CBC Anticipates School Budget Increase
After Court Decision and Masters' Report

By Henry J. Stern
December 6, 2004


An Informative and Interesting Conference
 
The Citizens Budget Commission, one of New York's most respected civic groups, held a two-day conference on education last week in Palisades, N.Y. I was fortunate enough to be one of the two hundred or so that were invited to attend.
 
The thrust of the meeting was how the billions of additional dollars that are supposed to be allocated to education as a result of the Court of Appeals decision in June 2003 could be spent most effectively. The title of the meeting was "Can New York Get an A in School Finance Reform?"

Six working papers were prepared for the conference: "Promoting Accountability," "Finding Space for a Sound Basic Education," "Tax Revenue Options," "Lessons for Other States," "Educational Efficiencies: Saving Within the Educational System" and "Gambling Revenues." Written by CBC trustees, members and staff, these papers were substantive and substantial, the kind of research for which CBC is well-regarded.
 
The opening speaker was former Governor Howard Dean of Vermont. He seemed much calmer than he was earlier in the year. He talked about school reform in Vermont while he was governor (August 1991 to January 2003). State Comptroller Alan Hevesi spoke the next day and gave a witty, sophisticated presentation about how broke the state is, and how difficult it will be to increase the existing heavy financial burdens, including those caused by excessive off-budget borrowing. His humor disguised the disaster he described.   Expert panels examined specific aspects of various education systems, the effects of infusion of money into the education budgets of several states, and how taxes could be raised to comply with the court decision.
 
The general assumption at the meeting was that "help is on the way" — the Democrats' theme in 2004 — and that the remaining issue was how to make the best use of the money to improve the schools. The speakers were knowledgeable and well-intentioned. The audience consisted of intelligent people who had a deep interest, volunteer or professional, in education issues. For me, it was a learning experience in what the education culture believes at this time. The meeting was a constructive effort, financed by the Andrew Mellon Foundation, and required a great deal of work by CBC, its participating trustees, its chair, Dale Hemmerdinger, and its staff, headed by CBC President Diana Fortuna.

 
Don't Count Your Chickens Before They're Hatched
 
Our own point of view was somewhat less sanguine than the attitude of many of the participants. We thought that there might not be as much money as the billions they anticipate receiving, that inflation would consume some of it, and that there were more court proceedings ahead before the new revenues could be assured. Legislative action will be required as well, since we doubt that even our activist Court of Appeals would decide to impose new taxes on its own.

There remain the issues of which districts, city or rural, are likely to receive most of the new money, and whether city or state taxes will be increased for it. Remember that since the city is part of the state, city residents and businesses pay both city and state taxes.
 
The most powerful force in education in New York today is, by far, is the United Federation of Teachers, the New York City affiliate of New York State United Teachers. They have a profound interest not only in higher salaries and, consequently, higher pensions, but also in maintaining work rules that severely limit the power of school management. Everyone knows how hard it is to fire a teacher; an arbitrator just ruled in favor of a male teacher who had sent obscene letters to and harassed a teenage girl in his class. It is also next to impossible to move teachers to another school; they often have tenure not only in their jobs, but in particular locations. Over the years, management powers have eroded as successive contracts included more details of school operation. No private company could operate competitively with these restrictions. But public schools are not competitive; they have a monopoly on free education.
 
Unlike fire and sanitation, where there are finite standards defining good performance and specific amounts of money can be appropriated to meet those standards, education is an area in which more money can always be spent. Class sizes can be reduced, special and bilingual education enhanced, more psychological and guidance services provided, more schools built or renovated, etc.
 
The arrival of substantial new funding should be the occasion for changing some of the work rules that not only adversely affect the cost of operations, but also impede the children's access to good teachers. If that is not done — and it seems unlikely that it will be — a few years from now we will probably have another lawsuit claiming that New York State is failing to provide its students "a sound basic education."
 
Educational issues which verge on political questions are more difficult to consider, and perhaps require a different setting than a large conference. The problem of school reform is inexorably related to decisions on school financing. It would be a shame if the Court of Appeals usurped the function of the governor and the State Legislature because of a great need it perceived, and in the end no better educational results were achieved. That would happen if the educational establishment were simply enabled to serve more effectively the pressure groups whose phone banks and political contributions enable them to dominate the field of public education in New York State. Since judges and masters are unwilling to dip their toes into the details of how the money is spent, the chances are that the usual suspects will prevail.
 
Criticism of the role of the UFT is not intended to suggest that the Department of Education has always behaved correctly since it gained responsibility for the school system from the justly discredited Board of Education. We have been disappointed by DOE's peremptory retirement of many fine educators simply because the new crowd carelessly identified valuable managers with their former employers. We are unimpressed with the cadre of yuppies without relevant background who have been hired to oversee divisions in DOE.

I hired many young people at Parks, but they were paid $25,000 a year, not the $125,000 they receive at Tweed. Their job was to assist until they learned to manage; they were not just taking a breather from Goldman Sachs (a fine firm). I am enormously proud of the achievements of my staff after they left Parks. I hope many of the new crowd stay in public education, if they are competent.
 
On the other hand and to his credit, Chancellor Joel Klein has been the first to attempt major education reform, and he is unafraid to take worthwhile initiatives despite opposition. His choice of Diana Lam was an error that the mayor corrected. His efforts to end abuses in special and bilingual education are particularly praiseworthy. He has raised substantial private funds to help the schools.  In general, the system is better because of his work.  It is unclear whether, as the UFT claims, he rejected their offer to end work rules in fifty or one hundred schools, whether the offer was actually made, or what conditions were tied to its acceptance.
 
Somehow, whoever the mayor happens to be, this particular union manages to become highly critical. Their leaders guessed wrong three times in the 2001 mayoral campaign — in the primary, runoff and general election. But to elect a pliant mayor, they only have to guess right once. And with the potential windfall of billions of new dollars for education, the stakes will be higher than ever in 2005.