‘Bleeding kids:’ NYC public schools face biggest enrollment drop in four years – New York Post

Report on New York City Public School Enrollment and Sustainable Development Goal Implications

Executive Summary

Preliminary data from the New York City Department of Education (DOE) reveals a significant decline in public school enrollment, posing challenges to the achievement of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). This report analyzes the enrollment trends, their underlying causes, and the potential impact on the city’s long-term sustainability.

Analysis of Enrollment and Budgetary Trends

Key Enrollment Statistics

• Current Year Decline: Enrollment fell by 22,000 students (2.4%) in the current academic year, the most significant drop in four years.
• Five-Year Trend: Since the 2019-2020 school year, enrollment has plunged by 12.2%, representing a total loss of 117,800 students.
• Total Enrollment: The student population has decreased from 1,002,200 in 2019 to 844,400 today.
• Demographic Breakdown: K-12 programs lost 18,411 students, and pre-K programs lost 4,555 students. Only 3K programs saw growth, adding 1,118 students.

Fiscal Context

Despite the sharp decline in student population, the DOE budget has increased by nearly $7 billion since 2019, reaching $40 billion in the current year. This has resulted in a substantial rise in per-pupil funding without a corresponding improvement in educational outcomes, raising questions about resource efficiency and its connection to SDG 4 targets.

Impact on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 4: Quality Education

The enrollment exodus directly reflects challenges in achieving inclusive and equitable quality education for all. Key indicators suggest a system failing to meet SDG 4 targets:

1. Lack of Academic Rigor: A DOE survey from April indicated that 41% of parents educating their children outside the public system did so seeking a more intensive education.
2. Poor Academic Proficiency: Performance metrics are low, with reports indicating that two-thirds of the city’s fourth-grade students are not proficient in mathematics.
3. Shift to Alternative Education: Enrollment in publicly funded charter schools has risen by 14% since 2019, reaching 150,000 students, as families seek alternatives they perceive as higher quality.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The current trend threatens to widen socio-economic disparities, undermining the goal of reducing inequality within the city.

• Educational Segregation: The exodus is primarily composed of families with the financial resources to move to suburban districts with better-regarded schools or to afford private education. This concentrates students from lower-income backgrounds in a public system with declining enrollment and perceived lower quality.
• Impact on Disadvantaged Families: Families without the means to leave the public system are left with fewer high-quality options, perpetuating cycles of disadvantage and limiting social mobility, a core concern of SDG 10.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

A weakening public education system poses a direct threat to the long-term sustainability and inclusivity of New York City.

• Population Decline and Tax Base Erosion: The city’s overall population has shrunk by 300,000 between April 2020 and July 2024, with education cited as a primary driver for families leaving. This exodus erodes the city’s tax base.
• Threat to Public Services: A reduced tax base will make it increasingly difficult for the city to fund essential services, including education, infrastructure, and safety, thereby impacting the overall quality of urban life.

Contributing Factors and Future Outlook

Parental Concerns and Policy Direction

The decline is attributed to an “anti-merit trend” in city education policy and a failure to teach fundamentals effectively. Concerns are mounting that the incoming mayoral administration’s policies, such as the proposed phasing out of gifted and talented programs, will accelerate the departure of families, further compromising the city’s ability to meet its SDG commitments.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education
  
  This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The entire text revolves around the state of New York City’s public school system, including declining enrollment, concerns about the quality of education (“lack of rigor,” “mediocre results”), low student proficiency in core subjects, and policy changes affecting educational programs.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
  
  The article highlights a growing inequality in access to quality education. It states that families with financial resources are opting out of the public system by moving to areas with better schools (“moving out to Long Island to buy their way into a better school”) or choosing private options. The article warns, “In the end, only families who can afford to live here have the resources to go outside the public school system,” pointing to an educational divide based on economic status.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
  
  The issues discussed have direct implications for the sustainability of New York City. The article notes that families are leaving the city due to the poor quality of schools, leading to a population decline (“New York City’s population shrank by 300,000”). This exodus “decrease[s] the tax base,” which in turn makes it “harder to provide more services,” threatening the overall quality of life and sustainability of the urban community.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 4.1: Ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.
  
  The article directly addresses the “quality” and “effective learning outcomes” aspects of this target. It cites concerns over a “lack of rigor,” “mediocre results,” and the fact that “Two-thirds of the city’s fourth graders are not proficient in math, and even fewer proficient in reading.” The massive drop in enrollment also speaks to the perceived failure of the system to provide quality education.
• Target 4.2: Ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education.
  
  The article provides specific data on pre-primary education, noting that “pre-K lost 4,555 pupils” while “3K — programs for 3-year-olds — grew this year, adding 1,118 new students.” It also mentions a parent who is “sending my son to private daycare instead of 3K,” indicating a choice between public and private pre-primary options based on perceived quality.
• Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… economic or other status.
  
  This target is relevant because the article describes a system where quality education is becoming less accessible to those without economic means. The trend of wealthier families leaving the public system for private schools, charter schools, or suburban districts creates a less inclusive educational environment, exacerbating inequalities based on economic status.
• Target 11.1: Ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services.
  
  A quality public education system is a fundamental “basic service” for a city’s residents. The article explains how the decline of this service is causing families to leave the city, which erodes the tax base and threatens the city’s ability to “provide more services” in the future, impacting the overall sustainability and quality of life for all residents.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator for Target 4.1: Student proficiency levels and enrollment rates.
  
  The article provides direct data that can be used as indicators.
  • Proficiency in mathematics and reading: The statement that “Two-thirds of the city’s fourth graders are not proficient in math, and even fewer proficient in reading” is a direct measurement of learning outcomes (related to Indicator 4.1.1).
  • School enrollment numbers: The article is filled with enrollment data, such as the “22,000” student drop this year, the “12.2% decline” over five years, and the total enrollment falling from “1,002,200” to “844,400.” These figures measure participation in the education system.
• Indicator for Target 4.2: Participation rate in early childhood education.
  
  The article provides specific numbers for pre-primary programs: “pre-K lost 4,555 pupils” and “3K… grew this year, adding 1,118 new students.” These figures serve as direct indicators of participation rates in organized learning before primary school (related to Indicator 4.2.2).
• Indicator for Target 10.2: Disparity in educational enrollment choices.
  
  The article implies an indicator of inequality by contrasting enrollment trends. While public school enrollment has plunged, “enrollment in publicly funded but independently run charter schools rose to 150,000 students last year, up 14% since 2019.” This shift, coupled with the observation that families are moving “to buy their way into a better school,” indicates a growing socioeconomic divide in educational access.
• Indicator for Target 11.1: Population change and city budget trends.
  
  The article provides data points that can serve as indicators for urban sustainability.
  • Population figures: The fact that “New York City’s population shrank by 300,000 from April 2020 to July 2024” is a clear indicator of demographic shifts linked to the quality of basic services.
  • Public funding vs. enrollment: The article notes that despite the student exodus, “the DOE budget has ballooned nearly $7 billion since 2019 to $40 billion this year.” This disparity between rising costs and declining enrollment is an indicator of systemic inefficiency that threatens the long-term provision of services.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: nypost.com