“PROGRESSIVE” NYC MAYOR TELLS BEST PERFORMING CHARTER SCHOOLS IN THE STATE TO DROP DEAD

19 comments

Posted on 5th March 2014 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , , ,

Let’s cut through all of the crap. The charter schools run by Eva Moskowitz are hugely successful – meaning they produce far better educated children than the disgraceful NYC public schools. Her schools got 13,000 applications from parents for 2,000 spots. Parents desperately want their kids in these schools. They cost the NYC taxpayers 30% less per child and one of the schools produced the highest average math scores in the entire state of New York. All of the kids in this school were minorities from poor households.The mayor of NYC is closing them down.

De Blasio doesn’t give a flying fuck about the kids. The NYC teacher’s union doesn’t give a flying fuck about the kids. They care about power, votes, bloated pensions, no accountability for results, and their own warped liberal agenda. Moskowitz pays her teachers 35% more than the drones in the public school system, but holds them accountable for results – highly educated and motivated children. What a concept.

The liberal progressive union scum show their true colors when they pull this shit. Obama and his minions are willing to destroy this country in order to inflict their failed ideology on the masses.

Via The Daily Beast

Why Is Progressive Hero Bill de Blasio Throwing Charter Schools Out of New York City?

Success Academy shares space with public schools in the same building, and New York’s mayor is willing to fight his own party to kick them out.
When does a local education fight become a national bellwether? When it touches a policy lightning rod, scrambles partisan allegiances, and involves political actors who stand in for whole political ideologies.And, sure, it helps when the locale staging the fight is New York City.New mayor Bill de Blasio made waves last Thursday when his administration withdrew three agreements that would have allowed public charter schools to share space with district schools in public school buildings. The affected schools are all part of the Success Academy network of schools, which was founded by Eva Moskowitz, a former New York City councilmember. These “co-location” agreements were approved last October, under previous mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration.While some of the city’s public charter schools operate out of privately owned buildings, all Success Academy schools are co-located with district schools. According to Ann Powell, communications director for Success Academy, the network sees this as a “civil rights issue…[our] parents shouldn’t have to pay rent. Our students are public school kids.” Indeed, while public charter schools are free from some of the regulations that district schools must follow they are still publicly funded.

But de Blasio—and others—have argued that this “abhorrent” arrangement amounts to giving public charters a free ride. Leo Casey, Executive Director of the Albert Shanker Institute and a former vice president of New York’s teachers union, suggested that it’s about more than just rent: “Eva Moskowitz’s schools are a particularly egregious case…every school is co-located and as a co-location, what they get for free is not only the building, the facilities itself, not only the space that’s up to code, etc. They get the food [and] janitorial services.”

When asked about these costs, Powell noted that public charter schools receive $13,527 in public funds for each student. Traditional district schools receive just over $19,076 in public funds for each student.

In response, Casey noted that the city’s Independent Budget Office has calculated that the gap in public funding may be somewhat narrower in recent years—and may slightly favor public charters housed in public buildings. They also found that public charters paying for private facilities receive significantly less per student funding than district public schools. Charter advocates have disputed the IBO’s analysis (PDF), arguing that they don’t take district schools’ large pension costs into account.

Unsurprisingly, the fight was big news in the New York metro area.

But since the national media has anointed de Blasio as one of the spokesmen for a resurgent Democratic Party progressivism, his moves attracted much broader attention. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor accused him of waging a “war against kids” and House Republicans promptly announced a committee hearing on “The Role of Charter Schools in K-12 Education.”

While there’s nothing particularly surprising about Republican opposition to a progressive mayor’s approach to urban education policy, their attention actually has more to do with intra-party Democratic politics. After all, De Blasio and Moskowitz are both Democrats—though their personal and ideological differences are vast. Some Republicans, following Cantor’s lead, have been probing at public charter schools—and school choice programs more broadly—as a wedge issue with potential for causing dissension amongst Democrats. The current battle in New York City provides some evidence supporting their approach.

There is no love lost between Moskowitz and the mayor. De Blasio singled her out for criticism while campaigning, arguing that she had “to stop being tolerated, enabled, [and] supported” by the city’s Department of Education. As Casey sees it, de Blasio revoked the co-location agreements to “lay down a marker” that would send a signal to all New York City public charter operators.

But it’s a mistake to see last week’s public charter school fight as simply the latest twist in a personal grudge match. Nor is the faceoff as simple as a battle between public charters and teachers unions. The union in New York City—the United Federation of Teachers—actually runs its own public charter school in Brooklyn.

The rancor between de Blasio and Moskowitz has at least some roots in substantive education policy disagreements. During his campaign, de Blasio promised to roll back Bloomberg Administration policies on public charter schools. He began fulfilling that pledge one month into his term when his administration reallocated $210 million from a public charter school expansion fund. This—among other moves—has put him at odds with many New York Democrats, most notably Governor Andrew Cuomo (who responded Monday with a promise to provide state funding for the displaced schools).

Indeed, interviews for this story turned up a wide range of responses to the de Blasio administration’s move. Success Academy’s Powell touted its benefits for kids: one of the schools the mayor is evicting had the highest-performing 5th graders in New York’s state math assessment in 2013. There weren’t just the highest performing in the city, she repeated. They were first in the entire state. “It’s just a little odd that we can’t find some space for a few hundred minority kids…80% of them are on free or reduced lunch, and nearly all are high-performing. You’d think that New York could use more schools like that.”

A New York Democratic Party consultant, who asked to remain anonymous because of the intra-party nature of the debate, called de Blasio’s revocation of “both personal and ideological.” The consultant went on: “de Blasio is deeply hostile to the idea of charter schools. He is deeply hostile to the education reform movement as a whole…There’s a spectrum in the Democratic Party, where you have people like Barack Obama and [Colorado Governor] John Hickenlooper and even Cuomo…who believe that education reform and charter schools can be a positive force in public education.”

Asked to elaborate, the consultant added, “[De Blasio] is someone who just subscribes to the traditional teachers union based belief that anything outside the old school public education, any innovation, any reform, is a bad idea.”

Meanwhile, Casey, who serves on the board of a New York public charter school, cheered the mayor’s decision: “What’s happened in NYC now is that [Success Academy] is reaping what they sowed.” He argued that Success Academy and other similar public charters had provided cover for the Bloomberg administration’s efforts to undermine collective bargaining and close struggling district schools. In Casey’s eyes, “no-excuses charters” like Moskowitz’s take an approach “that is indistinguishable from Walmart’s” when it comes to employee bargaining rights.

Sam Chaltain, author of the forthcoming book, Our School: Searching for Community in the Era of Choice, suggested that co-location might sometimes be effective, but noted that it could invite uncomfortable comparisons between schools: “in the worst case, it could make one school feel inferior.”

When I asked him if this sort of division could cause trouble for Democrats on a national level, Bellwether Education co-founder and partner Andrew Rotherham, a prominent education writer and former Clinton Administration official, laughed and channeled Will Rogers: “That’s the 64 thousand dollar question. Look, this is the Democratic Party, so if you’re looking for unity or coherence, you’ve got to look somewhere else.”

Maybe this is just another manifestation of Democratic disorganization. it spread beyond the five boroughs—and into national partisan politics?

I asked Chaltain if he thought public charters could be a productive wedge issue for Republicans. He demurred: “The overall climate of what people think about charters and school choice varies so much from city to city.” This is certainly true. State charter laws vary widely across the country—and eight states have no public charter schools at all.

What’s more, public charter schools are a very small slice of the American education system. Out of the nearly 50 million K-12 students in American public schools, less than 2 million attend public charters. There are more students in Catholic schools. Indeed, there are nearly three times as many K-12 students in private schools than in public charters. The upshot: it’s hard to see how this very small population could drive enough controversy to sustain a national political discussion.

But focusing on the size of the American public charter sector might be missing the point. Problematic ideological splits are usually rooted in principle—not pragmatism. Chaltain cautioned, “I do think it’s a big intra-Democratic Party battle, and I think it’s a split in the value proposition about public education.”

This gets at why education inhabits a unique space in American politics. Because it is deeply implicated in American democratic and meritocratic ideals, it is permanently controversial (consider, for instance, the persistent, rumbling fights over implementation of the Common Core State Standards).

Nonetheless, education rarely grabs headlines or news cycles the way that other, more dramatic topics regularly command. Check cable news: for every one segment covering ongoing education fights, you’ll see dozens covering the situation in Ukraine. In part, this is because the education system is just too large for a targeted national discussion. Attempts at comprehensive education reform usually span federal, state, and local governing institutions, as well as myriad union contracts and funding sources. Which makes them complicated. And nothing kills political controversy like complexity, so most education politics flareups happen at the state or local level—where the arguments don’t need to be as broad.

In other words, education politics has a unique dynamic; it has permanent political potency, but can’t usually hold national attention for long. Public charter schools may be locally controversial, but it’s hard to imagine them driving a national campaign to Democrats’ detriment.

What’s more, education politics can be a double-edged sword. Educational ideology cuts across party lines—a rarity in twenty-first century American politics. For instance, the fight over the Common Core has made allies out of Jeb Bush and Barack Obama. And while public charter schools challenge Democrats’ unity, Republicans education factions may be more consequential.

Consider the other plank in de Blasio’s mayoral campaign: universal pre-K. De Blasio promised to fund universal pre-K in New York City with a tax hike of about 0.5 percentage points on incomes of over half a million dollars each year, but hasn’t been able to push that through the legislature in Albany (which must sign off on all NYC tax increases). The program remains in a holding pattern as the mayor fences with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, whose counterproposal offers a slower path to universal access and relies on existing state revenues.

Republicans are in a tough position on pre-K. While the American public, nearly all elected Democrats, and a majority of Republican voters (PDF) support expanded access to high-quality early education, Republican officials are split. Last summer, the reliably conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce co-hosted an event with the Center for American Progress to call for increased American pre-K investment. A few months ago, the House and Senate introduced bills aiming to make pre-K universally available for families living at or below 200 percent of the poverty line. The House bill has two Republican co-sponsors and widespread Democratic support. And while Republican governors like Michigan’s Rick Snyder have fought hard for larger investments in early education, many in the party remain opposed.

In other words, high-quality pre-K is a much more powerful political issue than public charter schools. While American early education policy is heavily shaped by a number of federal laws, charter policy is almost entirely determined at the state level. This, by the way, is why public charter schools’ quality varies widely from state to state. A recent Stanford study (PDF) found that public charters in Washington, D.C. and New York substantially outperformed similar district schools, while public charters in Nevada and Texas lagged far behind their district peers.

So while it’s tempting to frame the fight in New York as a perilous fight between Democratic education reformers and “the de Blasio wing” of the party, public charter schools are just too local to drive a national political conversation—let alone a serious civil war within the Democratic party.

Of course, even though public charter schools aren’t a promising plank for national political leverage, they’re still plenty controversial. The lightning rod isn’t going away, cautioned Chaltain. “The school choice genie is out of the bottle…To me, the only question is how can school choice unleash a virtuous cycle that raises the tide of educational opportunity?” And while that’s a conversation that’s both less exciting and more uncomfortable than the current debate in New York, it’s almost assuredly a more productive one.

19 Comments
  1. Welshman says:

    The children are just the grease in the union school machine.

    5th March 2014 at 8:58 am

  2. harry p. says:

    it is all about money and power, if parents have choices the majority will go where they can get the best results. even if there is no written doctrine or metrics for accountability for failing schools they will eventually be held accountable if the tide of school choice continues. the entrenched teachers (tenured), unions and administrators will always fight this kicking and screaming.
    the money is tied to the kids and if the kids don’t go the school will get less funding.

    sidenote: whatever happened to that horrible principal in NY or NJ (can’t remember) that rarely ever showed up for work (I remember the pics showing her in a mink) and had what was probably the worst school in Amurka?

    5th March 2014 at 9:05 am

  3. overthecliff says:

    Everyone in New York is not stupid but they are , by far, they are outnumbered by the free shit army and corrupt commies. Run!! escape while you can, before they destroy you and your children.

    5th March 2014 at 9:21 am

  4. sensetti says:

    Admin says: Obama and his minions are willing to destroy this country in order to inflict their failed ideology on the masses.

    Democratic politics at its finest. Many Republicans are for school vouchers and school choice, let the bad schools fail and the sucessful ones thrive.

    Is there a difference between the parties without a doubt.

    5th March 2014 at 9:23 am

  5. Sky says:

    She was terminated…

    http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140219/far-rockaway/chronically-late-far-rockaway-principal-be-fired-doe

    5th March 2014 at 9:25 am

  6. Stucky says:

    Bloomberg. There were a lot of issues with that nanny-state loving socialist.

    But, the man understood business, finance, running a city. NYC prospered under his reign. You gotta give him credit for that.

    DeBlasio WILL destroy NYC. Mark it down. He will get re-elected. By the end of his term NYC will be Detroit. Mark it down.

    Escape From New York, before it’s too late.

    5th March 2014 at 9:31 am

  7. harry p. says:

    sky,
    thanks for finding that, i couldn’t remember much of the facts regarding that story.
    what is still disgraceful is that it took an investigation and that much time to finally get her out.

    public-schools-harm-children.jpg

    5th March 2014 at 9:31 am

  8. harry p. says:

    stucky,
    pretty accurate synopsis, it mimics what one my best friends was telling me and he actually lived there. he lived there for the last 5 years before moving into the area between lancaster and philly a couple of months ago.
    he couldn’t stand the bloomberg bullshit and ridiculous cost of living but he thinks it is going to get much worse, similar to how it was decades ago (before Guliani).
    it jsut further affirms i won’t be visiting New York Shitty any time soon.

    5th March 2014 at 9:37 am

  9. Thinker says:

    Harry, Sky beat me to it, but you can follow the whole saga here:

    http://nypost.com/tag/marcella-sills/

    5th March 2014 at 9:45 am

  10. card802 says:

    Really amazing, but not so surprising. These “teachers” have been in the pockets of politicians for so long they are helpless and hopeless. They can’t compete with success, so they will demand the competition be politically removed.

    Well played.

    Now if 10% parents would get a fucking clue and pull their children out of all public schools this would not be a political problem anymore. This problem would die on the vine.

    5th March 2014 at 9:53 am

  11. Administrator says:

    sensetti

    Moskowitz is a democrat.

    You can bet that 95% of the 13,000 families applying to get into the charter schools are Democrats.

    5th March 2014 at 9:58 am

  12. Balzytch says:

    This story made me ill, but a great rant by Admin made up for it.

    The liberal progressives once again show they hate this country, hate people that work hard and try to achieve something with their lives. They prefer dumbshit government dependent parasites (just like themselves). It’s dangerous to the socialist/Marxist liberal progressive agenda to have people that are educated and can think for themselves, people that want more out of life than a SNAP card and welfare benefits. You can’t buy voters by providing free shit to people that crave education, truth and righteousness. It’s not a black/white issue so much as a parasite versus producer issue. Liberal progressives are parasites, plain and simple. The teachers unions are parasites, as are the union government drone parasites. Every democrat run slave plantation is full of parasites, living off other people’s money and other people’s labor. Parasites have the IQ of worms, and it’s the job of people like DeBlasio and the rest of his kind to make sure their IQ stays sub-human. They need to be hung from the nearest lampost.

    5th March 2014 at 11:39 am

  13. sensetti says:

    My point is that school choice is a major position many GOP’ers run on, likewise many Democrats insist on propping up failing inner city schools, related to the fact, that’s their base.

    Has anyone looked at Obamas budget vs what the Republican house is putting forward? “Huge Difference” absolutely different ends of the spectrum.

    Obama wants to pour more of your money into the school system, Republicans pushing back.

    It’s no coincidence that President Barack Obama chose to announce his budget for fiscal year 2015 at a local elementary school Tuesday, according to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

    The budget proposal requests a roughly 2 percent – or $1.3 billion – increase in discretionary appropriations for the Department of Education, including significant asks for new and existing programs to combat inequities in American education, expand early childhood education and strengthen support for teachers.

    “America’s public schools strive to offer a path to the middle class for children from hardworking families in every community, particularly those living in poverty,” Duncan said in a call with reporters Tuesday. “Yet too many students still lack access to the education and support that make the journey to the middle class possible.”
    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/04/obamas-2015-budget-more-early-education-funds-new-race-to-the-top

    5th March 2014 at 12:22 pm

  14. TRUMAN UCCNOT says:

    Public schools are just money laundering machines to appropriate property taxes
    for the mega corporations through teachers pension fund malinvestments.

    how hilarious it will be when these “educators” finally realize that they sold
    us out and f#@ked them selves at the same time !
    I’ll wet myself laughing as they look at each other that day and say:

    “WHO’S GOING TO BE OUR MOMMY NOW”? WE’RE TEACHER NOBILITY, THEY
    CANT TREAT US LIKE TAXPAYERS !!! IT JUST AINT RIGHT!!

    .

    5th March 2014 at 2:03 pm

  15. Billy says:

    It’s Noo Yawk Shitty…

    Sorry to say, but they voted that fuck into office…

    Reap the whirlwind, fuckers…

    th?id=HN.608009288611136553&pid=15.1

    5th March 2014 at 2:18 pm

  16. harry p. says:

    billy,
    hahaha, love that e-card. i will use it in the future.

    5th March 2014 at 2:45 pm

  17. Wyoming Mike says:

    I admit it Sensetti, you are right. Dems & Repugs are as different as night and…later that night.

    5th March 2014 at 3:53 pm

  18. Forward_Idiocracy says:

    Their ideology is far from failed. I’d say they are wildly succeeding.

    Control over everything. Seems to be working out for them rather well. Gift wrapped on a platter from the populace.

    5th March 2014 at 11:22 pm

  19. TRUMAN UCCNOT says:

    Our child attended a charter school after the “public school wood ticks” utterly drove
    her to near suicide!

    that was 8th grade…. we then put her in the local charter school , and they worked a miracle !

    this has NOTHING to do with politics! CHARTER saved my daughter’s life, and graduated
    her with a legitimate B average…. she had straight F’s under the public school wood ticks….

    Your political snippet is “apples” in an “oranges” discussion administrator.

    6th March 2014 at 11:30 am

Leave a comment

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.