However, as a non-driving teacher, I want the union to fight for equal compensation for me. And maybe if they had helped Bloomberg reduce traffic by passing congestion pricing, he wouldn't have taken away so many permits.

More likely those not driving are younger. And as a result of the recent contract, which allowed current teachers to retire seven years early without paying an additional dime but will force newly hired teachers to pay far more into the pension plan, younger generations of teachers are screwed again.

As in all municipal contracts.

This parking argument is akin to the supposed class disparity some tried to highlight in their opposition to congestion pricing. It is not cheap to own and drive/park a car in New York, and if you are driving... well, you either have the money to afford it or you're making bad financial choices. It is relatively cheap to use transit, and transit is readily available in all boroughs.

If you're a public sector employee and you think the loss of free parking will suddenly be an unfair economic burden, you need to reconsider where you live, where you work, and how you connect the two. This is a fundamental choice everyone makes- not just in New York. If you're smart, you make the appropriate choice and don't leave yourself in a position where you "have to" drive. Particularly in such a congested environment where space should come at a premium.

Too bad we don't teach civics anymore.

Download that spreadsheet and take a look at total instructional pay and benefits per student in NYC in FY 2006. Multiple by your average class size. And compare the results (over $240K I'd guess) to what you are getting paid.

My guess is that it isn't even close.

But that's what happens every day.

And money is wasted on fancy consulting firms, new textbooks, useless computers and other assorted junk that only lines the pockets of publishers and outside firms.

Many of the teachers I know who live in the city sent their kids to Catholic schools.

For decades the city's schools have consisted of a small number of good schools intended to buy off a segment of the city's population, and a large number of bad schools intended to provide an income for those who didn't want to work, and a holding pen for those thought incapable of learning, while freeing up funding for pensions and schools in the rest of the state by being cheap. For a while I thought that might change, but lately I'm less optimistic.

In a word: yes. A few city schools are quite good but some are this bad. I stopped teaching in such a school because I was frustrated and unhappy that I could not find a way to be a part of a good school.

One teacher can't change a whole school if the system is totally dysfunctional. I'm taking about basics, like having phone numbers and addresses for parents that are up to date so teachers can call home. Having consistent discipline. Letting teachers know when students have learning divisibilities and providing proper support for those students. Giving ESL students bilingual teachers. Not switching text books every 2 years.

Losing such a huge class of committed parents (I think) is a net drain on the quality of education in the city. If more teachers had more of an interest in their own schools, that would be more time devoted to parental involvement in city schools - which is one of the biggest factors in seeing a school succeed.

Are the city schools truly such a Jonathan Kozolian nightmare that to send your children to public schools is to cut their futures out from under their feet? As a product of a big urban school district I have to say, this offends me.

While my curriculum might not been 100% Harvard approved, the "hidden curriculum" in urban schools is underrated. Once I got to college, I found my classmates who went to urban schools to be much more mature, balanced and enlightened (i.e. "less racist"). I'm very thankful I went to a big urban high school.

Yet everyone opting out of city schools is a big reason why the city schools struggle. At what point do we accept responsibility that crummy schools are a community problem, and make it socially uncouth to turn your back on them?

I'd think city teachers would be the natural constituency to lead this charge.

http://www.r8ny.com/blog/larry_littlefield/what_the_campaign_for_fiscal_equity_accomplished.html

And download the spreadsheet and print it.

NYC teachers were once highly undercompensated when the cost of living was taken into account. Today, however, instructional pay and benefits per child in NYC are far higher than the national average, and as high as in the suburbs or Upstate New York. The three are the same. This is a huge change.

The difference is that in NYC more of that compenstation is in the form of retirement benefits. The recent change in the retirement age from 62 to 55 will make this worse, and result in lower cash pay and higher class sizes.

What doesn't make sense is providing parking in schools in Manhattan below 96th street or Downtown Brooklyn, which can be reached from anywhere in the region quickly.

I like Larry's carpool idea. My Grandfather carpooled to Downtown Brooklyn for years with other teacher's living on Long Island.