Rewarding Failure

New York City's public education system spends about $34,000 per student. That's the highest in the nation, more than double the $15K national average, and up more than 50% in the past decade or so.

New York City's traditional public education enrollment has, meanwhile, been declining for years. A combination of declining birthrates and emigration have seen a decrease of more than 10% in the past five years, with the most recent year breaking that trend and staying flat only because of a large migrant influx. The downward trend is expected to continue.

Adding to the decline is the charter school boom, with about 15% of the city's kids now attending them.

With great success - charter kids measurably outperform kids in traditional schools.

That success is considered such a threat by the entrenched education establishment that stark opposition and fear-mongering are perpetual. Oh, and lies. We are told that charters bleed resources from the system, but NYC charters only receive about $16K in public funds for each kid that enrolls, meaning that half the spending a kid would normally receive stays behind. That, too, is certainly a contributor to the climb in per-student spending.

One might think that all this adds up to an opportunity to save some money, to at least hold per-student spending level as the enrollment declines, and thereby either reduce the taxpayers' burden or reallocate that spending to other areas.

Oh, no, not hardly.

Accidental Governor Kathy Hochul briefly considered paring spending in light of reduced enrollment, but reversed course in an obvious knee-bend to the powerful teachers' unions that have been roadblocking systemic improvements for decades. Hochul is a disaster, but disasters that keep the gravy train rolling can survive their own ineptness for quite a while, especially in states like New York where party partisans rubber-stamp whoever emerges from the primary and who'd rather chew hot asphalt than vote for the other team.

This is the great peril of single-party rule, when the party is addicted to power and spending.

So, tax dollars that might otherwise be left on the productive side of the public-private chasm are going to be flushed down the toilet. A system that is losing customers is actually being rewarded by being allowed to continue receiving the same funding. Imagine a business that had to serve fewer customers, but because it thrived on a coercive revenue stream, didn't see its gross sales decrease. The people in that business would be dancing for joy. Fewer customers to serve means more money to be slopped out of the hog trough.

Is it any wonder I have such disdain for government?