New York City leaders view the public education system as the city's most challenging public policy issue and a majority favor giving the mayor direct authority over the public schools, according to a survey conducted by graduate students at the Picker Center for Executive Education, which is part of Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA).

The survey of 53 New York City leaders included Robert Wood Johnson, Fran Reiter and Christyne Lategano-Nicholas. A copy of the survey, "New York City at the Crossroads: Perspectives on Critical Issues Facing the City," is available at http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/empa/finalreport.pdf.

Thirty-two percent of the respondents rated public education as one of the city's three most challenging public policy issues, up from 18 percent in 1992, when this survey was last conducted. In the 2001 survey, 13 percent listed housing and 12 percent named infrastructure as the other top challenging public policy issues. These findings are markedly different from the 1992 survey, which found business and economic development (16 percent) and quality of life/cost of living (12 percent) as the two other most pressing public policy issues. In addition, 90 percent of the 2001 participants said New York City is a better place to live than it was 10 years ago and 78 percent expressed optimism about the city's future.

Participants in the 2001 survey saw both improvement and regression on the top public policy issues. They found greatest improvement in the city's crime rate, its image and its environment for business. However, they saw declines in the public school system, affordable housing and the cost of living.

"The results of this survey clearly tell us that every candidate running for office in the city should have a Post-It note with the message 'It's the school system, stupid!' affixed to the bathroom mirror," said George Perlov, the project's manager. "If decisive policy changes aren't made to the system now, we will only see further decline in the next 10 years, and New York can't afford that kind of loss."

"New York City's leaders agree with many other New Yorkers: the city has gotten better in many ways, but these improvements have been selective, leaving many no better off than they were 10 years ago," said SIPA Professor William Eimicke, who was the faculty director of the project.

A March 2001 survey of New York City residents by Columbia's School of Social Work, "Pulling Ahead, Falling Behind," offered similar results. For a copy of this study, go to www.siscenter.org/sisreport1999.pdf.

"The problems enumerated in the latest survey are serious issues that must have the attention and commitment of key leaders who can motivate others to change the system," said Marion Greenup, senior vice president for education and health promotion at the March of Dimes. "Not to do so is costly and hampers our ability to thrive."

In order to solve the city's education problems, participants suggested giving the mayor direct authority over the school system, investing in leadership development and teacher training, and increasing teachers' salaries.

"Until there is quality education for all kids in this city, we ensure that poor kids are not prepared to success in this economy," said Arthur Levine, president of Columbia Teachers College.

"The schools have always been a source of hope. There remains a big question, though: Will the city produce the kind of leadership needed for the next century?" said Joseph Viteritti, a research professor of Public Administration at New York University.

On affordable housing, respondents suggested offering incentives to encourage developers to build in a variety of neighborhoods, streamlining the bureaucratic process of building affordable homes and phasing out rent control to allow more housing development.

Survey respondents were selected based on their expertise and their familiarity with New York City's private, non-profit and public enterprises. Elected officials and individuals currently seeking public office were excluded. Interviews were conducted by phone and in-person from the end of May through June. The survey included three parts: 1) respondents' assessments of change (i.e., improvement, decline, or no change) in public policy areas; 2) respondents' views of the city's most challenging public policy issues, and 3) identification of solutions for the most pressing city problems.

For part one, interviewees were asked to estimate New York City's performance in 26 public policy areas during the past decade. Respondents were also allowed to name and rate public policy issues not listed. The categories for assessing the degree of change were the following: "extremely negative," "negative," "no change," "positive" or "extremely positive." Numerical values ranging from –2 for "extremely negative" to +2 for "extremely positive" were assigned to each response, then tallied for a distribution of frequency. The results represented the degree of change in performance of one issue relative to the others.

For part two, respondents were asked to select what they saw as the three most pressing issues based on the 26 public policy issues listed in part one. For part three, respondents offered solutions for the most pressing city problems and noted the resources necessary to make these changes.