program Working in NYC Public Schools Working in High-Poverty School Working in Medium-Poverty School Working in Low-Poverty School School Poverty Level Unknown 25 4 10 11 0 21 8 9 4 0 11 4 1 6 0 9 1 3 0 5 6 1 1 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 3 10 6 0 6 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 Working as Principal Working as Assistant Principal Working as Teacher or Special Education Teacher Other Total Graduates 28 27 5 12 8 2 8 7 1 1 5 0 68 66 17 23 21 5
NOTE: Includes individuals who graduated in time for the start of the 2011-2012 school year.
year 2005-2006, 54 APP graduates were hired as principals compared with 19 in 2011-2012. New Leaders has placed between four and nine principals per year. These principals have predominately been hired for schools opened since the beginning of the Bloomberg Administration in 2002-2003. In the last three years, only four New Leaders graduates have been named principal of an older school (Table 3.10). The Aspiring Principal Program has followed a different trajectory. In 2005-2006, many more of its graduates were hired as principals for older schools than for schools opened during the Bloomberg Administration, but beginning in 2008-2009, the split between new and existing schools has become more even. In 2011-2012, almost 22 percent of all principals in the system had come through these alternative pathways. In demographic terms, they differed from their peers who had followed the traditional pathway (Table 3.11). Seventy percent of traditionally trained principals were female. The APP program closely matched this proportion, but both the New Leaders (52 percent) and
LEAP (47 percent) trained principals were less likely to be female. A greater proportion of the principals trained by the alternative pathways were found in schools created by the Bloomberg Administration than those who came through the traditional pathway. Principals from all three alternative pathways were significantly younger and less experienced than traditionally trained principals, reflecting the relative newness of these pathways. Review of principal turnover and retention rates indicates that the percentage of principals who move from one school to another within the school system or who leave the system altogether is declining. Attrition rates were higher in the first half of the 2000-2010 decade, which is consistent with trends observed for other indicators of principal demographics. Of the principals who attained that position in 20002001, 27 percent had left the school system three years later, and 48 percent had left five years later. For principals who were first named in 2004-2005, 12 percent had left the system within three years and 22 percent had left in five years. Finally, for those who
May 2013 19
Table 3.9 First Assignments After Graduating From Principal Training Programs, by School Poverty Levels
20052006 Aspiring Principals Program Total Graduates Working as Principal Principal in High-Poverty School Principal in Medium-Poverty School Principal in Low-Poverty School School Poverty Level Unknown New Leaders Total Graduates Working as Principal Principal in High-Poverty School Principal in Medium-Poverty School Principal in Low-Poverty School School Poverty Level Unknown Leaders in Education Apprenticeship Program Total Graduates Working as Principal Principal in High-Poverty School Principal in Medium-Poverty School Principal in Low-Poverty School School Poverty Level Unknown
NOTE: Includes individuals who graduated in time for the start of the 2011-2012 school year.
20062007 75 55 18 9 26 2 15 7 1 0 5 1
20072008 55 36 4 16 15 1 12 5 0 0 5 0
20082009 59 41 11 9 20 1 19 8 1 1 6 0
20092010 56 33 5 11 17 0 28 9 2 1 6 0
20102011 31 30 7 8 13 2 12 4 1 0 3 0
20112012 28 19 3 10 6 0 8 6 1 1 4 0
70 54 12 21 17 4 14 8 1 1 6 0
26 3 2 1 -
68 25 4 10 11 -
began in 2008-2009, 8 percent had left within three years. A very similar pattern of decreasing turnover exists for the share of principals who move from one school to another. (Table 3.12 presents these data.) The basic demographics of the school systems teaching force have remained relatively constant over the last seven years. About three quarters of the citys public school teachers are female, and roughly half are under the age of 40 (Table 3.13). The citys teachers in 2011-2012 were slightly more experienced than the teaching force in 2005-2006; this may reflect the slowdown in hiring of new teachers in recent years. There were 7,321 fewer general education teachers in 2011-2012 than in 2005-2006, and 3,773 more special education teachers. Overall, there were 3,548 fewer teachers in 2011-2012 than in 2005-2006. While the demographic characteristics of teachers did not vary much across elementary and middle schools
in the high-, middle-, and low-poverty groups, there was more variation at the high school level. In low-poverty high schools, teachers were more likely to be older and more experienced than the teachers in high- and mediumpoverty high schools. (Table 3.14 presents these data.) There are two major alternative pathway programs for teachers in the citys public school system. The most well-known is Teach for America, a national nonprofit dedicated to placing high achieving college graduates in high-needs schools. The most commonly used alternative pathway in the city is the New York City Teaching Fellows, which also targets high achieving college graduates as well as career-shifters and which provides participants with support toward the graduate schooling necessary to obtain teacher certification. Though it is not an alternative pathway to teacher certification, we also report data on the TeachNYC Select Recruits program, a DOE program to recruit highly rated, traditionally certified teachers in high-need
20
May 2013
Table 3.10 First Assignment After Graduating From Principal Training Program, New or Existing Schools
20052006 Aspiring Principals Program Total Graduates Working as Principal Principal in New School Principal in Existing School New Leaders Total Graduates Working as Principal Principal in New School Principal in Existing School Leaders in Education Apprenticeship Program Total Graduates Working as Principal Principal in New School Principal in Existing School 26 3 0 3 68 25 11 14 14 8 7 1 15 7 5 2 12 5 5 0 19 8 8 0 28 9 8 1 12 4 2 2 8 6 5 1 70 54 13 41 75 55 16 39 55 36 12 24 59 41 21 20 56 33 17 16 31 30 13 17 28 19 8 11 20062007 20072008 20082009 20092010 20102011 20112012
NOTE: New schools are those opened since the onset of the Bloomberg Administration. Existing schools are those that pre-date the Bloomberg Administration. New York City Independent Budget Office
subject areas. They are drawn from the top 1 percent of the DOEs applicant pool. Individuals applying for teaching positions are invited to interview for the Select Recruit program based on a review of their qualifications and potential.
In 2010-2011, 2,031 new teachers were placed through the traditional pathway; 413 came through the NYC Teaching Fellows program; 297 came through the TeachNYC Select Recruits program; and 79 were from Teach for America (Table 3.15). (Teacher pathway
Table 3.11 Different Paths to Becoming a Principal: Characteristics of Principals and Their Schools, 2011-2012
Aspiring Principals Program Principal Demographics Number of Principals Female Median Age 10th Percentile of Age Distribution Work Experience in NYC Public Schools Years as a Principal Years as a Teacher Total Years in School System Student Demographics at School Average Poverty (Pct) Characteristics of School Percent in High Schools Percent in New Schools 30.7 39.2 38.2 85.7 28.1 40.6 30.8 18.5 72.1 74.3 71.7 68.7 3.9 7.1 13.4 3.2 5.2 10.2 0.4 7.6 13.3 6.2 10.0 21.0 268 66.8% 43 33 56 51.8% 36 32 32 46.9% 40 33 1,268 69.7% 50 38 New Leaders Leaders in Education Apprenticeship Program Others (Traditional Pathway)
May 2013
21
Table 3.12 Turnover Rates of New Principals, 2000-2001 Through 2011-2012

All rates as of October 31 of the year
Percent That Left Principalship at First School Assigned New Principals in: 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2002 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 Number of Principals 135 194 223 253 350 239 192 169 183 136 172 Number of Principals 135 194 223 253 350 239 192 169 183 136 172 After After 1 yr 2 yrs 26% 15% 12% 19% 15% 13% 9% 7% 4% 8% 13% Percent That Left New York City Public School System New Principals in: 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2002 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 After After 1 yr 2 yrs 7% 2% 4% 5% 5% 4% 1% 4% 0% 1% 1%
After 3 yrs 47% 45% 35% 29% 31% 26% 18% 20% 24%
After 4 yrs 56% 54% 46% 37% 37% 32% 29% 30%
After 5 yrs 69% 63% 54% 45% 45% 39% 38%
After 6 yrs 71% 65% 58% 49% 50% 45%
After 7 yrs 75% 71% 62% 56% 57%
After 8 yrs 78% 71% 67% 61%
After 9 yrs 81% 75% 70%
After 10 yrs 83% 79%
After 11 yrs 84%
33% 27% 26& 21% 22% 19% 14% 10% 11% 16%
After 3 yrs 27% 19% 20% 15% 12% 8% 4% 8% 8%
After 4 yrs 36% 26% 29% 22% 18% 13% 11% 15%
After 5 yrs 48% 33% 35% 29% 22% 19% 17%
After 6 yrs 49% 36% 40% 31% 26% 25%
After 7 yrs 52% 41% 44% 36% 32%
After 8 yrs 56% 45% 49% 42%
After 9 yrs 62% 52% 55%
After 11 yrs 68%
12% 7% 12% 8% 8% 5% 2% 4% 2% 1%
data for 2011-2012 is not yet available.) Of the new placements from Teach for America, 61 percent were employed in high-poverty schools compared with 37 percent of the placements from the TeachNYC Select Recruits program, 35 percent of the traditionally trained teachers, and 26 percent of the Teaching Fellows. Close to 80 percent of the Teach for America graduates were placed in special education classrooms, as were 68 percent of the NYC Teaching Fellows, 56 percent of the TeachNYC Select Recruits participants, and 49 percent of the traditionally trained. In 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011, all of the pathways had more than half of their new teachers placed in older schools that pre-date the Bloomberg Administration. Overall, 28 percent of new teachers
22
were placed in newer schools in these three years. (Table 3.16 presents these data.) Although turnover rates for city teachers have generally declined since 2000-2001, they remain considerable. Of all the teachers who began their career in city schools in school year 2008-2009, 50 percent were no longer teaching at the same school after three years. The comparable figure for teachers beginning their careers in 2000-2001 was 58 percent. Of all the teachers who began in 2000-2001, 81 percent were no longer at their original school after 11 years. Of all the teachers who began their career in city schools in 2008-2009, 30 percent had left the system entirely after three years. The comparable three-
May 2013
Table 3.13 Some Basic Characteristics of Teachers: Demographics & Work History
20052006 Percentage Female Median Age 10th Percentile (age distribution) Time as a Teacher Years in School System Total Number of Teachers General Education Teachers Special Education Teachers 74.8 40 25 9.0 9.1 76,934 62,111 14,823 20062007 75.0 40 25 9.1 9.2 77,886 62,522 15,364 20072008 75.2 39 25 9.2 9.3 78,816 62,867 15,949 20082009 75.5 39 26 9.4 9.5 78,882 62,374 16,508 20092010 75.8 40 26 10.1 10.0 76,543 59,402 17,141 20102011 75.9 40 27 10.4 10.5 74,680 56,825 17,855 20112012 76.0 40 28 10.6 10.7 73,386 54,790 18,596
year figure for teachers beginning in 2000-2001 was 41 percent. Of this earlier cohort, after 11 years of service 57 percent were no longer in the system and 43 percent remained in service. (Table 3.17) There is evidence that the attrition rate is decreasing and that the share of teachers who are remaining in the same school is increasing. For teachers who began in 20052006, 49 percent were in the same school three years later, and 37 percent were in the same school five years later. Thirty-six percent had left the system within three years, and 43 percent had left by five years later. The three year attrition rate for teachers who began in 20082009 was 30 percent and 50 percent of the teachers in this cohort were still in the same school after three years.
Capacity and Utilization School overcrowding is an issue of great concern in New York City. Many neighborhoods have experienced overcrowded schools and resultant wait-lists for new entrants. A number of factors combine to either alleviate or exacerbate overcrowding. Demographic shifts increase the number of households with schoolage children in some communities and decrease it in others. The school construction program adds new capacity to the system. Policies regarding co-location of schools in buildings, school closures, and new school start-ups shift students within the school system. The basic measure of school overcrowding is the
Table 3.14 Different Types of Schools and Some Basic Characteristics of Their Teachers, 2011-2012
All Schools Elementary & Middle Schools 46,359 84.5 40 28 High Schools 19,198 57.6 39 27 High-Poverty Schools Elementary & Middle High Schools Schools 15,032 83.8 41 28 4,987 57.8 37 26 Medium-Poverty Schools Elementary & Middle Schools 16,359 83.5 40 28 High Schools 5,976 57.7 39 27 Low-Poverty Schools Elementary & Middle Schools 14,968 86.3 39 28 High Schools 8,235 57.3 41 28
Teacher Demographics Number of Teachers Percentage Female Median Age 10th Percentile (Age distribution) Total Work Experience in New York City Public Schools Years as a Teacher Total Years in School System Student Demographics Average Share of Students in Poverty
10.8 10.8
9.7 9.8
10.5 10.6
8.3 8.5
10.9 10.9
9.3 9.4
10.9 10.9
10.7 10.8
71.2
62.2
90.3
80.6
76.5
69.0
46.4
46.1
May 2013
23
Table 3.15 Newly Hired Teachers: Programs They Came From, Schools They Taught At, 2010-2011
Program NYC Teaching Fellows Working in NYC Public Schools Working in High-Poverty School Working in Medium-Poverty School Working in Low-Poverty School School Poverty Level Unknown TeachNYC Select Recruits Working in NYC Public Schools Working in High-Poverty School Working in Medium-Poverty School Working in Low-Poverty School School Poverty Level Unknown Teach for America Working in NYC Public Schools Working in High-Poverty School Working in Medium-Poverty School Working in Low-Poverty School School Poverty Level Unknown Traditional Pathway Working in NYC Public Schools Working in High-Poverty School Working in Medium-Poverty School Working in Low-Poverty School School Poverty Level Unknown 51.4% 18.8% 16.2% 13.9% 2.5% 48.6% 16.0% 12.7% 12.1% 7.8% 20.3% 12.7% 5.1% 2.5% 0.0% 79.7% 48.1% 20.3% 8.9% 2.5% 43.6% 15.1% 16.5% 11.7% 0.3% 56.4% 22.0% 11.0% 11.7% 11.7% 31.9% 9.9% 12.1% 8.9% 1.0% 68.1% 16.3% 18.1% 14.1% 19.6% Working as Teacher Working as Special Education Teacher Total Fall New Hires 413 100.0% 26.2% 30.2% 23.0% 20.5% 297 100.0% 37.1% 27.5% 23.4% 12.0% 79 100.0% 60.8% 25.3% 11.4% 2.5% 2,031 100.0% 34.8% 28.9% 26.0% 10.4%
school buildings utilization rate. The capacity of a classroom or building is determined by two factorsthe physical dimensions of the space and its functional use. Two classrooms could be the exact same physical size, but be assigned different capacities due to the limits or requirements of the program that is using the space. Some special education programs, for example, require that no more than 12 children be in a particular class. The room housing that class would then be assigned a capacity of 12. If it were being used for a different program, it might have a capacity of 25 or 30. The utilization rate of a school is simply the number of students in the school divided by the sum of the capacity of all of the rooms in that school. IBO defines a building as overcrowded if its utilization level exceeds 102.5 percent, a definition we first used in our initial report on high school utilization. The U.S. Department of Education uses a cut-off of 105 percent. We chose the lower rate due to the large size of many
24 NYC Independent Budget Office
New York City schools, whereby small percentages can represent considerable numbers of students. The citys Department of Education, on the other hand, uses 110 percent as the cut-off for overcrowding. Taking the city school system as a whole, utilization in high schools and middle schools was lower in 20102011 than 2004-2005 (Table 3.18). At the same time, utilization of elementary schools has been increasing, reaching 99.7 percent in 2010-2011. The DOE has a policy of co-locating schools in underutilized buildings. Under this policy, two or more schools will share a single building. Co-locations can involve placing additional traditional public schools and/or charter schools into buildings that already have an existing school. As of 2010-2011, buildings containing more than one school had lower utilization rates (84.3 percent on average) after the co-location
May 2013
Table 3.16 Where Newly Hired Teachers Are Assigned: New or Existing Schools
20082009 NYC Teaching Fellows Working as Teacher Teacher in New School Teacher in Existing School TeachNYC Select Recruits Working as Teacher Teacher in New School Teacher in Existing School Teach for America Working as Teacher Teacher in New School Teacher in Existing School Traditional Pathway Working as Teacher Teacher in New School Teacher in Existing School 3,282 17.9% 82.1% 1,305 33.8% 66.2% 1,971 30.2% 69.8% 466 37.8% 62.2% 185 43.2% 56.8% 79 38.0% 62.0% 395 23.8% 76.2% 143 49.7% 50.4% 291 37.1% 62.9% 1,280 30.2% 69.8% 647 36.6% 63.4% 404 40.8% 59.2% 20092010 20102011
the number of school organizations in the city. Since 2003-2004, 96 schools have been closed; since 20022003, 402 new schools have been opened. Table 3.22 summarizes these changes and Figure 3.1 shows the location of school openings and closings. The appendix to this report provides a detailed list of all closed and opened schools. Class size is largely determined by the availability of class room space in a school building (overcrowded schools typically do not have free classroom space available to add a class and bring down the average class size) and the number of teachers that a schools budget can support (additional classes cannot be provided if a schools budget cannot cover the salaries of additional teachers). Average class sizes increased in each of grades kindergarten through 8 from 20102011 to 2011-2012. The magnitude of the increase varied by grade; in grades 1 and 2, it was about one student per class. Average class size in grades 7 and 8 edged up by 0.1 students per class. Middle school general education and Collaborative Team Teaching classes in core subjects generally increased in size, while average class size for middle school special education students declined. Average class size in core subjects also declined for high school students enrolled in special education. Special education class sizes in elementary and middle school decreased for the majority of students. Tables 3.23, 3.24, 3.25, and 3.26 display these data. In 2011-2012, average class sizes were around 23 students to 24 students in grades kindergarten through 2; 25 students in grades 3 and 4; and 26 students to 27 students in grades 5-8. High school classes also averaged between 26 students and 27 students for general education and Collaborative Team Teaching programs (classrooms with a mix of general education and special education students).
than buildings with only one school (103.5 percent). Table 3.19 displays these data. Thirty-nine percent of the school buildings in the system are overcrowded, up from 37 percent in 2004-2005 (Table 3.20). The number of students in overcrowded buildings in 2010--2011 was 435,748, or 42.7 percent of all DOE students. In response to both overcrowding and the need to replace antiquated facilities, the city has added 63,567 seats through construction or leasing (Table 3.21) from 2004-2005 through 2011-2012. Queens has seen the greatest number of new seats, almost 22,000, followed by the Bronx and Brooklyn with about 16,000 and nearly 15,000, respectively. The school systems policy of closing (typically large) schools and opening new, small schools has increased
May 2013
25
Table 3.17 Turnover Rates of New Teachers, New York City Public Schools, 2000-2001 Through 2011-2012
All rates as of October 31 of each year
Percent That Left Their Teaching Jobs at Their First School Assigned New Teachers in: 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 Number of After Teachers 1 yr 8,872 9,437 8,375 8,552 7,763 7,769 7,305 7,497 6,013 2,595 3,031 32% 30% 31% 27% 25% 24% 23% 21% 24% 19% 20% Percentage That Left New York City Public School System New Teachers in: 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 Number of After Teachers 1 yr 8,872 9,437 8,375 8,552 7,763 7,769 7,305 7,497 6,013 2,595 3,031 21% 18% 19% 13% 14% 12% 13% 12% 11% 8% 9%
After 2 yrs 46% 49% 47% 44% 41% 41% 40% 37% 39% 37%
After 3 yrs 58% 58% 58% 56% 53% 51% 50% 48% 50%
After 4 yrs 65% 64% 65% 63% 59% 58% 57% 56%
After 5 yrs 70% 69% 70% 68% 63% 63% 63%
After 6 yrs 74% 72% 73% 71% 67% 68%
After 7 yrs 77% 74% 75% 74% 70%
After 8 yrs 78% 76% 77% 76%
After 9 yrs 79% 77% 79%
After 11 yrs 81%
After 2 yrs 29% 34% 30% 27% 26% 26% 25% 22% 21% 19%
After 3 yrs 41% 39% 40% 37% 36% 36% 32% 29% 30%
After 4 yrs 44% 44% 44% 42% 41% 40% 37% 35%
After 5 yrs 49% 48% 49% 47% 44% 4%3 42%
After 6 yrs 51% 50% 52% 48% 46% 46%
After 7 yrs 54% 52% 53% 50% 48%
After 8 yrs 55% 53% 54% 51%
After 9 yrs 55% 54% 55%
After 11 yrs 57%
26
May 2013
Table 3.18 Building Utilization: Percent of Capacity 2004-2005 through 2010-2011

Building Type High School 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 Middle School 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 Elementary School 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 964 961 957 955 957 959 967 97.2% 97.0% 97.4% 98.4% 97.8% 99.0% 99.7% 137.4% 164.1% 155.6% 155.6% 160.7% 155.8% 158.0% 205 204 205 205 204 203 205 83.9% 80.7% 75.8% 77.1% 76.8% 80.9% 79.6% 118.4% 120.8% 117.6% 113.3% 113.6% 113.1% 111.8% 203 207 208 213 211 217 226 96.4% 99.5% 92.6% 97.2% 92.3% 92.5% 91.4% 169.3% 152.3% 146.6% 151.8% 147.3% 145.4% 150.5% Number of Buildings Median 95th Percentile
Table 3.19 Average Utilization Rate of Buildings, 2010-2011

Buildings With One School Utilization Rate Number of Buildings 103.5% 998 Buildings With One School Utilization Rate Number of Buildings 100.9% 998 Buildings With Co-located Schools 84.3% 401 Buildings With Co-located Schools 82.2% 401
Median Utilization Rate of Buildings, 2010-2011
Table 3.20 Overcrowding in New York City School Buildings, 2004-2005 Through 2010-2011
Students Number 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 447,471 419,457 373,787 403,403 404,044 426,474 435,748 Share of Total 43.1% 41.1% 37.2% 40.3% 40.6% 42.3% 42.7% Buildings Number 512 515 507 527 526 541 550 Share of Total 37.2% 37.5% 37.0% 38.4% 38.3% 39.2% 39.3%
NOTE: IBO defines a building as overcrowded if its utilization level exceeds 102.5 percent. New York City Independent Budget Office
Table 3.21 Number of New Buildings and Seats by Borough, 2004-2005 Through 2011-2012
Number of New Buildings 2004-2005 Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Queens Staten Island TOTAL 4 4 2 5 0 15 2004-2005 Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Queens Staten Island TOTAL 1,993 2,765 1,415 2,652 0 8,825 2005-2006 3 2 0 7 3 15 2005-2006 860 953 0 2,495 272 4,580 2006-2007 5 3 0 2 0 10 2006-2007 1,324 2,009 0 1,092 0 4,425 2007-2008 0 1 3 4 0 8 2007-2008 0 231 901 1,730 0 2,862 Number of New Seats 2008-2009 806 1,930 492 3,978 2,104 9,310 2009-2010 2010-2011 5,102 2,450 599 3,903 822 12,876 4,368 5,642 3,505 4,141 0 17,656 2011-2012 172 461 630 1,770 0 3,033 2008-2009 2 3 1 5 2 13 2009-2010 2010-2011 6 4 2 8 1 21 6 6 8 6 0 26 2011-2012 1 1 1 4 0 7
New York City Independent Budget Office NYC Independent Budget Office May 2013 27
New Closed
Figure 3.1 " Schools That Opened or Closed Since 2005-2006

New School Closed School
# # # #
31
# # # ## # # " 10 # 10# " " 11 # " " # # # # " "# ## # # # " 6 # # # " # # # # " # " # ## 9 # " # 12 # " # # # " # # "# # # " # # " " # # " # 8# # " " # # 8 # # # " " # " # # # # " # " 7 " " " 5 " # # " # " " # " " # "4 # " 4 # " 7 " #3 # # " # # " # " # # " 30 # # " # 25 # # ## 2 # 26 # # # # # "# # # # # #" #" # # # #1 " # 24 " # 14 ## # # # # # " # " # # # # 28 # Text " 32 # ## # # # " " # 2 ## # # " # 29 # #" # # # # " 13 16 ## " # " # # " # # # " " # " # #" # " # " ## #" # # # 27 # " 23 " # # 19 # " " # 15 17 ## " " # ## "" # " # # # # " 18 ## # # ## " # " " # " 27 18 19 # 20 22 19 # # ## " # 27 # " "21 # 18 # " # # " ##
NOTE: Data through 2011-2012 school year.
Note: Data through 2011-2012 school year.
28
May 2013
Table 3.22 Changes in the Number of Public Schools, 2002-2003 Through 2011-2012
Schools Opened 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 TOTAL 13 26 70 56 39 39 54 45 33 27 402 Schools Closed N/A 1 3 6 22 17 12 10 10 15 96 Total Number of Schools 1,275 1,300 1,367 1,417 1,434 1,456 1,498 1,533 1,556 1,568
NOTE: The total for schools opened begins in 2002-2003 whereas the total for schools closed begins in 2003-2004. New York City Independent Budget Office
Table 3.23 Class Sizes for General Education, Gifted & Talented, and Collaborative Team Teaching Students: Elementary and Middle School Grades
2009-2010 Grade Kindergarten First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth TOTAL Number of Classes 3,194 3,238 3,083 2,936 2,717 2,559 2,465 2,423 2,450 25,065 Number of Average Students Class Size 69,353 71,391 68,502 66,077 66,364 63,551 64,231 64,886 67,418 601,773 21.7 22.0 22.2 22.5 24.4 24.8 26.1 26.8 27.5 24.0 2010-2011 Number of Number of Average Classes Students Class Size 3,148 3,137 2,986 2,838 2,653 2,570 2,426 2,382 2,413 24,553 69,358 71,840 69,320 67,360 66,202 65,259 63,920 64,770 66,157 604,186 22.0 22.9 23.2 23.7 25.0 25.4 26.3 27.2 27.4 24.6 Number of Classes 3,129 2,988 2,848 2,769 2,590 2,511 2,418 2,326 2,369 23,948 2011-2012 Number of Students 71,215 71,504 69,190 67,989 65,453 64,716 65,410 63,529 65,265 604,271 Average Class Size 22.8 23.9 24.3 24.6 25.3 25.8 27.1 27.3 27.5 25.2
May 2013
29
Table 3.24 Class Sizes: Middle School Core Subjects

2009-2010 English Instruction Type CTT General Education Special Education TOTAL Number of Classes 1,038 6,342 804 8,184 Number of Classes CTT General Education Special Education TOTAL 788 4,554 534 5,876 Number of Classes CTT General Education Special Education TOTAL 794 4,585 506 5,885 Number of Classes CTT General Education Special Education TOTAL 822 5,197 585 6,604 Number of Students 25,187 166,336 8,961 200,484 Math Number of Students 19,051 119,288 6,015 144,354 Science Number of Students 19,446 122,257 5,693 147,396 Social Studies Number of Students 20,046 139,317 6,570 165,933 Average Class Size 24.4 26.8 11.2 25.1 Number of Classes 990 5,779 803 7,572 Average Class Size 24.5 26.7 11.3 25.0 Number of Classes 1,040 5,909 791 7,740 Average Class Size 24.2 26.2 11.3 24.6 Number of Classes 988 5,778 788 7,554 Average Class Size 24.3 26.2 11.1 24.5 Number of Classes 1,125 6,207 834 8,166 2010-2011 English Number of Students 28,668 164,919 8,909 202,496 Math Number of Students 25,354 155,339 8,346 189,039 Science Number of Students 26,879 160,011 8,391 195,281 Social Studies Number of Students 25,452 156,332 8,492 190,276 Average Class Size 25.7 27.1 10.6 25.1 Number of Classes 1,121 5,810 931 7,862 Average Class Size 25.8 27.1 10.6 25.2 Number of Classes 1,199 6,022 948 8,169 Average Class Size 25.7 26.9 10.6 25.0 Number of Classes 1,166 6,044 954 8,164 Average Class Size 25.5 26.6 10.7 24.8 Number of Classes 1,281 6,269 1,051 8,601 2011-2012 English Number of Students 33,289 168,505 10,738 212,532 Math Number of Students 30,326 162,606 9,754 202,686 Science Number of Students 31,281 163,937 9,706 204,924 Social Studies Number of Students 29,381 158,768 9,495 197,644 Average Class Size 26.2 27.3 10.2 25.1 Average Class Size 26.1 27.2 10.2 25.1 Average Class Size 26.0 26.9 10.2 24.8 Average Class Size 26.0 26.9 10.2 24.7
NOTE: CTT is Collaborative Team Teaching.
30
May 2013
Table 3.25 Class Sizes: High School Core Subjects

2009-2010 English Instruction Type CTT General Education Special Education TOTAL Number of Classes 1,407 9,540 631 11,578 Number of Classes CTT General Education Special Education TOTAL 1,245 8,916 478 10,639 Number of Classes CTT General Education Special Education TOTAL 1,612 11,332 547 13,491 Number of Classes CTT General Education Special Education TOTAL 1,471 9,646 563 11,680 Number of Students 35,788 250,300 7,857 293,945 Math Number of Students 31,814 231,827 6,187 269,828 Science Number of Students 43,475 307,827 7,202 358,504 Social Studies Number of Students 39,594 262,055 7,356 309,005 Average Class Size 26.9 27.2 13.1 26.5 Number of Classes 1,542 10,627 697 12,866 Average Class Size 27.0 27.2 13.2 26.6 Number of Classes 1,818 12,733 692 15,243 Average Class Size 25.6 26.0 12.9 25.4 Number of Classes 1,194 8,736 523 10,453 Average Class Size 25.4 26.2 12.5 25.4 Number of Classes 1,715 11,429 929 14,073 2010-2011 English Number of Students 44,114 296,545 10,942 351,601 Math Number of Students 30,550 227,737 6,473 264,760 Science Number of Students 49,347 343,174 8,809 401,330 Social Studies Number of Students 41,837 285,643 8,676 336,156 Average Class Size 27.1 26.9 12.4 26.1 Number of Classes 1,705 9,882 574 12,161 Average Class Size 27.1 27.0 12.7 26.3 Number of Classes 2,046 11,929 581 14,556 Average Class Size 25.6 26.1 12.4 25.3 Number of Classes 1,300 8,020 439 9,759 Average Class Size 25.7 25.9 11.8 25.0 Number of Classes 1,895 10,848 732 13,475 2011-2012 English Number of Average Students Class Size 48,550 283,978 8,878 341,406 Math Number of Average Students Class Size 33,367 207,387 5,751 246,505 Science Number of Average Students Class Size 55,009 320,399 7,745 383,153 Social Studies Number of Average Students Class Size 45,486 265,210 7,328 318,024 26.7 26.8 12.8 26.2 26.9 26.9 13.3 26.3 25.7 25.9 13.1 25.3 25.6 26.2 12.1 25.3
NOTE: CTT is Collaborative Team Teaching.
Table 3.26 Class Sizes: Elementary and Middle School Special Education Students
2009-2010 Service Category 6:1:1 8:1:1 12:1 12:1:1 15:1 Number of Classes 3 5 1,119 2,356 1 Number of Students 18 36 11,740 23,758 4 Average Class Size 6.0 7.2 10.5 10.1 4.0 Number of Classes 5 7 1,082 2,496 2 2010-2011 Number of Students 25 56 11,034 24,799 16 Average Class Size 5.0 8.0 10.2 9.9 8.0 Number of Classes 9 8 1,003 2,839 1,163 2011-2012 Number of Students 54 62 10,229 27,267 8,356 Average Class Size 6.0 7.8 10.2 9.6 7.2
May 2013
31
32
May 2013
What Do Some Indicators of School Performance Show?

comparative statistics regarding the performance of subgroups of students within the school system. All of the data presented in this section were aggregated by IBO from the records of individual students. The student attendance rate has increased over the last five years, improving from 87.9 percent in school year 2007-2008 to 89.8 percent in 20112012 (Table 4.1). The biggest increases occurred in grades 9 through 11, though those grades continue to have the lowest absolute levels of attendance of any grade. In general, student attendance increases from kindergarten through grade 4, falls off slightly in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8, and then drops precipitously in the high school grades. In 2011-2012, the average 12th grade attendance rate was only 82.4 percent, which translates into approximately 32 days absent in a 182day school year. There are clear patterns of differences in attendance rates for different groups of students (Table 4.2). Girls have higher attendance rates than boys. Asian students have a 95 percent attendance rate, the highest of any ethnic or racial group. Black students have the lowest rate-88 percent. All students in grades 3 through 8 take the annual New York State examinations in English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics. The test produces two types of scores for each student. The scale score is a three digit score that indicates students absolute level of performance on the test. The state is currently using tests that are designed so that the scale scores only have meaning within a particular grade. Thus, they can be used to see how this years third graders performed compared with last years third graders, but they cannot be used to compare how a student in this years fourth grade performed compared with his/her own performance in third grade last year. The second type of scorethe performance levelassigns students to 1 of 4 groups based upon their scale score. The
Both the city and state education departments annually produce large amounts of information on the performance of the school system. The rigor of the state assessments has come under scrutiny in recent years, resulting in changes in the state testing program. Changes in the state tests have continued with the 2013 introduction of Common Core aligned assessments.) For example, critical questions about the meaning of increasing numbers of students scoring at or above the proficiency level on the state achievement tests prompted the states decision to raise the score needed to attain proficiency for the 2010 round of testing. It is not the purpose of this report to resolve outstanding questions about the various indicators of school system performance. Those questions require much more detailed analysis than can be presented in this annual report. Nor is it our intent to just reproduce the outcomes data already available on the Department of Educations Web site. Rather, we will focus on some
Table 4.1 Attendance Rate by Grade, 2007-2008 Through 2011-2012
Grade Pre-K K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total 20072008 88.0% 90.0% 91.9% 92.6% 93.1% 93.4% 93.3% 92.0% 91.5% 89.9% 78.4% 77.6% 84.8% 82.3% 87.9% 20082009 88.0% 90.3% 91.8% 92.5% 93.0% 93.2% 93.1% 92.2% 91.6% 90.2% 80.0% 78.7% 85.5% 83.1% 88.3% 20092010 89.0% 91.3% 92.6% 93.3% 93.7% 93.9% 93.9% 93.1% 92.4% 90.8% 81.8% 79.5% 86.2% 83.6% 89.2% 20102011 88.6% 90.8% 92.2% 92.9% 93.4% 93.6% 93.7% 92.7% 92.2% 90.4% 81.3% 80.1% 85.7% 82.9% 89.0% 20112012 89.5% 91.7% 92.9% 93.6% 94.1% 94.4% 94.3% 93.5% 92.9% 91.4% 82.5% 81.3% 86.3% 82.4% 89.8%
May 2013
33
Table 4.2 2010-2012 Attendance Rate by Student Group

Student Group All Students Male Female Race/Ethnicity: American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander Hispanic BlackNot of Hispanic Origin White-Not of Hispanic Origin Multiracial/Mixed Ethnicity Special Education Status General Education Special Education 89.7% 85.5% 90.5% 86.5% 87.8% 94.1% 87.6% 86.9% 91.8% 92.0% 88.8% 94.6% 88.4% 87.6% 92.7% 93.0% 2010-2011 Attendance Rate 89.0% 88.6% 89.4% 2010-2012 Attendance Rate 89.8% 89.4% 90.2%
The median scale scores for each grade in both ELA and math over the past seven years indicate improvement in student performance on these tests (Table 4.3). While the overall trend on the ELA demonstrates improvement, scores spiked in 20082009 and progress has since slowed. The median ELA score for grade 3 has declined since 2008-2009 and just two of the other grades saw increases of more than 2 points. Math scores have followed a similar pattern, rising sharply in 2008-2009, but improvement since then has been somewhat stronger than for ELA. Median math scores improved in every grade from 2008-2009 to 2011-2012, with 3 of 6 grades showing increases of more than 2 points. Interpretation of the trends on the performance level indicator is complicated by the increase in the cutoff scores for proficiency level in 2010. The percent of students deemed to be proficient (levels 3 and 4) increased from 2005-2006 through 2008-2009, but then dropped precipitously once the higher cut-offs were introduced (Table 4.4). After the changes, nearly 58 percent of students in grades 3 through 8 were deemed to be below proficiency level (levels 1 and 2) in ELA in 2009-2010 and 46 percent were below proficiency in math. The 2011-2012 results show some improvement in the percentage of students meeting proficiency in both ELA (5 percentage points) and math (6 percentage points) over two years.
labels assigned to the four categories were revised in 2010, and they are now as follows: Level 1Below Standard; Level 2Meets Basic Standard; Level 3 Meets Proficiency Standard; and, Level 4Exceeds Proficiency Standard.
Table 4.3 Trends in English Language Arts and Math Scores 2005-2006 Through 2011-2012, Grades 3-8
Median English Scale Score Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 2005-2006 659 660 655 646 641 638 2005-2006 672 671 659 650 644 640 2006-2007 657 656 654 649 649 643 2006-2007 680 673 670 661 654 646 2007-2008 658 657 661 652 657 645 2007-2008 682 678 676 668 663 657 2008-2009 665 664 666 660 659 653 2008-2009 685 688 684 675 673 666 2009-2010 659 667 665 657 657 649 2009-2010 684 682 680 674 670 670 2010-2011 661 671 666 659 659 650 2010-2011 686 687 685 678 674 676 2011-2012 662 671 668 660 663 654 2011-2012 688 689 686 681 675 677
Median Math Scale Score
New York City Independent Budget Office 34 NYC Independent Budget Office May 2013
Table 4.4 Percent of Students at Each Performance Level, Grades 3-8

Performance Level 1 2 3 4 Number Tested Performance Level 1 2 3 4 Number Tested English Language Arts 2005-2006 11.5% 37.9% 44.9% 5.7% 406,729 2005-2006 15.8% 27.4% 42.0% 14.9% 446, 477 2006-2007 9.1% 40.0% 46.3% 4.6% 428,061 2006-2007 10.6% 24.3% 46.1% 19.1% 435,068 2007-2008 5.8% 36.6% 53.5% 4.1% 417,327 2007-2008 6.3% 19.4% 52.8% 21.6% 424,557 2008-2009 2.8% 28.3% 62.8% 6.1% 415,365 Math 2008-2009 3.3% 14.8% 55.9% 25.9% 423,323 2009-2010 10.5% 35.4% 31.9% 22.2% 425,265 2010-2011 9.5% 33.0% 36.5% 21.0% 425,228 2011-2012 9.0% 30.8% 36.3% 23.8% 423,463 2009-2010 15.2% 42.4% 35.1% 7.3% 414,575 2010-2011 13.2% 42.8% 41.3% 2.7% 416,552 2011-2012 12.2% 40.8% 43.8% 3.3% 415,342
The most widely respected assessment of the school systems progress over time is the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). This exam has been given to a representative sample of students in grades 4 and 8 every two years since 2002-2003; the most recent administration of the test was in 20102011. NAEP results indicate that New York Citys public schools showed improvement in 2003 through 2011 in the results for grade 4 reading and for grade 4 and grade 8 math. There was no change in achievement in grade 8 reading in 200-2003 through 2010-2011. The same results indicate no improvement in either grade or subject since 2008-2009. Student achievement in ELA and math is clearly related to student attendance. Simply put, the students who do better on these tests are those who attend school more frequently. Students with attendance rates of 98 percent or above in 2011-2012 were more likely to be proficient in ELA (59 percent) and math (76 percent). Those whose attendance rate was 75 percent or less had much lower proficiency rates: 16 percent in ELA and 15 percent in math. (Table 4.5 presents these data.) Student test scores in grades 3 through 8 are also clearly related to poverty. The poorest students, those who returned a valid form indicating that their family income entitles them to free or reduced price school meals, attained proficiency at much lower rates in 2011-2012 (42 percent in ELA and 57 percent in math) than those
who are ineligible for subsidized meals (76 percent proficient in ELA and 84 percent in math). (Table 4.6) Students in both English Language Learner and special education programs tend to have much lower performance level scores than other youngsters. Slightly more than 88 percent of ELL students scored below proficiency in ELA in 2011-2012 (Table 4.7). Poor performance for this group on the ELA test is all but certain because once students pass the New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test, they are no longer designated as English Language Learners. In math, 63 percent of ELL students scored below proficiency level. Some 85 percent of students with special needs scored below proficiency in ELA (Table 4.8) and 70 percent did so in math. Generally, female students score higher on these tests than do males. On the 2011-2012 ELA, 52 percent of females were scored as proficient, compared with 42 percent for males. In math the difference was smaller, with 62 percent of females scoring at proficiency level or above while 60 percent of males did so (Table 4.9). Multiracial, Asian, and white students outscore other students from other ethnic/racial groups on both exams. Their proficiency rates in ELA are nearly double that of black and Hispanic students Student achievement levels can be shaped not only by the characteristics of the students themselves and
May 2013 35
Table 4.5A English Language Arts and Math Performance by Attendance Rate, 2010-2011
Attendance Rate 75% or less 75% to 85% 85% to 90% 90% to 95% 95% to 98% 98% or more TOTAL English Language Arts Performance Level 1 33.0% 23.4% 18.2% 14.1% 11.0% 8.0% 13.2% 2 53.5% 53.7% 51.6% 46.2% 40.8% 34.2% 42.8% 3 13.4% 22.5% 29.3% 37.9% 45.2% 53.0% 41.3% 4 0.2% 0.4% 0.8% 1.8% 3.1% 4.7% 2.7% Attendance TOTAL Rate 10,250 75% or less 27,965 75% to 85% 43,014 85% to 90% 104,133 90% to 95% 128,602 95% to 98% 101,833 98% or more 415,797 TOTAL Math Performance Level 1 37.7% 22.0% 15.2% 10.1% 6.6% 3.9% 9.5% 2 47.5% 48.6% 45.3% 37.8% 29.9% 21.2% 33.0% 3 13.1% 25.0% 31.6% 37.5% 40.0% 38.6% 36.5% 4 1.7% 4.3% 8.0% 14.5% 23.5% 36.3% 21.0% TOTAL 10,140 28,326 43,818 106,330 131,525 104,358 424,497
Table 4.5B English Language Arts and Math Performance by Attendance Rate, 2011-2012
Attendance Rate 75% or less 75% to 85% 85% to 90% 90% to 95% 95% to 98% 98% or more TOTAL English Language Arts Performance Level 1 30.3% 22.8% 18.4% 13.6% 10.8% 7.8% 12.2% 2 54.0% 53.0% 49.7% 45.6% 39.6% 32.9% 40.8% 3 15.5% 23.7% 30.9% 38.9% 46.3% 53.9% 43.8% 4 0.2% 0.5% 1.0% 1.9% 3.4% 5.3% 3.3% Attendance TOTAL Rate 7,981 75% or less 22,987 75% to 85% 36,291 85% to 90% 91,416 90% to 95% 127,756 95% to 98% 128,326 98% or more 414,757 TOTAL Math Performance Level 1 37.3% 22.5% 15.8% 10.6% 6.9% 3.8% 9.0% 2 47.8% 47.7% 43.9% 37.2% 29.1% 20.2% 30.8% 3 13.3% 24.8% 31.6% 37.1% 39.6% 37.5% 36.4% 4 1.6% 5.1% 8.7% 15.2% 24.4% 38.5% 23.8% TOTAL 8,397 23,426 36,926 93,199 130,098 130,801 422,847
NOTE: Does not include students for whom information on attendance was missing.
their families, but also the achievement levels of the students around them and of the schools they attend. In order to begin to tease out the possible effects of school and peer characteristics, we characterized all schools with data on the third through eighth grade tests into three equal groups based on the share of low-income students in each school. Table 4.10 displays the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 performance of students in the various meal subsidy categories within each type of school. In 2011-2012, students known to be at the lowest income levelthose who returned a valid form indicating their eligibility for free or reduced price school mealshad higher ELA scores in low-poverty schools (58 percent proficiency) than eligible students in high-poverty schools (33 percent proficiency). Similarly, the students whose family income levels make them ineligible for meal subsidies in low-poverty schools did much better in ELA (81 percent proficiency) than the ineligible students in high-poverty schools (50 percent proficiency). Notably, students at the lowest income level who were in low-poverty schools scored better (58 percent ELA proficiency) than did students at the higher-income
levels (full price) who were in high-poverty schools (50 percent). While these findings suggest the possibility of a relationship between the concentration of poverty in schools and the achievement of students, our data does not allow us to determine if low-income students in high-poverty schools are systematically different than low-income students in low-poverty schools. High school students in New York City (and state) participate in the Regents testing program. Regents exams are subject based (earth science, English, global studies, etc.). Beginning in the 2011-2012 school year, and except for students in a few schools with so-called portfolio programs, no public school student may earn a standard high school diploma in New York State without first passing five Regents examsComprehensive English, (any) math, Global History and Geography, U.S. History and Government, and any of the sciences. Students who pass an additional three Regents exams (in another math, another science, and a foreign language) are awarded an Advanced Regents Diploma. Students sit for these exams at various points in their high school career, and there is no standard pattern
May 2013
Table 4.6A English Language Arts and Math Performance by Eligibility for Meal Subsidies, 2010-2011
Grades 3-8
English Language Arts Performance Level Meal Eligibility Free Lunch Reduced-Price Lunch Full Price, Based on Form Full Price, Missing / Incomplete Form TOTAL 1 14.9% 7.6% 3.7% 2 45.6% 39.4% 24.8% 3 37.8% 49.8% 63.1% 4 1.8% 3.2% 8.4% TOTAL Meal Eligibility 341,372 Free Lunch Reduced-Price 18,132 Lunch Full Price, 50,924 Based on Form Full Price, Missing / Incomplete 6,124 Form 416,552 TOTAL 1 10.6% 5.5% 2.5%
Math Performance Level 2 35.7% 27.3% 16.0% 3 36.1% 40.1% 38.6% 4 TOTAL 17.6% 349,431 27.2% 42.9% 18,337 51,171
14.3% 13.2%
50.0% 42.8%
33.9% 41.3%
1.8% 2.7%
14.7% 9.5%
42.2% 33.0%
30.6% 36.5%
12.6%
6,289
21.0% 425,228
Table 4.6B English Language Arts and Math Performance by Eligibility for Meal Subsidies, 2011-2012 English Language Arts Performance Level Meal Eligibility Free Lunch Reduced-Price Lunch Full Price, Based on Form Full Price, Missing / Incomplete Form TOTAL 1 13.8% 6.3% 3.0% 2 43.8% 36.5% 20.8% 3 40.1% 53.6% 66.0% 4 2.3% 3.6% 10.3% Total Meal Eligibility 334,582 Free Lunch Reduced-Price 17,780 Lunch Full Price, 47,755 Based on Form Full Price, Missing / Incomplete 15,225 Form 415,342 TOTAL 1 10.1% 4.8% 2.2% Math Performance Level 2 33.4% 24.9% 14.0% 3 36.3% 39.8% 36.6% 4 Total 20.2% 341,852 30.6% 47.3% 17,983 48,038
12.4% 12.2%
42.1% 40.8%
43.4% 43.8%
2.2% 3.3%
10.4% 9.0%
33.1% 30.8%
32.7% 36.3%
23.8%
15,590
23.8% 423,463
to their test taking. Some high schools offer the math exam at the end of grade 9; others delay until the end of grade 10. Generally, the Comprehensive English exam is taken after at least three years of high school. Further, students may retake exams they have attempted and failed until they attain a passing score. Thus, any single administration of a Regents exam includes both first-time test takers and those students who have previously failed and who are taking the test for the second or third time. Therefore care must be taken in interpreting the absolute passing rates for an individual administration of an exam. In this report, we are less concerned with the absolute passing rates than with the relative passing rates of different groups of students. In making those comparisons, we have developed the following indicatorRegents pass rates for English and math represent the proportion of students who took each test in 2010-2011 (and 2011-2012) that scored at each proficiency level. If a student took an exam multiple
times in a single year, or took more than one math test in that year, only the highest score was counted. A passing score for all Regents exams is a 65. In 2010, the State Education Department commissioned a team of researchers led by testing expert Daniel Koretz to define college readiness. Students with Regents scores high enough to strongly predict a grade of C or higher in a college-level course are considered college ready. This threshold was estimated to be 75 for English and 80 for math. For both English and math, we report the percent of students who failed, the percent who passed, and the percent who scored at or above the collegeready level. (The DOE has a different measure of college readiness, which includes a number of factors; here we are referring only to the Regents Exam score.) In examining the Regents results, we once again see the strong relationship that school attendance has with success. High school students whose attendance rate was 98 percent or greater had a total passing rate of
May 2013
37
Table 4.7A English Language Arts and Math Performance by English Language Learner Status, 2010-2011
Grades 3-8
English Language Learner Status English Language Learner English Proficient TOTAL
English Language Arts Performance Level 1 38.5% 9.2% 13.2% 2 49.1% 41.9% 42.8% 3 12.4% 45.8% 41.3% 4 0.1% 3.1% 2.7%
Number Tested 56,064 360,468 416,552
Math Performance Level 1 20.8% 7.5% 9.5% 2 44.6% 31.0% 33.0% 3 27.9% 38.0% 36.5% 4 6.7% 23.5% 21.0%
Number Tested 64,031 361,197 425,228
Table 4.7B English Language Arts and Math Performance by ELL Status, 2011-2012
Grades 3-8 English Language Arts Performance Level 1 38.8% 8.2% 12.2% 2 49.6% 39.4% 40.8% 3 11.5% 48.6% 43.8% 4 0.1% 3.7% 3.3% Math Performance Level 1 20.6% 7.1% 9.0% 2 42.4% 28.9% 30.8% 3 29.0% 37.6% 36.3% 4 8.1% 26.4% 23.8%
English Language Learner Status English Language Learner English Proficient TOTAL
Number Tested 53,811 361,531 415,342
Number Tested 60,544 362,919 423,463
87 percent in English and 78 percent in math in 20112012. While 65 percent of these high-attendance students attained an English score signifying college readiness, only 39 percent attained college readiness in math. Table 4.11 presents these data. Twelve percent of all English Regents takers and 8 percent of math Regents takers had attendance rates below 75 percent. The performance of these students was
woefully low49 percent passing in English and 31 percent in math. Students from low-income families fared much better than the high absentee students (Table 4.12). Those students eligible for free or reduced-price meals (including all students in universal feeding schools) had total passing rates of 73 percent in English and 60
Table 4.8A English Language Arts and Math Performance by Special Education Status, 2010-2011
Grades 3-8
Special Education Status Special Education General Education TOTAL
English Language Arts Performance Level 1 37.5% 7.8% 13.2% 2 48.6% 41.5% 42.8% 3 13.6% 47.5% 41.3% 4 0.3%
Special Number Education Tested Status Special 75,698 Education
Number Tested 75,684 349,544 425,228
General 3.2% 340,854 Education 2.67 416,552 TOTAL
Table 4.8B English Language Arts and Math Performance by Special Education Status, 2011-2012
Grades 3-8
Special Education Status Special Education General Education TOTAL
English Language Arts Performance Level 1 35.5% 7.0% 12.2% 2 49.4% 38.8% 40.8% 3 14.8% 50.3% 43.8% 4 0.3%
Special Number Education Tested Status Special 75,524 Education
Number Tested 76,028 347,435 423,463
General 3.9% 339,818 Education 3.3% 415,342 TOTAL
38
May 2013
Table 4.9A English Language Arts and Math Performance, by Race/Ethnicity and Gender, 2010-2011
Grades 3 - 8
English Language Arts Performance by Race/Ethnicity and Gender Performance Level Race/Ethnicity American Indian or Alaskan Native Males Females Asian or Pacific Islander Males Females Hispanic Males Females BlackNot of Hispanic Origin Males Females WhiteNot of Hispanic Origin Males Females Multiracial/ Mixed Ethnicity Males Females TOTAL Males Females 1 2 3 39.9% 36.4% 43.4% 58.2% 55.2% 61.4% 33.7% 29.9% 37.7% 33.8% 28.2% 39.4% 59.6% 56.5% 62.9% 64.8% 67.8% 62.1% 41.3% 37.4% 45.5% 4 1.9% 1.0% 3.0% 6.0% 4.5% 7.6% 1.0% 0.8% 1.3% 1.1% 0.7% 1.5% 6.8% 5.1% 8.7% 10.1% 5.2% 14.5% 2.7% 2.0% 3.4% Number Tested Race/Ethnicity
Math Performance by Race/Ethnicity and Gender Performance Level 1 2 3 4 17.5% 16.1% 18.9% 47.8% 47.0% 48.6% 12.3% 12.6% 12.1% 10.2% 9.3% 11.2% 37.6% 37.4% 37.9% 43.0% 41.6% 44.2% 21.0% 20.8% 21.2% Number Tested 1,899 975 924 66,047 34,178 31,869 171,872 87,947 83,925 122,698 62,087 60,611 61,797 32,179 29,618 882 418 464 425,195 217,784 207,411
15.0% 43.2% 17.4% 45.2% 12.5% 8.0% 41.1% 27.8%
American Indian 1,851 or Alaskan Native 12.6% 944 907 Males Females 13.5% 11.7% 2.8% 3.0% 2.5% 11.5% 12.5% 10.5% 13.2% 15.5% 10.8% 3.6% 4.1% 3.1% 3.9% 4.5% 3.2% 9.5% 10.6% 8.3%
33.5% 36.4% 35.1% 35.3% 31.8% 37.6%
Asian or 63,531 Pacific Islander 32,803 30,728 85,604 81,704 Males Females Males Females
13.6% 35.9% 14.2% 35.8% 12.9% 36.0% 39.2% 36.9% 38.8% 36.2% 39.6% 37.7%
9.8% 30.5% 6.0% 24.9% 16.5% 48.8% 19.6% 49.6% 13.2% 47.9%
167,308 Hispanic
15.3% 49.9% 19.5% 51.5% 10.9% 48.2% 5.3% 28.3% 6.8% 31.5% 3.8% 24.7% 4.0% 21.2% 5.0% 22.0% 3.1% 20.4% 13.2% 42.8% 16.2% 44.5% 10.0% 41.1%
BlackNot of 122,061 Hispanic Origin 61,796 60,265 Males Females
42.5% 34.1% 43.1% 32.2% 41.9% 36.1% 18.1% 40.7% 18.5% 40.0% 17.6% 15.3% 41.4% 37.9%
WhiteNot of 60,908 Hispanic Origin 31,701 29,207 Males Females
Multiracial/ 860 Mixed Ethnicity 404 456 213,252 203,267 Males Females Males Females
14.6% 39.2% 15.9% 36.6% 33.0% 36.5% 33.1% 35.5% 33.0% 37.5%
416,519 TOTAL
percent in math. They did, however, score well below the levels of students whose family income made them ineligible for subsidized meals80 percent in English and 67 percent in math in 2011-2012. High school students with English Language Learner and special education status have much lower Regents pass rates than other students. In 2011-2012, just about half the ELL students failed these exams54 percent failing in English and 47 percent in math. High school students with special needs have failure rates of
57 percent in English and 70 percent in math. Tables 4.13 and 4.14 display these data. As in the earlier grades, females perform better on these tests, but the difference is smaller in math, where 37 percent of females fail, compared with 40 percent of the males. In English, the failure rates were 22 percent for females and 29 percent for males (Table 4.15). On both the English and math Regents, multiracial, Asian and white students were less likely to fail than students from other racial and ethnic groups.
May 2013
39
Table 4.9B English Language Arts and Math Performance, by Race/Ethnicity and Gender, 2011-2012
Grades 3 - 8
English Language Arts Performance by Race/Ethnicity and Gender Performance Level Race/Ethnicity American Indian or Alaskan Native Males Females Asian or Pacific Islander Males Females Hispanic Males Females BlackNot of Hispanic Origin Males Females WhiteNot of Hispanic Origin Males Females Multiracial/ Mixed Ethnicity Males Females TOTAL Males Females 1 2 3 41.3% 36.8% 45.9% 59.8% 57.1% 62.6% 36.4% 32.6% 40.4% 35.8% 30.1% 41.7% 61.6% 59.0% 64.5% 63.1% 63.6% 62.6% 43.8% 39.9% 47.9% 4 2.8% 2.5% 3.2% 7.4% 5.7% 9.3% 1.2% 0.9% 1.6% 1.3% 0.9% 1.6% 8.0% 5.9% 10.3% 9.8% 7.5% 12.2% 3.3% 2.4% 4.1% Number Tested Race/Ethnicity
Math Performance by Race/Ethnicity and Gender Performance Level 1 10.5% 12.1% 8.9% 2.3% 2.6% 1.9% 11.1% 12.1% 10.0% 12.8% 14.8% 10.8% 3.3% 3.8% 2.8% 3.9% 3.3% 4.5% 9.0% 10.1% 7.9% 2 3 4 21.8% 21.5% 22.1% 51.7% 50.9% 52.5% 14.8% 14.8% 14.9% 12.0% 10.8% 13.2% 40.4% 39.9% 41.0% 41.5% 43.4% 39.5% 23.8% 23.4% 24.3% Number Tested 2,187 1,109 1,078 67,024 34,617 32,407 171,419 87,600 83,819 118,131 59,778 58,353 63,780 33,274 30,506 901 461 440 423,442 216,839 206,603
12.8% 43.1% 15.9% 44.8% 9.6% 41.4%
American Indian 2,129 or Alaskan Native 1,082 1,047 Males Females
33.4% 34.3% 32.3% 34.2% 34.6% 34.4% 12.0% 34.0% 12.6% 33.9% 11.4% 34.1% 36.5% 36.2% 37.6% 37.0%
7.1% 25.7% 8.8% 28.5% 5.3% 22.8% 15.5% 46.9% 18.6% 47.9% 12.2% 45.8% 14.2% 48.7% 18.5% 50.5% 9.9% 46.9% 5.1% 25.3% 6.6% 28.6% 3.5% 21.7% 3.6% 23.5% 4.2% 24.8% 3.0% 22.2% 12.2% 40.8% 15.1% 42.5% 9.1% 38.9%
Asian or 65,070 Pacific Islander 33,566 31,504 85,429 81,920 Males Females Males Females
167,349 Hispanic
36.8% 38.2% 40.9% 34.3% 41.8% 32.6% 40.0% 36.0% 16.9% 39.3% 17.4% 38.9% 16.4% 39.8% 15.2% 39.4% 15.2% 38.2% 15.2% 40.7% 30.8% 36.3% 31.0% 35.5% 30.7% 37.2%
Multiracial/ 889 Mixed Ethnicity 456 Males 433 Females 415,321 TOTAL 212,482 202,839 Males Females
NOTE: Does not include students for whom information on race/ethnicity was missing.
40
May 2013
Table 4.10A English Language Arts and Math Performance by Meal Subsidy Status of Students Within Poverty Level of School, 2010-2011
Grades 3 - 8
Meal Status of Students / Poverty Level of School Free Low Poverty Middle Poverty High Poverty Reduced Price Low Poverty Middle Poverty High Poverty Full Price, Complete Form Low Poverty Middle Poverty High Poverty Full Price, Missing/ Incomplete Form Low Poverty Middle Poverty High Poverty TOTAL
English Language Arts Performance Level 1 14.4% 8.9% 13.0% 18.4% 7.6% 4.8% 8.7% 12.0% 3.6% 2.3% 7.0% 9.9% 2 45.7% 38.4% 46.4% 48.9% 39.4% 33.0% 43.7% 47.6% 24.8% 20.1% 39.0% 43.7% 3 38.1% 49.1% 38.8% 31.7% 49.8% 57.6% 45.4% 39.0% 63.2% 67.5% 50.9% 44.6% 4 1.8% 3.6% 1.7% 1.0% 3.2% 4.5% 2.2% 1.5% 8.4% 10.2% 3.1% 1.8%
Meal Status of Students / Number Poverty Level of Tested School 337,858 Free 73,078 124,964 139,816 8,788 5,111 4,194 Low Poverty Middle Poverty High Poverty Low Poverty Middle Poverty High Poverty
Math Performance Level 1 6.4% 2 27.5% 3 36.4% 37.7% 36.9% 35.3% 40.1% 40.1% 40.1% 40.1% 38.6% 38.1% 40.4% 39.9% 4 17.8% 28.4% 18.1% 12.0% 27.2% 35.7% 21.9% 16.2% 43.0% 48.5% 27.0% 19.4%
Number Tested 345,940 74,016 127,491 144,433 18,299 8,847 5,176 4,276 51,062 39,325 7,626 4,111
10.2% 35.7% 9.7% 35.3% 12.5% 40.2% 5.4% 7.0% 27.3% 31.0% 3.2% 21.0% 8.1% 35.7% 2.5% 16.0% 1.4% 11.9% 5.6% 27.0% 6.8% 33.9%
18,093 Reduced Price
Full Price, 50,815 Complete Form 39,195 7,569 4,051 Low Poverty Middle Poverty High Poverty
14.0% 9.3% 16.5% 23.0% 12.7%
50.7% 46.3% 55.4% 54.9% 42.9%
33.6% 41.6% 27.2% 21.7% 41.6%
1.7% 2.7% 0.9% 0.4% 2.7%
Full Price, Missing/ Incomplete 5,853 Form 2,987 1,779 1,087 Low Poverty Middle Poverty High Poverty
14.3% 42.5% 9.7% 17.2% 22.0% 37.4% 47.7% 47.6%
30.7% 34.7% 27.8% 24.6% 36.7%
12.5% 18.2% 7.3% 5.8% 21.2%
6,028 3,023 1,839 1,166 421,329
412,619 TOTAL
9.1% 33.0%
May 2013
41
Table 4.10B English Language Arts and Math Performance by Meal Subsidy Status of Students Within Poverty Level of School, 2011-2012
Grades 3 - 8
Meal Status of Students / Poverty Level of School Free Low Poverty Middle Poverty High Poverty Reduced Price Low Poverty Middle Poverty High Poverty Full Price, Complete Form Low Poverty Middle Poverty High Poverty Full Price, Missing/ Incomplete Form Low Poverty Middle Poverty High Poverty TOTAL
English Language Arts Performance Level 1 13.3% 7.1% 12.1% 18.3% 6.2% 3.6% 7.4% 10.4% 2.9% 1.8% 6.2% 9.8% 2 43.9% 34.8% 45.4% 48.3% 36.5% 29.8% 41.2% 45.7% 20.7% 17.1% 33.4% 39.9% 3 40.5% 53.6% 40.3% 32.3% 53.7% 61.4% 49.2% 42.3% 66.0% 69.4% 55.1% 47.3% 4 2.3% 4.5% 2.1% 1.1% 3.6% 5.2% 2.2% 1.6% 10.3% 11.7% 5.4% 3.1%
Meal Status of Students / Number Poverty Level of Tested School 331,365 Free 83,986 114,811 132,568 8,906 4,734 4,096 Low Poverty Middle Poverty High Poverty Low Poverty Middle Poverty High Poverty Full Price, 47,647 Complete Form 38,278 5,859 3,510 Low Poverty Middle Poverty High Poverty
Math Performance Level 1 2 3 36.5% 38.1% 37.4% 34.8% 39.8% 40.1% 39.6% 39.5% 36.6% 36.1% 38.0% 39.7% 4 20.3% 32.2% 19.9% 13.3% 30.7% 38.3% 26.6% 18.9% 47.4% 52.0% 33.0% 21.5%
Number Tested 338,548 85,063 117,062 136,423 17,939 8,962 4,798 4,179 47,930 38,446 5,915 3,569
9.7% 33.4% 5.4% 24.4% 9.2% 33.5% 12.9% 38.9% 4.7% 24.8% 2.8% 18.8% 5.3% 28.6% 8.2% 33.4% 2.1% 14.0% 1.2% 10.8% 4.8% 24.3% 7.6% 31.2%
17,736 Reduced Price
12.0% 6.0% 12.9% 19.7% 11.8%
42.2% 34.3% 47.1% 47.9% 40.8%
43.6% 55.6% 39.2% 31.5% 44.1%
2.2% 4.1% 0.9% 0.8% 3.3%
Full Price, Missing/ Incomplete 14,940 Form 5,951 4,824 4,165 Low Poverty Middle Poverty High Poverty
10.0% 33.1% 5.5% 27.3% 10.9% 34.4% 15.2% 39.5% 8.6% 30.8%
32.9% 33.9% 33.1% 31.2% 36.6%
24.0% 33.2% 21.6% 14.1% 24.0%
15,295 6,004 4,921 4,370 419,712
411,688 TOTAL
42
May 2013
Table 4.11A English and Math Regents Performance by Attendance Rate, 2010-2011
English Performance Attendance Rate 75% or less 75% to 85% 85% to 90% 90% to 95% 95% to 98% 98% or more TOTAL Fail 48.6% 32.9% 25.6% 19.1% 14.4% 9.4% 22.3% Total Passing 51.4% 67.1% 74.4% 80.9% 85.6% 90.6% 77.7% College Ready 21.7% 31.9% 39.9% 50.2% 59.1% 69.5% 49.1% Total Attendance Tested Rate 12,956 75% or less 10,978 75% to 85% 11,406 85% to 90% 20,048 90% to 95% 21,194 95% to 98% 20,228 98% or more 96,810 TOTAL Fail 69.2% 57.5% 50.8% 42.7% 32.9% 21.7% 38.8% Math Performance Total Passing 30.8% 42.5% 49.2% 57.3% 67.1% 78.3% 61.2% College Ready 2.0% 4.0% 6.5% 12.0% 21.1% 37.9% 19.1% Total Tested 13,071 14,760 17,997 35,954 42,754 45,450 169,986
Table 4.11B English and Math Regents Performance by Attendance Rate, 2011-2012
English Performance Attendance Rate 75% or less 75% to 85% 85% to 90% 90% to 95% 95% to 98% 98% or more TOTAL Fail 51.5% 38.8% 30.8% 24.0% 19.0% 12.8% 25.5% Total Passing 48.5% 61.2% 69.2% 76.0% 81.0% 87.2% 74.5% College Ready 20.4% 29.7% 37.7% 46.1% 54.5% 64.9% 47.3% Total Attendance Tested Rate 10,993 75% or less 9,307 75% to 85% 10,175 85% to 90% 17,489 90% to 95% 20,840 95% to 98% 24,064 98% or more 92,868 TOTAL Fail 69.3% 59.4% 52.4% 44.1% 34.7% 22.1% 38.8% Math Performance Total Passing 30.7% 40.6% 47.6% 55.9% 65.3% 77.9% 61.2% College Ready 1.8% 3.7% 6.2% 12.0% 20.6% 38.8% 20.6% Total Tested 13,352 13,634 16,434 32,342 41,788 54,777 172,327
Table 4.12A English and Math Regents Performance by Eligibility for Meal Subsidies, 2010-2011
English Performance Meal Eligibility Free or ReducedPrice Lunch Full-Price Lunch TOTAL Fail Total Passing College Ready Total Meal Tested Eligibility Free or Reduced74,209 Price Lunch Full-Price 22,771 Lunch 96,980 TOTAL Fail Math Performance Total Passing College Ready Total Tested
24.0% 17.0% 22.3%
76.0% 83.0% 77.7%
46.2% 58.5% 49.1%
40.2% 34.2% 38.8%
59.8% 65.8% 61.2%
17.3% 25.2% 19.1%
131,289 38,899 170,188
Table 4.12B English and Math Regents Performance by Eligibility for Meal Subsidies, 2011-2012
English Performance Meal Eligibility Free or ReducedPrice Lunch Full-Price Lunch TOTAL Fail Total Passing College Ready Total Meal Tested Eligibility Free or Reduced69,908 Price Lunch Full-Price 23,128 Lunch 93,036 TOTAL Fail Math Performance Total Passing College Ready Total Tested
27.4% 19.6% 25.5%
72.6% 80.4% 74.5%
44.0% 57.0% 47.2%
40.5% 33.5% 38.8%
59.5% 66.5% 61.2%
18.5% 27.0% 20.6%
130,556 42,026 172,582
NOTES: In this table, students who did not return a completed school lunch eligibility form are counted in the Full Price Lunch category. The data available to IBO does not allow us to count those students separately in the high school grades. In past years, we found that about a quarter of the students tested with regents exams did not have a valid lunch form on file. New York City Independent Budget Office
May 2013
43
Table 4.13 English and Math Regents Performance by English Language Learner Status, 2010-2011
English Performance English Language Learner Status English Language Learner English Proficient TOTAL Fail 50.4% 17.5% 22.3% Total Passing 49.6% 82.5% 77.7% College Ready 19.2% 54.2% 49.1% Total Tested 14,226 82,754 96,980 Fail 47.3% 37.5% 38.8% Math Performance Total Passing 52.7% 62.5% 61.2% College Ready 15.1% 19.7% 19.1% Total Tested 22,148 148,040 170,188
Table 4.13B English and Math Regents Performance by English Language Learner Status, 2011-2012
English Performance English Language Learner Status English Language Learner English Proficient TOTAL Fail 54.1% 20.4% 25.5% Total Passing 45.9% 79.6% 74.5% College Ready 17.4% 52.6% 47.2% Total Tested 14,118 78,916 93,034 Fail 47.2% 37.5% 38.8% Math Performance Total Passing 52.8% 62.5% 61.2% College Ready 15.1% 21.4% 20.6% Total Tested 22,443 150,139 172,582
Table 4.14A English and Math Regents Performance by Special Education Status, 2010-2011
English Performance Special Education Status Special Education General Education TOTAL Fail 52.1% 18.3% 22.3% Total Passing 47.9% 81.7% 77.7% College Ready 18.5% 53.2% 49.1% Total Tested 11,658 85,322 96,980 Fail 69.3% 35.1% 38.8% Math Performance Total Passing 30.7% 64.9% 61.2% College Ready 3.2% Total Tested 18,533
21.1% 151,655 19.1% 170,188
Table 4.14B English and Math Regents Performance by Special Education Status, 2011-2012
English Performance Special Education Status Special Education General Education TOTAL Fail 56.9% 21.1% 25.5% Total Passing 43.1% 78.9% 74.5% College Ready 17.2% 51.5% 47.2% Total Tested 11,441 81,593 93,034 Fail 69.7% 34.8% 38.8% Math Performance Total Passing 30.3% 65.2% 61.2% College Ready 3.9% Total Tested 19,851
22.8% 152,731 20.6% 172,582
44
May 2013
Table 4.15A English and Math Regents Performance, by Race/Ethnicity and Gender, 2010-2011
English Performance Race/Ethnicity American Indian or Alaskan Native Males Females Asian or Pacific Islander Males Females Hispanic Males Females BlackNot of Hispanic Origin Males Females WhiteNot of Hispanic Origin Males Females Multiracial/ Mixed Ethnicity Males Females TOTAL Males Females Fail 25.7% 30.6% 20.4% 14.1% 17.1% 10.8% 26.9% 30.6% 23.2% 25.3% 30.6% 20.2% 9.9% 12.8% 6.6% 12.6% 8.5% 16.7% 22.3% 26.1% 18.4% Pass 74.3% 69.4% 79.6% 85.9% 82.9% 89.2% 73.1% 69.4% 76.8% 74.7% 69.4% 79.8% 90.1% 87.2% 93.4% 87.4% 91.5% 83.3% 77.7% 73.9% 81.6% College Ready 41.7% 33.3% 50.7% 65.7% 60.9% 71.0% 41.7% 37.2% 46.2% 41.8% 35.8% 47.6% 71.1% 66.1% 76.7% 68.4% 66.0% 70.8% 49.1% 44.3% 54.0% Total Tested Race/Ethnicity American Indian or 417 Alaskan Native 216 201 Males Females Math Performance Fail 41.5% 43.8% 39.1% 17.8% 19.0% 16.5% 45.8% 46.9% 44.7% 48.1% 51.0% 45.4% 26.0% 27.0% 24.9% 21.4% 25.8% 18.2% 38.8% 40.1% 37.5% Pass 58.5% 56.2% 60.9% 82.2% 81.0% 83.5% 54.2% 53.1% 55.3% 51.9% 49.0% 54.6% 74.0% 73.0% 75.1% 78.6% 74.2% 81.8% 61.2% 59.9% 62.5% College Ready 16.3% 16.1% 16.5% 47.6% 45.6% 49.7% 10.0% 9.5% 10.5% 8.4% 7.0% 9.6% 31.4% 30.3% 32.7% 33.6% 27.8% 37.9% 19.1% 18.5% 19.8% Total Tested 737 379 358 30,715 15,819 14,896 64,083 31,325 32,758 52,132 24,807 27,325 22,255 11,512 10,743 229 97 132 170,151 83,939 86,212
Asian or Pacific 15,753 Islander 8,296 7,457 19,024 18,802 Males Females Males Females
37,826 Hispanic
96,962 TOTAL
May 2013
45
Table 4.15B English and Math Regents Performance, by Race/Ethnicity and Gender, 2011-2012
English Performance Race/Ethnicity American Indian or Alaskan Native Males Females Asian or Pacific Islander Males Females Hispanic Males Females BlackNot of Hispanic Origin Males Females WhiteNot of Hispanic Origin Males Females Multiracial/Mixed Ethnicity Males Females TOTAL Males Females Fail 31.5% 36.0% 26.5% 17.7% 20.7% 14.4% 29.7% 33.2% 26.2% 29.1% 34.4% 23.9% 13.1% 15.9% 9.9% 17.2% 20.0% 14.8% 25.5% 29.2% 21.7% Pass 68.5% 64.0% 73.5% 82.3% 79.3% 85.6% 70.3% 66.8% 73.8% 70.9% 65.6% 76.1% 86.9% 84.1% 90.1% 82.8% 80.0% 85.2% 74.5% 70.8% 78.3% College Ready 40.9% 34.7% 47.9% 61.6% 56.6% 67.0% 40.4% 36.4% 44.4% 40.4% 34.4% 46.2% 67.1% 62.8% 72.0% 56.6% 53.3% 59.3% 47.2% 42.7% 51.9% Total Tested Race/Ethnicity American Indian or 457 Alaskan Native 242 215 Males Females Math Performance Fail 40.6% 41.1% 40.1% 17.2% 17.9% 16.4% 45.3% 46.7% 43.9% 49.1% 52.0% 46.3% 26.4% 28.6% 24.1% 22.1% 22.5% 21.7% 38.8% 40.3% 37.3% Pass 59.4% 58.9% 59.9% 82.8% 82.1% 83.6% 54.7% 53.3% 56.1% 50.9% 48.0% 53.7% 73.6% 71.4% 75.9% 77.9% 77.5% 78.3% 61.2% 59.7% 62.7% College Ready 17.9% 17.8% 18.0% 49.5% 47.8% 51.4% 11.5% 11.0% 12.1% 8.9% 7.8% 10.0% 33.4% 31.4% 35.6% 42.9% 41.2% 44.2% 20.6% 19.9% 21.3% Total Tested 951 472 479 31,340 16,234 15,106 65,411 32,040 33,371 52,038 25,072 26,966 22,590 11,576 11,014 240 102 138 172,570 85,496 87,074
Asian or Pacific 15,747 Islander 8,154 7,593 18,220 18,404 Males Females Males Females
36,624 Hispanic
93,033 TOTAL
46
May 2013
Appendix: List of Schools Opened and Closed Each Year

New Schools Borough/School District 2002-2003 Manhattan 2 Bronx 7 Bronx 7 Bronx 7 Bronx 8 Bronx 9 Bronx 9 Bronx 10 Bronx 10 Bronx 11 Brooklyn 15 Brooklyn 16 Manhattan 79 2003-2004 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 3 Bronx 7 Bronx 7 Bronx 7 Bronx 8 Bronx 9 Bronx 10 Bronx 10 Bronx 10 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Brooklyn 13 Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 32 Brooklyn 32 Brooklyn 32 Brooklyn 32 Manhattan Bridges High School New Design High School New York Harbor School Manhattan/Hunter Science High School New Explorers High School The Urban Assembly School for Careers in Sports The Urban Assembly Bronx Academy of Letters School for Community Research & Learning High School for Violin and Dance Celia Cruz Bronx High School of Music Bronx Theatre High School Discovery High School Global Enterprise Academy Pelham Preparatory Academy High School for Contemporary Arts Bronx Aerospace Academy Bedford Academy Science Tech & Research at Erasmus International Arts Business School High School for Public Service Brooklyn Academy for Science and the Environment Brooklyn School for Music and Theatre Bushwick School for Social Justice Academy of Urban Planning All City Leadership Academy Bushwick Leaders High School for Academic Excellence Brooklyn 15 John Jay High School Millennium High School Community School for Social Justice Mott Haven Village Preparatory High School Bronx Leadership Academy II Bronx Guild Bronx International High School School for Excellence High School for Teaching and the Professions Marble Hill School for International Studies Bronx High School for the Visual Arts South Brooklyn Community High School Frederick Douglass Academy IV Secondary School Community Prep High School N/A Closed Schools Borough/School School Name District School Name
May 2013
47
2004-2005 New Schools Manhattan 1 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 3 Manhattan 3 Manhattan 3 Manhattan 3 Manhattan 5 Manhattan 5 Manhattan 5 Manhattan 5 Bronx 7 Bronx 7 Bronx 8 Bronx 8 Bronx 8 Bronx 8 Bronx 8 Bronx 8 Bronx 9 Bronx 9 Bronx 9 Bronx 9 Bronx 9 Bronx 9 Bronx 9 Bronx 10 Bronx 10 Bronx 10 Bronx 10 Bronx 10 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Bronx 12 Bronx 12 Henry Street School for International Studies Bronx 7 Food and Finance High School Bronx 7 Essex Street Academy Bronx 8 High School of Hospitality Management Pace High School The Urban Assembly School of Design and Construction Manhattan Theatre Lab School The Urban Assembly School for Media Studies Frederick Douglass Academy II Secondary School Mott Hall II Harlem Renaissance High School Knowledge and Power Preparatory Academy IV Middle School (KAPPA IV) Mott Hall High School Knowledge and Power Preparatory Academy II Middle School (KAPPA II) South Bronx Preparatory: A College Board School Crotona Academy High School Bronx Studio School for Writers and Artists Womens Academy for Excellence (WAE) Renaissance High School for Musical Theater and Technology Gateway School for Environmental Research and Technology Pablo Neruda Academy for Architecture and World Studies Millenium Art Academy Mott Hall III Bronx School of Expeditionary Learning Eagle Academy for Young Men The Urban Assembly Academy for History and Citizenship for Young Men The Urban Assembly School for Applied Math and Science Morris Academy for Collaborative Studies Frederick Douglass Academy III Secondary School Bronx Engineering and Technology Academy (BETA) Marie Curie High School for Nursing, Medicine, and the Allied Health Professions West Bronx Academy for the Future Bronx School of Law and Finance PULSE High School (Providing Urban Learners Success in Education) Bronx Health Sciences High School Bronx High School for Writing and Communication Arts Bronx Lab School High School of Computers and Technology Collegiate Institute for Math and Science Bronx Academy of Health Careers Astor Collegiate High School Bronx High School of Performance and Stagecraft (Performance Conservatory High School) Bronx Latin Closed Schools Elijah D. Clark School South Bronx High School George L. Gallego School
48
May 2013
New Schools Bronx 12 Bronx 12 Bronx 12 Bronx 12 Brooklyn 13 Brooklyn 14 Brooklyn 14 Brooklyn 14 Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 19 Brooklyn 19 Brooklyn 19 Brooklyn 19 Brooklyn 23 Brooklyn 23 Brooklyn 23 Brooklyn 23 Queens 25 Queens 27 Queens 29 Brooklyn 32 East Bronx Academy for the Future Frederick Douglass Academy V Middle School Peace and Diversity Academy Knowledge and Power Preparatory Academy III (KAPPA III) The Urban Assembly School for Law and Justice Brooklyn Preparatory High School Williamsburg High School for Architecture and Design Williamsburg Preparatory School International High School @ Prospect Heights High School for Global Citizenship School for Human Rights School for Democracy and Leadership High School for Youth and Community Development at Erasmus High School for Service and Learning at Erasmus Brownsville Diploma Plus High School FDNY High School for Fire and Life Safety High School for Civil Rights Performing Arts and Technology High School (PATHS) WATCH High School (World Academy for Total Community Health) Brooklyn Collegiate: A College Board School Frederick Douglass Academy VII High School Knowledge and Power Preparatory Academy V (KAPPA V) Mott Hall IV Flushing International High School Frederick Douglass Academy VI High School Excelsior Preparatory High School Bushwick Community High School
Closed Schools
May 2013
49
2005-2006
New Schools Manhattan 1 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 3 Manhattan 3 Manhattan 5 Manhattan 6 Manhattan 6 Manhattan 6 Bronx 7 Bronx 7 Bronx 8 Bronx 9 Bronx 9 Bronx 9 Bronx 9 Bronx 9 Bronx 10 Bronx 10 Bronx 10 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Bronx 12 Bronx 12 Bronx 12 Bronx 12 Bronx 12 Bronx 12 Brooklyn 13 Brooklyn 13 Brooklyn 14 Brooklyn 14 Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 17
50
Closed Schools Martin Luther King High School I.S. 191 Morris High School M.S. 378 Carroll Gardens C.S. I.S. 275 Thelma J. Hamilton High School of Redirection
Technology, Arts, and Sciences Studio Manhattan 3 The Facing History School Bronx 12 The Urban Assembly Academy of Government and Law Bronx 12 Lower Manhattan Arts Academy Bronx 15 The James Baldwin School: A School for Expeditionary Learning Brooklyn 23 The Urban Assembly School of Business for Young Women Brooklyn 79 The 47 American Sign Language & English Lower School High School for Arts, Imagination and Inquiry The Anderson School Thurgood Marshall Academy Lower School City College Academy of the Arts Middle School 322 P.S. 325 South Bronx Academy for Applied Media Academy of Public Relations Felisa Rincon de Gautier Institute for Law and Public Policy Eximius College Preparatory Academy: A College Board School Mott Hall Bronx High School Bronx Center for Science and Mathematics Validus Preparatory Academy: An Expeditionary Learning School Leadership Institute The New School for Leadership and Journalism Kingsbridge International High School International School for Liberal Arts Academy for Scholarship and Entrepreneurship: A College Board School Globe School for Environmental Research The Forward School The Young Scholars Academy of The Bronx New World High School Sports Professions High School Mott Hall V New Day Academy The Metropolitan High School Explorations Academy Fannie Lou Hamer Middle School The School of Science and Applied Learning Urban Assembly Academy of Business and Community Development Urban Assembly High School of Music and Art at Waters Edge Foundations Academy The Urban Assembly School for the Urban Environment Middle School for Academic and Social Excellence Ebbets Field Middle School Elijah Stroud Middle School
May 2013
New Schools Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 21 Brooklyn 21 Brooklyn 21 Queens 24 Queens 24 Queens 25 Queens 27 Queens 28 Queens 29 Queens 29 Staten Island 31 Bronx 75 The School of Integrated Learning International High School at Lafayette Rachel Carson High School for Coastal Studies High School of Sports Management Academy of Finance and Enterprise High School of Applied Communication The Queens School of Inquiry Scholars Academy Young Womens Leadership School, Queens Queens Preparatory Academy Pathways College Preparatory School: A College Board School CSI High School for International Studies X723
Closed Schools
May 2013
51
2006-2007
New Schools Manhattan 1 Manhattan 5 Manhattan 5 Manhattan 6 Manhattan 6 Manhattan 6 Bronx 7 Bronx 7 Bronx 8 Bronx 9 Bronx 9 Bronx 10 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Brooklyn 13 Brooklyn 13 Brooklyn 13 Brooklyn 14 Brooklyn 14 Brooklyn 14 Brooklyn 15 Brooklyn 16 Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 19 Brooklyn 20 Brooklyn 20 Brooklyn 21 Queens 25 Queens 25 Queens 27 Queens 27 Queens 27 Queens 28 Queens 29 Queens 30 Brooklyn 32 Bronx 75 Collaborative Academy of Science, Technology, & Language-Arts Education Manhattan 1 Academy of Collaborative Education Manhattan 2 Urban Assembly School for the Performing Arts Manhattan 2 Community Health Academy of the Heights Manhattan 3 Washington Heights Expeditionary Learning School Manhattan 4 Harbor Heights Middle School Manhattan 4 International Community High School Manhattan 5 Academy of Applied Mathematics and Technology Manhattan 6 Holcombe L. Rucker School of Community Research Manhattan 6 Bronx Early College Academy for Teaching & Learning Bronx 7 DreamYard Preparatory School Bronx 10 Ampark Neighborhood Bronx 10 Aspire Preparatory Middle School Bronx 10 Bronx Green Middle School Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn Community High School of Communication, Arts and Media Brooklyn 17 Urban Assembly Academy of Arts and Letters Brooklyn 17 Urban Assembly Institute of Math and Science for Young Women Brooklyn 17 Academy for Young Writers Brooklyn 20 The Brooklyn Latin School Queens 27 Green School: An Academy for Environmental Careers Queens 27 West Brooklyn Community High School Brooklyn 32 Upper School @ P.S. 25 Manhattan 75 Academy for College Preparation and Career Exploration: A College Board School Academy of Hospitality and Tourism Ronald Edmonds Learning Center II Frederick Douglass Academy VIII Middle School PS 503: The School of Discovery P.S. 506: The School of Journalism & Technology Kingsborough Early College School East-West School of International Studies World Journalism Preparatory: A College Board School Knowledge and Power Preparatory Academy VI (KAPPA VI) Goldie Maple Academy High School for Construction Trades, Engineering and Architecture York Early College Academy Preparatory Academy for Writers: A College Board School Young Womens Leadership School, Astoria Academy for Environmental Leadership The Vida Bogart School for All Children Closed Schools J.H.S. 56 Seward Park High School Park West High School Columbus Middle School J.H.S. 99 Manhattan Institute for Academic & Visual Arts (MIAVA) I.S. 275 I.S. 90 I.S. 164 J.H.S. 222 I.S. 143 William H. Taft High School Theodore Roosevelt High School I.S. 391 Prospect Heights High School Campus Academy for Science and Math George W. Wingate High School P.S. 314 I.S. 180 I.S. 198 Bushwick High School P.S. 162
52
May 2013
2007-2008
New Schools Manhattan 5 Manhattan 5 Manhattan 6 Manhattan 6 Bronx 7 Bronx 8 Bronx 8 Bronx 8 Bronx 8 Bronx 8 Bronx 8 Bronx 9 Bronx 10 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Bronx 12 Brooklyn 13 Brooklyn 13 Brooklyn 14 Brooklyn 16 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 19 Brooklyn 20 Brooklyn 21 Brooklyn 21 Brooklyn 21 Queeens 24 Queens 25 Queens 25 Queens 29 Columbia Secondary School Manhattan 4 Academy for Social Action: A College Board School Bronx 7 Washington Heights Academy Bronx 11 Hamilton Heights School Bronx 12 Jill Chaifetz Transfer High School Brooklyn 14 Urban Assembly Academy of Civic Engagement Brooklyn 14 Archimedes Academy for Math, Science and Technology Applications Brooklyn 17 Urban Institute of Mathematics Brooklyn 17 The Bronx Mathematics Preparatory School Brooklyn 17 Antonia Pantoja Preparatory Academy: A College Board School Brooklyn 19 Bronx Community High School Queens 25 Academy for Language and Technology Queens 29 Knowledge and Power Preparatory Academy International High School (KAPPA) Brooklyn 79 Cornerstone Academy for Social Action Manhattan 79 School of Diplomacy Manhattan 79 Urban Assembly School for Wildlife Conservation Queens 79 Khalil Gibran International Academy Manhattan 79 Knowledge and Power Preparatory Academy VII Middle School (KAPPA VII) Bronx 79 Lyons Community School Gotham Professional Arts Academy It Takes a Village Academy Brooklyn Generation School Brooklyn Theatre Arts High School Kurt Hahn Expeditionary Learning School Victory Collegiate High School Brooklyn Bridge Academy East Flatbush Community Research School Middle School for Art and Philosophy Arts & Media Preparatory Academy Middle School of Marketing and Legal Studies Multicultural High School Urban Assembly School for Criminal Justice Life Academy High School for Film and Music Expeditionary Learning School for Community Leaders Liberation Diploma Plus Pan American International High School BELL Academy North Queens Community High School P.S./I.S. 295 Closed Schools MIAVA I.S. 184 Rafael C. Y. Molina J.H.S. 113 Richard R. Green I.S. 158 Theodore Gathings J.H.S. 33 Mark Hopkins Harry Van Arsdale High School M.S. 390 Maggie L. Walker Erasmus Campus-Humanities Erasmus CampusBusiness/Technology Thomas Jefferson High School J.H.S. 168 The Parsons Springfield Gardens High School NYC Vocational Training Center Auxiliary Services Career Education Center Offsite Educational Service The Program for Pregnant and Parenting Students Second Opportunity Schools
May 2013
53
2008-2009
New Schools Manhattan 1 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 4 Manhattan 4 Manhattan 4 Manhattan 4 Bronx 7 Bronx 7 Bronx 7 Bronx 8 Bronx 10 Bronx 10 Bronx 10 Bronx 12 Bronx 12 Bronx 12 Brooklyn 13 Brooklyn 14 Brooklyn 14 Brooklyn 16 Brooklyn 16 Brooklyn 16 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 19 Brooklyn 19 Brooklyn 19 Brooklyn 23 Brooklyn 23 Brooklyn 23 Brooklyn 23 Brooklyn 23 Brooklyn 23 School for Global Leaders Bronx 7 Gramercy Arts High School Bronx 7 NYC iSchool Bronx 8 Esperanza Preparatory Academy Bronx 10 Mosaic Preparatory Academy Bronx 11 Renaissance School of the Arts Bronx 11 Global Neighborhood Secondary School Brooklyn 16 Young Leaders Elementary School Brooklyn 16 Bronx Haven High School Brooklyn 22 Performance School Brooklyn 23 The Hunts Point School Brooklyn 23 Elementary School for Math, Science, and Technology Brooklyn 23 School for Environmental Citizenship English Language Learners and International Support Preparatory Academy (ELLIS) Emolior Academy Entrada Academy Pan American International High School at Monroe Brooklyn High School for Leadership and Community Service Young Womens Leadership School of Brooklyn Frances Perkins Academy Brighter Choice Community School Brooklyn Brownstone School Young Scholars Academy for Discovery and Exploration High School for Innovation in Advertising and Media Cultural Academy for the Arts and Sciences High School for Medical Professions Olympus Academy Academy for Conservation and the Environment Urban Action Academy Academy of Innovative Technology Brooklyn Lab School Cypress Hills Collegiate Preparatory School General D. Chappie James Elementary School of Science General D. Chappie James Middle School of Science Brooklyn Democracy Academy Eagle Academy for Young Men II Aspirations Diploma Plus High School Metropolitan Diploma Plus High School Closed Schools P.S. 156 Benjamin Banneker P.S. 220 Mott Haven Village School M.S. 201 School for Theatre Arts and Research Walton High School J.H.S. 135 Frank D. Whalen Evander Childs High School M.S. 143 Performing and Fine Arts P.S. 304 Casimir Pulaski Comprehensive Night High School of Brooklyn I.S. 55 Ocean Hill Brownsville P.S. 183 Daniel Chappie James I.S. 271 John M. Coleman
54
May 2013
New Schools Queens 24 Queens 24 Queens 24 Queens 24 Queens 24 Queens 25 Queens 27 Queens 27 Queens 27 Queens 27 Queens 28 Queens 28 Queens 30 Staten Island 31 Staten Island 31 Staten Island 31 Civic Leadership Academy Bard High School Early College II Learners and Leaders Pioneer Academy VOYAGES Preparatory The Active Learning Elementary School Queens High School for Information, Research, and Technology New York City Academy for Discovery Robert H. Goddard High School of Communication Arts and Technology Academy of Medical Technology: A College Board School The Academy for Excellence Through the Arts Queens Collegiate: A College Board School Academy for Careers in Television and Film Marsh Avenue School for Expeditionary Learning Gaynor McCown Expeditionary Learning School P.S. 65 The Academy of Innovative Learning
Closed Schools
May 2013
55
2009-2010
New Schools Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 3 Manhattan 3 Manhattan 3 Manhattan 3 Manhattan 3 Mahnattan 4 Manhattan 5 Manhatttan 6 Bronx 8 Bronx 8 Bronx 9 Bronx 9 Bronx 9 Bronx 9 Bronx 10 Bronx 10 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Bronx 12 Bronx 12 Bronx 12 Brooklyn 13 Brooklyn 15 Brooklyn 15 Brooklyn 16 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 19 Brooklyn 19 Brooklyn 19 Brooklyn 20 Brooklyn 20 Queens 27 Queens 27 Queens 27 Staten Island 31
Closed Schools Powell Middle School for Law & Social Justice I.S. 174 Eugene T. Maleska I.S. 192 Piagentini-Jones Adlai E. Stevenson High School New School for Arts and Science J.H.S. 117 Francis Scott Key J.H.S. 258 David Ruggles J.H.S. 49 William J. Gaynor I.S. 232 The Winthrop I.S. 252 Arthur S. Sommers
Yorkville Community School Manhattan 5 Battery Park City School Bronx 8 Manhattan Business Academy Bronx 8 Business of Sports School Bronx 8 Emma Lazarus High School Bronx 8 Spruce Street School Brooklyn 13 The High School for Language and Diplomacy Brooklyn 13 Quest to Learn Brooklyn 14 The Urban Assembly School for Green Careers Brooklyn 18 The Global Learning Collaborative Brooklyn 18 Innovation Diploma Plus West Prep Academy Special Music School Global Technology Preparatory The Urban Assembly Institute for New Technologies High School for Excellence and Innovation Soundview Academy for Culture and Scholarship Mott Hall Community School The Family School Grant Avenue Elementary School Science and Technology Academy: A Mott Hall School Sheridan Academy for Young Leaders Creston Academy East Fordham Academy for the Arts Baychester Academy Cornerstone Academy for Social Action Middle School (CASA) Pelham Academy of Academics and Community Engagement Urban Scholars Community School The Cinema School Bronx Career and College Preparatory High School City Polytechnic High School of Engineering, Architecture, and Technology Sunset Park High School Red Hook Neighborhood School The Brooklyn Academy of Global Finance The Science and Medicine Middle School East Brooklyn Community High School East New York Elementary School of Excellence East New York Middle School of Excellence The School for Classics: An Academy of Thinkers, Writers, and Performers The Academy of Talented Scholars Brooklyn School of Inquiry Waterside Childrens Studio School Waterside School for Leadership Village Academy Staten Island School of Civic Leadership
May 2013
2010-2011
New Schools Manhattan 1 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 2 Manhattan 3 Manhattan 3 Bronx 8 Bronx 10 Bronx 11 Bronx 12 Brooklyn 13 Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 19 Brooklyn 20 Brooklyn 20 Brooklyn 20 Brooklyn 20 Brooklyn 23 Queens 24 Queens 24 Queens 27 Queens 27 Queens 28 Queens 28 Queens 28 Queens 28 Queens 28 Queens 29 Queens 29 Queens 30 Staten Island 31 Forsyth Satellite Academy Manhattan 2 P.S. 267 Manhattan 3 Manhattan Academy for Arts & Language Manhattan 4 Murray Hill Academy Manhattan 4 Hudson High School of Leraning Technologies Manhattan 4 International High School at Union Square Bronx 12 Frank McCourt High School Bronx 12 P.S. 452 Brooklyn 18 Bronx Bridges High School Brooklyn 18 Academy for Personal Leadership and Excellence Brooklyn 21 Van Nest Academy Arturo Schomburg Satellite Academy Bronx Fort Greene Preparatory Academy P.S. 770 New American Academy Academy for Health Careers P.S. 264 Bay Ridge Elementary School for the Arts P.S. 310 P.S. 748 Brooklyn School for Global Scholars P.S. 971 Mott Hall Bridges Middle School P.S. 290 P.S. 330 P.S. 273 Rockaway Park High School for Environmental Sustainability Metropolitan Expeditionary Learning School Hillside Arts & Letters Academy High School for Community Leadership Queens Satellite High School Queens Metropolitan High School Cambria Heights Academy Eagle Academy for Young Men III P.S. 280 P.S. 74 Future Leaders Elementary School Closed Schools School for the Physical City M.S. 246 P.S. 101 Andrew Draper Tito Puente Education Complex Urban Peace Academy P.S. 197 Business School for Entreprenuerial Studies Samuel J. Tilden High School South Shore High School Lafayette High School
May 2013
57
2011-2012
New Schools Manhattan 2 Manhattan 5 Manhattan 5 Bronx 7 Bronx 8 Bronx 10 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Bronx 11 Bronx 12 Bronx 12 Bronx 12 Bronx 12 Brooklyn 15 Brooklyn 15 Brooklyn 17 Brooklyn 19 Brooklyn 23 Queens 24 Queens 27 Queens 28 Queens 28 Queens 29 Queens 29 Brooklyn 32 Queens 79
SOURCE: Analysis of Department of Education data
Closed Schools J.H.S. 44 William J OShea Knowledge and Power Preparatory Academy II (KAPPA II) Academy of Collaborative Education M.S. 321 Minerva P.S. 90 George Meany J.H.S. 166 Roberto Clemente P.S. 79 Creston M.S. 399 Bronx Coalition Community School Agnes Y. Humphrey School for Leadership Canarsie High School P.S. 72 Annette P. Goldman EBC/ENY High School for Public Safety & Law P.S. 225 Seaside Far Rockaway High School
Urban Assembly Gateway School for Technology Manhattan 3 New Design Middle School Manhattan 5 Teachers College Community School Manhattan 5 Bronx Design and Construction Academy Manhattan 6 Bronx Arena High School Bronx 9 Crotona International High School Bronx 9 Bronxdale High School Bronx 10 High School for Language and Innovation Bronx 10 One World Middle School at Edenwald Bronx 12 Baychester Middle School Brooklyn 15 Bronx Envision Academy Brooklyn 18 The Metropolitan Soundview High School Brooklyn 19 Archer Elementary School Brooklyn 23 P.S. 536 Queens 27 Brooklyn Frontiers High School Queens 27 Millenium Brooklyn Pathways in Technology Early College High School (P-Tech) The Fresh Creek School Christopher Avenue Community School Maspeth High School Rockaway Collegiate High School Jamaica Gateway to the Sciences P.S. 354 Collaborative Arts Middle School Community Voices Middle School Brooklyn School for Math and Research GED Plus
New York City Independent Budget Offce
58
May 2013
This report has been prepared by: Mahbuba Chowdhury Gretchen Johnson Joydeep Roy Yolanda Smith Sarita Subramanian Asa Wilks Raymond Domanico, Director of Education Research
IBO
New York City
Independent Budget Office

Ronnie Lowenstein, Director 110 William St., 14th Floor New York, NY 10038 Tel. (212) 442-0632 Fax (212) 442-0350 iboenews@ibo.nyc.ny.us www.ibo.nyc.ny.us Twitter RSS Facebook iboenews@ibo.nyc.ny.us

New York City Independent Budget Office 2013 Education Indicators Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

New York City Independent Budget Office 2013 Education Indicators Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

New York City Independent Budget Ofce

New York City Public School Indicators: Demographics, Resources, Outcomes

New York City Independent Budget Office Ronnie Lowenstein, Director

Fax (212) 442-0350 iboenews@ibo.nyc.ny.us www.ibo.nyc.ny.us

NYC Independent Budget Office

NYC Independent Budget Office

NYC Independent Budget Office

Background and Introduction

NYC Independent Budget Office

NYC Independent Budget Office

NYC Independent Budget Office

Who Are New York Citys Public School Students?

Table 2.1 Birthplace of Students

Uzbekistan Philippines Honduras Albania Egypt Ghana Poland El Salvador Ukraine

25,024 57,422 12,048 9,524 336 3,272

2.3 5.3 1.1 0.9 0.0 0.3

23,347 58,009 11,224 10,189 393 2,843

2.2 5.4 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.3