While many about town no doubt see yesterday’s decision from the state’s highest court in the case of Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York as a victory for New York City’s school children, it is really a triumph of the Judiciary over the Legislature. Regardless of how much money is sufficient to educate the city’s children — and such a thing can never be determined objectively — the decision historically rests with the Legislature. Otherwise, one has to ask why the citizens of New York bother to elect a Legislature to haggle over roads, schools, senior centers, health care, tax cuts, tax hikes, and the like. If a court can override the Legislature at any time, what are we paying Senate Majority Leader Bruno and Assembly Speaker Silver for?

As Judge Susan Read states at the outset of her dissenting opinion — she stood alone against a four-judge majority — this case was not about whether education is important or whether New York City has done a poor job of it. Rather, it is about the court’s ability to dictate educational policy to our elected leaders. The court directs the state to come up with a number for what it costs to provide a “sound basic education,” which the court defines as: “a meaningful high school education, one which prepares [young people] to function productively as civic participants.” It must do this by July 30, 2004, and then it must make sure that every school in New York City has enough money to meet this new standard. A trial court will then check the Legislature’s work, which is certain to lead to another appeal and then another, ad infinitum. Those wishing to see New York’s future can look to New Jersey, where the Supreme Court undertook a similar project of dictating to the Legislature on education policy, leading to litigation that has lasted from 1973 to today.

The New York State Constitution mandates only that: “The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educated.” There is no talk of a “sound basic education”or the new convoluted standard promulgated yesterday. Thus, one has to ask where the court has found its basis in the law. Does “educated” mean eighth grade, 12 th grade, graduate school? Neither the framers of the Constitution nor the Legislature have ever defined the term. Yet the court has decided that whatever the Constitution means, New York City’s schools need more money to be up to snuff.

And where did the judges come across this fixation on money? In the last 30 years, per pupil spending on education — adjusted for inflation — has doubled in America. Student achievement on national assessment tests has remained flat. Much more promising results are making themselves apparent in voucher and charter school programs across the country, including here in New York State, as the Sun has reported. The cost to educate the students in New York’s Catholic schools averages $3,200 a pupil for kindergarten through eighth grade and $5,800 a pupil for high schoolers, according to the Archdiocese of New York.

The court wants to send more money to New York City’s schools, but where will it come from? One can bet that upstate schools won’t take the hit — just try to pull that over on Mr. Bruno. So the money will come from either another program, which our elected legislators presumably determined to be a higher priority than sending more money to the Big Apple, or in the form of higher taxes, again in contravention of the Legislature’s wishes. Also, where will the money really go? Additional school funds may simply end up in the pockets of United Federation of Teachers members, useless consultants, or the proprietors of questionable curricula.

As Judge Read writes in her conclusion: “[Judges] are not…well suited to make the subtle judgments inherent in education policymaking or to assess how the State of New York may best allocate its limited resources to meet its citizens’ educational and other pressing needs.” Words to remember as our state’s education system comes more and more to resemble how New York City administers homeless services — over a political barrel and under a judge’s gavel.