et Office New York City Independent Budg Fiscal Brief New York City Public School Indicators: Demographics, Resources, Outcomes May 2013 Table 2.5 English Language Learner Status0.4% by Grade, Table 2.3 2009-2010 Student Ethnicity by Grade, 2009-2010 0.5% Not ELL 0.6% Table 2.6 Table 2.4 Grade Number Percen ELL Grade Number of Students Asian Hispanic Black White Mixed Race American Indian 0.5% Program Placement of English Language Learner Students, 2009-2010 t Number Percen Fifteen LanguagesK 62,054Most 79.3% 16,176 20.7% t Pr-K 58,805 14.6% 36.1% 24.1% 20.2%Special 3.8% Education/ 0.4% Commonly Spoken1 63,566 at Home, 78.4% 17,479 21.6% K 78,229 16.0% 38.7% 24.5% 17.5% 2.2%Individualized 0.3% English as a Second 2 65,278 80.4%60.6% 15,908 19.6% Bilingual Dual Language Language OnlyGrades K-2,Educational 2009-2010 Program 0.3% 1 81,045 15.0% 40.2% 25.9% 16.7% 1.0% 3 58,432 81.7%23.1% 13,112 18.3% English Number of 2 81,186 14.8% 40.8% 27.7% 15.5% 0.4% 4 60,346 83.4% 11,974 16.6% 0.4% Cumulative Years in Cumulative3 Cumulative 71,544 14.8% 40.4%Cumulative 28.4%Spanish 15.4% 0.5% 5 59,612 85.7% 2.5% 9,979 14.3% 0.3% Program Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage 4 72,320 15.8% 39.4% 28.8%Chinese 15.1% 0.5%6 60,875 87.6% 1.9% 8,644 12.4% 0.3% 1 9,528 33.6% 1,788 30.7% 25,967 24.1% 1,829 17.9% 5 69,591 15.2% 40.1% 29.3%(Unknown/Other) 14.6% 0.4%7 61,888 87.8% 8,638 12.2% 0.4% 2 5,883 54.4% 1,238 51.9% 19,719 42.5% 1,004 27.7% 1.7% Bengali 3 4,428 70.0% 992 69.0%6 16,226 57.5% 1,265 69,519 40.1% 15.0% 40.1% 30.3% 13.8% 0.3%8 64,358 88.1% 8,7001.5% 11.9% 0.4% Chinese (Mandarin)9 92,330 86.6% 14,229 13.4% 0.4% 4 2,972 80.5% 770 82.2%7 13,361 70.0% 1,228 70,526 52.1% 15.4% 39.9% 30.7% 13.4% 0.3% 1.2% 5 2,078 87.9% 497 90.7%8 10,195 79.4% 1,165 73,058 63.5% 15.3% 39.6% 30.9%Russian 13.6% 0.2%10 94,527 85.6% 15,870 14.4% 0.4% 6 1,158 92.0% 289 95.7% 6,937 85.9% 1,144 74.6% 11 62,619 87.6% 8,854 12.4% 9 106,559 13.2% 40.0% 32.7%Arabic 11.5% 0.3% 0.4% 7 752 94.6% 122 97.8% 4,920 90.5% 834 82.8% 12 69,597 88.2% 9,3021.0% 11.8% 8 489 96.3% 85 99.2%10 3,469 93.7% 643 89.1% 110,397 13.7% 39.7% 34.5%Chinese 11.0% (Cantonese) 0.3% 1.1% TOTAL29.9% 875,482 14.3% 84.6% 0.7% 158,8650.6% 9 345 97.6% 27 99.7%11 2,335 95.9% 480 93.8% 71,473 16.0% 37.4% 32.6% 13.2%39.3% 0.2% 14.9% Urdu 10 237 98.4% 14 99.9% 1,717 97.4% 335 97.0% 0.4% 15.4% 12 78,8991,093,151 14.8% 37.1% 34.7%Korean 12.6% 0.2% 164 99.0% 4 100.0% 1,018 98.4% 183 98.8% 11 TOTAL 0.4% Polish 12 129 99.4% 100.0% 853 99.2% 71 99.5% 0.4% Over 12 159 100.0% 100.0% 875 100.0% 49 100.0% Haitian Creole TOTAL 28,322 18.6% 5,826 3.8% 107,592 70.8% 10,230 6.7% 0.4% Albanian 0.3% Punjabi French Fax (212) 442-0350 110 William St., 14th fl oor New York City [email protected] New York, NY 10038 www.ibo.nyc.ny.us Independent Budget Offi ce Tel. (212) 442-0632 IBO Ronnie Lowenstein, Director NYC Independent Budget Office May 2013 Contents 1 Background and Introduction . 1 Who Are New York City’s 2 Public School Students? . 5 What Resources Are Made Available 3 To Our Public Schools? . 13 What Do Some Indicators of 4 School Performance Show? . 33 Appendix: List of Schools Opened And Closed Each Year Since 2005-2006 . .39 NYC Independent Budget Office May 2013 d NYC Independent Budget Office May 2013 Background and 1 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 This report is our second annual summary of that data. Over the course of the York shall be authorized to last year, we have issued a number of detailed analyses of student achievement, graduation outcomes, the school system’s School Progress Report methodology and provide analysis and issue school funding, and we will continue to produce those types of reports. This current public reports regarding report is designed as a descriptive overview of the school system rather than as financial and educational an in-depth look at particular issues. It is organized into three main sections. The matters of the city district, first presents demographic information on the students who attend New York City’s to enhance official and public schools. The next section describes the resources—budgets, school staff, and public understanding of buildings—that the school system utilizes. The final section describes the measurable such matters… outcomes of the school system’s efforts for particular subgroups of students. While this report presents a great deal of information, it is not exhaustive. Some New York State Education important questions cannot be answered in this type of purely descriptive format. Law § 2590-u. 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 IBO’s 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 NYC Independent Budget Office May 2013 1 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 city’s 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 year’s 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 school’s register at any point in a particular school year.