GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

Here is another New York Times article from the weekend, which shows why money for the classroom keeps going down despite the highest state and local tax burden and public education spending per student in the U.S.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/nyregion/fragile-calculus-in-plans-to-fix-pension-systems.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion
 
The upshot?  As much as NYC taxpayer pension contributions have soared in the past decade, the city is still underfunding its pensions and going deeper in the hole. Which means the cycle of less money for education despite more spent on education is likely to continue, with a big hit deferred to the next Mayor.
 
I guess the Times has a hidden agenda, because it continues to go off topic and talk about the past that only it cares about.
 
The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, meanwhile, released another estimate of the underfunding of major pension plans a few days ago.  Even with fairly optimistic assumptions, the NYC plans are in big trouble.
 
http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/the-funding-of-state-and-local-pensions-2011-2015/
 
I suggest printing out the full brief and looking at the table in the back.  Why is the New York City teacher pension plan so much worse off than the New York State teacher pension plan, which covers teachers in the rest of the state, even though taxpayers in the rest of the state stopped contributing anything for a few years back around 2000?  Why is the New York City pension plan about as bad off as New Jersey, where taxpayers did not contribute a dime for years?
 
No one has given me an answer.  Perhaps because those whose idea of a discussion is shouting down things they don’t want to hear don’t want the question asked.

Note the quote below from Bloomberg, which is as an straightforward admission as you’ll see that, as bad as its gotten, NYC’s pension spending isn’t going to decline as a percentage of the budget anytime soon.  Bloomberg thinks the pension funds’ growth assumptions are “laughable,” even though he continues to base the city’s contributions on those assumptions.  Bloomberg and his successor, whoever he or she is, seem intent on turning a serious budget problem into a full-blown and chronic crisis. How about just telling the public how much they actually owe the funds?

“The actuary is supposedly going to lower the assumed reinvestment rate from an absolutely hysterical, laughable 8 percent to a totally indefensible 7 or 7.5 percent,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a trip to Albany in late February. “If I can give you one piece of financial advice: If somebody offers you a guaranteed 7 percent on your money for the rest of your life, you take it and just make sure the guy’s name is not Madoff.” 

The MSM has been all in with Bloomberg since they backed term limit repeal.  I expect that when he is gone and a Dem is in, the gloves will be off.  The pols get elected by promising something for nothing.  The MSM will sell papers by demanding the same.

One point — the assumed rate of return has NO effect on how much money has to contributed.  Only on when it has to be contributed.  If you assume more, that just means you have to kick in more when you don’t get it, in the future. The very future Generation Greed hasn’t cared much about.

“One point — the assumed rate of return has NO effect on how much money has to contributed.  Only on when it has to be contributed.  If you assume more, that just means you have to kick in more when you don’t get it, in the future.”

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but this doesn’t make sense to me.  It’s my understanding that the Office of the Actuary calculates NYC’s contributions each year based on a number of variables that include not only the value of the funds’ assets but also assumptions about mortality rates, inflation, workers’ salary increases, and the rate of return on the funds’ investments.  It’s also my understanding that these calculations include forward-looking assumptions so that, in theory at least, the  contributions that the city makes *today* will be sufficient to meet the funds’ *future* obligations.  And, as with any investment fund, a change to any of the variables should have an impact on the calculated contribution.  See, e.g., http://tinyurl.com/7cyz2lp (listing demographic and economic assumptions used by the OA for determining employer contributions).

Re: Afterschool Cuts.

A lot, and I mean A LOT of parents of students in my school do not work. Some have never worked a day in their short adult lives. All a parent has to do to qualify for afterschool is to fill out the paperwork (which often leaves the child sitting in the main office for a few weeks until mom or “dad” gets around to filling out said paperwork and sending it back.)

I often see students who are chronically absent during school hours being dropped off to afterschool when the parents have finally woken up and are ready to go out. Calling ACS on those parents never yields long term results.

I propose that in order to qualify for afterschool, parents must submit a copy of their w2. Anyone who does not work and exists as part of the generational welfare system can pick their child up and watch them at home. There is no accountability for the parents and many take advantage of the system. Save after school for this that really need it. The “if it’s free it’s for me,” mentality needs to end.