Fwd: Question from CB1 member - The Infamous Table

[Kahanov Learan]

This is a very interesting read for anyone interested in the option 2 vs. 3r debate. It clearly puts the information on the side of 3R as a longer term solution. I can only hope that this can cut through the smoke and mirror statements made  to push cb1 for option 2. 

Enjoy

Sent via iPhone - I'm on set or out of the office

Learan Kahanov

NYC DP

917.680.4272

www.lkdp.com

Begin forwarded message:

From: Michael Markowitz >
Date: January 24, 2010 1:29:52 AM EST

Subject: Fw: Question from CB1 member - The Infamous Table

Parent Leaders:

I am resending something not all of you may have seen: a very simple and straightforward analysis of DOE numbers used in the presentation materials for DOE Option 2 and DOE Option 3 released on December 16, in response to "indie" Option 3. 

See link:
http://www.cecd2.net/www/cecd2/site/hosting/Lower%20Manhattan%20Zoning%20data%20-%20Proposals%202%20and%203%2009%2012%2016.pdf

Note that Option 3 *Revised* would add one well-populated block of kids to PS 234 (Greenwich-Warren-WBWay-Murray), while dropping a lightly populated block (Murray-Church-Bway-ParkPl), but the gist wouldn't change.  As this addressed the most pointed single criticism of Option 1 in the CB1 resolution, I was sure it would prove a winner.... with CB1 !

Note further that the discussion re siblings is doubly confusing given that I'm talking about the siblings of FUTURE "first kids,"  but the CB1 Y&E Comm meeting also delved into siblings of CURRENT PS 234 kids.  DOE provided CECD2 with NO information in this regard.  I have asked Eric Greenleaf to comment on how his work was interpreted.

Looking at future zoning, the matter of siblings of currently enrolled kids is moot; rezoning has NO effect on CURRENTLY enrolled kids OR their siblings.  If you want to make a case that DOE didn't allow sufficient spare capacity for them, all well and good -- and let's shrink BOTH options further -- but both Option 2 and 3R are scaled to have the SAME NUMBER of kids for Fall 2010.  On that concern, there's no bias for one option or the other.

My interpretation of the DOE data (insufficient as it is) was confimed by DOE.

DOE's numbers clearly suggest SW Tribeca more likely to swamp PS234 under Option 2 than E Tribeca would under Option 3R, not in Fall 2010 (designed to be a wash), but in subsequent years, all other things equal. 

That anyone could suggest the currently shared data suggest the opposite is a mystery to me, and I am open to enlightenment, as always.


-- Michael D. Markowitz, P.E.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rose Elizabeth <ERo...@schools.nyc.gov>
Date: Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:35 AM
Subject: RE: Question from CB1 member - The Infamous Table
To: Michael Markowitz 

All –

 

I concur with Michael’s reading of the K-5 chart – the area immediately south of 234 has more younger families/students and fewer  children in the upper grades.

 

234 target capacity is in the 700-750 range; an entering K class of 125 will grow to fill that capacity over time, regardless of the current number of K-5 students living in a zone.

 

The simple math of K capacity requires some number of families currently zoned for 234 to attend either 89 or 276.  The two proposals come down to whether that crossover better addresses community, proximity and safety by having FiDi attend 276, or having “SW Tribeca” attend 89.

 

In terms of long-term housing growth, if all currently planned projects are built/converted, all of the schools will require rezoning.  I can’t say that one proposal addresses the source of potential housing growth substantially better than the other.  We will have to monitor enrollment at each of the schools and make adjustments as required based on which projects actually complete and draw families.  The currently planned additions to elementary capacity are in the West Village area – GVMS move out of PS 3; Foundling Hospital; Clinton move out of PS 11.

 

Elizabeth

 

From: Michael Markowitz 
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 9:47 AM
To: xxx
Cc: xxxx
Subject: Re: Question from CB1 member - The Infamous Table

 

xxx, xxxx:

(This table is causing so much confusion.  Sigh.  Below an updated version of something I've now sent out a number of times.  I do not send it from the Z-Comm mailbox because of the amount of "advocacy" in it, below the initial explanation of the tables.  Z-Comm and DOE bcc'd to reduce email explosion.  -- Michael M.)

Please note the numbers in that lower table are counter-intuitive.  They indicate which zone kids live in, and all students at that (i.e. K-5), -- not where they are, or would be, enrolled. 

Please, do not read this to mean one Option swamps PS234, and the other does not.  This is NOT the case.  Per DOE.  Please focus on the 227 vs. 223. 

Per the upper table, it's virtually a tie -- in DOE's chosen metric -- with respect to current 0K-01 as a surrogate predictor for next year's K's.  (The CEC has always been highly skeptical of this metric.  For one thing, it ignores known past growth rates.  For another, it involves zero forecasting of either rates, or new developments coming on line.)  

If anything, the bottom table says that of the 1030 kids LIVING in the current 234 zone, under Option 2 there will be 573 remaining, but under Option 3 752 remaining.  (Not sure about the 20 kid bust in the lower table.  I've always thought it a typo.)

But AGAIN, only the 0K and 01 cohorts are being used for planning purposes.  It doesn't matter where the 2nd thru 5th graders LIVE;  they could be enrolled not just at 234, but 89, 150, G&T's, etc.

***

Here's my take on the eye-catching 573 vs. 752:
If anything, what I read into this is there are more OLDER kids already living east of Church, and the SW Tribeca areas have more YOUNGER kids.  Frankly, this is an argument for Option 3R.  Those who benefit from Option 2 have fewer of the OLDER KIDS.  That's all it means.  This is not a surprise, given the new construction of 101/99 Warren, 89 Murray, and 50 Murray.  It simply means people who move into those newer buildings tend to have younger families.  Which to me suggests Option 2 is LESS ROBUST over time; Option 3R is MORE ROBUST over time.  To my reading, Option 3R is less likely to blow out PS234.  And if SW Tribeca blows out PS89, than puts pressure on Gateway to move south and.... two years from now we'll be wishing we went for Option 3R.

Please consider the above, and let me know if the above explanation makes sense.  The "aging" issue and its impact on Option preference should be cause-to-pause for more people if these nominally temporary options are going to have any durability (other than the 6-years + sibs permanence for those whose eldest are entering K's in Fall 2010).

The zones are "sized" the same on purpose, based on the last two years' info only.  There are OTHER factors (i.e. building communities, as opposed to reading DOE, let alone DOE tea leaves) that should be weighed more in the decision.

Please feel free to share this explanation.  To me it is starting to feel like the strongest policy-level reason for 3R if everything else is such a toss-up.  Thanks.

***

P.S.  Please note that in light of the possible passage of Option 2, I have been probing re an "Option 2+2" last-minute tweak to add the two Chambers-Murray-Church-Broadway blocks if the numbers for the 234 zone match the numbers for Option 3R; limits for one should apply to the other.  The "aging" argument deserves to come into play.  It's an uphill push for either 2+2 OR 3R right now (per statements councilmembers have made on the record), and I'd STILL vote for 3R.  Just trying to be fair, given I worked to shoe-horn in the 275 Greenwich block for 3R.  If Option 2+2 wins, at that point if 234 trips into lottery by a very few kids, so be it.  Odds of "surviving" such a lottery would be excellent.  And yes, I realize even introducing Option 2+2 is undercutting my odds of winning Option 3R, then again, I truly have no horse in this race.  I prefer to think of it as mitigating a choice that the community itself will look back on for years and wonder "what if."

Best,
Michael D. Markowitz, P.E.
CECD2

 

*****

These are the charts on the CEC website we're referencing:
http://www.cecd2.net/www/cecd2/site/hosting/Lower%20Manhattan%20Zoning%20data%20-%20Proposals%202%20and%203%2009%2012%2016.pdf