NYC Board of Ed crowded schools
meow
The New York City Board of Education (BoE) has fewer students than it had
in 1971. Nevertheless, the BoE's schools are more crowded than they were
in 1971. Why is crowding worse in a system with fewer students?
Did the BoE close any schools that were open in 1971? If so, were all of
those closed schools replaced by new schools with equal or greater
capacity?
Grinch
>
>The New York City Board of Education (BoE) has fewer students than it had
>in 1971. Nevertheless, the BoE's schools are more crowded than they were
>in 1971. Why is crowding worse in a system with fewer students?....
Here's why.
From some analysis as valid today as the day I first posted it,
alas...
RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND PRODUCTIVITY: A FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE
NEW YORK CITY HIGH SCHOOLS
By Robert Sarrel, Ed. D., Director of Budget Allocation, Management
and Planning, New York City Board of Education, Brooklyn, New York.
178 pages. Published by UMI Dissertation Services, 800-521-0600,
www.umi.com
----------------
"URBAN FINANCE -- THE PROBLEM"
"[T]he paradox of urban school reform is the steady increase in
education cost per pupil with no increase in student outcomes. ...
Over the past 20 years, factoring for inflation, (NYC) per-student
spending has risen 80% while graduation rates, SAT performances, and
Regents results have declined and indicators of student misbehavior,
violence and drop-out rates worsened.
"To explain this it is necessary to understand the relationship
between costs and outcomes by 'unpacking'’ the allocations process
from the school board to the chalkboard". . .
"Before the Board of Education allocates resources to its
divisions, dollars are extracted to support its overhead. The same
process occurs when the divisions receive their budgets. Dollars again
are siphoned off for overhead and central administration. What
remains becomes available for allocation to schools. . .
"The magnitude of the decrease in funds available for instruction
is examined in this study." [pp. 1-3]
-- Bureaucracy --
"School bureaucracy has skyrocketed in proportion to the growth
in the number of teachers.... While the number of teachers has grown
58%, the number of school administrators has grown 79%, other staff
growth is 500%. Overhead costs have doubled...." [p. 3]
"[T]he general allocation process is such that each
organizational tier first extracts its share of resources . . . Hence,
given the nature of things, the bureaucratic 'blob' thrives at the
expense of the classroom." [p.6]
"Almost 46% of all personnel now are non-teaching, and even some
staff on teaching lines are relieved of pedagogic responsibilities
[for administrative duties]." [p.144]
"The New York City school system has a vast bureaucratic
structure, and it is inconceivable that the public willingly supports
this structure as a valid educational expense..." [p.86]
-- The Cascade --
"The metaphor of an allocation 'cascade' is useful as it
depicts funds flowing from the Central Board of Education, through
the system to the school, then from the school to the classroom
teacher. At each level dollars are channeled for purposes other than
instruction. Although some services related to children may be
performed at some of these levels, the proportion varies.
"The system currently in place presumes a top-down control of
allocation of dollars ...The cascade analogy is appropriate in that
each level 'siphons off' and/or 'filters out' dollars ..." [p.85]
FINANCIAL IMPACT ON RESOURCES FOR INSTRUCTION
"Approximately 50% of the Board of Education’s per-student
funding intended to serve students is diverted to non-instructional
and bureaucratic purposes before the Division of High Schools receives
its initial allotment.... Then, like all central operations, [the
Division] takes first what it needs to operate... " [p.57]
-- The Cascade in Action -- [Long chart on p. 89 collapsed for USENET
presentation]:
100% --- Board of Education per-student funding.
Minus 48.6% for: Board of Education overhead, Central Operations
overhead, etc. This leaves ....
51.4% for High School Division
Minus 15.7% for Division overhead, centrally-controlled costs and
managed programs, and administrative non-instructional needs. This
leaves ....
35.7% for School Levels
Minus 3.4% for teacher time off in lieu of instruction . This leaves
..
32.3% for Classroom Services
"The allocation cascade for high schools indicates that less than
47% of the per-pupil allocation of the Board of Education ever gets
to the schools; and of this amount, less than 61% gets to instruction
in the classroom.
"These figures are shocking and indicate that less than
one-third (32.3%) of the dollars provided by the various funding
sources to the Board of Education ever get from the school board to
the chalkboard. "[p. 113]
-- Continuing Growth of Bureaucracy During Periods of Financial
Cutbacks --
"History shows that the primacy of administrative needs results
in growing administrative allocations even when classroom services are
reduced in response to overall financial constraints ....
"During the 1975 New York City budget crisis, teachers with as
many as 10 years experience were excessed and many never returned. The
hierarchy, however, continued to grow ... "[p. 167]
OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION
"The major increase in school staff other than teachers that has
been observed may simply be due to the increasing availability of
resources ..." [p.3]
"When schools as a whole demonstrate an inability to use available
resources effectively, there is little reason to believe that an
additional dollar put into the system will improve student
achievement." [p. 30]
"It seems incredible that less than half of the dollars allocated
for education ever arrive at the schools. One way to rethink things
would be to reverse the top-down methodology of allocations ...
"Without changing the funding of urban schools, we cannot hope
to improve education, especially for students at risk. More money
poured in at the top would simply enlarge the existing bureaucracy
which has already grown far faster than services for students at the
bottom." [pp 162-163]
~~
meow
> >
> >The New York City Board of Education (BoE) has fewer students than it had
> >in 1971. Nevertheless, the BoE's schools are more crowded than they were
> >in 1971. Why is crowding worse in a system with fewer students?....
>
> Here's why.
>
> From some analysis as valid today as the day I first posted it,
> alas...
[snip] ....
You know much. You report much; however, you do not answer my question:
"Why is crowding worse in a system with fewer students?"
Are there fewer Board of Ed classrooms than there were in 1971? Are there
fewer Board of Ed school buildings than there were in 1971? Were some
Board of Ed school buildings closed with no school buildings to replace
them?
Alan
Donna Metler
Large cities, and NYC definitely qualifies, have low-income schools which
recieve title I funding from the federal government. Title I schools have class
size limits, especially in elementary. As a result, more classrooms are needed,
which leads to overcrowded schools. A class of 20 takes up physically the same
classroom which served 30 previously.
Similarly, discipline problems often lead to a reduction in class size, in an
effort to quench them. Discipline has definitely changed for the worst in the
past 30 years.
If you're correct in that the system serves no more children than previously, I
expect the answer lies in how the children are served.
Grinch
>
>You know much. You report much; however, you do not answer my question:
>"Why is crowding worse in a system with fewer students?"
There are 1/3rd-empty schools operating all over the city.
The bureaucracy which one of its own leaders called "the blob" in the
prior post is simply incapable of shifting resources to where they are
needed as population density shifts from area to area.
Any other organization from the Post Office to the Pentagon to any
private business projects geographic changes in demand for its
services and shifts resources from areas where demand is falling and
resources will be under utilized to areas where demand is growing and
additional resources are needed.
Look at the urban Catholic school systems, for instance. Many of them
have completely redeployed their educational resources and relocated
their schools over the last 20 years as the populations they serve
have moved.
The NYC Board of Ed has proved itself congenitally incapable of doing
this. As a result, the last time I looked the average NYC public
school was operating about 20% *below* capacity, and many much below
that -- while schools in areas that have had growing populations in
recent years were holding classes literally in shower rooms, utility
closets and hallways.
This isn't anything new, by the way. 25 years ago when I was a grad
student I volunteered to help teach in the public schools in the Bronx
and taught kids in hallways and converted shower rooms.
Why can't the Board of Ed move resources to where they are needed from
where they aren't? Lots of reasons.
First, institutionally, it doesn't really care if it does or not,
because it is in no way accountable for failing to do so. If it
doesn't what happens to them? Nothing.
As the report by the Board of Ed's Budget Director Sarrel noted
in the prior post, school level services are the *last* priority of
the Board of Ed, which why only about 1/3rd of budget dollars survive
through the bureaucracy to get down to the instructional level.
Second, there's building tenure all through the school system.
Teachers, principals, custodians, etc. have lifetime employment if
they don't move, and seniority-based rights to choose their positions
if they do. They all have powerful unions representing them, and if
they are happy where they are and don't want to relocate why should
they, just because students do? And since the Board of Ed really
doesn't care....
Third, the School Construction Authority which is responsible for
providing new classroom space is infamous for its corruption,
political cronyism, featherbedding and ineptitude at actually building
things. It costs the SCA $50,000 per desk to build new schools, always
delivers years late, built a new school that broke in two and sank
like the Titanic into the landfill it was built on shortly after
opening in the Bronx a couple years ago, and is famous for displaying
such common sense as lead it to spend $300,000 to build a wheelchair
access ramp that ended directly under a basketball hoop in a school
gym, so any kid making a layup would break his leg on the ramp.
You can read more about the SCA here:
_Why New York Can’t Build Schools_
http://www.city-journal.org/html/8_2_a2.html
>Are there fewer Board of Ed classrooms than there were in 1971? Are there
>fewer Board of Ed school buildings than there were in 1971? Were some
>Board of Ed school buildings closed with no school buildings to replace
>them?
Not really, in any even such things would be symptoms of the problem,
not the cause.
I hope you found this explanation more satisfactory.
>Alan
Grinch
<dmme...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>This is a guess, but...
>
>Large cities, and NYC definitely qualifies, have low-income schools which
>recieve title I funding from the federal government. Title I schools have class
>size limits, especially in elementary. As a result, more classrooms are needed,
>which leads to overcrowded schools. A class of 20 takes up physically the same
>classroom which served 30 previously.
>
>Similarly, discipline problems often lead to a reduction in class size, in an
>effort to quench them. Discipline has definitely changed for the worst in the
>past 30 years.
>
>If you're correct in that the system serves no more children than previously, I
>expect the answer lies in how the children are served.
Ah, if only truth were so benign.
toto
wrote:
>The NYC Board of Ed has proved itself congenitally incapable of doing
>this. As a result, the last time I looked the average NYC public
>school was operating about 20% *below* capacity, and many much below
>that -- while schools in areas that have had growing populations in
>recent years were holding classes literally in shower rooms, utility
>closets and hallways.
How will you make the schools in these areas physically bigger?
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
source unknown
susupply
toto <nob...@xxozxx.com> wrote in message
news:m710at4fbkmo5t2em...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:12:07 -0500, Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The NYC Board of Ed has proved itself congenitally incapable of doing
> >this. As a result, the last time I looked the average NYC public
> >school was operating about 20% *below* capacity, and many much below
> >that -- while schools in areas that have had growing populations in
> >recent years were holding classes literally in shower rooms, utility
> >closets and hallways.
>
> How will you make the schools in these areas physically bigger?
>
> Dorothy
The same way the grocery stores can be made bigger, or the shopping malls,
or anything else. Alternately, build more.
Joni J Rathbun
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, toto wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:12:07 -0500, Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The NYC Board of Ed has proved itself congenitally incapable of doing
> >this. As a result, the last time I looked the average NYC public
> >school was operating about 20% *below* capacity, and many much below
> >that -- while schools in areas that have had growing populations in
> >recent years were holding classes literally in shower rooms, utility
> >closets and hallways.
>
> How will you make the schools in these areas physically bigger?
>
> Dorothy
Well, perhaps he wishes to bus the children from one end of the
city to the other.
toto
We are talking about NYC here remember? Property is at a premium
and there are very few places to build in those neighborhoods where
the overcrowding is occuring.
The same problem happens in Chicago. There are schools operating
below capacity in neighborhoods where the population is declining,
but in some areas of the city there are schools with mobile
classrooms. The high school I taught at was built for 1500
students and housed 2200 students on 4 shifts when I left. The
building was 17 years old and had been built on projections of need
that apparently were based on the University of Illinois's Chicago
campus taking over the area so that less homes and less families
would be living there and need schools. Didn't happen.. So....
Grinch
>On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:04:28 -0800, "susupply"
><susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>toto <nob...@xxozxx.com> wrote in message
>>news:m710at4fbkmo5t2em...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:12:07 -0500, Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >The NYC Board of Ed has proved itself congenitally incapable of doing
>>> >this. As a result, the last time I looked the average NYC public
>>> >school was operating about 20% *below* capacity, and many much below
>>> >that -- while schools in areas that have had growing populations in
>>> >recent years were holding classes literally in shower rooms, utility
>>> >closets and hallways.
>>>
>>> How will you make the schools in these areas physically bigger?
>>>
>>> Dorothy
>>
>>The same way the grocery stores can be made bigger, or the shopping malls,
>>or anything else. Alternately, build more.
>>
>We are talking about NYC here remember? Property is at a premium
>and there are very few places to build in those neighborhoods where
>the overcrowding is occuring.
This is glib nonsense.
I live in the middle of Manhattan and there are four major
construction projects going on within three blocks of me. There's
always room to build even in Manhattan.
Besides that, you don't have to construct a building to have a school,
you can lease the space -- as do schools of all kinds all over
Manhattan that are not run by the Board of Ed, including two within
three blocks of me.
But more to the point, the overcrowded schools are *not* in Manhattan,
where building density and high rents are.
They are in the Bronx, which has huge tracts of undeveloped land
these days; and Queens, which is the largest suburban-type community
this side of L.A. and a place where nobody has any problem building
malls, multiplexes and sports centers; and in the low-rent areas of
Brooklyn where immigrants are flocking because property is so cheap.
In fact, this is a fine rule of thumb -- in the rich neighborhoods
were property is expensive there are enough schools, it's in the poor
neighborhoods where property is cheap that overcrowding is rife.
Now, if you want to really discuss the factors behind school
overcrowding here, you might start by learning some facts. For
instance you could start by reading about how schools here are
actually built and maintained, by troubling to click on the link I
provided to the description of the operation of the School
Construction Authority. I'll even give it again.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/8_2_a2.html
OTOH, if you'd rather make up "just so stories" that give an
explanation you like, and which would lead us to conclude that there's
no room to build on the empty lots in the Bronx, you'll just indicate
that you are not sincere about a subject that is serious to some of
us.
>The same problem happens in Chicago. There are schools operating
>below capacity in neighborhoods where the population is declining,
>but in some areas of the city there are schools with mobile
>classrooms. The high school I taught at was built for 1500
>students and housed 2200 students on 4 shifts when I left. The
>building was 17 years old and had been built on projections of need
>that apparently were based on the University of Illinois's Chicago
>campus taking over the area so that less homes and less families
>would be living there and need schools. Didn't happen.. So....
That sounds a bit like NYC -- not being able to respond to a change of
events within 1.7 decades.
>Dorothy
Grinch
It is a mystery, isn't it? ;-)
Just *how* do productive organizations increase capacity where needed
and shift resources about to keep them aligned with changing patterns
of demand?
Perhaps you could present this as a topic of discussion to your
students. They might come up with some ideas that haven't occurred to
you.
toto
wrote:
>>We are talking about NYC here remember? Property is at a premium
>>and there are very few places to build in those neighborhoods where
>>the overcrowding is occuring.
>
>This is glib nonsense.
>
>I live in the middle of Manhattan and there are four major
>construction projects going on within three blocks of me. There's
>always room to build even in Manhattan.
to build schools? Or to build profit-making housing?
toto
wrote:
>Besides that, you don't have to construct a building to have a school,
>you can lease the space -- as do schools of all kinds all over
>Manhattan that are not run by the Board of Ed, including two within
>three blocks of me.
Can you find and lease space in the neighborhoods where the schools
are overcrowded? Are these spaces suitable for schools in terms of
safety? How much remodeling of the space would need to be done to
turn it into a suitable school?
toto
wrote:
>OTOH, if you'd rather make up "just so stories" that give an
>explanation you like, and which would lead us to conclude that there's
>no room to build on the empty lots in the Bronx, you'll just indicate
>that you are not sincere about a subject that is serious to some of
>us.
Build with what money? If the land is available (and, btw, it is
not available in the area were the school I spoke of in Chicago
happens to be located), the next problem is to fund the building
which means funding buying the land and then the building of
the school itself.
The problems are often that new taxes and bond issues are not
approved to build schools in these areas. If you have a solution
I am glad, but I don't see it happening.
Alberto Moreira
> How will you make the schools in these areas physically bigger?
the school system overnight.
Alberto.
meow
>
> I hope you found this explanation more satisfactory.
Outstanding, not just satisfactory.
Thanks.
Alan
susupply
Joni J Rathbun <jrat...@orednet.org>
who is compelled continually to display complete ignorance of elementary
economics,
wrote in message
news:Pine.SUN.3.96.101030...@compass.oregonvos.net...
[snip]
> >
> > How will you make the schools in these areas physically bigger?
> >
> > Dorothy
>
> Well, perhaps he wishes to bus the children from one end of the
> city to the other.
Do (to take but one example) grocery stores bus their customers "from one
end of the city to the other"?
Patrick
susupply
Congratulations, you've stumbled onto an elementary economic relationship.
It is profit seeking organizations that produce the things we need. Not
government agencies, such as public school systems. Abandon such systems
and let the market work. Then you'll have the schools you need, just as you
have the groceries, the clothing, the homes, the appliances, the cars, etc.
Patrick
susupply
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 01:16:22 -0500, Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >OTOH, if you'd rather make up "just so stories" that give an
> >explanation you like, and which would lead us to conclude that there's
> >no room to build on the empty lots in the Bronx, you'll just indicate
> >that you are not sincere about a subject that is serious to some of
> >us.
>
> Build with what money?
Poor Grinch, he goes to the trouble of providing you with Sarrel's report
that explains exactly, "with what money", and Dorothy won't even read it.
But she wants to talk about it.
Patrick
Joni J Rathbun
Do you buy your clues at K-Mart?
One who enjoys sound comprehension skills would have realized my
comment to Dorothy was sarcastic and suggested that, perhaps,
OldandClueless thought an approrpiate solution would be to bus the
children.
That you chose to comment on *my* lack of understanding with
regard to economics tells us a lot more about you than me.
Grinch
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 01:16:22 -0500, Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
>>OTOH, if you'd rather make up "just so stories" that give an
>>explanation you like, and which would lead us to conclude that there's
>>no room to build on the empty lots in the Bronx, you'll just indicate
>>that you are not sincere about a subject that is serious to some of
>>us.
>
>Build with what money?
You're too darn lazy to click on a link, eh?
Test your good faith by trying it and coming back with the answer to
this question:
What is the budget of the School Construction Authority, in
billions of dollars?
>The problems are often that new taxes and bond issues are not
>approved to build schools in these areas.
You quoted above my comment about your persistence with "just so"
stories. Try understanding it.
Grinch
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 01:16:22 -0500, Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>We are talking about NYC here remember? Property is at a premium
>>>and there are very few places to build in those neighborhoods where
>>>the overcrowding is occuring.
>>
>>This is glib nonsense.
>>
>>I live in the middle of Manhattan and there are four major
>>construction projects going on within three blocks of me. There's
>>always room to build even in Manhattan.
>
>to build schools? Or to build profit-making housing?
You snipped:
>>Besides that, you don't have to construct a building to have a school,
>>you can lease the space -- as do schools of all kinds all over
>>Manhattan that are not run by the Board of Ed, including two within
>>three blocks of me.
And...
>>But more to the point, the overcrowded schools are *not* in Manhattan,
>>where building density and high rents are.
Get it? And...
>> They are in the Bronx, which has huge tracts of undeveloped land
>>these days; and Queens, which is the largest suburban-type community
>>this side of L.A. and a place where nobody has any problem building
>>malls, multiplexes and sports centers; and in the low-rent areas of
>>Brooklyn where immigrants are flocking because property is so cheap.
>>In fact, this is a fine rule of thumb -- in the rich neighborhoods
>>where property is expensive there are enough schools, it's in the poor
>>neighborhoods where property is cheap that overcrowding is rife.
Does re-reading this assist your comprehension of the relationship
between local property values and school overcrowding?
>Dorothy
Grinch
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 01:16:22 -0500, Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Besides that, you don't have to construct a building to have a school,
>>you can lease the space -- as do schools of all kinds all over
>>Manhattan that are not run by the Board of Ed, including two within
>>three blocks of me.
>
>Can you find and lease space in the neighborhoods where the schools
>are overcrowded?
You mean, as all the schools that lease space in Manhattan do?
They cover several pages in the phone book, from pre-school to
universities.
>Are these spaces suitable for schools in terms of
>safety?
The schools that lease space apparently think so.
>How much remodeling of the space would need to be done to
>turn it into a suitable school?
No more than the schools that lease space perform.
But in any event, try to grasp this:
For the third time, the overcrowded schools are *not* in Manhattan,
where development is dense and property is expensive.
They are in the poorer areas of the Bronx and Brooklyn where there
are wide open spaces and property is cheapest.
So the SCA there has the happy choice of either building or leasing
at the lowest cost in the city. With it's budget that is how large?
Do you know yet?
For a person who is full of opinions and rationalizations about the
subject, two things that you seem to know *zero* about are (1) any
kind of factual description of the NYC school system, and (2)
commercial real estate.
Um, have you bothered to follow that link yet?
One would think that a teacher, of all people, would feel obliged to
learn at least a little bit about a subject before forming strong
opinions and giving lectures on it.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 21:28:55 -0600, toto <nob...@xxozxx.com> wrote:
>
>>We are talking about NYC here remember? Property is at a premium
>>and there are very few places to build in those neighborhoods where
>>the overcrowding is occuring.
>
>I live in the middle of Manhattan and there are four major
>construction projects going on within three blocks of me. There's
>always room to build even in Manhattan.
More accurately, because NYC taxes improvements at double the rate on
land, there's always room to build.
>In fact, this is a fine rule of thumb -- in the rich neighborhoods
>were property is expensive there are enough schools, it's in the poor
>neighborhoods where property is cheap that overcrowding is rife.
True. The following three facts evidently cannot fit into New
Yorkers' heads at the same time:
1) Land value per resident is less than linearly related to income,
while improvement value per resident is more than linearly related to
income.
2) New York schools are funded by property taxes.
3) The NYC property tax rate on land is half the tax rate on
improvements.
Any questions?
-- Roy L
toto
wrote:
No, it does not. It does not matter if the property values are
lower, if the school board does not have the money to build
new schools. And, btw, the total budget figures are no measure
of what can be spent for capital development since maintenance
of the current schools would have to continue until the new
schools were ready for use.
Aside from this building schools takes time as well so while it
is possible that the schools can be expanded by such a measure,
the first thing needed would be accurate predictions of the school
population for the near future prior to and after the schools were
built. I make no claim to knowing the facts of NYC's particular
situation, but I do know what happens in Chicago's inner city.
The suitability of rental property in manhattan is irrelevant to the
suitability of such facilities in the neighborhoods where the
overcrowding is occurring. The fact that the rent is low is not the
point. The question I raised involves whether or not suitable
facilities *are* available for such rentals in those neighborhoods.
I ask again (and NOTE, I do not know the answers, nor am I lecturing
you about anything).
You claim the land is available. Ok. I accept your word for that,
since I am not living in NYC.
What would the cost of a new school building be? And does the
School board actually have enough funds on hand to build all the
schools that are needed in the overcrowded neighborhoods while
maintaining current schools needed for these populations until the
schools have been built?
Does the School Board have enough funding to rent ancillary
locations along with its building program and maintenance of
current schools so that the population can be served without such
overcrowding now?
What should be done with underused schools? Would you have the
board consolidate them and bus students between locations so that
the schools kept open were used to capacity? What would be done
then with the schools you closed? Should these buildings be sold?
If they were sold, what might happen if the population shifted in
the future? Do you believe that children should be able to go to
schools close to their home in NYC?
toto
wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 00:54:47 -0600, toto <nob...@xxozxx.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 01:16:22 -0500, Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Besides that, you don't have to construct a building to have a school,
>>>you can lease the space -- as do schools of all kinds all over
>>>Manhattan that are not run by the Board of Ed, including two within
>>>three blocks of me.
>>
>>Can you find and lease space in the neighborhoods where the schools
>>are overcrowded?
>
>You mean, as all the schools that lease space in Manhattan do?
>
No, I am asking if suitable property in the overcrowded
neighborhoods exist that could be rented, not in Manhattan?
>They cover several pages in the phone book, from pre-school to
>universities.
>
Private schools may rent spaces, do any public schools rent them?
And if so, what is the cost and how is that prorated in terms of
schools in the poor areas of the city?
>>Are these spaces suitable for schools in terms of
>>safety?
>
>The schools that lease space apparently think so.
>
In Manhattan or in the poverty stricken and overcrowded areas?
Catholic Schools, btw, in Chicago have been in unsafe spaces
in many cases. The St. Vincent DePaul Daycare Center in Lincoln
Park which is in the center of a wealthy area was an unsafe
structure, imho, though it has been used as a school and now as
a daycare. Thankfully, the money has been found to tear it down
and build what will be a safe structure and and also a decent
daycare and after school program for the inner city children it
serves despite its location in a wealthy neighborhood.
>>How much remodeling of the space would need to be done to
>>turn it into a suitable school?
>
>No more than the schools that lease space perform.
>
>But in any event, try to grasp this:
>
> For the third time, the overcrowded schools are *not* in Manhattan,
>where development is dense and property is expensive.
> They are in the poorer areas of the Bronx and Brooklyn where there
>are wide open spaces and property is cheapest.
> So the SCA there has the happy choice of either building or leasing
>at the lowest cost in the city. With it's budget that is how large?
>Do you know yet?
>
Nope, the total budget is not the point. The question I asked is
does that budget cover enough to build all the schools or lease all
the property needed IN the areas where the overcrowding is
occurring. You are the one who brought Manhattan into this. I did
not. I never assumed that the overcrowding was in any particular
area of NYC. I asked, Grinch. I did not lecture and I have no
interest in playing with the numbers myself.
>For a person who is full of opinions and rationalizations about the
>subject, two things that you seem to know *zero* about are (1) any
>kind of factual description of the NYC school system, and (2)
>commercial real estate.
>
>Um, have you bothered to follow that link yet?
>
>One would think that a teacher, of all people, would feel obliged to
>learn at least a little bit about a subject before forming strong
>opinions and giving lectures on it.
>
Since I gave no lectures, only raised a question, I wonder where you
got any idea about what my opinion is. I have yet to give any. I
raised questions.. Now if you don't like the questions, that's your
problem, not mine.
susupply
Joni J Rathbun <jrat...@orednet.org>
wanting there to be absolutely no doubt about her ignorance,
wrote in message
news:Pine.SUN.3.96.101030...@compass.oregonvos.net...
>
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, susupply wrote:
[snip]
> > > > How will you make the schools in these areas physically bigger?
> > > >
> > > > Dorothy
> > >
> > > Well, perhaps he wishes to bus the children from one end of the
> > > city to the other.
> >
> > Do (to take but one example) grocery stores bus their customers "from
one
> > end of the city to the other"?
>
>
> Do you buy your clues at K-Mart?
Okay, have it your way. Does K-Mart bus its customers "from one end of the
city to the other"?
> One who enjoys sound comprehension skills would have realized my
> comment to Dorothy was sarcastic and suggested that, perhaps,
> OldandClueless thought an approrpiate solution would be to bus the
> children.
"One who enjoys sound comprehension skills" would herself not repeat the
ignorant sarcasm. She would probably just disappear, and not return til she
was wiser for having had it fed back to her.
> That you chose to comment on *my* lack of understanding with
> regard to economics tells us a lot more about you than me.
Well, it tells us quite a bit about both of us. Say, that I read and
understood the rather elementary points Grinch was making, and you still
don't get them.
Patrick
susupply
toto <nob...@xxozxx.com>
even having been spoonfed the information can't digest it:
[Grinch:]
> > So the SCA there has the happy choice of either building or leasing
> >at the lowest cost in the city. With it's budget that is how large?
> >Do you know yet?
> >
> Nope, the total budget is not the point. The question I asked is
> does that budget cover enough to build all the schools or lease all
> the property needed IN the areas where the overcrowding is
> occurring.
SCA standing for School Construction Authority, one would hope that a
teacher could derive the obvious about its budget's purpose. But since you
can't seem to summon the energy, here's the relevant information:
<< the New York City School Construction Authority. The legislature created
the SCA in 1988 to assume the duties of the Board of Ed's Division of School
Facilities, which had completely failed in its mission of building
high-quality schools efficiently and fixing them when they needed repair.
Ten years later, it's clear that the SCA has been a disaster, too. While the
authority improved slightly on the board's track record, that's faint
praise, since the board needed eight to ten years to build a school, and
organized crime dominated its construction projects. An agency as well
funded as the SCA--it has already spent $6.4 billion and will spend another
$1.1 billion this year--should have a lot to show for itself, and it doesn'
t. By any performance measure--the number of schools built, the cost and
quality of construction, timeliness in opening--the SCA flunks.>>
Note the phrase, "as well funded as the SCA".
>You are the one who brought Manhattan into this. I did
> not. I never assumed that the overcrowding was in any particular
> area of NYC. I asked, Grinch. I did not lecture and I have no
> interest in playing with the numbers myself.
>
> >For a person who is full of opinions and rationalizations about the
> >subject, two things that you seem to know *zero* about are (1) any
> >kind of factual description of the NYC school system, and (2)
> >commercial real estate.
> >
> >Um, have you bothered to follow that link yet?
> >
> >One would think that a teacher, of all people, would feel obliged to
> >learn at least a little bit about a subject before forming strong
> >opinions and giving lectures on it.
> >
> Since I gave no lectures, only raised a question, I wonder where you
> got any idea about what my opinion is. I have yet to give any. I
> raised questions.. Now if you don't like the questions, that's your
> problem, not mine.
>
> Dorothy
Sheesh, you think WE can't read? Here's your lecture:
<< We are talking about NYC here remember? Property is at a premium
and there are very few places to build in those neighborhoods where
the overcrowding is occuring.
<< The same problem happens in Chicago. >>
Which clearly states, "in those neighborhoods where the overcrowding is
occuring". That's not a question, it's more like...a lecture.
Patrick
Joni J Rathbun
I wasn't responding to O&C. I was responding to a friend. You're
nothing more than a small minded jerk who should have kept his
big mouth shut in the first place.
susupply
Joni J Rathbun <jrat...@orednet.org>
> I wasn't responding to O&C. I was responding to a friend. You're
> nothing more than a small minded jerk who should have kept his
> big mouth shut in the first place.
That's the best tantrum you can throw?
But let's look at what you actually wrote:
> > > > Well, perhaps he wishes to bus the children from one end of the
> > > > city to the other.
"he" doesn't describe Dorothy. Speaking of having the sense to keep a big
mouth shut.
Patrick
Joni J Rathbun
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, susupply wrote:
Are you really that dumb? The use of the pronoun "he" is what makes it
obvious I am speaking TO (responding to) Dorothy and not O&C. I never
said I was speaking ABOUT Dorothy. I said I was responding to her. I know
it's hard to keep up when one's only purpose in life is to strut, but at
the time of the post, O&C had not yet provided his infamous link.
toto
No, but then I'm Alan according to Sam.
Grinch
<jrat...@orednet.org> wrote:
> I know
>it's hard to keep up when one's only purpose in life is to strut, but at
>the time of the post, O&C had not yet provided his infamous link.
Of course he had, so you are as wrong as usual -- missing the clue, so
to speak.
Toto snipped it, and you decided to join in and enjoy some sarcasm
about a post you hadn't read -- Well, not for comprehension at least.
;-)
So somebody indeed had a hard time keeping up while strutting out the
sarcasm, eh? (The psychologists call it "projection". )
You and toto seem do positively dedicated to not learning anything
about the subject of this thread, or contributing anything of
substance to it. Which leaves one wondering why you keep posting in
it?
Just for the fun of conversing with Patrick?
~~
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 16:27:27 -0800, Joni J Rathbun
<jrat...@orednet.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 14:39:41 -0600, toto <nob...@xxozxx.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:12:07 -0500, Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>...
>>>Third, the School Construction Authority which is responsible for
>>>providing new classroom space ....
>>>You can read more about the SCA here:
>>>
>>>_Why New York Can't Build Schools_
>>>http://www.city-journal.org/html/8_2_a2.html
>>>.........
>>
>>How will you make the schools in these areas physically bigger?
>>
>>Dorothy
>
Grinch
Do you imagine you might get information about budgets, time of
contruction, etc. by reading an extensive article on the NYCs
School Construction Authority?
>the first thing needed would be accurate predictions of the school
>population for the near future prior to and after the schools were
>built. I make no claim to knowing the facts of NYC's particular
>situation,
Funny, I thought it was you who posted...
>>>>>We are talking about NYC here remember? Property is at a premium
>>>>>and there are very few places to build in those neighborhoods where
>>>>>the overcrowding is occuring.
"there are very few places to build in those neighborhoods where
the overcrowding is occuring"
That sounds like a statement of fact to me.
You know, that's a whole wide landscape of questions you've painted
there. All of them very good.
Maybe a nice start to learning some of the answers to them would be to
read an extensive article about how new schools are planned for and
built in NYC, and the School Construction Authority whose job it is to
do it.
What do you think?
Clicked on that link yet? ;-)
Grinch
several reasonable sounding but in fact rather disingenuous questions,
as she apparently has no interest in learning the answers to them,
writing:
>No, I am asking if suitable property in the overcrowded
>neighborhoods exist that could be rented, not in Manhattan?
>....
>Private schools may rent spaces, do any public schools rent them?
>And if so, what is the cost and how is that prorated in terms of
>schools in the poor areas of the city?
>....
>Nope, the total budget is not the point. The question I asked is
>does that budget cover enough to build all the schools or lease all
>the property needed IN the areas where the overcrowding is
>occurring.
(Well, then it would seem the total budget *is* the point. ;-) )
>You are the one who brought Manhattan into this. I did
>not. I never assumed that the overcrowding was in any particular
>area of NYC. I asked, Grinch. I did not lecture and I have no
>interest in playing with the numbers myself.
>Since I gave no lectures, only raised a question, I wonder where you
>got any idea about what my opinion is. I have yet to give any.
The following wasn't your opinion....?
"We are talking about NYC here remember? Property is at a premium
and there are very few places to build in those neighborhoods where
the overcrowding is occurring."
It actually sounds like rather more than an opinion -- a statement of
fact. A declarative sentence.
Are you the sort of person who denies ever having expressed an opinion
that turns out to be wrong?
Or are you claiming this was "a question"?
>I raised questions.. Now if you don't like the questions, that's your
>problem, not mine.
The question is, are you interested in the answers to your questions?
If so, do you think you might get a start on finding them by reading a
4,800 word article on the subject? The link to which has been provided
twice?
Tell you what, if you are interested in the subject, why don't you
read the article, come back with some facts you learned from it, and
present some *opinions* of you own on how the situation could be
improved, on the basis of those facts.
You know: Some positive suggestions that occur to you on the basis of
the facts presented.
OTOH, if you really are not interested in the subject, and as you say
"have no intrerest in playing with" the real life budget numbers
involved that you *asked* about, then why do you keep posting in a
thread entitled "NYC Board of Ed crowded schools"?
Joni J Rathbun
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Grinch wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 11:24:56 -0800, Joni J Rathbun
> <jrat...@orednet.org> wrote:
>
> > I know
> >it's hard to keep up when one's only purpose in life is to strut, but at
> >the time of the post, O&C had not yet provided his infamous link.
>
> Of course he had, so you are as wrong as usual -- missing the clue, so
> to speak.
>
> Toto snipped it, and you decided to join in and enjoy some sarcasm
> about a post you hadn't read -- Well, not for comprehension at least.
> ;-)
You're right. You had posted the link. But that doesn't change the
fact that my comment was in response to Dorothy and meant to be
flippant and not, as AirSupply wishes to make believe, a comment
on *real* solutions.
ANd I would have made no more posts to the threat had AS not been
such a jackass.
susupply
Joni J Rathbun <jrat...@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.SUN.3.96.101030...@compass.oregonvos.net...
>
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, susupply wrote:
>
> >
> > Joni J Rathbun <jrat...@orednet.org>
> >
> > > I wasn't responding to O&C. I was responding to a friend. You're
> > > nothing more than a small minded jerk who should have kept his
> > > big mouth shut in the first place.
> >
> > That's the best tantrum you can throw?
> >
> > But let's look at what you actually wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Well, perhaps he wishes to bus the children from one end of the
> > > > > > city to the other.
> >
> > "he" doesn't describe Dorothy. Speaking of having the sense to keep a
big
> > mouth shut.
> >
> > Patrick
>
>
> Are you really that dumb? The use of the pronoun "he" is what makes it
> obvious I am speaking TO (responding to) Dorothy and not O&C.
Let me guess, you're an English teacher in a public school.
You make an ignorant comment about something said by a poster, clearly
identifying said poster as "he", but you now claim it wasn't a response to
him, but to your buddy Dorothy. One would think a response supposedly
limited to Dorothy's contributions (such as they are) would NOT make
reference to what someone else "thinks". Particularly as the reference was
sarcastic.
> I never
> said I was speaking ABOUT Dorothy.
That would be a somewhat limited understanding of the word, "respond".
> I said I was responding to her.
By commenting on what someone else "thinks". Yeah, who would ever get the
idea Grinch figured into it at all, he might never have said anything at
all, and you still would have mentioned him. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.
> I know
> it's hard to keep up when one's only purpose in life is to strut, but at
> the time of the post, O&C had not yet provided his infamous link.
Which is a lie. But you have still managed to evade answering the $64,000
question. Do supermarkets and/or K-Mart bus their customers from one end of
town to the other?
Patrick
susupply
Joni J Rathbun <jrat...@orednet.org>
fessing up to something she should have known better to even try,
wrote in message
news:Pine.SUN.3.96.101030...@compass.oregonvos.net...
> You're right. You had posted the link. But that doesn't change the
> fact that my comment was in response to Dorothy and meant to be
> flippant and not, as AirSupply wishes to make believe, a comment
> on *real* solutions.
Have you heard about this marvelous new technology, e-mail? You can use it
to exchange imbecilic comments with your friends, about others, without
having to worry about having them crammed down your throat. Which is what
happens when you do it in a public forum.
> ANd I would have made no more posts to the threat had AS not been
> such a jackass.
Which is one of the more amusing Freudian typos I've ever seen.
Patrick
Joni J Rathbun
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, susupply wrote:
>
> Joni J Rathbun <jrat...@orednet.org> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SUN.3.96.101030...@compass.oregonvos.net...
> >
> > On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, susupply wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Joni J Rathbun <jrat...@orednet.org>
> > >
> > > > I wasn't responding to O&C. I was responding to a friend. You're
> > > > nothing more than a small minded jerk who should have kept his
> > > > big mouth shut in the first place.
> > >
> > > That's the best tantrum you can throw?
> > >
> > > But let's look at what you actually wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > Well, perhaps he wishes to bus the children from one end of the
> > > > > > > city to the other.
> > >
> > > "he" doesn't describe Dorothy. Speaking of having the sense to keep a
> big
> > > mouth shut.
> > >
> > > Patrick
> >
> >
> > Are you really that dumb? The use of the pronoun "he" is what makes it
> > obvious I am speaking TO (responding to) Dorothy and not O&C.
>
> Let me guess, you're an English teacher in a public school.
>
Nope.
> You make an ignorant comment about something said by a poster, clearly
> identifying said poster as "he", but you now claim it wasn't a response to
> him, but to your buddy Dorothy. One would think a response supposedly
> limited to Dorothy's contributions (such as they are) would NOT make
> reference to what someone else "thinks". Particularly as the reference was
> sarcastic.
Hmm. One does not usually respond to someone in third person so your line
of reasoning, "now you claim," makes no sense at all. I've always claimed
my response was nothing more than a side comment to Dorothy. And that
claim still stands.
>
> > I never
> > said I was speaking ABOUT Dorothy.
>
> That would be a somewhat limited understanding of the word, "respond".
>
> > I said I was responding to her.
>
> By commenting on what someone else "thinks". Yeah, who would ever get the
> idea Grinch figured into it at all, he might never have said anything at
> all, and you still would have mentioned him. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.
>
You are being deliberately obtuse.
Grinch
<jrat...@orednet.org> wrote:
>
>You're right. You had posted the link. But that doesn't change the
>fact that my comment was in response to Dorothy and meant to be
>flippant and not, as AirSupply wishes to make believe, a comment
>on *real* solutions.
Oh, feel free to be publicly sarcastic about posts you haven't read
anytime.
There's no need to hit the e-maill button to send such comments
that may be meant for a single person to that person privately.
After all, this is usenet!
Feel free to call people names publicly too -- and be sure to do
it before they say anything critical in public about you. "First to
insult" gets more usenet points than run-of-the-mill-retaliation, and
everyone on usenet is keeping score. ;-)
>ANd I would have made no more posts to the threat had AS not been
>such a jackass.
See how you two are trying to outscore each other?
toto
wrote:
>If so, do you think you might get a start on finding them by reading a
>4,800 word article on the subject? The link to which has been provided
>twice?
Sorry, link lost, but I am not interested so much in the specific
numbers, but in the questions raised.
Repost the link and here. I promise to get to it. I don't have a
lot of time to analyze budget figures for NYC and my interest
actually lies in the fact that it might model similar situations
in Chicago rather than in some overriding interest in the NYC
schools in particular. I still assume that the situation I see in
Chicago is fairly close to the one in NYC, but perhaps that is
incorrect.
What I am interested in does not involve the actual figures, but
whether or not expansion and contraction are truly possible
when population predictions are likely to be off or when the
amounts of money do not match the possible solutions. If NYC is
anything like Chicago, the old school buildings are deteriorating
as infrastructure ages and much of it needs to be rebuilt if we
are going to serve kids properly. The same thing that applies to
roads and bridges applies to schools, we cannot simply expect
them to last forever without maintenance and replacement.
Btw, I see much the same problem on a smaller level in Evanston
as well. Population projections are often inaccurate and schools
are closed then must be reopened. Yet we have not approved any
building of new schools in many years. As the buildings age, they
become unsuitable in terms of safety for children to learn in.
toto
wrote:
>Tell you what, if you are interested in the subject, why don't you
>read the article, come back with some facts you learned from it, and
>present some *opinions* of you own on how the situation could be
>improved, on the basis of those facts.
\
You already read the article I presume. Why not answer the
questions from your perspective?
Joni J Rathbun
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Grinch wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 14:58:38 -0800, Joni J Rathbun
> <jrat...@orednet.org> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >You're right. You had posted the link. But that doesn't change the
> >fact that my comment was in response to Dorothy and meant to be
> >flippant and not, as AirSupply wishes to make believe, a comment
> >on *real* solutions.
>
> Oh, feel free to be publicly sarcastic about posts you haven't read
> anytime.
> There's no need to hit the e-maill button to send such comments
> that may be meant for a single person to that person privately.
> After all, this is usenet!
>
> Feel free to call people names publicly too -- and be sure to do
> it before they say anything critical in public about you. "First to
> insult" gets more usenet points than run-of-the-mill-retaliation, and
> everyone on usenet is keeping score. ;-)
>
Well, that should be directed at AirSupply. He begins each and every
post with a personal insult. It's his usual way of communicating.
Bob LeChevalier
><< the New York City School Construction Authority. The legislature created
>the SCA in 1988 to assume the duties of the Board of Ed's Division of School
>Facilities, which had completely failed in its mission of building
>high-quality schools efficiently and fixing them when they needed repair.
>Ten years later,
> it's clear that the SCA has been a disaster, too. While the
>authority improved slightly on the board's track record, that's faint
>praise, since the board needed eight to ten years to build a school,
In other words, the SCA is being judged a failure because it didn't instantly
produce results. One would expect the first ventures of a newly created
organization to be less efficient than later ones - all policies, procedures
are new and untested, and there is a learning curve.
Now if 5 years later it is still taking 10 years to build a school, then that
10 years can serve as a legitimate benchmark for judgement.
Of course, no data is presented as to the norm elsewhere for constructing a
new school, to serve as a basis for comparison. Around here, I doubt that it
is much less than 8 to 10 years. Indeed, I wonder what the typical timeframe
for construction of major building projects is in the private sector, from
first proposal to completion and occupancy. And we have hugher standards for
schools than for many other kinds of buildings, because they house masses of
children.
>and organized crime dominated its construction projects.
I vaguely suspect that this is true of all major construction projects in
NYC. Construction is largely a union industry, and if organized crime has
control over union locals, then they control all construction work.
>An agency as well
>funded as the SCA--it has already spent $6.4 billion and will spend another
>$1.1 billion this year--should have a lot to show for itself, and it doesn'
>t. By any performance measure--the number of schools built, the cost and
>quality of construction, timeliness in opening--the SCA flunks.>>
>
>Note the phrase, "as well funded as the SCA".
I note the phrase. I don't notice the supporting data. Spending X amount,
even for large X, is not impressive unless we know what X was spent for (or
intended to be spent for). If the US defense department operated on $6.4
billion a year, we would justifiably consider it a miracle, and would NOT
call it "well-funded".
Around here, I believe that new elementary schools are running at around $20
million, and high schools at around $100 million to build. We would need
some 10 new schools a year to keep up with our population growth. NYC is
several times the size of Fairfax County, so I can easily imagine that it
could spend a billion a year on new schools.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier
>> > How will you make the schools in these areas physically bigger?
>> >
>> > Dorothy
>>
>> city to the other.
>
>end of the city to the other"?
>
For a dozen years or so, there were NO supermarkets in the slum areas of
Washington DC. I think that one chain opened a store there last year. Thus
inner city shoppers bought from high-priced, restricted-stock corner markets
(like 7-11) or indeed took the (Metro) bus across town in order to grocery
shop.
Joni J Rathbun
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Around here, I believe that new elementary schools are running at around $20
> million, and high schools at around $100 million to build. We would need
> some 10 new schools a year to keep up with our population growth. NYC is
> several times the size of Fairfax County, so I can easily imagine that it
> could spend a billion a year on new schools.
>
I live in the fastest growing district in the nation. I suspect some
things are cheaper here in Nevada but here are some figures you may
find interesting:
We expect $3.7 billion to fund site acquisition and construction of
88 new schools (50 e.s., 22 m.s., and 16 h.s.), two new bus yards,
technology improvments and modernization of many older schools. It's a ten
year project.
It's not the only building project or construction bond we have going.
Within a 20 year time span ending in 2010, I believe we will have
built 120+/- new schools. 10 have opened this school year, six of
which were built with monies from the $3.7 billion pot.
The district does have its act together (for the most part) when it
comes to pumping out new schools tho it cannot keep up with demand.
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> The New York City Board of Education (BoE) has fewer students than it had
> in 1971. Nevertheless, the BoE's schools are more crowded than they were
> in 1971. Why is crowding worse in a system with fewer students?
>
> Did the BoE close any schools that were open in 1971? If so, were all of
> those closed schools replaced by new schools with equal or greater
> capacity?
While Few schools have been closed, others have been opened in the
period between 1971 and the present. Without haveing done an analytical
comparison of the actual square footage available for instruction, I
would surmise that there is actually MORE square footage available today
than in 1971. While there are differences in the aggregate student
populations of 1971 as compared to today, there is a considerable lack
of space now, which ought not to exist. Reasons for that generally fall
into two categories:
1) The Rise of special education enrollment. The number of students
enrolled in special education programs( MIS-1, MIS-2 ) today as compared
to that number in 1971 is close to fourfold. As students in
self-contained classes must be housed in regular schools( as compared to
special education schools ), by various court edicts, the existing
physical plants in schools must accommodate those students. The special
education class size is 12, as compared to 34 for regular education
classes. Thus, three special education classes require the same
classroom space is one general education class. Since the physical
plants of schools are limited to what they were built to accommodate(
although there has been some sub-dividing of larger classrooms into two
to reflect the smaller special education class size, these have been
minimal ), increases in special education enrollment erodes the physical
space available for instruction, hence, leading to a space shortage.
2) Conversion to "mini-schools," better known as "new concept" or
"single-vision" schools. Current educational stupidities propose that
smaller schools, whose "visions" are specific will better serve
students' needs. Thus, students wishing to pursue environmental
studies, law and science, go to those smaller, single-vision schools,
where the curriculum is based on that theme. Quite similar to the core
curriculum in vogue in the 1950's( which was discarded ). In amy event,
large schools have been "re-designed" as magnet schools with several of
these "new-vision" magnets in one large physical plant. Because of
admission practices( based on applications and student choice ),
physical plants are operating at a percentage of their former
capacities, thus also leading to s space shortage. While these reasons
primarily affect the high schools, there are plans to "redesign" some
lower level schools along these lines.
Because of how the avaliable space is being used, the shortage occurs.
So while NYC actually has fewer students than previously, and somewhat
more square footage, there is a space shortage because the space is
being used inefficiently.
Alan
susupply
Joni J Rathbun <jrat...@orednet.org>
sticking to her story that a response only counts when she says it does,
wrote in message
news:Pine.SUN.3.96.101030...@compass.oregonvos.net...
>
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, susupply wrote:
> > You make an ignorant comment about something said by a poster, clearly
> > identifying said poster as "he", but you now claim it wasn't a response
to
> > him, but to your buddy Dorothy. One would think a response supposedly
> > limited to Dorothy's contributions (such as they are) would NOT make
> > reference to what someone else "thinks". Particularly as the reference
was
> > sarcastic.
>
> Hmm. One does not usually respond to someone in third person
Too bad dillytaunt isn't here to provide us with the proper term of rhetoric
for doing just that.
> so your line
> of reasoning, "now you claim," makes no sense at all.
Perhaps not to a school teacher, but one wonders about a person who becomes
indignant about having her comments about a third person commented on.
> I've always claimed
> my response was nothing more than a side comment to Dorothy. And that
> claim still stands.
And your evasion of the obvious (i.e. your "side comment" was referencing
Grinch's comments) is still standing too. If you don't want your statements
to be open to comment, stick to e-mail.
> > > I never
> > > said I was speaking ABOUT Dorothy.
> >
> > That would be a somewhat limited understanding of the word, "respond".
> >
> > > I said I was responding to her.
> >
> > By commenting on what someone else "thinks". Yeah, who would ever get
the
> > idea Grinch figured into it at all, he might never have said anything at
> > all, and you still would have mentioned him. Yeah, yeah, that's the
ticket.
> >
> You are being deliberately obtuse.
By pointing out the irrelevance of your "defense"?
Patrick
susupply
Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:sd06at06757h8e15m...@4ax.com...
> For a dozen years or so, there were NO supermarkets in the slum areas of
> Washington DC. I think that one chain opened a store there last year.
Thus
> inner city shoppers bought from high-priced, restricted-stock corner
markets
> (like 7-11) or indeed took the (Metro) bus across town in order to grocery
> shop.
Yes, another failure of government is crime in inner cities that make it
unprofitable to operate businesses there. Is it your position that crime
explains the overcrowded schools in some parts of NYC?
Fritz
> toto wrote:
>
> > How will you make the schools in these areas physically bigger?
>
> Evolve to a half-day schedule. That will double the capacity of
> the school system overnight.
I just had a thought, what about extending the school year, too?
Is that a plausible idea?
-----
Fritz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The time is now!
Paul Zrimsek
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Of course, no data is presented as to the norm elsewhere for constructing a
>new school, to serve as a basis for comparison. Around here, I doubt that it
>is much less than 8 to 10 years. Indeed, I wonder what the typical timeframe
>for construction of major building projects is in the private sector, from
>first proposal to completion and occupancy. And we have hugher standards for
>schools than for many other kinds of buildings, because they house masses of
>children.
"1929: John Jakob Raskob (creator of General Motors), Coleman du Pont,
Pierre S. du Pont (president of E.I. Du Pont de Nemours), Louis G.
Kaufman and Ellis P. Earle, form Empire State, Inc. and name Alfred E.
Smith, former Governor of New York and Presidential Candidate, to head
the corporation.
"1931: On May 1st, President Hoover presses a button in Washington,
D.C. officially opening and turning on the Empire State Building's
lights."
susupply
Paul Zrimsek <pzri...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3aa4043d...@news.earthlink.net...
And August Belmont built the (an incomparably more difficult task) first
subway UNDER Manhattan in five years, all the while fighting for the right
to continue in court. Even more amazing might have been this private
venture in 1870:
http://www.mindspring.com/~historic-ny/subway.htm
In 1870 an enterprising inventor named Alfred Ely Beach opened a prototype
of a pneumatic subway for a short distance under Broadway. What is more
remarkable is that he managed to build the tunnel right under the ground by
City Hall - but without the knowledge of government officials.
[snip]
He had the technology, but unfortunately he also had to contend with the
crooked politics of Tammany Hall and its legendary leader, William "Boss"
Tweed, whom he knew would extort many thousands of dollars from such a
project. Refusing to submit to extortion, Beach decided to bankroll the
initial construction himself. Once the public saw the completed work, he
thought, the politicians would dare not stop him.
At the corner of Broadway and Murray Street stood Devlin's Clothing Store.
Beach rented the basement of this establishment, and began tunneling from
there. His men would bring the debris back to the store basement, from which
it was removed at nights via horse cart. After 58 straight nights of such
clandestine digging, the 312-foot tunnel was done. Wanting his subway to be
special, Beach designed a station featuring chandeliers, a grand piano, a
fountain and even a goldfish tank. The completed mini-subway, which only ran
for a city block, cost Beach some $350,000 of his own money. >>
susupply
> "susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> ><< the New York City School Construction Authority. The legislature
created
> >the SCA in 1988 to assume the duties of the Board of Ed's Division of
School
> >Facilities, which had completely failed in its mission of building
> >high-quality schools efficiently and fixing them when they needed repair.
> >Ten years later,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > it's clear that the SCA has been a disaster, too. While the
> >authority improved slightly on the board's track record, that's faint
> >praise, since the board needed eight to ten years to build a school,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> In other words, the SCA is being judged a failure because it didn't
instantly
> produce results.
In Logical Language, 10 years = "instantly"?
> One would expect the first ventures of a newly created
> organization to be less efficient than later ones - all policies,
procedures
> are new and untested, and there is a learning curve.
Not exactly. I guess you missed this from the story Grinch gave us:
<< When the SCA came into being, Meyer Frucher, a Democratic insider who
helped negotiate the agency's charter and then became Governor Cuomo's first
appointee to its three-man board of trustees, understood clearly that
changing the rigid civil service and union work rules culture was critical
to the SCA's success. But the SCA's charter subverted that goal from the
outset.
<< The legislature staffed the new agency with all the Board of Ed's school
construction personnel who didn't choose early retirement. This move,
Frucher admits, "was a straight union payoff." Legislators cut a deal in
which District Council 37, which represents board bureaucrats, would agree
to the transfer of school construction to the SCA--if no Board of Ed
employees lost jobs. About 150 bureaucrats just picked up and moved from
Brooklyn to their new offices in Queens. These were the very employees who
had bungled so badly that lawmakers had to create the SCA to do their work.
Yet instead of getting pink slips, they became charter employees of the new
agency--some coming in with 40 percent raises.
<< Frucher tried to negotiate down the number of jobs collective bargaining
covered, but the transplanted apparat took root and flourished in its new
home. In fact, collective bargaining and civil service rules became even
more entrenched and now cover approximately two-thirds of the SCA's 765
positions. "Titles were slowly added to collective bargaining, and it became
much tougher to move, let alone remove, people," a former SCA executive
says.
<< Today, most of the SCA's construction managers--the officials charged
with ensuring that work proceeds safely--receive the protection of
collective-bargaining agreements, making them largely unaccountable. No
matter how SCA employees perform, it is exceedingly difficult to reward them
for excellence or fire them for shirking. >>
Paul Zrimsek
<susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> In other words, the SCA is being judged a failure because it didn't
>>instantly produce results.
>
>In Logical Language, 10 years = "instantly"?
Did you know that in Logjam there are 42 different words for "excuse"?
Paul Zrimsek pzri...@earthlink.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Should I marry W.? Not if she won't tell me the other
letters in her name." --Woody Allen
Donna Metler
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> "susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> > How will you make the schools in these areas physically bigger?
> >> >
> >> > Dorothy
> >>
> >> Well, perhaps he wishes to bus the children from one end of the
> >> city to the other.
> >
> >Do (to take but one example) grocery stores bus their customers "from one
> >end of the city to the other"?
> >
>
> For a dozen years or so, there were NO supermarkets in the slum areas of
> Washington DC. I think that one chain opened a store there last year. Thus
> inner city shoppers bought from high-priced, restricted-stock corner markets
> (like 7-11) or indeed took the (Metro) bus across town in order to grocery
> shop.
>
> lojbab
> --
Ditto for Memphis. Very few of the low-income areas have grocery stores,
laundromats, or much business at all. The local "corner market" which serves the
neighborbood my school is in is a liquor store which stocks some overpriced
groceries, and lost their permit to take food stamps after it was discovered
that people were being allowed to buy alcohol with food stamps-with them trading
at 1/5 the face value.)
The only other option is to walk about 1/2 mile to the bus stop, to get to a
supermarket-which isn't bad going, but can be really hard with a week's
groceries coming back.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:sd06at06757h8e15m...@4ax.com...
>> For a dozen years or so, there were NO supermarkets in the slum areas of
>> Washington DC. I think that one chain opened a store there last year.
>Thus
>> inner city shoppers bought from high-priced, restricted-stock corner
>markets
>> (like 7-11) or indeed took the (Metro) bus across town in order to grocery
>> shop.
>
>Yes, another failure of government is crime in inner cities that make it
>unprofitable to operate businesses there.
Crime was not the reason that was given. It was lack of sales and therefore
profits that caused the older stores to be shut down. Grocery chain live on
a tight profit margin, and make money mostly by people buying the name brands
and luxuries rather than the basic staples. Poor people can't afford the
profitable items.
Bob LeChevalier
This is 2001 and the era of the EPA and the lawsuit, not 1931 during a
depression when labor was cheap and plentiful and government was doing all it
could to bolster the economy with construction projects.
Jim Blair
>"susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>Yes, another failure of government is crime in inner cities that make it
>>unprofitable to operate businesses there.
Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>Crime was not the reason that was given. It was lack of sales and therefore
>profits that caused the older stores to be shut down. Grocery chain live on
>a tight profit margin, and make money mostly by people buying the name brands
>and luxuries rather than the basic staples.
Hi,
Crime may not have been given as a reason, for reasons related to
politically correctness. But I think it is clear that crime rates are
higher in inner cities, and busines there has more problems with
shoplifting and robberies, than similar busines in the suburbs or small
towns.
We have similar problems in Madison. A rather large grocery store
in the campus area claimed that shoplifting rates were higher than stores
in the same chain had in the suburbs. They charged more per item to cover
the difference, which enraged some of the "student" radicals who burned
the store down. It didn't re-open, and the problem of grocery shopping
downtown was made even worse.
>... Poor people can't afford the profitable items.
Liquor stores seem to do pretty well in the poor sections of town around
here. How about where you live?
And here in Madison near campus there are "organic" food stores that sell
basic staples for twice the price or more because they have that
"organic" label--but this is likely unique to college towns.
On changing student distribution in school districts in cities; yes
district boundary lines can be changed, and I thought NYC has a good
public transit system. Many kids take a bus to school in Madison, existing
schools are expanded, and new ones are built. Some of the money for the
new ones comes from selling old schools to developers, where they are
typically converted to condos or offices.
If things get tight, the school schedule can be expanded to year round and
classes can be in shifts. Single story building can be designed to have
additional floors added for future "upwards" expansion if land is
expensive.
The question is why do some school districts have so much trouble with the
same problems that other industries deal with all the time?
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834