Research Note

APRIL 2005

 

 

 

Demographic Changes in New York State Schools 1993-94 to 2002-03

 

Introduction:

Changes in student population are an important part of any long range planning for policy makers. This paper will provide an overview of how the student body has changed in the recent past in New York State public schools. In particular, differential growth patterns upstate and downstate will be examined, as well as the impact of immigration upon these enrollment trends.

 

Section I: Overall Change in Population 1990 to 2000

 

In Table 1, we first examine general demographic trends in New York State, contrasting the New York City Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (NYC CMSA) with the remainder of the State.[1] The NYC CMSA includes all of New York City, as well as Rockland, Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, Orange, Nassau and Suffolk counties[2].

 

Table 1: Changes in Total Population in New York State From 1990 to 2000

 

 

As this table indicates, the total population grew by 5.5 percent statewide during the 1990-2000 period. In the NYC CMSA, the population increased by 8.2 percent, while upstate the population grew 0.5 percent.

 

In Table 2, we examine the growth patterns in the NYC CMSA. For this purpose, three discrete geographic areas were identified: New York City, the counties geographically contiguous to the City known as “inner ring” counties (Nassau, Rockland and Westchester), and outlying suburban counties known as the “outer ring” counties.  Table 2 reveals that the area of the most rapid growth occurred in New York City itself (9.4 percent),

 

 

Table 2: Population Changes 1990 to 2000 within the NYC CMSA

 

 

 

Section II: Changes in Pupil Counts within Each Region

 

            Table 3 shows the overall change in the number of pupils within New York State between 1993-94 and 2002-03. Our measure of pupils was the “duplicated combined adjusted average daily membership” or DCAADM.[3] As this table reveals, the relatively stagnant growth rate of the upstate population during the 1990-2000 decade (+0.5 percent), also occurred for the student population in the 1993-94 to 2002-03 period (+0.2 percent).

 

Table 3: Change in Student Populations 1993-94 to 2002-03.

 

 

• As shown in Figure 1, the year-to-year enrollment trends generally indicate continuing decline. While the trends in these two regions paralleled each other, these findings are more troubling in the upstate region since its “starting point” was substantially lower than in the NYC CMSA.

 

 

 

      In Table 4 the growth of pupils within the NYC CMSA was disaggregated geographically in order to more precisely determine where this growth of occurred.

 

Table 4: Pupil Count Changes 1993-94 to 2002-03 in the NYC CMSA

 

 

§       During the 1990 through 2000 period, the growth rate of population in New York City (9.4 percent) exceeded the growth in both the inner and outer county rings.

 

§       However, in Table 4 we see that the trends in pupil counts during the period 1993-94 through 2002-2003 were the reverse of general population trends. The suburbs in the NYC CMSA (whose enrollment increased by roughly twenty percent in both the inner and outer rings) grew faster than in New York City (5.9 percent).

 

Changes in Student Population Upstate

 

Changes in the student body were more varied upstate 1993-94 though 2002-2003. The upstate region as a whole experienced no growth (0.2 percent). However, in thirteen counties there were increases in pupils with the bulk of this increase in two MSA’s: the Albany-Schenectady-Troy MSA and the Rochester MSA (Table 5).

 

Table 5: Pupil Count Changes Upstate

 

 

• Nearly two thirds of the total increase occurred in four counties, in Monroe County (a component of the Rochester MSA) and in Albany, Rensselaer, and Schenectady counties (components of the Albany-Schenectady-Troy MSA).

 

• Counties with small increases included: Erie, Greene, Onondaga, Ontario, Saratoga, Ulster, Warren and Washington.

 

Section III: Immigration and its Impact

 

Immigration is and has always been an important part of New York State history. Historically immigrants to New York State have moved to urban areas first. To see if this pattern is still true we examine recent settlement patterns of immigrants in New York State.

 

The Census Bureau’s 2000 data dealt with immigration in two ways. One data set focuses upon foreign-born immigrants arriving between 1990-2000, and a second data set upon all foreign-born residents who are not presently U.S. citizens. This section of the report used the latter data set, since immigrants arriving before 1990 could now be parents of students or in some cases could still be students themselves. This definition has limitations, as do other alternatives.

 

Why did total population in the NYC CMSA grow at an 8.2 percent rate between 1990-2000, and pupil counts grow 11.7 percent between 1993-94 and 2002-03?  The answer is that immigration played a strong contributory role in the growth of student population in the NYC CMSA during the more recent period. Table 6 reveals that the overwhelming bulk of non-citizens resident in New York State in 2000 (92.6 percent) were located within the NYC CMSA, and only 7.4 percent outside that region

 

Table 6: Non Citizens Residing in New York State in 2000

 

 

 

Table 7 further disaggregates immigrant settlement patterns within the NYC CMSA.  The majority of the immigrant population resides in New York City proper (80.0 percent) and a much smaller portion of the immigrant population (13.9 percent) are located in the inner ring counties of Nassau, Westchester, and Rockland.

 

Table 7: Immigrant Settlement Patterns in the NYC CMSA

 

 

 

§       The inner ring counties have nearly twice the percentage share of immigrants in their population than do the outer ring counties (13.9 percent vs. 6.1 percent), and more than twice the total numbers of immigrants.

 

§       The inner ring counties and New York City together also account for 93.9 percent of all immigrants residing in the NYC CMSA.

 

§       The percent of the population that were immigrants in the outer ring, though lower than the rest of the NYC CMSA, was still twice the concentration of upstate.

 

Immigration and Family Size 

Next, we will look at demographic characteristics of immigrants such as family size to evaluate the potential contribution of high immigrant growth to recent growth in pupil counts. Within New York City, immigrant’s families differed dramatically in demographic terms from native-born families. These immigrants had more families and more children.[4]  For example:

 

•     63 percent of all households headed by native-born adults in NYC were family households. Seventy three percent of foreign-born households in NYC were families.

•      The average household size for NYC was 2.6 persons per household but for foreign born residents the average was 3.1.

•      Foreign-born mothers account for just over one-half of all births in the City, while only 36 percent of the NYC population were immigrants.

•      87 percent of children born to immigrants who presently reside in New York City were born in the U.S. However, many of these children were not fluent in English when they came of school age. [5]   

•      Immigrant groups are disproportionately between the ages of 18 to 44, when most child-bearing occurs. ⁷ 52.2 percent of all immigrants in New York City were in this age group, while the native-born population rate was 37.8 percent.    

 

To illustrate that immigration varied in the degree that it contributed to growth in pupil counts in different regions we need only look at the outer ring suburbs in the NYC CMSA region. This area had faster growing pupil counts than New York City, but had the lowest concentration of immigrants residing in the region. For the outer ring, immigration was a much smaller factor in contributing to pupil count growth than for the inner ring suburbs and New York City.

 

Immigrants Residing Upstate

 

 A look at settlement patterns in upstate New York shows the total number of immigrants situated here was much smaller and their settlement patterns were quite different. In addition, the countries of origin of these immigrant populations differed sharply from their downstate counterparts.

 

While there are 50 counties that comprise the upstate area, only nine counties in the upstate area had substantial immigrant populations i.e., over 8,000. These counties were: Albany, Broome, Erie, Monroe, Niagara, Oneida, Onondaga, Tompkins and Ulster. All of these nine counties had urban areas within their boundaries. For example: Albany County had the city of Albany, Broome County Binghamton, Erie County had Buffalo, Niagara County had three cities Lockport, Niagara Falls, and North Tonawanda. Oneida County contained Rome and Utica, while Onondaga County had Syracuse, Tompkins County had Ithaca and Cornell University, and finally Ulster County had Kingston.

 

§       These nine upstate counties accounted for 17 percent of the total state population.

 

§       These same nine counties accounted for 197,925 of the entire 288,360 immigrant population in the upstate area in 2000; stated differently, 7 of every 10 immigrants in the upstate area of the state  (69 percent) resided in these nine counties. Immigrants were 5.9 percent of the total population in these nine counties.

 

§       Nearly two thirds of the immigrants (124,134 out of 197,925) did not reside within cities in these counties but in their suburbs.  

 

Origin of Immigrants, Upstate Compared to Downstate.

 

            A variety of different cultures may pose significant challenges to the school district. If a school district must establish programs for English language learners and the pupils in the district speak several or many different languages, then the resources needed would be greater than if the immigrant pupils spoke one language.

 

 

 

§       Figure 2 demonstrates that the origins of immigrants within New York City and its inner ring suburbs were different from the outer ring suburbs and upstate. Nearly half of the immigrants in the upstate region were from Europe while less than one third of the immigrants residing in the NYC CMSA were from Europe. In contrast, half the immigrants in the downstate region were from Latin America.    

 

§       The ten top counties of origin of recent immigrants to New York City are: Dominican Republic (Spanish speaking), China (multiple languages), Jamaica (English), Guyana (English), Mexico (Spanish speaking), Ecuador (Spanish speaking), Haiti (French speaking), Trinidad and Tobago (English speaking), Colombia (Spanish speaking), and finally Russia (Russian speaking). [6]

 

Summary

 

Among differences between the two regions: the upstate region had a much higher proportion of immigrants that settled in the suburbs around urban areas. In contrast, most immigrants settled within New York City in the NYC CMSA. Another difference for these two regions was the countries of origin of immigrants. Upstate, Europe was the largest region of origin. Downstate the Caribbean and Latin America were the largest regions of origin.

 

In both regions, recent immigrants were from many countries and hence spoke many languages. For the NYC CMSA and many upstate counties, the challenge was to provide children the proper resources and programs (English as a second language among other programs). This required that the school districts use more resources for those children not fluent in English. Providing speakers of these languages for instructional purposes can become an expensive and difficult proposition. Indeed, it may be very difficult to even find the services of qualified instructors fluent in some of these languages at any price.