The Anti-CFE School Money Grab

Those of you who read my first posts on this blog may recall reading that from 1990 to 2005 local government employment fell in New York City while soaring in the rest of the New York State, with public school employment a particular growth sector outside the City.  You may also recall that public school employment outside the city soared after the state implemented the STAR program, diverting even more of the state taxes paid by city residents away from the city’s schools, and in particular after the first ruling in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case.  It is almost as if the school districts elsewhere were rushing to establish “facts on the ground” that could not be taken away regardless of the needs of the city’s children or the burden on its taxpayers.  Well, more recent data from the State Department of Labor shows that from June 2005 to June 2006, that process continues.

With sky high taxes, falling federal aid, and facing growing debt service, pension, and Medicaid burdens, New York City cut its local government employment once again, by 400 overall.  With enrollment dropping, though class sizes are still large, employment in the elementary and secondary school category fell by another 1,200 (0.8%).  Employment in other services, which had been dropping for years, rose by 800 in the most recent 12 months.  Children’s Services had been particularly gutted, and some of the latter increase may reflect hiring there after some children were killed.  Meanwhile, local government employment in the rest of the state rose by another 7,000 (1.0%), with yet another gain of 6,400 (1.7%) for the public schools.  After public anger over the rising property taxes required to pay for this, the State decided to send offsetting checks to homeowners there, cutting the city’s share of state education funding further.  They grabbed.  They got.  Again.

What is most offensive about this is that even after some increases in the first part of this decade, New York City’s elementary and secondary school employment is still well below the national average relative to population, particularly in the non-instructional employment category, as you can see in the Census Bureau data attached to this earlier post.

http://www.r8ny.com/blog/larry_littlefield/local_government_employment_in_2002_census_bureau_data.html

Meanwhile, school employment in the rest of the state is off the charts relative to population.  And pay is sky high there too.  So is spending, relative to income, which has been below the national average in New York City, often far below, as far back as the data goes. 

Staffing elsewhere in the state is particularly high in the non-instructional category.  In March, 1997 New York City had 400 non-instructional public employees per 100,000 residents.  Remember all the outrage over the high level of non-teaching staff in the New York City schools?  Need I remind you that virtually everyone running those schools at the time was fired when the school system was reorganized, along with the classroom aides, and many people in other non-teaching positions?  Well, by 2005, that ratio had dropped to 369 non-instructional employees per 100,000 residents.  That’s good.  In the rest of the state, however, that ratio was 961 non-instructional employees per 100,000 residents in 2005, and judging by the Department of Labor data, it certainly isn’t coming down.

People in the rest of the state are tired of paying so much.  The solution of our state legislators, candidates for Governor, and think tanks is to have New York City pay for it, through a lower share of school aid for its children.  That is why New York City’s share of state education funding is lower than its share of state tax revenues, and why the rest of the state insists that this Reverse Robin Hood policy continue.  Not only continue, expand.  Meanwhile, the New York State Association of School Boards identifies itself as a supporter of the CFE’s goals in word, if not in deed.

So does the UFT, which managed to convince the state legislature to put in a lower retirement age for its members (vetoed, so far), which is likely to suck up much of the additional money the city’s schools are unlikely to get.  As after a similar deal in 1995, the city would be forced to hire fewer, less qualified teachers to replace those stampeding out the door, using the savings to fund their enhanced pension and retire health care benefits.  Yet the UFT has the nerve to take busloads of children up to Albany to demand a better deal for the city’s children.  Well, when the state legislature passed its legislation, who got the better deal?

It’s basically everyone against the city’s children, and its taxpayers, all the time.  And no one in politics will even dare to say it is unfair, for fear of offending the beneficiaries.  No one, in particular, will say that public school spending in the rest of the state is too high, and should be reduced to the point where New York City residents and schoolchildren should no longer be sacrificed to pay for it.  No one.  Well, almost no one.