While the CFE decision provided one last chance for NYC conservatives to show they aren’t hypocrites (one they apparently will not take), it also provides one last chance for NYC Democrats to show they care as much about the quality of life of NYC residents as they do about the perpetuation of their own power and perks, and those of their organized supporters. Such Democrats might want to tax everyone more and spend more on everyone. But faced with opposition from elsewhere, they have agreed to tax New York City more and spend more elsewhere, nowhere more so than in education. At least, in their view, overall education spending is higher than it would otherwise be – number one in the nation as a share of personal income, despite low spending in the city. In general, those that matter are unaffected by the negative consequences, making those consequences seem remote and unimportant. That is the deal we have, the deal the Court has held to be constitutionally wrong but also has held that it cannot or will not change.
Through the entire CFE lawsuit and other school aid debates, there are three things no legal or political actor has been willing to say. First, that education spending, staffing and pay in the rest of the state is sky-high compared with the national average (even after adjustment for the cost of living Downstate) or even places like New Jersey. Second, that New York City has actually been forced to pay excess state taxes to subsidize that high spending, to mute objections to the associated property tax increases elsewhere. And third, that the situation analyzed by the Zarb Commission and the Courts is actually a best-case scenario for the city. When money is tight, as in the early to mid-1990s, the city’s children (and future teachers) have been sacrificed, and have been given a lower priority than either the gold-plated schools elsewhere or earlier retirement for those cashing in and moving out. The consequences of those past decisions continue to be felt, and will be for years, regardless of what happens now.
Joe Bruno’s reaction to the verdict was telling. It implies he’s prepared to increase spending on New York City’s schools by $2 billion if state aid the rest of the state is increased even more, the city’s share of state school aid goes down, and the gap in resources between the city and the rest of the state increases. And, if the additional aid to the city is described as “welfare” and that to the rest of the state is described as “fairness.” And if the higher taxes and or lower spending in other categories required to fund it falls entirely on New York City.
How can I sketch the outlines of a deal from his few words about “taking care of the rest of the state?” Because this is the sort of deal that places represented by Democrats have been getting for years, as government shifts from its aberrant 20th century policy of taxing based on ability and redistributing to need, toward its historical role of taxing based on powerlessness and redistributing to greed. So if a deal is reached to increase state aid to New York City by $1 billion, increase it to the rest of the state by $5 billion, and require New York City to fund $1.5 billion in additional spending with local taxes, I can see the Democratic political establishment counting it as a “win” by $500 million (and New York’s so-called conservatives objecting only to the $1 billion in additional state aid to the city).
School spending is relative. It is relative to the private sector, in that public school teaching must compete with other fields for qualified staff. In that sense, an additional $2 billion could be helpful, if those teachers who actually care about doing their job turn down the pre-CFE contract agreed to by the Mayor and the Union (and slipped out during the election when it was hoped no one would notice). The current deal is a continuation of “we will pretend to work, and you will pretend to pay us,” a terrible deal not only for children stuck with teachers who don’t work, but also for the majority teachers who do work and are not fairly paid.
Just one example. Adjusting for the fact that the average private-sector worker in Downstate New York earns 33% more than the national average (the high-paid Finance sector excluded), census data shows NYC teachers were 18% underpaid in 2005 relative to the national average. Cost of living increases will not close that gap, if others receive them as well. Comparing overall student-teacher ratios and average class sizes from just-released data, however, those teachers in non-special-education classes are teaching and/or supervising children less than two-thirds of the school day. Now assuming 10 sick days used per school year, and one out of six school hours per day correcting homework and preparing for class (work the union claims is done in additional hours at home), teachers would teaching or supervising 78% of the time. At that rate, class sizes could be much smaller with the existing staff, as they are in schools where teachers have agreed to waive certain contract provisions. So it looks like 18% less pay for 15% less work, a “victory” for cost savings!
Of course, the teachers with the toughest jobs — in middle schools, in schools with many disadvantaged children, with math, science and other scarce abilities, with larger class sizes — are the most disadvantaged. As are the more recently hired, who are repeatedly sacrificed for richer retirement benefits for those cashing in and moving out. As are those in schools where teachers voluntarily waive contract provisions to work more hours and allow smaller classes. It is to these teachers that the $2 billion should go, in exchange for smaller class sizes and a better job, not to those in Florida. But that could only happen over the objections of the teacher’s union, a CFE and Democratic ally. Like Bruno, it would want $4 for its interests, against the interests of the children, for each dollar added for the children’s benefit. After all, that’s the custom.
School spending is not just relative to the private sector, but also relative to other districts. No matter how much New York City spends, it will only attract less qualified and motivated teachers, and more difficult to educate children whose parents do not have other options, if all the districts surrounding it (and all those Upstate, if the cost of living is adjusted for) pay more and have more. In a relative sense, a big cut in spending elsewhere could be as advantageous as an increase in the city. Those choosing a career in teaching would have to turn to the City for employment, if others have a hiring freeze or are laying off. Two parent families with more educational support at home might look at the cutbacks elsewhere and decide to stay in the city, increasing the city’s educational resources relative to need. The result could be something like the reverse of what the state imposed on the city in the 1990s, when my kid’s generation was entering school and many parents fled to the suburbs. Just something like, because there is no scenario in which surrounding districts will spend less than New York City, despite lower needs. The only question is will the gap close or open further? Remember, in a state with stagnating population the rest of the state continues to add public school employees at a steady clip, even as the city cuts its overall staff to student ratio.
Unless and until New York City’s “representatives” are willing to call the bluff of people like Joe Bruno, as both the state and federal level, its people will continue to be resented and sneered at as beggars for merely asking for some of their own money back, and for an adequate level of public services in exchange for (if the local income tax is included) just about the highest taxes anywhere. Calling for reduced spending on places that vote for “fiscal conservatives,” or merely honestly describing how much of that there is, is the free ideological shot.
But not a free political shot. Those at the Manhattan Institute and the Citizens Budget Commission feel the need to tread carefully rather than offend its donors who commute in from the suburbs. And those at comparable liberal organizations dare not offend the New York State School Boards Association (who believe they need a bigger increase than New York City) and the New York State United Teachers. And while the majority of New Yorkers might be better off if the facts were at least one of the bases for fiscal priorities, that isn’t necessarily the case for organized groups in swing districts.
Republicans compete for seats through hostility to, and constantly working for the fiscal disadvantage of, places that consistently vote Democratic. Democrats compete for seats by allowing the disadvantage of places they have locked up, freeing up money to bestow benefits on and gain the favor of those elsewhere. Which was fine in 1950 when New York City was rich relative to elsewhere, but it has been a terrible injustice since. How the hell did this happen?
Remember, Standard and Poors found that 80% of any additional funding should go to New York City. Why not bring them back and have them analyze how much less school districts in the rest of the state should be spending – and reduce thier state aid if they do not reduce spending accordingly? By my more generous measure the rest of the state could lose 50,000 or more public school employees, and have a wage freeze for years, without affecting a “sound basic education” at all. Using what the rest of the state has imposed on New York City as a standard, 100,000 employees would be more like it. It’s time to ask why New York City residents should pay state taxes for problems caused elsewhere. I’m not talking about additional funding. I’m talking about existing funding. If this slap in the face won’t wake New York City liberals up, what will?
Perhaps I’ll reprise my Albany haiku here:
In Albany, money flows
To Power
Not to Need.
From each according to
Their stupidity.
To each according to
Their greed.
The Republicans and conservatives in New York are the part of privileged greed, not principles. And the Democrats?