Shutting down charter schools would be a huge mistake. If he's trying to earn the title of asshole, this is a good beginning.

Finally, a Democratic leader with some guts.

This is just media spin. There are actually attack ads running all day long slamming him for this as if he were still running for mayor. Clearly they are working on some people. But I'd be willing to bet that a lot of them aren't people who voted for him.

We should bookmark this and revisit in a year or so. In 2 months, he's pissed off the parents we're discussing, cabbies and others that drive in the city, residents of the upper east side and commuters. He's not off to a good start.

Further, I don't see any great backlash to him doing it.

This is the class warfare he was elected to implement. If anything I'm a little disappointed as he's been a bit more corporate than I expected.

Fuck the charter schools. They're a parasite on the school system.

Two questions though:
1.) Do you live around the New York area?
2.) Would you send your kids to a NYC public school?

1.) I'm originally from Brooklyn. I moved to DC for work 3 years ago and again last month to Southern CT for a family crisis. (My parents fled the city for the 'burbs in retirement.) I'll be moving back to NYC in the near future.

2.) I'd never send my kids to any public school. I don't believe in much of modern pedagogical theory...and with assholes like Michelle Rhee, Arne Duncan, Mike Feinberg and Dave Levin pushing it in the wrong direction. When I have kids, they'll be going to prep school. That does not mean that I want to see the state of the public schools degraded further by allowing charter academies to suck funding out of the system. If anything, I support killing the charter schools altogether for the vampires of the public education system that they are.

but they can't afford a prep school for their kids. Charter schools are an alternative that is within their reach. What would you say to them?

On Point 1, you're in a position to evaluate DeBlasio with a New York perspective. We'll just have to see how he does.

Eva half a million dollars a year, and who knows how much to the other administrators of that company.

He's gotten off to a great start.

... non charters. Cuomo understands this also, but doesn't care.

Charter schools produce big $$$ for their operators ( ask Ms. Moskowitz), and are staffed by non union temps. ( In the "old days" they were called scabs.)

This hurts everyone in the long run.

Cuomo understands this also, but... again.... doesn't care.

Cuomo pretty much cares about.............................wait for it................................ *Cuomo*.

after ad, after ad, in the NYC market, they can certainly afford to pay rent for their facilities.

I see several of those ads every day.

Those charter schools suck resources away from the public schools.

challenged. It's sickening .

What about the kids? You didn't mention them in your post.

NYC's public schools have sucked for decades. Charter schools represent the best chance for a lot of inner city kids to get a decent education and the parents of those kids know that. Did you look at the people demonstrating against DeBlasio? They aren't the 1%; they're disadvantaged minorities that see charter schools as their kids' best chance at a better life.

ETA: I'm willing to bet that most of the parents demonstrating to keep their kids' charter schools went to a NYC public school themselves and don't want their kids to do the same.

enough politicians who are not accepting lobby money increase funding to public education, not charter schools. Although until we have enough politicians who are willing to fight for an increase in funding I do support some sort of alternative to what we have now. I do not however support the current charter schools. They are making billions in profit while excluding students who would make them look bad and cooking the books to make themselves look even better. I have been hoping democrats would fight for public education only to be let down time and time again.

The parents of the kids demonstrating against DeBlasio have given up hope that it will ever happen. They want their kids to get an education and they don't care if someone makes money giving it to them. I agree with them.

but then not let the progressive do what needs to be done? Charter schools aren't the answer.

Who can't attend those charter schools because they were kicked out or not allowed to attend in the first place because they're special needs? The schools that become even crappier because funds are siphoned from them? What's progressive about that?

Equal lack of opportunity.

I don't have much faith in the ability of NYC public schools to improve to the point where any parent would want their kids going there. Good luck convincing the parents of the charter schools kids otherwise.

Improve the public schools. Starting with supporting the progressives when they're elected. There's nothing progressive about charter schools.

When do you accept that they're not going to get better? I've been hearing about improving the public schools since I was in high school and I'm 63. Sorry, I've written them off and I support giving as many inner city kids as possible an alternative.

What is the point of even voting then with that attitude? Might as well vote for Repubs or not at all. Throw some people under the bus and take the conservative way out thinking it might serve your own best interest? Don't pretend that's progressive. And while you're at it, get out of the way of those who don't want to give up. Especially when a progressive is actually elected and actually wants to do the right thing. Seems to me the logical thing to do then is actually help progress, not impede it.

Helping as many kids as possible isn't conservative or progressive. It's a practical response to an unsolveable problem. Sorry, I'm such a cynic, but history is what it is.

But go ahead and rationalize it if it makes you feel better. Pretend it isn't conservative. Forget those left behind. Pretend they don't exist. Shameful.

I don't think that any child should have to attend a NYC public school unless their parents want them to. How many parents do you think would want that if an alternative were available? You would deny that alternative to all parents, while I would give it to as many as possible. Why don't you ask the parents whose position is shameful? While you're at it, why don't you try selling those parents on the idea that NYC schools will get better? Good luck - a lot them went to NYC public school and are living with the fruits of the education they got.

We destroy our public schools and leave in its place a hodge podge privately controlled system. And you are in denial that it will do anything for those who are being afforded this opportunity. They would be much better off with a healthy public system along with the rest of us. An education system weakened by this conservative school reformed backed by corporate interests hurts all of us. It will hurt those you proclaim it helps. It will hurt all of us except the rich who own the companies who benefit. You and those who have children in these schools are being hoodwinked.

Like I said, good luck with that.

Go join a board with like minded folks. Or, you try to be convinced yourself, and then join people like me in trying to make the world a better place.

We don't agree on how to do it. You don't change minds by dealing with like minded people. I believe the great majority of parents with kids in s NYC public school would agree with me. I would question how many people with your view would actually send their kids to NYC public school. Would you? Does DeBlasio?

You don't know that?

You certainly don't make the world a better place by banding with conservatives and adopting their policy, that's for sure. I really don't care what their motives are or if they think they're making the world a better place. They aren't.

When I said NYC public schools, I was actually thinking of the schools that would be available to the 700 kids that DeBlasio is kicking out of charter schools. Those are the schools that the vast majority of NY kids have available to them if their parents can't afford a private school. NYC does have some (8 or 9) elite public schools that are only available to kids that pass an eligibility exam. Bronx High School of Science, Stuyvesant and Brooklyn Tech fall into this category. These few schools are among the best in the country and standards for admission are very high. If Shauna legitimately made Brooklyn Tech, he's a very bright kid - only a few thousand of NYC's brightest kids get into Brooklyn Tech or Bronx Science. If DeBlasio were making the same opportunity that Shauna has available to those 700 charter school kids, the parents would be celebrating, not demonstrating. So technically, DeBlasio's kid attends a NYC public school, but it's intellectually dishonest to equate what Shauna has with what the vast majority of NYC public school students have.

BTW, you didn't say whether you'd want your kids attending one of the schools where those 700 kids will likely wind up.

The same question you asked in Post 16 applies to the kids who can't get into NYC's elite schools. What about them? As a practical matter, does it make much difference whether a NYC kid can't get into a charter school or an elite public school? He'll wind up in a poor school with diminished opportuntities compared to the kids that did go to the better schools.

You seem to think that the quality of the schools can be improved by supporting a Progressive mayor. That sounds great, but is there any reason to believe it would happen? I'm 63 and I've lived in the NYC area my whole life. John Lindsay was Progressive, so was Abe Beame and David Dinkens. We can argue about Ed Koch; he was a Democrat, but many would say not Progressive. The point is that none of them made any progress that I could see in bettering NYC schools. Why should people believe that DeBlasio will do any better? The reality is that NYC is an incredibly difficult place to get ANYTHING changed and working within the system to make the changes needed to improve NYC's schools isn't going to happen no matter who the mayor is. That, in a nutshell, is why I've given up.

You're dismissing my views because you think they're conservative and therefore they have to be bad. You've also said you'd rather deny an opportunity for a better education to all of NYC's kids than provide an alternative opportunity to some of the kids, again because you believe the idea to be conservative. If you're really serious about making a better world, why don't you stop focusing on political labels and start supporting things that will actually expand the opportunities for the kids.

Instead of diverting funds away from the schools of those 700 kids, use the funds for those schools and improve them. It's not that hard. The only reason you think it can't be done is because you've been hornswoggled by the right wing school reform nonsense. Charter schools don't take all the kids. It will take those kids, but leave behind others. Public schools, fully funded by all the funds not diverted by right wing scams, will take ALL of them.

I do not live in NYC. I do send my kids to public schools. If I lived in NYC I would send them to public schools. I have always sent them to public schools, even when others deemed the local schools where I've lived unfit and sent their kids to private schools. What decisions parents make is up to them but I will never support policies that destroy the public school system in this country and don't think much of those who do.

I do appreciate your sincerity and civility in discussing this.

Don't think for a minute I was holding out hope there.

Move them out of the public schools, let them fund themselves.

I can't recommend this post enough...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017179189

that profit back into the public school system in which they are siphoning public money? No, I may not be happy with democrats on education. I really like the Socialist platform on education. If democrats don't change their education platform they may lose my vote to the Socialists. However, I will not support the billionaires who are profiting off our children. Never.

Look at how hard it is to fire a teacher in NYC. You basically cant. Even ones that have molested students.
Looking at colleges, the more you pay doesnt mean you get a better education there, either.

To a teacher who molested a student in NYC and wasn't fired.

The process is fair. Teachers should have a hearing with arbitrators before being fired.

rulings, they chose not to.

$$$$$$ maybe?

Most DUers I've encountered are at least that sophisticated; I'll assume you are as well.

It is easy in a system of 100,000 teachers to find 14 cases where *accusations* of "molestation" ( some of these cases don't even seem to involve *alleged* "molestation" , but that's the word you chose.)

I wouldn't want to be accused of "molestation" by a student angry at the teacher because they got a B instead of an A, but don't you think that ... in a system this large that it might be at least theoretically possible for that to happen?

So what should the union do when faced with the case of a teacher falsely accused or the target of exaggeration, the misinterpretation of a joke or idle comment taken out of context?

Should they NOT defend the accused because they ARE accused? Should there really be no burden of proof required before teachers are fired on the basis of accusations?

Really... think of how crazy that sounds.

I know it's fun to exaggerate the 'due process' that comes with tenure... the Daily News and other billionaire, anti-union media live for this ( Maybe their own employees might start insisting on it!)... but really all it means is that teachers are protected from wild accusations, vindictive prosecutions and firings w/o cause.

Correct me if I'm wrong: I don't see any teacher in the story who was returned to the classroom after being found guilty of "molestation".

It doesnt matter if the damn Daily News or Denny's published the story. The head of the school system says he'd get rid of them if not for the ridiculously high hoops they have to jump through to get rid of them. Obviously the evidence must be better than hearsay. Seems like sent pictures, showing up at a home, etc are pretty damning. Yes, a student MAY make up a story. Are we to apply the same litmus test to a woman who reports a rape? That she's just angry at the man and made it up? Even the arbitrator said ones actions “at best, give the appearance of impropriety, and at worst, suggest pedophilia,”. I'm sorry about using the term "molesting"; I've seen many times where someone groping a student called "molesting".
If it's not a problem, why is the state trying to pass a law to make it easier to get rid of teachers like this?

Would you allow any of these teachers to be alone with YOUR children?

>>>It doesnt matter if the damn Daily News or Denny's published the story. The head of the school system says he'd get rid of them if not for the ridiculously high hoops they have to jump through to get rid of them. Obviously the evidence must be better than hearsay.>>>

Actually, it does matter. There is a long, complex relationship between the publication in question and NYC municipal unions ... and the UFT in particular. ( DN basically doesn't think muni employees should have the right to unionize.)

Hence, unrelenting anti union, anti-teacher twisting of news accounts to match the tenor of the editorial page. Not exactly a novel phenomenon, but there it is... and no I wouldn't expect everyone to understand or appreciate it.

Re. "head of the school system": a political appointee, former deputy to a famously union-hostile mayor, inexperienced in school matters and culture, and now replaced w. someone who actually knows what she''s doing.

>>>f it's not a problem, why is the state trying to pass a law to make it easier to get rid of teachers like this? >>>>

The "state" ( by that I think you mean the most corrupt state legislature in the USA) is *always* trying to pass laws to make it easier to get rid of ANY public school teacher... whether they are teachers "like this" or teachers "like that".

>>Would you allow any of these teachers to be alone with YOUR children?>>>

Excellent question and the answer is that I'd have to have more information than that provided by a sentence fragment from a infamously lurid, anti-teacher RW tabloid.

That might be enough for you but it's not enough for me.

he was in another state being the best man at a wedding. Lots of photos.

Here, from the article you link is the "horrible behavior" of another one: Another teacher was accused of grabbing a student's elbow and while handing back a test, telling her, "I'm so proud of you; if it wouldn't get me in trouble, I would kiss you."

If this is what turns people off about unions, those people need to get their heads examined.

As for the teacher you know, I'm sure he's not one the the head of the schools wanted so desperately to get rid of. I said that yes, students can make stuff up, but look at the other examples. The vast majority of people are not going to want those types around their kids. I trust the head of schools opinion.

What you are reading there is what they were accused of. By children.

In these cases where they were cleared, you can safely bet that there is very good proof that the accused action never happened. No review board member is going to hang his own ass out for censure by dismissing a case unless there is very good proof of innocence.

This whole campaign began with the Post. That means Rupert Murdoch. You are being had, and you are falling for it hook, line and sinker.

And PS: You say you trust the "head of schools" opinion over the opinion of all of the members of an independent review board. Exactly how much do you know about that "head of schools" on whose say so you are advocating the ruining of the lives of people who have been cleared of the things they were accused of? If you are trusting his opinion and motives in this, you are woefully ill informed.

Here's what I know: he was a political lackey. He was a mouthpiece for Bloomberg. This little campaign had nothing to do with the people accused. It had to do with Bloomberg's political ambitions to privatize and profitize America's schools.

The law to make it easier to fire teachers who misbehave? I wouldnt think it would stand a chance if it were mere politics by good 'ol Bloomberg. And especially if it was viewed as anti-union.
But its not passed yet, so we'll see.
Some of these teachers were found to have acted wrongly by the arbitrator, but obviously not all were.

acted wrongly. The reality is that if they were found to have acted wrongly, they would have been fired. It is not difficult at all to fire a teacher today, especially in New York City. If that law to "make it easier to fire teachers who misbehave" is not passed, it could just as easily be because it doesn't go as far as the rules already on the books to "make it easier to fire teachers who misbehave."

And why is a Democratic state trying to pass that law? Because the entire upstate is run by Republicans who are grandstanding for their constituents.

In fact, the teachers were found to have either not done anything wrong, or there was sufficient evidence or witness testimony to say that what the student alleged didn't happen. In some cases the teachers were reprimanded for allowing a situation in which the accusation could be made, not for doing anything close to what they were accused of.

about to put their own asses on the line without some kind of compelling proof. The one person I know, it wasn't even a possibility that he did what he was accused of.

Plenty of people each year ARE fired for inappropriate behavior in the NYC schools. It isn't difficult at all to get them out when there is any kind of evidence against them.

So, really, there is good reason to believe that these guys, especially, on whom there have been years of heat and publicity, all have some proof in their files that the accusations were false.

Smaller classrooms. Teachers with Masters degrees in teaching. Continuing education for teachers. Curriculum that is advanced but not so crammed full the students can't keep up. Tutoring. Not punishing the school or teachers by pulling funding if scores on state standardized tests aren't high enough. There are dozens of reasons why money is the answer to all of this. Ever since Reagan funding for public education has stayed flat while inflation has continued to go through the roof. Same problem with higher education. Both federal and state funding has dried up.

Have a cousin who is a excellent 8th grade science teacher in Seattle fighting hard also with her union for the teachers.

It's a tough world out there for teachers.

>>>> DB understands how charter schools consume public $$$ and space at the expense of the...

... non charters.>>>>

You're aware that non-charter district schools serve *children*; no?

>>>NYC's public schools have sucked for decades. >>> You're telling me. More so in the last 12 years than *ever*.

>>So unions are the priority?>>> They are *a* priority. The labor union movement has benefited ALL workers historically. You are unaware of this?


>>>They aren't the 1%; they're disadvantaged minorities that see charter schools as their kids' best chance at a better life.>>>

That's true, actually. The Shock Doctrine. You create a crisis by withholding or destroying services and you create a market in the process. Kidnapping and the Stockholm Syndrome work in roughly the same way.

Should unions be a priority? Damn right they should be. When unions are strong, kids benefit. Kids benefit from having good teachers, well compensated, well trained, teachers. Kids also benefit from fully funded public schools.

Funny how some ignore the answer because it doesn't fit the agenda.

"American 15-year-olds continue to turn in flat results in a test that measures students' proficiency in reading, math and science worldwide, failing to crack the global top 20.

The Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, collects test results from 65 countries for its rankings, which come out every three years. The latest results, from 2012, show that U.S. students ranked below average in math among the world's most-developed countries. They were close to average in science and reading."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/03/248329823/u-s-high-school-students-slide-in-math-reading-science

I'm willing to bet, they all have "Public Education". And they Invest heavily into it

...but unfortunately they're not in NYC except for a few prestigious schools that are only available to a select group of gifted students (See Post 47). This thread and my comments are about NYC public schools, not public schools in general. If I thought they could be improved to the point where they gave all of NYC's kids the opportunity to get a good education, I'd be all for it. As I've said in other posts, I've given up hope that it's an achievable goal. For that reason, I'm ready to try other approachs, like charter schools.

Your link is interesting. I would like to know how the $ spent per student compares with the countries whose kids score better than ours. I'd be surprised if that were a determining factor - the Slovak Republic spends less than half of what the US does but achieves the same results. Moreover, the results appear to reflect average public schools across the US - if the comparisons were limited to just NYC students, I believe the results would be much worse.

What do you think the problem is?

They dont take the time to make sure their kids are learning. Many times, its because the parent is "too busy", which means they dont want to be bothered. They want to party. Those other countries have kids and families that want to learn. And when Jimmy gets in trouble, how many times do we hear about parents here who always insist THEIR kid would NEVER do ________!!
Too many kids watch too much TV and think the road to success is playing baseball or football or some other sport. Or being a singer. We've become vicitms of Kardashianism. People who are famous for nothing other than the fact that they're whoever they are. Do the more successful countries have to deal with this crap? I doubt it.
There's a big difference between the US and those other countries, but a lot of people just dont want to see it.

They're going to love you for this!

he is simply ending the corporate giveaway of city resources that his predecessor, the Tiny Fascist, instituted.

BUT, money talks and Andrew Cuomo really scares me a lot! AND he has big plans if I'm hearing it right! OMG, he's tarnishing his father's name! But guess he knows how to play the game.

I'm even suspicious about the game he might be playing, or letting being played regarding GWB! Can't put my finger on it, but something's bothering me and I don't even know what! Guess I just don't trust "Andy" all that much!

Who knows?? All I know for sure is that every time I turn around I see more crap being thrown at the less fortunate!! It sucks and no end in sight!
JMHO

Early Intervention in the state. Now it is a shambles, and in three years, our schools are going to be inundated with kids with various kinds of disabilities who didn't get services when they were toddlers and we could have done something to fix their problems.

When I moved to Florida back in the 70's, it was much more Democratic... but never anything like NY. Seems everything has begun to look worse as I've grown up through these many years!

Florida is now a very difficult state for me to live in... well the sun does shine a lot, but really it doesn't help that much.

I constantly worry every single day!

I am hopeful that New York has gone as far right as its going to get. The DiBlasio landslide was a very welcome sign. And even Cuomo seems to be cycling back on some things as he sees how outraged people are becoming.

We'll see. All I can say is I hope it isn't a crumbling blue state. A very important indicator will be if DiBlasio gets the tax increase on the wealthiest he's asking for. If that happens, I think people will see that there is no reason for this hardship if everyone just pays their share.

AND a whole lot of luck! Our problem as Democrats is that we ARE so diverse and/or independent minded calling ourselves Democrats. I lean LEFT, but many of my Democratic friends who still vote for Democrats are much more moderate than I.

We, as a Party may not close our eyes to TRUTH, but that doesn't mean we can win elections! There have been times, and those times have become more frequent for me when I've voted for someone I had no real passion for. When I voted for Charlie Crist when he ran as an Independent against Marco Rubio, even those in my very Democratic family made me feel like a heretic! The Democrat here was hardly polling at 10%, but it was "I" who was crazy! Even today, with Crist's numbers higher than "the alien" Rick Scott I hear some Democrats saying they don't trust Crist! VOTE FOR THE GUY! He just might rid us of Scott!

There are very few Elizabeth Warrens, Bernie Sanders and the late Paul Wellstone types that stand for the principles I grew up with. And I see the crowd here putting the kibosh on Grayson! I say this knowing that there is no real purity in any Party. We have our warts, but for the most part own up to most of them. I'm completely aware that so many in our Party are Corporate sell outs, but it does seem the only thing that matters is MONEY! What to do?

WHICH is why, like it or not we remain fractured! I know that so many of us Boomers have a tendency to call ourselves long time activists, but there was a real spark back then that made us feel like our actions mattered. It DID seem so to me, but in today's world there are many times I've felt I had to "gag" myself at the risk of being called a martyr! I admit marches don't have the affect they once did, but WHAT DO WE DO??

OH GAWD... here I go again, standing on my little box and ranting! Too many caps and exclamation points, I know.

But do tell, When Oh When will the people of this country start shining big bright lights on the outright LIES that the Repukes Spew???

The Pied Piper Marches Onward with a trail of idiots behind!

vote "sorta left." And clearly all the candidates are bought and paid for to a greater or lesser extent. We can only hope that this is part of a long-term pendulum swing, and our time is on the way...

Charter schools don't have any of the problems of public schools, like non-english speakers, special ed, useless parents, discipline problems, learning disabilities. Their teachers have no job security, are not certified, work evenings and weekends, and are not part of the state pension plans. They're second-rate, and cheaper.

But the real reason the GOP and Cuomo hate public schools is that we are the largest Democratic party donated other than big business. We have political power in our unions. They want to make children a private resource to make themselves rich, and the unions can stop them.

If you let public schools cheat like charter schools can, we'd look exactly the same on paper, but millions of children would go uneducated.