A quick look at the website of the Fiscal Policy Unit of the New York State Department of Education shows the school finance data for the 2005 to 2006 school year has been released. That year, and the following year, was probably as good as it is going to get for the New York City public schools. The New York State Court of Appeals subsequently ruled that although it was wrong for the state legislature to make financial arrangements that eliminated the possibility of many NYC children receiving a decent education, there would be no consequences for those who benefited from those arrangements in the past, and no judicial restrictions on doing so again in the future. The pattern of New York City’s state education funding being cut, while that for the rest of the state is increased, in recessions is therefore likely to recur. Also recurring are pension enhancements for those cashing and moving out, paid for by reduced pay for future teachers and reduced services for NYC children, with a recent massively-costly example just enacted. With doom once again approaching, let’s look at the “good old days” for the public schools.
As usual, I have made some modifications to the NYSED spreadsheet (attached – summary prints one page). Based on the fact that the average private sector earnings per worker, excluding Wall Street, are typically one-third higher than the national average in Downstate New York, I have multiplied public school revenues and expenditures there by 0.75. (Since Bureau of Economic Analysis data for that year has not been released, this ratio must be considered preliminary, but it has been remarkably stable over the years). And, I’ve added up the school districts in Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties so they may be collectively compared with New York City separately from Upstate New York.
The data show that once the cost of living is adjusted for, public school revenues and expenditures per student continue to be about the same in the Downstate Suburbs and in Upstate New York, with New York City considerably lower than either. The adjusted revenue per student was $14,330 in the Downstate Suburbs (lower on Long Island, higher in the Lower Hudson counties) and $14,455 in Upstate New York, compared with $12,493 in New York City. The adjusted expenditure per student was $14,044 in the Downstate Suburbs and $14,300 in Upstate New York, compared with $12,462 in New York City. Despite the fact that the city has a far needier student body than those other region’s on average.
Compared with the past, however, New York City’s per pupil revenues and expenditures were no longer low. In FY 2005, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the national average revenue per student was $10,339, and even if that figure rose by 10 percent to $11,373 in FY 2006, New York City would have been significantly higher. (The national 2006 data may be out in May). When I started doing these calculations virtually no New York State children were enrolled in school districts with lower revenues per student than New York City. In FY 2006, on the other hand, 289,482 were enrolled in districts that had lower cost-adjusted resources, while 1.5 million were enrolled in districts with more resources, elsewhere in New York State.
At $16,616 per student unadjusted, moreover, New York City could have $332,000 going into a class of 20, in the absence of overhead and replacements for teachers out of the classroom. Or nearly $200,000 for a class of 12. As I’ve written previously, if the schools were organized on a different model, even setting aside 20 percent of that total for support and monitoring, a certified teacher could be provided with $160,000 to teach, and provide teaching materials and lunch for, 12 neighborhood students in their home. Money paid by parents to monitor the kids after school, and in summer, would be in addition. Does anyone think any aspiring teachers, and parents, might be interested in such a deal, at least for elementary school? Why should that choice be forbidden to those who might prefer it?
(Once the school system has collapsed again, that is probably the model parents will have to pursue in NYC — legally or illegally. Home schooling with assistance. But they would be paying for it over and above their taxes, which would go mostly to the retired, and since education spending would come out of their own pockets over and above, the teachers would thus have to settle for far less income. This is where a lot of “public services” and benefits may be heading — pay for it yourself or do without, unless you have a special deal, as in 1970s New York.)
By one measure – cost-adjusted teacher pay plus teacher pension cost per student – New York City had caught up to the rest of the state in FY 2006. The $7,340 per student NYC spent for those purposes adjusts for living costs to $5,519, about the same as the adjusted $5,551 in the suburbs and more than the $5,094 in Upstate New York. Upstate was significantly lower in teacher pay/pension contributions despite being higher than the Downstate Suburbs overall.
Don’t be fooled, however — New York City had not achieved teacher pay parity and probably will never be allowed to. In New York City, 16 percent of that spending went to pensions, not pay, about double the share in the rest of the state. And that was before the recent agreement to allow NYC teachers to retire with full benefits at age 55 instead of 62, after working 25 years instead of 30, an agreement which will drastically shift funds from those teaching to those retired in the years ahead. So the New York State United Teachers, with its United Federation of Teachers affiliate in NYC, will likely succeed in re-establishing the framework of using the New York City schools as a place to provide employment for those who lack the motivation or ability to teach in quality schools. The consequences may be observed in the recruitment problems of the NYPD.
After being dramatically lower in most past years, New York City’s share of state education funding was just slightly lower than its share of state public school students in FY 2006, at 36.5 percent of the students and 36.4 percent of the state funding. Federal assistance is allocated in proportion to need, and the city received 58 percent of the federal education funding in New York State. But some object that allocating education resources in proportion to need shortchanges the “hard working taxpayers” outside feckless New York City. Except that in 2004, a bad economic year for the city, its residents paid 41.4% of the New York State income taxes paid by state residents, according to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance. That figure was almost certainly higher in FY 2006. As best as can be determined, after keeping the city’s share of state education funding unchanged this year, Governor Spitzer proposed to cut it next year in his proposed budget. As the fiscal crisis worsens, an absolute reduction in state education funding for the city is, as mentioned, likely to recur.
In FY 2006, state aid per student totaled $7,009 in New York City and $5,826 in the Downstate Suburbs (not adjusted) compared with $7,761 Upstate. There are plenty of Upstate districts where state aid per student is comparable with total revenues per student in the United States one year earlier. Many of these communities are presumably quite poor. But the school districts still hit up their residents for additional local taxes so they can spend considerably more than New York City. Thanks to STAR, they would get less state aid if they didn’t.
In Fiscal 2006 and presumably Fiscal 2007, unlike the past, New York City’s public education resources couldn’t really be described as inadequate. If more money was required, and the schools didn’t work, it was the residual result of the under-funding or mis-management of the past. The city continues to have inadequate facilities, teachers hired at lower pay in year’s past on the basis that less would be expected of them, and students who completed most of their school years in an educational environment that was as chaotic and unsupportive as many of their home environments.
Even so, there was enough money. If the funding levels FY 2006 and FY 2007 were merely maintained, and pressure to improve the use of the money and improve the quality of education was also maintained, it would be possible for the city to have a universally adequate school system — in a decade or so. An adequate school system in a city with very high state and local taxes, however, is but a dream, because this was probably as good as it is going to get.
Actions have already been taken to divert the money elsewhere, and drive middle class parents out of the city once again. The money is already gone. All that remains, probably until after the November elections or next year’s budget, is the announcement that “shared sacrifice” is required due to “circumstances beyond our control.” Debts, pensions, and retiree health care really may be guaranteed by the state constitution, unlike a “sound basic education” for New York City’s children. Wages will be taxed, but not pensions. And school spending in the rest of the state will be “held harmless,” no matter how high it is. As the Russian proverb puts it, “the shortage will be divided among the peasants.”