psst -- it's a conspiracy, lawrence. don't you get it?

You might have missed this, but the NYC School system was essentially put out of business a little over a year ago, and many of the people who were running it were fired, replaced by new leadership and an entirely new administrative structure. I agree with that.

I also agree with school choice -- when the new administrative structure was up for debate, I wrote in to suggest three school competing school systems, one run by an appointee of the Mayor, one run by an appointee of the City Council, and one run by an appointee of the Borough Presidents. They chose to replace an unaccountable monopoly with an accountable one that -- from the teacher's point of view -- is a near monopsony.

What I want to know is why so many people are willing to say that New York City's schools have enough money, or too much money, yet no one dares to ask a question about the far higher level of public school spending, staffing and pay elsewhere in the state. No liberals, not conservatives, not Republicans, not Democrats, not the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, not the Business Council of New York State. Not you either. No one.

You are free to assert that the New York City schools do not require more money. As long as you will also agree that schools in the rest of the state should have their funding, and their staffing, cut by 25 percent. That's right 25 percent.

The high level of spending and staffing in the rest of the state is something that no one dares to bring up. But (among other things) the level of non-instructional staff in sections of the state outside the city, relative to population, is more than double the level in New York City. And New York City residents are taxed to pay for it.

Send me an e-mail, I'll send you a spreadsheet or two from the 2002 Census of Governments.

Lawrence: The NYC school system budget is well over $12 billion dollars, $5.6 billion of which comes from the state. You can quibble about the state funding formula if you like, but schoolchildren are NOT suffering due to lack of $$$. Rather, it's a dysfunctional, burecratic system that offers the poor no choice and its employees no incentives to perform. While I recognize that schools face many problems that are beyond their control, for $12B, they can do much better. The state of public education in NYC is a crime.

"Only measures with broad support pass."

Among the interests that matter. Then they go looking for victims to pay for it. The losers? New York City's schoolchildren, who have been cheated on state school aid for 30 years. Freelancers and entrepreneurs, who don't get special tax deals and have two income taxes on the same income. New public employees, who are given lower salaries to offset the richer pensions of those cashing in and moving away. Young people in general, who will be left paying taxes not for services but just to pay off this enormous debt. That's what perpetual incumbency has given us.

I plan to be here, and hope my children will stay here, in the future, and I will have enough. Many of my generation (born 1960 to 1965) moved here in their 20s but were forced to leave, reluctantly, when their children reached school age, as a result of state policy. It took me 20 years to figure how bad things were, and why. If you want to stay here, I'd advise you not to wait that long.

Disfunctional or differently functional? The state senate has been in the control of the Republican party and the state house in the control of the Democrats for as long as I can remember (and I'm probably older than you) .

What this means is that only measures with broad, bipartisan support pass. This seems to be the way that most Americans *want* their government to run. Since the large grouop of independant voters is the swing vote, they can make sure this happens and, in many cases, it seems they do.

Otherwise, as soon as one party controls the whole ball of wax, they start passing the loony ideas. But having this balance means that the extremists of both parties don't screw it up for the rest of us.