So I came across this article:

Court Panel Says New York Schools Need Billions More
By GREG WINTER

Published: December 1, 2004


n a report that could transform New York City's public schools, a court-appointed panel has found that an additional $5.6 billion must be spent on the city's schoolchildren every year to provide the opportunity for a sound, basic education that they are guaranteed by the State Constitution.

Beyond that, the panel found that $9.2 billion worth of new classrooms, laboratories, libraries and other facilities were needed to relieve overcrowding, reduce class sizes and give the city's 1.1 million public school students adequate places to learn.

The report is a major turning point in a lawsuit that could reshape the way education is financed in the state, and is being watched closely by politicians and educators around the nation. Nearly every state has battled over school spending in court, but the case in New York is one of the country's biggest, both in terms of the money at stake and the number of children affected.

Justice Leland DeGrasse, the judge overseeing the case in State Supreme Court, appointed the panel this summer after lawmakers in Albany missed a one-year deadline imposed by the state's highest court to stop shortchanging the city and fix what it called the "systemic failure" of New York's schools.

It is widely assumed that Justice DeGrasse will now draw heavily from the panel's findings as he decides how much more money the city's schools are owed. The state could then appeal, though New York's highest court largely upheld Justice DeGrasse's earlier rulings.

The figure the panel recommended - a 43 percent increase to the city's $12.9 billion school budget - came very close to what the city said it needed. It was almost identical to the amount sought by the plaintiffs in the case and nearly tripled what Gov. George E. Pataki's lawyers had proposed in court. But how much of the money should come from the state or from the city itself the panel did not say, leaving unanswered one of the most daunting and contentious questions facing the lawmakers responsible for coming up with the money. [News analysis, Page B4.]

"We're ecstatic," said Michael A. Rebell, executive director of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, the group that brought the case on the ground that the city's lack of money, especially in light of the poverty of its students, deprived children of an adequate education. In the 1999-2000 school year, for instance, New York City spent an average of $10,469 per student, state records show, compared with the $13,760 per student spent in the wealthier surrounding suburbs.

"Now," Mr. Rebell said, "we need to roll up our sleeves and make sure the Legislature enacts this reform so that the children can get what they need." The report is a significant step toward a court takeover of what has traditionally been a legislative role: deciding exactly how much money should be spent on schools.

Throughout the 11 years that the case has wended its way through the state's courts, judges have taken pains not to dictate exactly how much extra money should be spent on the city's schoolchildren. But the Legislature essentially forfeited that prerogative by its own inaction, the panel said. "It therefore falls, by default, to the judiciary to fashion an appropriate remedy to ensure that the sound basic education constitutional mandate is honored," wrote the panel of referees, selected by Justice DeGrasse.

Its members are E. Leo Milonas, a former state appellate judge and past president of the City Bar Association; William C. Thompson, a former New York City Council member, state senator and appellate judge, who is the father of the city's comptroller; and John D. Feerick, the former dean of Fordham University School of Law, who was also a president of the City Bar Association.

In its report, the panel called for an unusually aggressive timetable, giving the state no more than 90 days to devise and begin enacting a plan that would eventually put an extra $5.6 billion every year toward running the city's schools. It gave the state four years to reach the full amount, starting with $1.4 billion in the first year, $2.8 billion in the second, and $4.2 billion in the third. The governor has said that the state can eventually raise as much as $2 billion a year from video lottery terminals. How the rest - which would have amounted to an average of an extra $339 on every state income tax return in 2001 - would be raised remains an open question.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then I got to thinking...$10,500 per student as it is? Plus a 49% increase? That puts the total at what...$15,000 dollars per student?

What the article doesn't say is what the average cost per student is in new York State...which is around six grand a year. This court appointed panel is suggesting this remarkable increase in spending, when the city schools are already spending far more than the average school, and achieving far less results. Then look at what the average private schools spends (far less than public schools) and it just makes you wonder.

I got into a heated argument last night on Soul Seek about school vouchers. Personally, I believe that if you took the present budget, cut in half, and gave it to families to choose their own schools, that the goal of education would be far better achieved than the present NYC school system. But that's just me.

What was interesting was the arguments that came from individuals against school voucher's. And I am curious what others against school vouchers think.

- The argument against them starts of as, "how are you going to fix the public schools system by taking money away from it? All we need to do is spend more money on public schools (as suggested by the article) in order to correct the problems.

- But quickly the argument changed to, "the reason students in private schools and suburban schools do better has nothing to do with money, but it is due to the parents raising them. Poor people live in a horrible environment, and their parents won't care enough to send their kids and educate their kids."

Which led me to believe that this group of a dozen or so anti-voucher folks feel that we need to drastically increase spending like in NYC for kids that have absolutely no hope anyway in achieving success.

I seriously, for the life of me, cannot figure out why every day leftists are against school vouchers. I understand why political figures, union leaders, and teachers are against them...but gosh, why so many people like you guys?

Discuss.

The majority of private schools are religious, and I oppose vouchers going to religious schools.

However, I do not oppose vouchers going to non-religious institutions.

Oh yeah, and I'm not a leftist.

I can understand that some people would be against these dollars going to parochial schools. I'll accept it, but I'll still feel that if a poor catholic family wants to send their kids to a catholic school, that they should be able to do so.

But this kicks up internal problems with myself...let's not get into that.

Anyhow, I think the important thing to take into consideration is that most people feel just like you Habit. They don't want to send their kids to parochial schools, but they want their children out of public schools. This would open up a market for private non-religious institutions.

It's funny you mention non-religious private schools, LittleWing. The guy that used to own the company I work for now had (he just sold it) a private, non-church-affiliated school down in the Miami area. Apparently it's quite popular for parents seeking a private school education without the church business. I wonder if this will be a growing trend...

It will never, ever be a trend so long as the vast majority of of families have absolutely no ability to send their kids to such schools.

If they encouraged Teachers out of college to try and start at a non-religious private school it could develop into a trend. Private schools work better because of the environment. More emphasis is placed on academics (it's cool to be smart and make good grades) than is placed on sports, cheerleading, etc. Kids tend to blend into their environment thus a good learning environment produces good results.

I think there is an emphasis on sports/sportsmanship at private schools, but yeah, I'd say the real emphasis is purely on academics. I think one of the huge reasons why parents would want to send their children to a private school is that you don't get a lot of riff-raff. You do get the jerky rich kids that will scar others for life (it's happened before I'm sure), but I think not worrying about violence is a big concern. I'd say it's pretty safe to assume that a private school is less prone to student killings than a public school. And there's really no need to find some exception to that. We all know exceptions exist with everything.

I wish I still had my schooling issue posts from the old board.

Don't forget that 85% of the cost difference between public and private schools costs relates to the various services schools provide (free breakfasts for low income families, materials for some students, special ed services, ESL services, bussing for both public and private school students). When it says x amount of money per student is being spent, that's not classroom cash, it's simply dividing the total by the number of students, so it's not really an accurate way to show how much is being spent on kids' educations.

Also, when ESL and special ed students (who make up 15% or more of most district's students, but less than 1% of private school students) are factored in, private and public schools perform equally on standardized tests and public school students who go on to college average slightly higher GPAs.

I've got those stats somewhere around here. If I have time after lesson planning tonight I'll post them.

As I've mentioned in the past, I very much am open and curious about privatizing schooling. I provide this information not because I oppose the idea, but because the supporting evidence in this case is dubious.

You bring up some interesting points LW, and I would add that it is a shame that most of the tax payer referendum pork will not go to paying teachers or to students, but probably to school board bureaucrats and unnecessary facility work.

I went to private school myself. My brothers and I did not have parents by the time we got to high school (we lived with my grandparents), but we were able to continue to attend private school by participating in work study and recieving scholarships/grants.

On the one hand, public school is "free" for the masses, so that even the poorest can attend. On the other hand, public school is not "free" because it is paid for with taxes. An argument many have against going to a purely free market, private school plan is that the poorest may not have an opportunity to afford schooling for thieir children. Now, if a system could be set up in which parents could recieve financial aid of some sort or assistance to send their kids to school, I believe many more would support this type of thing.

The main argument for going private is increasing the quality of education for those in attendance. The main argument against is how education can still be available to everyone regardless of economic status. If that question could be answered, and there very well may be answers to it, the situation becomes a bit more interesting.

Throughout history, one of the only ways to improve social and economic status is through education. As society has moved from the aristocratic to merit system for advancement, education has become the critical factor for success. Many of our best and brightest leaders and innovators have risen from poor backgrounds....becoming successful because they had the opportunity to attend school and become educated (albeit due to taxes, grants, scholarship, financial aid, loans, etc). There are always exceptions as well, but it would not necessarily be in our best interest to not offer a child a shot at becoming educated and successful because he or she cannot merely afford it.

Privatization of schools is an interesting topic with many upsides, but there are still many questions that need to be answered as well.

Good topic!

Bare in mind, I'm not trying to tear down the public school system here. I'm very aware that there are some damn good public schools out there. My issue by and large rests in inadequate inner city and rural schools which are just...disasterous.

I'm also aware that there are some bad private schools out there too. Take for instance the Charter Schools. The Charter Schools were bad schools, they got horrid results. However, the parents that sent their kids to those schools had the choice to pull their kids out the Charter Schools, and the business failed completely. New York City public schools have...well...failed completely. Poor people don't have the option of removing their children from these schools.

I also understand that special needs students tie up money in the public school system. The No Child Left Behind Act (Bring Every Child Down to the Lowest Common Denominator Act) doesn't help things either as it puts problem children and slow learners in with gifted and smart kids. It brings down the entire system. One thing I like about a school voucher system, is that not only would it open up a market for schools catering to parents with a desire to send their kids to non-denominational private schools, but it would also open up a market to open schools which specifically cater to special needs kids. Such schools, specializing in this one area, would be far better at teaching these kids than public schools...where these kids are tossed into regular classes that they can't compete in...

Interesting points.

Throwing money at education will never give students a better quality education. It might give them nicer facilities, more books, computers, etc...but those things do not equal a better education. The kids who want to learn will learn, the kids who want to sleep in class will sleep. It's always been that way, and it will always continue to be that way. Now, if the goal is to IMPROVE the facilities, then by all means...give them the money...but don't tell me that speding thousands of dollars on new "material goods" will actually benefit the students overall education.

Opportunity and vast resources do NOT equal a guaranteed higher level of education. They equal...more opportunity and vast resources. It's still up to the teachers and students to take advantage of those opportunities and resources.

If you want to throw money around, give it to the teachers...and at least use it to cover the costs of supplies for students so that they don't have to pay for them out of their own pocket. That will give you a more fiscally secure teacher, a happier teacher, a more loyal teacher...and THUS...a better teacher who can now worry about the students instead of his or her paycheck...THUS...delivering an ACTUAL better level of education to their studens, which no computer or new desk can duplicate.

Now why couldn't you have started your post with the third paragraph where you have consolidated all of the sense instead of leading with something that sounds like the standard conservative crap?

--PunkDavid (you really got it pretty much right on overall)

I don't think we should throw more money at teachers...not at all. Catholic schools pay their teachers crap...just friggin' crap. Yet, Catholic schools are some of the best schools, if not the best category of schools in America. One of the reasons this is, is because the teachers are there TO TEACH! Not to bring home a fat paycheck and a pension. The only thing increasing wages would do would be to recruit crappy teachers looking for a fat paycheck, a tenure, and a pension.

So, could you say the same thing about professional athletes? Just get out there and play? Or CEOs? Are they there just to execute?



Or, maybe it would recruit better teachers who would take the job if it paid more? I can personally say that I would be more up to teaching if it paid better.

Obviously, increasing teacher pay isn't a panacea. But it can't be ignored, either.

Hi LW,

I can attest that this is only part of the story, but you are right about the private school teachers certainly being solid. I spent 12 years in Catholic school and we had some that were both ways...some who were there for years and others who came and went because of the small pay. I think that if there were less competition from public schools, private school teachers could earn more than they do now. Also, plenty of money that is set aside for schools does not often reach teachers, with higher wages going to administrative positions (whom many could argue, do less work [less vital work] than the teachers themselves).

I want to see teachers paid reasonably well, because it is a difficult job. I teach undergrads and can attest to the fact that I would not want to teach younger students. The hours are long and though we are dedicated, it is nice to have security as well. I would certainly work at a private institution provided I make enough to support a family and have health care. That certainly does not mean a "fat" paycheck by any means, but I believe a comfortable living is appropriate for teachers.

Holy shitballs, I agree just about completely with everything you said. Which I thought would never happen after your "fuck the liberals, get on the Right Wing Deathstar" post on Nov. 3.

I personally think GH you are correct. Teachers are paid shit now and better pay would attract people. I'm sure there are people out there that would be fantastic teachers but don't do it because the pay is shit. I think teachers, policemen, firefighters, and others should be paid a lot more.

LW, I honestly think that increasing pay will not recruit crappy teachers looking for a fat paycheck. We're not talking 6 figures here but a decent wage should be acceptable. This will attract more people.

Because I'm full of the standard conservative crap David...it's just oozing out of my pores...Say what you will, but I did not start on some rant about "evil liberals" or the "out of touch" left wingers...I simply stated my opinion. It may be conservative crap, but I like to roll around in it and rub it in my hair.

LOL! Good deal my friend...every now and then I may just surprise you.