Recent reports highlight the low value placed on consumers of public services in New York City relative to other interests, some outside the city. The New York Post reports that statewide 94.5 percent of core classes, such as English, math and science, were taught by teachers deemed by federal requirements to be highly qualified in their subject area, compared with 87 percent in New York City. The Daily News reports class sizes as high as 46 kids per class in schools attended by poor NYC kids, with most 30 or higher according to the data they cite. Also reported by the News, fewer, less qualified police officers as a result of the 40% reduction in starting pay. The Post says that in order to offset this, the city is allowing police officers to work massive overtime, further padding their pensions. This looks like failed state and local policy, but it is actually successful state and local policy. You wouldn't know this, because the News and Post fail to identify the winners.
What the NY Post does not report is the share of teachers who are highly qualified in rest of the state excluding New York City. Just a quick estimate based on a little algebra. It is close to 100 percent. Not surprising given that whereas public school spending, staffing and pay has consistently been low relative to the national average in NYC, if the cost of living is accounted for, it is off the charts just about everywhere else in the state. Also not discussed — what the share of qualified staff was was in the 1990s, when the state was even more successful at steering taxes paid by city residents to the schools in the rest of the state. Might as well have high class sizes for those educated in the past decade — they are being written off as beyond hope. Everyone is just waiting for them to leave, in the hopes that younger cohorts will actually get an education.
What the News does not report is that Mayor Bloomberg proposed the lower starting pay to the arbitrator, to save money to offset the soaring cost of pensions due in part to an enrichment passed in 2000 by the state legislature. So our elected officials, collectively, have agreed to higher pay for those cashing in and moving out, but lower pay for those patroling the streets. Again. It isn't an accident when it happens for the third of fourth time. It isn't an accident when the election year contract for teachers also called for a cut a lower increase in starting pay, while the those for Fire and most other city employees called for deep cuts.
It isn't an accident when arbitrators are charged by law to consider what the union wants (more pay for less work — to hell with NYC we live in the suburbs and are moving to Florida) and what the city can afford (we don't want more taxes). Arbitrators are not charged with considering the effect of their decisions on the quality of public services, on the ability to attract and retain qualified workers and make them perform. Indeed, the perfect contract from an arbitration point of view is one that cuts the pay of all city employees in half, but doesn't require them to show up all all, thus eliminating public education, police protection, and all other public services. That is where we are heading, and that law isn't going to be changed anytime soon.
In the Post, Governor Spitzer talks about the high property taxes for residents of the rest of the state. NYC residents are going to have to see more of their state taxes sent there to help them, I suppose. But would their taxes be as high if they had unqualified teachers, over 30 kids in a class, and police officers whose starting salary was cut back to the level of 1986, AND paid a local personal income tax? The answer to that question is unsaid.