scott stringer digital deficit report

7/27/2019 Scott Stringer Digital Deficit Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/scott-stringer-digital-deficit-report 1/40



table of Contents

Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................................1Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................2Introduction........................................................................................................................4 Analysis ............................................................................................................................6

Map One: Bandwidth Speeds o Schools in New York City - Slow Speeds Accentuated ............................8Map wo: Bandwidth Speeds o Schools in New York City - Fast Speeds Accentuated ..............................9Map Tree: Low School Internet Speeds by Household Median Income................................................10Map Four: Low School Internet Speeds by Households Earning under $15,000...................................11Map Five: Library Internet Speeds in Manhattan.....................................................................................12Conclusion.......................................................................................................................13Recommendations.............................................................................................................13 Appendix 1 – July 17, 2013 letter rom the Department o Education

detailing updated maximum internet speeds................................................................................17 Appendix 2 – June 26, 2013 letter to the Department o Education

requesting an update on maximum internet speeds......................................................................18 Appendix 3 – April 1, 2011 letter rom the Department o Education

detailing maximum internet speeds...............................................................................................20 Appendix 4 – March 18, 2011 letter to the Department o Education

requesting maximum internet speeds............................................................................................29



New York City's Digital Deficit: An Investigation of Slow Internet Speeds in Public Schools and Libraries2

Executive Summary

Te availability o high speed Internet connections in schools and libraries has had a transormative eect onthe ability o New Yorkers to access knowledge, communicate with others and prepare or the careers o theuture. As President Obama noted in a speech he delivered just two months ago, “In an age when the world’sinormation is a just click away, it demands that we bring our schools and libraries into the 21st century. We

can't be stuck in the 19th century when we're living in a 21st century economy.”1

However, in New York City’s “anchor institutions” such as public schools and libraries, the Internet resourcesavailable are not keeping pace with the goals set out in the President’s National Broadband Plan. Te Plan callsor every American community to have aordable access to at least 1 gigabit per second (Gbps) broadbandservice in anchor institutions such as schools and libraries by the year 2020.2 While New York City’s EconomicDevelopment Corporation (EDC) continues to dedicate millions o dollars through its ConnectNYC initia-tive to build 1 Gbps connections or small businesses, the City has not done nearly enough to reach this goalin our schools and libraries.3

Tis report, by Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer, based on new data rom the Department o

Education detailing the maximum internet speeds at 1,236 educational acilities, shows that over 75 percent o school acilities have maximum download speeds o 10 Mbps or less - 100 times slower than the targetspeeds in the National Broadband Plan. Additional data collected at 33 public libraries in Manhattan illus-trates a wide range o Internet speeds, rom an unacceptably slow download speed o 0.66 Mbps at one library in West Harlem to a relatively ast download speed o 94.02 Mbps at another library in Central Harlem, justone community district to the East.

While the City has made progress improving Internet speeds at public acilities in recent years, dedicating some $738 million in capital unds to equip hundreds o school buildings with essential broadband inrastruc-ture, these gains are mere baby steps towards the goal o a 1 Gbps connection in every school and library.

Maps contained in this report make it apparent that although neighborhoods with low median incomes host a large number o school acilities with especially slow Internet speeds, the problem is not limited to these areasalone. Indeed, the high speed Internet gap in the New York City public school system is pervasive and thelikelihood o nding a ast or slow Internet speed in a Manhattan library is seemingly random. Internet speedsat public libraries in Manhattan paint a picture that is just as arbitrary.

No neighborhood is immune rom terrible Internet connectivity. From ribeca to ompkinsville, the UpperEast Side to East Flatbush, the South Bronx to Sheepshead Bay, schools across the city are aected by poorbroadband, and as such it will take a unied, citywide solution to solve.

1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-oce/2013/06/06/remarks-president-mooresville-middle-school-mooresville-nc.

2 http://www.broadband.gov/plan/2-goals-or-a-high-perormance-america/.3 http://nycberaccess.challengepost.com/.



Office of the Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer

Tis report breaks down the state o connectivity in New York City anchor institutions and proposes a series o recommendations designed to put the city on a path to ullling the goals laid out in the National BroadbandPlan, including:

• Reorming the Federal Communication Commission’s E-rate Funding Guidelines to Provide GreaterResources and Flexibility to Schools and Libraries

• Exploring Micro-renching and the Establishment o a Municipal Fiber Network as an Option orBringing Faster Service to Schools

• Expanding Public Access to Library Computers• Using the Fund or Public Schools to Achieve National Broadband Plan Goals

Wiring our public acilities so that New Yorkers are prepared to succeed in a 21st Century economy will requireleadership rom Congress and rom the Federal Communications Commission to ensure that the nation’s larg-est school system receives adequate unding to upgrade its buildings and classrooms. Most importantly, theleadership o the next Mayor will be crucial. Te stakes or New York City could not be higher.




INTRODUCTION

In 1996, President Bill Clinton called or the na-tion’s schools and libraries to be “hooked up to theInormation Superhighway by the year 2000.”4 Sincethen, public education has been revolutionized by

computers and the Internet. In 1995, eight per-cent o schools had Internet access and there were5.6 million computers in use. By 2008, 98 percento American schools were online and the number o computers had nearly tripled to 15.4 million withone Internet-enabled computer or every three stu-dents.5

Despite successes in connecting schools to the Inter-net, many cities and towns across America still con-tinue to lack ast, aordable connections in homes,

businesses, libraries, and schools.

As a result, President Obama made high speed In-ternet a national priority by releasing the NationalBroadband Plan, which calls or “aordable access toat least 1 gigabit per second (Gbps) broadband ser-vice to anchor institutions such as schools, hospitals,and government buildings” by 2020.6

Calling to mind past eorts to build transormativenational inrastructure, President Obama remarked:

Just as past generations o Americans met the greatinrastructure challenges o the day, such as build-ing the ranscontinental Railroad and the interstatehighways, so too must we harness the potential o the Internet. Expanding broadband across the na-tion will build a oundation o sustained economicgrowth and the widely shared prosperity we all seek.7

Te President is not alone in calling or signicant

improvements to Internet inrastructure. A reportlast year rom the State Educational echnology Di-rectors Association concluded that the minimumInternet access speed at American schools should be100 megabits per second (Mbps) or every 1,000 stu-4 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/101096clinton.htm.5 http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_109.asp.6 http://www.as.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43016.pd.7 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-oce/statement-president-nation-al-broadband-plan.

dents and sta members. Additionally, the Associationrecommended that all schools should reach 1 Gbps orevery students and sta member by 2017 in order totake ull advantage o novel pedagogical tools.8

While New York City’s Economic DevelopmentCorporation (EDC) continues to dedicate millionso dollars through its ConnectNYC initiative tobuild 1 Gbps connections to small businesses, thecity has not done nearly enough to reach this goal inour schools and libraries.9

Tis report provides new data that details the stateo Internet connectivity in key anchor institutions inManhattan and citywide. wo discreet data sets arepresented.

Te rst data set, provided to the Manhattan Bor-ough President’s Oce by the New York City De-partment o Education (DOE), details maximum In-ternet speeds in 1,236 o New York City’s educationalacilities. A record o the DOE's correspondence de-tailing maximum internet speeds in New York City public schools is included in appendices 1 - 4.

Te second data set includes the results o Internetspeed tests that were conducted in Manhattan librar-ies during the month o June. Tirty-three Manhat-

tan public libraries were tested or Download speed (the speed at which a user can access inormationrom the web); Upload speed (the speed at whicha user can place something rom his/her computeronto the web); and Ping (the amount o time it takesor a user’s computer to send a message to the Inter-net Protocol (IP) host and receive a message in re-turn). Tese tests represent a series o snap shots thatprovide indications o a library’s Internet speed.10

Te data presented in this report shows that New York City anchor institutions continue to all wellshort o the National Broadband Plan goals.

8 http://www.setda.org/c/document_library/get_le?olderId=353&name=DLFE-1517.pd.9 http://nycberaccess.challengepost.com/.10 Te measurements made by MBPO researchers can be impacted by alarge number o variables, including time o day, the age and quality o thecomputer used, and the number o other library users when the measure-ment was made. Tereore, uctuation in Internet speeds is to be expected.




able 1 shows the maximum Internet speed at thecity school acilities, and compares data received in July 2013 to data provided by the DOE in responseto a similar request made by Manhattan BoroughPresident Scott M. Stringer in April 2011.

able 1 – Maximum reported Internet speeds in New York City educational acilities as reported by the NYC Depart-ment o Education

Speed 4/2011 7/2013 Diference

1.5 Mbps 498 218 -280

5 Mbps 34 3 -31

10 Mbps 593 701 +108

15 Mbps N/A 2 +2

20 Mbps 19 62 +43

30 Mbps 5 8 +340 Mbps 86 240 +154

50 Mbps 4 12 +8

While it is clear that the DOE has made some prog-ress in bringing aster Internet access to many schoolsin the past two years, the act remains that over 75percent o school acilities have maximum down-load speeds o 10 Mbps or less.11 Given that many students are simultaneously accessing the connectionat any given time, the eective speeds at these schoolsare likely even slower than what has been reported.

Te low speeds in schools – 100 times slower than thebroadband speeds President Obama has called or inall o the nation’s schools by 2020 – eectively preventNew York City rom ully integrating groundbreaking Internet-enabled learning into the educational experi-ence o our young people. Tis must change.

able 2 details recorded Internet speeds at Manhattan

public libraries. Internet speeds were measured using the New York State Broadband Speed est (availableat: http://nyspeedtest.org/speed_test2.php).

11 It is important to note that the speeds reported by the DOE are themaximum possible with a given connection. In reality, the speeds are oenar lower, depending on time o day, how many students are simultaneously accessing the network, and other actors. For a test o your actual Internetspeed, take the New York State Broadband Speed est at http://www.nyspeedtest.org/speed_test.php.

able 2 – Internet speed results in Manhattan public libraries

Library Download Speed

(Mbps)

Upload Speed

(Mbps)

Ping (ms)

115th Street

Library

12.35 18.15 3010

125th St. Library 2.13 1.36 6

58th St. Library 8.88 9.33 14

67th StreetLibrary

0.74 7.78 6

Aguilar Library 2.53 4.45 12

Battery Park City

19.27 6.32 3004

BloomingdaleLibrary

6.12 9.29 7

ChathamSquare

17.28 10.51 10.5

ChathamSquare Library

2.34 11.45 7

Countee CullenLibrary

94.02 87.71 3

Ephiphany Library

13.19 8.8 16

Fort Washing-ton

6.11 8.21 14

Grand CentralLibrary

4.08 76.18 5

Hamilton FishLibrary

8.3 5.7 5

HamiltonGrange

0.66 13.61 3004

Harlem Library 14.84 10.77 2999

Hudson Park Library

1.37 5.2 10

Inwood 12.28 14.97 7 Jeerson Mar-ket Library

3.44 4.9 2999

Kips Bay Li-brary

1.85 4.88 15

Macomb'sBridge Library

13.92 1.39 8

Mid-ManhattanLibrary

40.31 77.93 3




Library Download Speed

(Mbps)

Upload Speed

(Mbps)

Ping (ms)

Morningside

Heights Library

15.58 5.41 3001

Muhlenberg Library

6.95 3.48 2999

Mulberry StreetLibrary

1.16 15.55 13

New Amster-dam

7.27 10.19 3001

NY PublicLibrary – MainBranch

15.09 72.89 2998

Ottendorer 0.78 3.15 2999Riverside Li-brary

5.69 86.64 3

Roosevelt IslandLibrary

5.03 0.61 11

Seward Park 1.46 10.87 6

St. Agnes Li-brary

3.68 3.82 4

errance Car-dinal Cooke

Library

3.93 8.59 5

ompkinsSquare

9.08 5.35 5

Webster 2.33 5.98 5

Yorkville 7.47 5.75 3000

Te download speeds recorded at nearly 40 percent o the tested libraries did not record speeds in excess o 4Mbps – the minimum broadband speed threshold iden-tied by the FCC or watching video lectures and other

orms o online learning.12

en libraries registered download speeds between 4 –10 Mbps. en additional libraries registered downloadspeeds in excess o 10 Mbps. O that latter cohort, twolibraries stood out or exceptionally ast Internet speeds.Te Mid-Manhattan library branch and the Coun-tee Cullen library in Central Harlem posted downloadspeeds o 40.31 Mbps and 94.02 Mbps, respectively.

12 http://www.cc.gov/guides/broadband-speed-guide.

ANALYSIS

Broadband is the Enabling echnology o ModernLearning Environments

Proessor Susan Craword o the Benjamin N. Car-

dozo School o Law recently wrote, “ruly highspeed wired Internet access is as basic to innova-tion, economic growth, social communication, andthe country’s competitiveness as electricity was a cen-tury ago.”13

Nowhere is this truer than in our schools, where over1.1 million New York City youth—many o whomlack broadband connections at home—seek access tothe inormation superhighway.

It is no longer sucient that schools merely con-nect students to the Internet. oday, the questionis whether the speed and quality o the connectionis adequate to serve the needs o 21st century stu-dents. As Luis A. Ubiñas, ormer President o theFord Foundation, recently wrote:

Virtually all o America’s schools are connect-ed to the Internet today. But that success is a lot like trumpeting, a century ago, that virtu-

ally every town in the country was reachableby road. Ten, as now, the question is quality.Children who go to school in poor neighbor-hoods are connected to the Web at speeds soslow as to render most educational Web sitesunusable. Te exploding world o ree onlinecourses rom great academies is closed to those who lack a digital pathway.14

Te digital divide threatens to create what Ubiñascalls an “inormation underclass” o young people

who cannot compete with their wired peers as jobsow to those with the best-honed technology skills.15

Despite the promise o Internet-enhanced education,

13 http://business.time.com/2013/01/09/is-broadband-internet-access-a-public-utility/; excerpt rom Susan Craword, Captive Audience: Teelecom Industry and Monopoly in the New Gilded Age (New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 2013).14 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/opinion/our-schools-cut-of-rom-the-web.html.15 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/opinion/our-schools-cut-of-rom-the-web.html.

able 2 – Internet speed results in Manhattan public libraries




a recent issue o the Chronicle for Higher Educationhighlighted the continued obstacles posed by low-quality Internet in America’s schools.16 Casting theissue as a “Bandwidth Divide,” the Chronicle notedhow the use o E-textbooks, even in a mostly afuentarea like in Fairax County, Virginia, can be under-mined by shoddy connectivity. In Fairax County,students were unable to access some o the most in-novative and interactive eatures o e-textbooks dueto poor connectivity in their schools and homes.

Libraries as Onramps to the Inormation Super-highway

For many working-class New Yorkers, the local library isn’t just a place to check out a ew books. Rather, it’stheir portal to the Internet itsel and all that it oers.

Libraries have become the main community resourceor people seeking an array o technological servicesthat are necessary in order to compete, succeed andsurvive in the digital age. Over the past decade,public libraries have met this challenge by providing ree Internet and computer services. From e-booksto programs that teach basic computer skills such ashow to search or jobs through the web, libraries aremore diverse than ever and are molding themselvesto best t the needs o their communities.

It is essential that New Yorkers have maximum ac-cess to public computers that provide ree high speedInternet access. A 2010 report rom the Institute o Museum and Library Sciences detailed the criticalrole libraries play in linking Americans living below the poverty line to the Internet. Overall, 44 percento people in households living below the ederal pov-erty line ($22,000 a year or a amily o our) usedcomputers and the Internet at public libraries.

In New York City, libraries are utilized more thanever. In 2012, the New York Public Library, whichconsists o library branches in Manhattan, StatenIsland and the Bronx, had a total o 18 million li-brary visits, a 12 percent increase in attendance rom2008.17 Citywide, some 40.5 million visitors utilizedthe city’s 212 branches in 2011.18

16 http://chronicle.com/article/Te-Bandwidth-Divide/137633/.17 http://www.nypl.org/sites/deault/les/nypl_bythenumbers_y12_1.pd.18 http://nypress.com/your-avorite-library-could-get-10000/.

As the Center or an Urban Future ound in a recentreport on the state o the city’s libraries, the demand orcomputers/Internet access at public libraries—particu-larly in working class neighborhoods and communitieso color—has been nothing short o insatiable. In the lastve years alone, the number o computer sessions loggedat public computers in the city’s libraries has grown by 62 percent, rising rom 5.8 million sessions in 2007 toover 9.3 million in 2011. At NYPL alone, attendanceat technology programs nearly doubled rom 2003 to2012, going rom 30,000 to 58,541.19 Indeed, as theNYPL’s published reports indicate, public computer us-age in libraries has risen 160 percent since 2008.20

Tis explosive growth in the use o public Internet hasnot been conned to New York City. A recent study by the American Library Association ound that 70 percent

o libraries across the nation have reported an increasein the use o public computers.21 In addition, a study by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ound that32 million students accessed the Internet or educa-tional purposes, 30 million adults used the Internet atpublic libraries to search or employment, and countless Americans rely on Internet access at libraries to apply orgovernment programs such as Social Security, researchhealth care issues, keep current with world events, or stay in contact with riends and amily.22

However, as public library usage metrics have surged intandem with their increasingly important role in provid-ing Internet access to New Yorkers o modest means,their unding has decreased substantially. Since 2008,the New York Public Library’s annual budget has beencut by $28.2 million, with the Brooklyn and Queenspublic library systems losing $18.1 million and $17.5million, respectively.23 Tese budget cuts have resultedin a reduction in library hours, with the average NYClibrary open 43 hours a week today, down rom a high o

47 hours a week.24

Weekend hours have also been scaledback with only 30 percent o libraries open on Saturday and a mere eight libraries open on Sunday.25

19 http://nycuture.org/pd/Branches_o_Opportunity.pd.20 http://www.nypl.org/sites/deault/les/nypl_bythenumbers_y12_2.pd.21 http://www.ala.org/news/mediapresscenter/americaslibraries/soal2012/public-libraries.22 http://www.imls.gov/assets/1/assetmanager/opportunityorall.pd.23 http://nycuture.org/pd/Branches_o_Opportunity.pd.24 http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/as-use-o-libraries-grows-government-support-has-eroded/.25 http://www.nypl.org/press/press-release/2013/03/08/nypl-president-testies-proposed-city-budget-cuts.




Map One: Bandwidth speeds of schools in New York City - Slow Speeds Accentuated

0 3 61.5 Miles

Source: New York City Department of Education, New York City Department of City Planning

Te enlarged red dots detail the geographic distri-bution o school acilities with the slowest Internetspeeds. Te map displays a distribution o low speedsthroughout the ve boroughs with visible concen-

trations in the southern Bronx and north-easternBrooklyn. Tis parallels the distribution o medium

and aster maximum Interent speeds spread through-out most o Queens and Staten Island. A vast major-ity o the red dots represent 218 acilities that havea maximum Internet speed o 1.5 Mbps, with only

three acilities attaining the maximum Internet speedo 5 mbps.

School Bandwidth Speeds

5 Mbps or Below

10 Mbps - 20 Mbps

30 Mbps or Above

N




Map two: Bandwidth speeds of schools in New York City - Fast Speeds Accentuated

Tis gure provides a contrast to the previous map.Te enlarged green dots detail the geographic distri-bution o 240 schools with the maximum Internetspeed o 40 mbps, and 12 acilities with the maxi-

mum Internet speed o 50 Mbps. Tis map displays

a slightly more even distribution o higher speedsthroughout the City. However there are clear con-centrations o higher Interent speeds in Manhattan,the Bronx and north-east Brooklyn.

0 3 61.5 Miles

Source: New York City Department of Education, New York City Department of City Planning

School Bandwidth Speeds

5 Mbps or Below

10 Mbps - 20 Mbps

30 Mbps or Above

N




Map three: Low School Internet Speeds by Household Median Income

In order to illustrate the large number o school acil-ities with especially slow Interent speeds, this gureshows the Median Household Income by Communi-ty District throughtout New York City. Te red dots

represent all acilities with maximum Internet speedsat or below 5 Mbps with the pigment o green show-ing the wealth o each nieghborhood. Lighter colors

represent low-income neighborhoods and brightercolors represent high-income neighborhoods. Tismap clearly shows a pattern o School acilities withslower Internet speeds throughout the south Bronx

and north-east Brooklyn, which are predominently low-income neighborhoods.

Household Median Income by Community District, 2011

Under $32,000

$32,001 - $47,000

$47,001 - $65,000

$65,001 - $92,000

Over $92,001

No data

Bandwidth Speeds

5 Mbps or Below

0 3 61.5 Miles

Source: New York City Department of Education, U.S.Census Bureau

N




Map four: Low School Internet Speeds by Households Earning under $15,000

0 3 61.5 Miles

Source: New York City Department of Education, U.S. Census Bureau

Using a dierent metric to identiy low-incomenieghborhoods, this map shows schools with slow Internet speeds against a backdrop o New York City’s 59 Community Districts. Each Community

District’s color represents the percent o households within that neighborhood that earn under $15,000.In this map, brighter pigments represent a higherpercentage o households earning under $15,000

with lighter hues representing lower percentages o households earning below this benchmark. Onceagain there is a clear pattern o slower schools in ar-eas with more households that are living below the

poverty line. Specic concentrations can be seen inthe Lower East Side o Manhattan, the south Bronx,and north-east Brooklyn.

Percent of Households that Earn Under $15,000,

by Community District, 2011

Under 7%

7% - 14%

14% - 18%

18% - 24%

Over 24%

No data

Bandwidth Speeds

5 Mbps or Below

N




Map five: Library Internet Speeds in Manhattan

Library Bandwidth Speeds

Under 4 Mbps

4 - 10 Mbps

Above 10 Mbps

Library Internet speeds are divided roughly intothirds on this map – 11 libraries with aster down-load speeds are plotted in green, 14 slower speedsin red, and 11 speeds that all into the middle are

designated as yellow. Tese numbers represent the re-sults o the Internet speed snapshots recorded by theManhattan Borough President’s Oce. It should be

noted the dierence in the range o speeds betweenLibraries and Schools, with six o the red dots all-ing even below the 1.5 Mbps benchmark ound inSchools. Tere are no clear patterns shown through

this map – with either abismal or accepatable Inter-net speeds throughout the Borough.

N

0 0.8 1.60.4 Miles

Source: New York City Department of Planning, U.S. Census Bureau




Recommendations

New York City is the nation’s largest media market, a center o global commerce and communication, andhome to one o the astest-growing tech economies inthe country. For the city to maintain its leadership in

these elds and expand its presence in the industrieso tomorrow, we need an Internet backbone that pro-vides ast, reliable, aordable connections in the city’sanchor institutions.

However, improving our Internet access is not justabout economic development. It is about ensuring that working-class New Yorkers in all ve boroughshave access to online courses and job postings. It isabout connecting immigrant communities with am-ily and riends who are abroad. And it is about ev-

ery New Yorker being able to orge new connections,personally and proessionally, that will enrich theirlives and the communities in which they live.

By bringing 21st Century connectivity to every an-chor institution in New York City, we will ensurethat our citizens can benet rom the extraordinary opportunities that robust broadband speeds pro-vide. With an estimated 75 percent o New York City Housing Authority residents lacking broadbandconnections at home, the importance o equipping community anchor institutions with high speed In-ternet connections as soon as possible is can not beunderstated.26

Te recommendations outlined in this section pro-vide a starting point or achieving this goal.

1) Pledge to Meet the Goals Outlined in the Na-tional Broadband Plan.

Te New York City Department o Education hasalready made laudable progress in increasing broad-band speeds in public schools since 2011. However,the city’s $738 million capital investment rom Fiscal Year 2010 through Fiscal Year 2014 to equip 300-400 buildings each year with new cabling, classroomhardware and wireless sotware is a mere baby step inthe right direction.

26 http://www.nypl.org/press/press-release/2013/03/08/nypl-president-testies-proposed-city-budget-cuts.

Te next Mayor should publicly pledge that all New York City public schools and libraries will meet thegoal o equipping each school with a bandwidth o no less than 1 Gbps by 2020, as outlined by Presi-dent Obama in the National Broadband Plan.

In order to achieve this critical goal, the Mayor willneed to work closely with Congress to ensure thatNew York City receives a maximum amount o ed-eral support necessary to achieve this endeavor. Ad-ditionally, the Mayor should pledge to make sub-stantial capital commitments to bridge any gaps inederal unding so the city can reach the NationalBroadband Plan’s goals on, or ahead o, schedule.

2) Reorm the E-rate Program’s Priority woFunding Guidelines or New York City Public

Schools and Libraries.

E-rate is a program administered by the FederalCommunications Commission (FCC) that subsidiz-es discounts on broadband equipment and servicesin public schools and libraries. American telephoneratepayers, public pay phone operators, and otherscontribute approximately $2.25 billion to the E-rateprogram each year.27 E-rate subsidy amounts vary;however, low-income urban schools receive generoussubsidies relative to other U.S. schools. In 2010, the

New York City Department o Education noted thatat that time almost 60 percent o NYC schools wereeligible or a 90 percent E-rate discount.28

United States Senator Jay Rockeeller (D-WV), whosponsored the legislation that created the E-rate pro-gram, has called it “the singularly most eective andpowerul o all o the [FCC’s] universal service programsat supporting the expansion o broadband service.”29

Nonetheless, despite the accolades that E-rate has re-ceived, the program is in need o meaningul reorm.

In particular, internal wiring and connections thatbring the Internet to the classroom – labeled in E-rateas “Priority wo unding” – oten do not receive su-

27 http://www.aei.org/les/2013/07/22/-connecting-the-american-class-room-transcript_092647280283.pd.28 http://apps.cc.gov/ecs/comment/view?id=6015665294.29 http://mcclure.ii.su.edu/publications/2010/GIQ%20Broadband%20and%20Pub%20Libs%20Mandel%20et%20al%202010.pd.




cient subsidies to make these critical network improve-ments viable. Te result, as a May 2012 investigativereport published by ProPublica points out, is that“many poor-but-not-destitute schools don’t get thesubsidies to carry broadband that last crucial stretchrom outside the schoolhouse to inside classrooms.”30

Te vast majority o New York City schools wereconstructed prior to the Internet era and are there-ore not wired or broadband. As a result, the avail-ability o internal connection unding rom the FCCremains a critical variable that will play a major rolein determining whether the city can meet the goals o the National Broadband Plan by 2020.

In response to this concern, the FCC released a no-tice o proposed rulemaking on July 19, 2013 that

aims to modernize the E-rate program. Te FCC’sproposed reorms include measures that will increasebroadband capacity, maximize the cost-eectivenesso E-rate purchases, streamline program administra-tion and protect the program rom waste, raud, andabuse.31

Te FCC’s notice directly acknowledged past criti-cisms o Priority wo unding, observing:

“Te E-rate program has traditionally beenable to und all priority one requests, but thetotal demand including priority two requestshas exceeded the E-rate program’s almost every year since the program’s inception. In the ear-ly years, the E-rate program was able to und a substantial percentage o the priority tworequests that it received, but more recently,the vast majority o requests or priority twoservices have gone ununded…since unding year 2000, with one exception, priority two

unding has been available only or recipients where at least 50 percent o the students are el-igible or ree or reduced price school lunch”.32

Given the problems that New York schools haveencountered with capturing adequate unding or

30 http://www.propublica.org/article/att-eds-ignore-low-price-mandate-designed-to-help-schools.31 http://transition.cc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0719/DOC-322288A1.pd.32 http://www.e-ratecentral.com/FCC/FCC-13-100A1.pd.

internal connections, it is imperative that the FCCmodiy the “Priority wo” component o the E-rateprogram so that New York City public schools can a-ord to bring high speed broadband into every class-room.

In addition to reocusing the unding mechanics o the E-rate program to und high speed internet con-nections within the connes o anchor institutions,the FCC should also strive to provide more robustunding streams to urban libraries, particularly thosein low income environments. As New York PublicLibrary President ony Marx noted in City Counciltestimony delivered earlier this year, 53 percent o theNew Yorkers that enroll in the public library’s tech-nology training courses reported household incomesunder $25,000 and 83 percent reported household

incomes under $50,000.33 Tese gures illustrate a clear demand or technology services in the publiclibrary system among underprivileged New Yorkers.

It is imperative that the FCC use the current E-raterulemaking period to channel unds to libraries inurban communities in New York with high levels o demand or ast and reliable broadband.

3) Explore Micro-renching and the Establish-ment o a Municipal Fiber Network as an Op-tion or Bringing Faster Service to Schools.

One method or improving Internet speeds andoverall connectivity in public schools is through theexpansion o micro-trenching. Micro-trenching, which is already being piloted on a limited basis inNew York City, involves digging small “trenches” within city side walks and then laying new ber op-tic cable or high speed Internet services within these“micro-trenches”.34 Te 12 site micro-trenching pi-

lot program in New York City, which is being ledby Verizon, has been called the largest urban use o micro-trenching in the United States and may reducethe cost o ber optic installation by two-thirds.35

I this pilot program proves successul, the DOE

33 http://www.nypl.org/press/press-release/2013/03/08/nypl-president-testies-proposed-city-budget-cuts.34 http://www.nyc.gov/html/doitt/html/business/micro_trenching.shtml.35 http://www.tellusventure.com/blog/aster-cheaper-ber-microtrenching-gains-acceptance/.




should work together with local ISP’s and the ed-eral government to explore uture partnerships that would acilitate cheaper, micro-trenched connectionsbroadband connections. Te city should also exploremicro-trenching as a method or establishing a mu-nicipal ber network in the ve boroughs.

Manhattan Borough President Stringer rst advocat-ed or the establishment o a municipal ber network in New York City in his December 2012 report,“Start Up City”, noting that “the city, along with theMA, Con Ed and other public utilities, should care-ully study the success o networks across the country to determine whether such a network could be builtin New York. It may be the case that a municipal berplant in New York can only be cost-eective in denseparts o the city with many potential customers.”36

Given the current state o broadband connectivity inNew York City public schools and the current lack o competition within the private market, i the city wishes to meet its National Broadband Plan goals by 2020, micro-trenching and the establishment o a municipal ber network in areas where it is easibleare two methods that the city should explore.

4) Expand Public Access to Library Computers.

Computer and Internet access within the publiclibrary system has reached all time highs in recentyears. According to the New York Public Library’s2012 Annual Report, users logged a cumulative 3.6million hours o computer time in scal year 2012.37 In order to meet the growing demand or computerusage appropriate policies must be in place to allow sucient access to a maximum number o patrons.

Current computer access policy allows patrons one

45 minute session per day to use a computer terminalor a laptop.38 Patrons can reserve a computer onlinebut they cannot make more than one reservation perday at any o the NYPL branches. While time con-straints do limit access, they are necessary to preventpatrons rom monopolizing a library’s limited com-

36 http://www.mbpo.org/uploads/StartupCity.pd.37 http://www.nypl.org/sites/deault/les/nypl_annualreport_2012.pd.38 http://www.nypl.org/help/computers-internet-and-wireless-access/reserving-computer.

puter resources. Te ideal solution is a usage policy that is exible enough to allow maximum time perpatron and a maximum number o patrons per com-puter.

In Manhattan, the 45 minute per day time limit isprogrammed into the registration system and is au-tomatically enorced regardless o how crowded orempty a library is. In one instance, a researcher romthe Borough President’s Oce reserved a library computer that did not work. As accommodations were made to re-locate that researcher to a work-ing computer, the strict 45 minute time allotmentcontinued to run and could not be reset, despite anabundance o open computer terminals at that par-ticular library branch.

Tere are many variations o time-limited usage pol-icy throughout the country: the most common usagelimit is 60 minutes per computer.39 In approximately 14 percent o low-income areas in the United States, where the library is oten the only source o Internetaccess, two-hour time limits have been implement-ed.40 Additionally, some U.S. libraries use varying time limits, determined on a real-time basis by thenumber o users at any given moment.41

New York City’s public library systems should explore

the easibility o expanding computer time limits inits branches, especially in neighborhoods with largeconcentrations o residents that do not have homebroadband access.

5) Use the Fund or Public Schools to AchieveNational Broadband Plan Goals in the City’sClassrooms.

Established by the New York City Board o Educa-

tion in 1992, the Fund or Public Schools is a non-prot organization organized to accept donations onbehal o the New York City public school system.Under the exemplary leadership o honorary Chair-person Caroline Kennedy, the Fund has received over

39 http://www.ala.org/research/sites/ala.org.research/les/content/initia-tives/plas/previousstudies/0708/LibrariesConnectCommunities.pd.40 http://www.ala.org/research/sites/ala.org.research/les/content/initia-tives/plas/previousstudies/0708/LibrariesConnectCommunities.pd.41 http://www.ala.org/research/sites/ala.org.research/les/content/initia-tives/plas/previousstudies/0708/LibrariesConnectCommunities.pd.




$350 million in donations rom philanthropists andcivic-minded New Yorkers since 2002, with some$47 million collected in just the last year alone.42

Due to changes in leadership at the Fund that will re-sult rom the election o a new mayor and the recentappointment o Ms. Kennedy as the U.S. Ambassa-dor to Japan, the Fund will be in a unique position torecalibrate its priorities. Given the well-establishedrelationship between student broadband access and21st Century academic success, the Fund or PublicSchools should make the achievement o a 1 Gbpsbroadband connection at each school its top priority.

Conclusion

New York City can and must do more. Public-private

partnerships have brought Google Fiber to KansasCity, Missouri, Austin, exas and Provo, Utah whileother cities – rom Chattanooga to Washington D.C.– have built out municipal ber networks that oerspeeds o up to 1 Gbps.

While New York has dedicated unds or linking small businesses with gigabit Internet connections

42 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324564704578626031060937900.html.

through EDC’s ConnectNYC initiative43, no similareort has been made to link community institutionslike schools and libraries to this service.

In contrast, other cities have prioritized building -ber or public use. For instance, Washington D.C.’s“Community Access Network” (DC-CAN) deliversaordable broadband services to over 250 health, ed-ucational, public saety, and other community insti-tutions in underserved areas o the District—includ-ing public schools and libraries. DC-CAN also leasesaccess to local Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) whoplan to bring service to as many as 248,000 house-holds and 30,500 businesses.44

Indeed, while other nations—rom South Korea and Japan to the United Kingdom and Australia—set am-

bitious goals or ber connectivity, the United Statesremains in the modern equivalent o the Stone Age with limited private sector competition and minimalpublic investment in the ourth utility o the modernage.

43 http://nycberaccess.challengepost.com/.44 http://dcnet.dc.gov/; Public libraries, community college campuses,re, police, and other public saety locations, non-prot public charter andprivate schools, non-prot health care clinics and organizations that providehealth-related services such as homeless shelters and community-basedcounseling centers, senior centers, and public housing sites qualiy or DC-CAN service.




Appendix 1

Office of Public Affairs

52 Chambers Street • New York, NY 10007 • Telephone: 212-374-2437 Fax: 212-374-5588

119 Washington Ave.• Albany, New York 12210 • Telephone: 518-449-2013 Fax: 518-447-5204

Ben Goodman

Manhattan Borough Director

Office of Public Affairs

[email protected]

July 17, 2013

Hon. Scott M. Stringer President, Borough of Manhattan1 Centre Street, Floor 19 New York, NY 10007

Dear Borough President Stringer:

Thank you for your recent letter to Chancellor Walcott regarding maximum broadband speeds at

schools located throughout New York City. We appreciate you sharing your concerns with us.

Regarding your request for information on broadband internet speeds, please see the summary below. For your convenience, we have also attached a spreadsheet that provides a school-by-school breakdown.

Circuit Type Bandwidth (Mbps)

Total School

Buildings

1.5 5 10 15 20 30 40 50

ATM 3 4 2 5 1 0 15

Metro E 683 40 7 239 12 982

Frame Relay 242 242

Total 242 3 687 45 7 240 12 1239

I hope that this information has been helpful. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or (212) 374-5477.

Thank you again for writing to us and for your ongoing advocacy on behalf of New York City’s public school students.

Sincerely,

Ben Goodman

Manhattan Borough Director

Enclosure

July 17, 2013 letter from the Department of Education detailing updated maximum internet speeds




Appendix 2 June 26, 2013 letter to the Department of Education requesting an update on maximum internet speeds




Appendix 3

Jenny Sobelman

Deputy Director, Office of Public Affairs

[email protected]

1

April 1, 2011

Hon. Scott M. Stringer President, Borough of Manhattan1 Centre Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10007

Dear Borough President Stringer:

Thank you for your letter to the Chancellor concerning the Department of Education’s (DOE’s)

Five Year Capital Amendment for 2010-2014, and more specifically, your inquiry into DOE’s

decision to increase spending on new technology initiative, like the iZone program.

As you know, the Panel for Educational Policy (PEP) will consider the Capital Plan Amendmentat the PEP’s April 28 meeting. To review the details the Chancellor shared with you, the mostrecent capital budget plan for technology amounts to $957 million from FY10-FY14. Of thattotal, only $41 million will be allocated to iZone-specific software, hardware, andimplementation support, while $783 million will go towards equipping all of our buildings(roughly 300-400 buildings each year) with new wireless technology, classroom hardware,cabling, and other infrastructure upgrades that schools need. These upgrades are necessary inorder to prepare all of our buildings to administer new tests online — aligned with the CommonCore standards — in the 2014-15 school year.

In addition, we are prohibited from transferring capital funds to the operating budget or usingthem for day-to-day costs of running the school district. Therefore, expenditures on new schoolconstruction or technology upgrades cannot be used to mitigate potential layoffs.

I am pleased to provide details on the specific items you raised. I have also attached a PDF of thePowerPoint presentation for the 2010-2011 iZone Evaluation plan, and the DOE SchoolBandwidth Report.

April 1, 2011 letter from the Department of Education detailing maximum internet speeds




Jenny Sobelman


[email protected]

2

1. General Technology Spenda. Please provide an itemized breakdown of the projects that fall under each category

The projected capital funding for the school buildings infrastructure build-out are for all

active school buildings ( –

category A-E above.)The technology infrastructure needs are reviewed by DIIT and the Capital Finance Officeeach year and based on that, with eventual meeting with the Principal (or designee), thefinal scope of work for each building is determined.

About 300 to 400 schools generally have work in progress in any given year between thevarious infrastructure categories. Identifying the schools and the infrastructure work needed are done annually and priorities are generally selected based on the percentage of students eligible for the Free and Reduced Lunch in the schools.

Generally, the building-wide scope of work encompasses:o Classroom connectivity – new and retrofit cabling, including electrificationo School building bandwidth upgradeo School main/intermediate distribution frame (MDF/IDF) Hardwareo Access Point Upgrade/Installations for wireless infrastructureo Voice Infrastructureo Classroom hardware and installation (New in this Plan Amendment)

Enhancement

February 2011 Proposed

Amendment

A. Classroom Hardware and Installation 350

B. School Application: Teacher/Student Class Relationships(Identity Management)

250

C. Business and Operations Applications Combined above

D. Learning Systems/Platforms 91

E. School Building and Classroom Connectivity Cabling;Schools' Bandwidth Upgrade

110

F. School Network Equipment and Common Area Wiring;MDF/IDF Upgrade; Security

6

G. Wireless Technology Upgrade 45

H. Schools Unified Communication Infrastructure 105

TOTAL 956.75




Jenny Sobelman


[email protected]

3

b. Please provide information about what companies and/or contractors will be doing work related to these expenditures, and whether these contracts will be competitively bid

Mini-bid solicitations are conducted against State OGS master contracts and thecontract awards are generally for 3 years.

2. iZone expenditures (as a percentage of overall tech spend)

a. Please detail how much of the $45 million in “Learning Systems/Platforms” is related toiZone, and what makes up the balance;

This budget is for a DOE Learning Management Systems or Platforms. This is asystem or platform that can provide functions such as administration, documentation,tracking, and reporting of training programs, classroom and online events, e-learning programs, training content, and distributing courses over the Internet with features for online collaboration and content authoring by educations and/or students. iZone isinitiating this development and the current budget is about $25 million to supportonline learning for AP, credit recovery, elective courses and blended learning inclassrooms. The balance of the planned budget will be use for expansion of the

functionalities systems to accommodate the different users.

1Based on DOE established standards

Vendor Services Contract

Expiration

Date

Verizon Bandwidth Upgrade/Install PS63765 9/30/2013

IBM (Authorized Reseller) Networking Hardware PT64525 03/17/14

IBM Network Integration Services CMS653A 09/30/12

Mitel Networks Inc PBX installation PT54087 09/30/13

Nu-Vision Technologies PBX Maintenance CMS0825 09/30/13

Siemens EnterpriseCommunications, Inc

PBX Maintenance CMS0690 09/30/13

Teltronics Inc. PBX Maintenance CMS1021 09/30/13

Various - HP, Lexmark, Lenovo,Apple, etc.

Computer Hardware1 NYS OGS Group75350, 75525




Jenny Sobelman


[email protected]

4

b. Please detail how much of the $350 million in “Classroom Hardware and Installation” isassociated with iZone, and what makes up the balance;

iZone is currently budgeted for $7 million for 128 schools, including student devices,

network printers, and servers; the balance of the plan are slated for all schools and

needs will be determined by instructional needs by schools.

c. Please indicate who will be the contractors and/or companies receiving these funds, and

whether they will be competitively bid.

For services and related equipment, purchases that do not currently have existing

valid contracts will be done through competitive solicitations through either the open

market or mini-bid against State OGS master contracts.- RFP R0862 released last year for content

- RFP R0863 for the learning platform

- Mini-bid B1892 for integration services for hardware in the schools

- NYS OGS contracts for HP (PT55722) and Apple (PT55529)

3. iZone evaluation plan

a. Please indicate who will be the contractors and/or companies receiving these funds, and

whether they will be competitively bid. (See the attached 2010-2011 iZone Evaluation Plan)

iZone evaluations are either being conducted by an external research firm (e.g.

Harvard’s Ed Labs) or being done internally and informed by the iZone ResearchAdvisory Council, a group of well-known and respected researchers including Nelson

Gonzalez from the Stupski Foundation and James Kemple from the NYU Research

Alliance.

The iZone’s research and evaluation plan aims to understand the impact of our

current programs as well as inform design and implementation decisions

iZone evaluations analyze:

o Impacts on student achievement outcomes (e.g. State test performance, credit

accumulation, course performance) as compared to similar students in non-

iZone schools

o Impacts on indicators related to college and career readiness, e.g. persistence,engagement, motivation, etc.)

o Impacts on teacher practice outcomes: Analysis of impacts on indicators such

as teacher professional efficacy and belief in the benefit of technology in the

classroom.




Jenny Sobelman


[email protected]

5

4. iZone Structure, Staffing and Capacitya. What specifically are “the most advanced models here and abroad” referenced on page 42?

The iZone was created in response to school demand. Schools saw the success other local schools, such as the transfer school models that have opened in the last 8 yearsas well as NYC iSchool, were having by leveraging technology and other tools tofocus on the needs of individual students, and sought a way to implement thesestrategies in their own schools.

Other partners from outside of NYC, such as Kunskapsskollan, New Tech Network and the Re-Inventing Schools Coalition, have shown that a school can be successfullydesigned and implemented, and provide strong outcomes, when aligned to the five principles outlined in the plan. These partners, each with 10+ year of experience in

this field, will be advising iZone schools.

b. What evidence can the DOE offer to show that these models work?

There is evidence that schools focused explicitly on personalizing education to theneeds of every student, through technology or other tools, lead to increased studentachievement.o In September 2010, the US DOE released a survey stating that students using

online content perform either as well as or better than peers in traditional face-to-face classes. While this data was primarily based on the performance of collegestudents, it is a strong indicator of success in K-12.

o Online learners often report greater levels of engagement and higher-order

thinking, and blended learning is more advantageous than purely online learning(iNACOL, 2009).

School management organizations working with the iZone schools have experienceincorporating online learning and other strategies into a school to personalizelearning.Some of their key successes include:o New Tech Network: An average of 12% more New Tech seniors graduated as

compared with similar schools in their districts.o RISC (Reinventing Schools Coalition): The odds of a student in a RISC School

scoring proficient or above on state tests are 2.3 times greater for reading, 2.5times greater for writing, and 2.4 times greater for mathematics than the odds of a

student scoring proficient or above on state tests at a Non-RISC School.o Conclusion: These are mature instructional technologies; we’re building on an

established research base; we’ve designed a robust evaluation design to informhow to make these tools most effective here in NYC.




Jenny Sobelman


[email protected]

6

c. How does the iZone define the “flexible adult role” referenced on page 43? In iZone schools’ teachers are finding creative ways to leverage technology or to use their time to better meet the needs of their individual students. In some cases this means usingsoftware to supplement instruction that gives teacher real-time data on student progress.In other cases it means team teaching in a school or teaching students in another boroughusing skype or other online tools.

d. What is the nature and extent of Professional Development (PD) that the DOE is providing

teachers in participating iZone schools, to ensure that students’ learning and schools’

staffing capacity are aligned?

Professional development offerings evolve throughout the year based on needs identified

by iZone schools and teachers.Training in how to use technology: teachers learn the logistics of how to use andtroubleshoot any issues with the technology.o All vendors provided training starting in the summer, and ongoing throughout the

year.

o In some cases, vendors provided workshops for all teachers using their tools; in

others, vendor representation is in the schools on a weekly basis ensuring that

teachers are comfortable with the technology and maximizing its capabilities.

o Many vendors provided their PD free of charge. Teachers were paid the standard

per session rate for time spent learning these new tools.

Targeted PD on how to use instructional technologies to differentiate instruction, usedata to inform instruction, collaboratively review student work, and collaboratively plan.

Structured opportunities for principals and teachers to share best practices and learn

from one another with the goal of using technology to improve teaching and learning.

o Includes: 1) Inter-visitations across schools, 2) in person showcases, and 3) monthly

online presentations from iZone teachers to other iZone teachers around best

practices in a particular content area

o Schools are also learning how align technology tools with existing instructional

priorities. For example, iZone teachers are provided PD through iZone staff and

outside vendors on how to integrate technology into curriculum mapping




Jenny Sobelman


[email protected]

7

e. How is the DOE making families aware of the iZone? What choices have they had to opt out?Each school determined the best way to share information about the iZone with their

parents. Outreach included:

o PTA Meetings

o Monthly parent meetings with principals

o Curriculum Night

o Open School Night

o Parent Coordinator Meetings

o Parent Teachers' Meetings

o School Leadership Team meetings

Schools are just now starting to design their iZone plans for next year and future years.

Supported by iZone staff and partners, they will seek out and incorporate feedback from

teachers, students, families, and community partners. Participation in the iZone was up to

the schools, not mandated by Central. In some cases, the new technology tools were used

across a class or grade level, and therefore all students participated. We have not heard of

any case where parents have requested that their child opt out.

5. What is the DOE’s long -term sustainability plan for iZone schools? At what point will

principals who opt to participate in iZone expected to assume responsibility for technologycosts that central DOE is currently absorbing, including for hardware, software, upgrades

for broadband service and technical support? What are the DOE’s estimates of the range of

costs that principals will have to take on and sustain?

iZone schools are receiving

o The same broadband upgrades as every other school in the system. In FY11, iZone

schools make up 14 of the 363 schools receiving bandwidth upgrades.

o Hardware, which they will be responsible for maintaining as is always the case

o Ability to purchase online content through the DOE rather than directly from vendors,

thus saving schools money. Over 300 schools are already paying for online software

by going directly to vendors. The iZone creates a centralized strategy through whichschools can buy this and additional software at a reduced price and provides the

support to help them use it effectively.




Jenny Sobelman


[email protected]

8

We have been advocating to modernize the State's textbook law and provide our principals with the flexibility to use their State textbook, hardware and software

allocations cross-functionally across any of these three categories, freeing up dollars for

these important purchases. We are happy to report that this recommendation was

included in the State's recently adopted FY 2012 budget

6. iZone Credit Recovery (CR) Online

Please provide detailed information about the number of students in each school, in each borough

citywide, participating in online credit recovery programs.

Total CR students by school:

DBN Total

02M432 146

02M615 71

03M404 13 Total By Borough

03M494 10 240 Manhattan

07X221 17 17 Bronx

20K485 90 90 Brooklyn

28Q505 31 31 Queens

31R440 33 61 Staten Island

31R445 28

Grand Total 439

Total CR enrollments: 1433 (reflects students taking multiple courses in the CR pilot)

Total CR enrollments by school:

DBN Total

02M432 1065

02M615 111

03M404 18 Total by borough03M494 10 1204 Manhattan

07X221 18 18 Bronx

20K485 108 108 Brooklyn

28Q505 31 31 Queens

31R440 44 72 Staten Island

31R445 28

Grand Total 1433




Jenny Sobelman


[email protected]

9

7. Bandwidth Limitationsa. Please provide the school names and addresses of “the remaining 500 school buildings

that are on T-1 or Frame Relay technology,” reference on page 44.

Please see the attached spreadsheet for a full list of the remaining 500 school

buildings. For your convenience, we have also provided a summary below:

Circuit Type Bandwidth (Mbps) Total School Buildings

1.5 5 10 20 30 40 50

ATM 34 20 5 2 1 0 62

Metro E 573 14 3 85 4 679

Frame Relay 498 498

Total 498 34 593 19 5 86 4 1239

I hope this information will prove helpful to both you and your appointee to the PEP, Patrick Sullivan. That said, if you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 212-374-0241, or at [email protected]. Thank you again for writing to the Chancellor, andfor your continued advocacy on behalf of New York City public schools.

Sincerely,

Jenny SobelmanJS:lh




Appendix 4

THE C ITY OF NEW YORK

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENTBOROUGH OF MANHATTAN

SCOTT M. STRINGER

BOROUGH PRESIDENT

MUNICIPAL B UILDING ❖ 1 CENTRE STREET ❖ NEW YOR K , N Y 1 00 07PHONE ( 2 12 ) 6 6 9- 8 30 0 FAX ( 2 12 ) 6 6 9 -4 3 05

www.mbpo.org [email protected]

March 18, 2011

Cathleen BlackChancellorNew York City Department of Education52 Chambers Street

New York, NY 10007

Dear Chancellor Black:

I am writing regarding the Department of Education’s (DOE’s) Five Year Capital Amendment for 2010 –2014, and the Department’s decision to sharply increase spending on new technology to $956.8 milliondollars over the next five years. More than half of this -- $542.25 million – is scheduled to be spent inFY 12 alone. This is a significant expenditure for any single year, but it is particularly large in thecontext of a fiscal crisis which the Mayor reports is so dire that he may eliminate some 6,000 teachingpositions.

Unfortunately, the DOE has not provided a clear breakdown of the programs to be supported by this

$542 million investment. In the one area where we do know that the DOE has already committedmillions of dollars – on its “Innovation Zone” (iZone) pilot program – the Department has not yetprovided any data, research or evaluation plan that would justify the substantially increased investment.Despite this lack of information, the current Capital Amendment calls for increasing the number of iZoneschools from some 80 schools this year to 400 in 2013/14.

Until this rapid expansion of iZone can be backed up by hard data, I strongly recommend that these fundsbe directed towards reducing class sizes, addressing overcrowding issues, rapidly replacing dangerouslighting and heating systems in schools, and other urgent needs that impact directly on the health, safetyand educational well-being of our students.

My appointee to the Panel for Educational Policy (PEP), Patrick Sullivan, is expected to vote on theCapital Amendment at the PEP’s March 23rd meeting, and on March 30th the City Council will conduct

its budget hearing with the DOE and School Construction Authority (SCA) on the Mayor’s proposedschool Capital Plan. Simply put, Mr. Sullivan has not been provided with sufficient information to makean informed vote on the Capital Amendment, and many outstanding questions remain. It isinconceivable to me that any public official could be asked to spend nearly half a billion dollars of taxdollars on programs widely considered experimental, especially when it comes to the education of ourchildren.

I strongly support the use and development of technology to advance students’ learning and give themthe knowledge and skills they will need to thrive in an increasingly “connected” world. We should

March 18, 2011 letter to the Department of Education requesting maximum internet speeds




always be looking for new and innovative ways to help our students advance, and pilot programs such asthe iZone may offer much potential. However, given the tremendous fiscal challenges our City faces atthis time, it is critical that we carefully prioritize where and when we invest our money. Our preciouseducation dollars should be devoted to programs, services and structural changes that can be shown byhard, peer-reviewed data to improve academic and life outcomes for our students.

Our efforts to gather such details on iZone have so far not been successful. For example, in February myoffice inquired with the DOE about what comprises “Learning Systems/Platforms,” an area where theDOE proposed increasing funding from $26 million to $45 million between its November and FebruaryCapital Amendments. We were advised that in addition to the iZone pilot program, the category iscomposed of “other data and content systems which might include the need to address state commoncore requirements.” Specific project names, we were told, were not available at that point.

Furthermore, when my office inquired this February about getting preliminary results of the iZone pilot,the DOE informed us that it was too soon. That same month my PEP appointee requested the DOE’sevaluation plan for the pilot. Despite assurances from Deputy Chancellor John White that he would sendthe plan, no information has been made available to date. I understand that the pilot only began inSeptember 2010. However without tangible evidence of the iZone’s success, it does not seem reasonableor prudent to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in a dramatic scale-up of the program, particularly at

this time. Certainly, my PEP appointee and other panel members should not be expected to vote on sucha proposal next week.

The Capital Amendment informs us that iZone schools are taking on “a three-year process tofundamentally transform from standardized models to technology-rich customized models, based on fivepillars demonstrated by the most advanced models here and abroad.” One of these five tenets is that “theteacher role is now a flexible adult role.” Absent more detailed information, however, I and others areleft to guess about what the “most advanced models here and abroad” are, how successful they havebeen, and what, exactly, the definition and meaning are of “flexible adult role.”

In the absence of more definitive information and data, my office has heard anecdotal reports that whileonline learning in iZone schools is proving to be an effective tool for some students, it may not beproviding the kind of instruction or support that many students need, including those considered harder-

to-reach, and those participating in online credit recovery programs. We have heard about glitches withsoftware, problems with technology vendors, capacity issues related to unformulated and inadequatetraining for teachers, and concerns that parents may not be aware that their children are part of a programconsidered by many to be experimental in nature.

My office is not alone in raising concerns about the dearth of rigorous empirical research surrounding theDOE’s plan to invest millions in online learning. In its 2011 working paper about the iZone, the Centeron Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) states: “NYC school district leaders are taking risks with theiZone…How and when they will know if they got the big bet right is a question district leaders will haveto ask so that students are not subjected for too long to programs and schools that don’t work.” And a2010 United States Department of Education (US DOE) review found strikingly little in the way of rigorous research examining the effectiveness of online learning for younger, K–12 students. The reportspecifically cautions against generalizing findings from studies that focus on older, college-level online

learners and applying them to elementary and high school students.

Simply put, we do not have enough information showing that this extraordinarily large investment makessense, particularly at this time, and especially when we have clear areas of need where increasedinvestment could make a world of difference for all our students.




In addition, I am deeply concerned that as the DOE pushes to rapidly upgrade the technologyinfrastructure of its 400 proposed iZone schools, many more non-participating schools will be left in thetechnological dark ages. In recent months, my office has heard troubling stories about students whocannot even access existing technology in their schools due to outdated electrical systems, and bandwidthlimitations that make connecting to the internet all but impossible.

The DOE has clearly recognized the need to increase bandwidth in some 500 schools where systems aremost outdated, and I applaud the Department for allocating significant capital funding to bring theseschools up to speed. That said, I want to be clear that particularly during this time of fiscal crisis Ibelieve the DOE has an obligation to focus its energies and funding towards ensuring thatall studentsreceive equitable access to a reasonable baseline of technology, before it prioritizes new and upgradedtechnology resources for select schools.

Given the broad range of concerns outlined in this letter, I would greatly appreciate clarification of thefollowing items related to the DOE’s proposed investment of $956.8 million dollars for technology, withmore than half of it -- $542.25 million -- to be spent in FY 12 alone.

In regards to the spending on technology as outlined in the Amended Five Year Capital Plan for 2010 –2014, released in February 2011:

1. General Technology Spending a. Please provide an itemized breakdown of the projects that fall under each category:

i. $350 million toward “Classroom Hardware and Installation”ii. $6 million toward “Teacher/Student Class Relationships (Identity Management)

iii. $105 million toward “Business and Operations Applications”iv. $45 million toward “Learning Systems /Platforms”v. $250 million toward “School Building and Classroom Connectivity Cabling;

Schools’ Bandwidth Upgradevi. $90.8 million toward “School Network Equipment and Common Area Wiring;

MDF/IDF Upgrade; Security”vii. $110 million toward “Wireless Technology Upgrade”

b. Please provide information about what companies and/or contractors will be doing work

related to these expenditures, and whether these contracts be competitively bid.

2. iZone Expendituresa. Please detail how much of the $45 million in “Learning Systems/Platforms” is related to

iZone, and what makes up the balance;b. Please detail how much of the $350 million in “Classroom Hardware and Installation” is

associated with iZone, and what makes up the balance;c. Please indicate who will be the contractors and/or companies receiving these funds, and

whether they will be competitively bid.

3. iZone Evaluation Plana. Please provide a copy of the iZone evaluation plan that the DOE is using to measure the

program’s worthiness, and the timeline for gathering data and completing the study.

4. iZone Structure, Staffing and Capacity a. What specifically are the “most advanced models here and abroad” referenced on page 42?b. What evidence can the DOE offer to show that these models work?c. How does the DOE define the “flexible adult role” referenced on page 43?




d. What is the nature and extent of professional development that the DOE is providing teachersin participating iZone schools, to ensure that students’ learning and schools’ staffing capacityare aligned?

e. How is the DOE making families aware that their children’s schools are participating in theiZone, and what choices, if any, is it providing them if they wish for their children to opt out?

5. iZone Sustainability Issuesa. What is the DOE’s long-term sustainability plan for iZone schools?b. At what point will principals who opt to participate in iZone be expected to assume

responsibility for technology costs that central DOE is currently absorbing, including forhardware, software, upgrades for broadband service, and technical support?

c. What are the DOE’s estimates of the range of costs that principals will have to take on andsustain?

6. iZone’s Online Credit Recovery Learning Optionsa. Please provide detailed information about the number of students in each school, in each

borough citywide, participating in online credit recovery programs.

7. Bandwidth Limitations

a. Please provide the school names and addresses of “the remaining 500 school buildings thatare on T-1 or Frame Relay technology,” referenced on page 44.

b. Please specify in kbits/s the maximum internet speed for each school building in the city, andthe network connections (frame relay, T1, T2, T3, T4, etc.) that exist at each school buildingin the city.

The DOE has an obligation to rigorously examine and provide reasonable evidence that the newprograms it proposes will help our students, before it devotes hundreds of millions of tax dollars towardthem. While this is always true, it is especially so when the City has threatened to lay off thousands of teachers and slash badly-needed new school seats from the Capital Amendment. Toward this end, theDOE should release empirical data that justifies the large amount of funding it plans to dedicate totechnology and the rapid expansion of the iZone initiative.

I would welcome the opportunity to meet and discuss the questions and recommendations in this letter.

Sincerely,

Scott M. StringerManhattan Borough President

CC: Dennis Walcott, Deputy Mayor



SCOTT M. STRINGER

MANHATTAN BOROUGH PRESIDENTMunicipal Building One Centre Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10007

Tel: 212.669.8300 Fax: 212.669.4306

www.mbpo.org

scott stringer digital deficit report

Documents