The View From Here . . .

There is certainly ample reason for sharp criticism of the New York State political system, which often comes down to secretive and contentious negotiations among "three men in a room" -- Governor George Pataki, Senate majority leader Joseph Bruno and Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver. This system has produced late budgets, dicey fiscal gimmicks as well as some of the highest taxes in the country. Nevertheless, the effects of a June 2003 decision by the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, relating to the financing of public schools in New York City and other big cities have managed to make a bad situation even worse.

In its decision, the Court of Appeals declared that the provision of the state constitution calling for a "sound basic education" was violated by the current level of funding in New York City schools. The court required the state to determine the amount needed to meet the constitutional standard, reform the funding standard and establish a comprehensive accountability system. Not surprisingly, the state did not come up with a revised budget and a court appointed panel found that New York City schools needed $5.6 billion more than the $12.6 billion that they currently receive annually to meet operating expenses. It should be noted that parallel cases involving the state's other big city school systems (Buffalo, etc.) will likely require an estimated $3 billion additional annually.

No doubt there are deficiencies in the schools of New York City and other major cities in the state, although one also suspects that many students entering the big city systems are not as well prepared for school as their counterparts in suburban or even rural areas. In addition, the Pataki administration did not help matters much by insisting that the "sound basic education" requirement applied only to eighth or ninth grade education rather than completion of high school.

The problem, however, with the Court of Appeals funding decision is that it applies an amorphous portion of the state constitution to take a crucial issue involving the state budget off the table, in effect substituting judicial judgments for political ones. For example, in mandating dramatically more spending, the decision assumes that there is a close correlation between school funding and quality education. While this correlation has an intuitive appeal, the Hoover Institute's Eric Hanushek has pointed out that national spending on education (in constant dollars) has approximately tripled since 1970 with relatively little improvement in actual results. Moreover, while improvement in teacher salaries can have a positive effect on the quality of instruction, the general lack of merit pay provisions under union contracts tends to dilute this effect.

More fundamentally, the court of appeals decision, again resting on relatively shaky constitutional grounds, in effect gives urban education a priority over numerous other possible budget initiatives, whether spending programs for parks, roads, the criminal justice system, other educational initiatives like the state university or aid for nonurban school districts or the possibility of tax relief to improve New York's business climate.

Since the decision of the Court of Appeals is basically unreviewable by a higher court, presumably the political system will have to cope with it eventually. The so-called temporary tax increases enacted this year are likely to remain in place and there may have to be cuts in other programs. It is unclear how much New York City and the other municipalities receiving benefits from the decision will be expected to contribute. But at bottom one questions a decision which gives this much influence to an unelected judiciary.