I’ve often said that just because it is the national average, adjusted as best as possible for population, the cost of living, and other factors, doesn’t make it right. But a substantial deviation in any direction raises questions. As it happens, the U.S. Census Bureau makes data available that can be used to calculate an average public school spending per child for every region and every school district in the state. I compiled the data for 2005, simplifying the revenue and expenditure categories and adding a cost of living adjustment for high-cost Downstate New York; based on last year’s release, updated data should be available in late May or early June.
As the spreadsheet attached to this post shows, New York City public school spending per child, adjusted for the cost of living, finally exceeded the national average (by 10.5%) in FY 2005 after years of being lower, often much lower. Not that New York City school advocates should get so excited – higher spending on instructional employee benefits, such as pension contributions and retiree health care, accounted for the entire difference between NYC and the U.S., and accounted for most of the growth in city spending from FY 2002 to FY 2005. Meanwhile, school districts in the Downstate Suburbs averaged spending 31.9% more than the national average with the cost of living adjustment (76.8% more without that adjustment) and Upstate schools spent 36.1% more than average. These districts spent more on everything. And that is just the averages for the regions; some districts spent much more than that.
Why and on what? Well, average instructional wages and salaries per child is strikingly high in the rest of the state compared with the U.S. average. It is 51.2% higher than the national average in the Downstate Suburbs after adjustment for the cost of living (and thus what suburban residents can afford to pay), and 52.9% above average in Upstate New York, compared with just 14.1% above average, also adjusted for the cost of living, in New Jersey. Even in New York City, instructional wages per child adjusted for inflation were 30% above the national average even though, as the spreadsheet attached to my prior post showed, teacher salaries have been low in NYC. How is that possible? Instructional pay per child is a function of three factors – how well the teachers are paid, how many children are in the classroom, and what share of instructional employee’s time is spent in the classroom. New York City teachers did not have high pay, and New York City class sizes were not low outside of special education. So New York City’s high instructional pay per child must have been due to a low share of instructional time spent in the classroom – more sick days, more free periods, more out-of-classroom instructional positions.
In the rest of the state, meanwhile, class sizes are low and teacher pay is high. This makes it difficult for New York City to compete for staff, even as its costs soar as a result of lucrative retiree benefits. But the cost of instructional non-wage benefits per child is also high in the rest of the state, at about double the national average. The fact that New York State’s former teachers are better compensated for not teaching does nothing for education, yet richer retirements after shorter careers is something the UFT always wants – and is willing to agree to lower wages and benefits for less qualified new hires to get.
I certainly want the quality of education in New York State to be higher than average, even if the rest of the state made a decision to reduce the quality of education for my children’s generation in New York City in order to spend more elsewhere back in the 1990s. And I would want the state’s teacher salaries to be second to none. Most state residents would agree. Those good intentions, however, have clearly fueled an excess sense of entitlement among the instructional employees in the rest of New York State, and the union that represents them. At some point, low spending is unfair to the teachers and children, but at some point high spending is unfair to everyone else, those who earn less and yet have to pay the taxes.
The small size of school districts elsewhere in the state, and the notion that public employees have a “right” to their job, may also inflate spending. Neighborhoods gain and lose significant numbers of children depending on who is moving in and out at a given time. Many go through cycles, becoming nurseries for a few years and “naturally occurring retirement communities” (NORCs) thereafter. In New York City, in school enrollment falls in a given area the teachers are “excessed” and either laid off or told to move on to another school where the number of children is rising. Or, children are shifted to a different school. In the Downstate Suburbs and Upstate, enrollment could fall in an entire school district. If that district is unwilling to lay people off, even if they might be quickly rehired by the growing district next door, its cost per child will rise, and there will be lots of employees doing less work. And if enrollment subsequently increases, but employees now expect to be allowed to do less work, then costs per child will stay the same and overall costs will go up.
If instructional wages and salaries per child were 25% or 30% above the national average in the rest of the state, rather than over 50% higher, that would be something to celebrate. As it is, it is too much, even if a very powerful interest group doesn’t want to hear it. And remember, 50% above the U.S. is the average for the Downstate Suburbs and Upstate New York as a whole. Some districts spend far more. And the more those districts spend, the more difficult it is for New York City to hire qualified teachers, especially as other districts outbid them using the STAR money funded by New York City residents’ state taxes. Even in New York City, with all its high needs children, however, we are approaching the point where enough is enough, unless we want to blow more money on non-instructional staff. NYC residents need to be asking why our teachers aren’t the best, and class sizes are high, given the high instructional spending per student here.
Speaking of non-instructional spending per child, it is here that the rest of the state really differs from New York City. For years, pundits inside the city and out have demanded that New York City reduce its high level of wasteful spending outside the classroom, with some asserting that if only New York City’s non-instructional spending were at typical levels it would have plenty of money for teaching. There was perhaps no greater falsehood ever spread in the city’s fiscal debates. Instead, it is the rest of New York State that stands out in its sky-high non-instructional spending relative to the national average, while New York City has always been low. In fiscal 2005, non-instructional spending totaled $3,423 per student in New York City, or $2,554 if the cost of living is adjusted for, well below the national average of $3,400. The Downstate Suburbs (also adjusted for living costs), Upstate New York, and New Jersey (adjusted as well) far exceeded national average at $4,221, $4,350, and $4,449 respectively. Non-instructional spending is sky high in the rest of the state, relative to the national average, in virtually every sub-category – pupil support, instructional staff support, general administration, school administration, the physical plant, and student transportation. Food services is the exception.
The Suozzi Commission should ask why. Why is it fair to taxpayers for instructional wages and salaries per child to be so high? Do they really have to be that high to provide a quality education? Why is it fair for retirement benefits to be so lucrative, relative to what those who are paying the bills receive? Why are non-instructional costs so high compared with the national average, let alone New York City?
It would be hard to pin down a school superintendent on regional averages. But the Commission would also widely circulate the data in the spreadsheet attached to this post, which unfortunately will be the most recent available when this year’s school budgets are voted on. New data will be available in late May or June.
Why is it necessary to spend so much, compared with the U.S. average, or NYC with all its high needs kids? Depending on whether a respondent is from an affluent Downstate suburb or a poor Upstate town, they might provide one of two answers. The former might say that their residents pay a large share of state taxes, and if they want to spend on schools, that is their right, luxury-class or not, wasteful or not. The latter might say that they have greater needs, and if they need to spend more, paying for it is other people’s obligation. Somehow, however, for decades New York City has been expected to spend less, and receive a lower share of state education funding that its share of public school students, despite having a large share of the high needs children. And, somehow New York City has been forced to receive a lower share of state education funding than its residents’ share of state income taxes. The Downstate Suburbs say they deserve more, and the Upstate districts say they need more; both agree those living in New York City have irrelevant needs and deserve nothing.
In each of the past two recessions, New York City’s state education funding (including STAR) has been cut, while that of the rest of the state has been increased, as shown in the spreadsheet attached to this post. Expect it to happen again if a bad recession occurs; New York City’s share of state education funding, if not he absolute amount, is probably already being cut under Governor Spitzer’s proposal, and the state legislature will fight to cut the city’s “unfair” share even more.
Those considering raising children in New York City need to heed the lessons of the past. Now that the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit is over, and the state Court of Appeals has ruled that no matter how unjust the state school funding formula is there will be no consequences for those who benefit from it, expect an early 1990s recession to lead to NYC after school programs being eliminated, masses of experienced teachers departing with an early retirement incentive, to be replaced by a series of uncertified, art and music classes cut back, and class sizes increased. High school students, even in the better city high schools, may be unable to graduate because they are unable to get into courses that are required.
A worse recession, which some are predicting, could lead to the school year ending a month or two early when the money runs out, because the extent of the problem is papered over until the November 2008 elections and state funds for the rest of the state are not reduced. The damage will occur either in a Fiscal 2009 budget modification this November, or in the subsequent fiscal year. And just remember what all this “shared sacrifice” will be paying for. An unchallenged, unquestioned, sky-high level of spending elsewhere in the state that no one dares to talk about.