Skip to comments.Mayor de Blasio Kicks 700 Kids Out of Over-Performing Schools
Posted on 03/02/2014 5:29:05 AM PST by Kaslin
Elite New York Democrats are waging a war on children. Well At least thats how it appears when the progressive Democrat mayor kicks 700 students out of high-performing schools, because Well He doesnt really have a good reason. Ostensibly, its because he doesnt want charter schools (public education facilities that govern their affairs with autonomy from New York public education directives) to share space with underperforming school districts.
Proving that there are worse things than a Bloomberg-run city, de Blasio has decided to kick at least three charter school programs out of their co-location agreements with traditional public education facilities. The fact that the charter programs have shown a tremendous ability to produce quality education and are highly prized by under-privileged families is apparently unimportant to a mayor who was elected with heavy teacher-union support. Over 700 kids will now be dumped into underperforming public schools, because their charter program has been forced, by the elitist minds at Gracie Mansion, to shut its doors.
According to the New Yorker:
De Blasio, a vocal supporter of teachers unions, has said that he would end free rent for some co-located charter schools. At a June forum, when asked about the existing rent-free agreements, de Blasio said, pointedly, There is no way in hell that Eva Moskowitz should get free rent, O.K.?
Right Free rent is the issue Thats a hard pill to swallow in a city that has strict rent control regulations. (By the way, Eva Moskowitz is head of one of the most successful charter programs in New York. But sure Lets get personal.) According to de Blasio, it is unacceptable for high-performing charter schools to share space with underperforming public schools. At Harlem 5, a 22 Success charter school located in Harlem, 88 percent of the student body passed the state math exam. At PS 123, which shares the same building as Success, only 5 percent passed the same state exam. But yeah The obvious problem here is rent.
The progressive Democrats priorities, however, are obviously not focused on the wellbeing of inner city youth. In a debate with the Republican candidate for Mayor (Yeah, there was a Republican candidate) de Blasio explained that in the end, our city rises or falls on our traditional public schools. Okay Well, the city is falling. Luckily for some winners of charter-school lotteries, not everyone is falling at the same pace.
And unfortunately, de Blasio is far more interested in protecting the union monopoly, than bettering the education of the citys underprivileged. After all, its not as if these charter programs primarily benefit the wealthy. In fact the primary beneficiary happens to be the very people that progressives claim to represent. Which raises the question: If the betterment of the underprivileged is the goal, why is the city not doing everything they can to expand the footprint of 22 Success and their educational progress?
Well The obvious answer is that a 9 year old child from a one parent home, north of 115th Street, simply doesnt donate as much to the progressive cause as the United Federation of Teachers. Unions, after all, are unlikely to be ecstatic about a non-union school option that outperforms in such phenomenal fashion.
Parents, by the way, are overwhelmingly supportive of alternatives to the citys abysmal public Ed system. Last year, a Harlem charter program (soon to be shutdown by the Democrat mayor of NYC) received 2,665 applications for a mere 125 open positions.
Wouldnt it occur to an education oriented mayor that maybe steps should be taken to support the popular and effective alternative to public educations underperformance? Of course, this is the problem with government: We invest in cronyism Not results. Do you care about the kids? Help 22 Success expand their foot print. Do you care more about support from a major Democrat constituency? Well, then you should kick 700 kids out of charter schools and bow to the union that has fundamentally under-delivered on their educational responsibility to needy communities.
Then again de Blasios war on the bourgeois aspirations of low income New Yorkers aligns more with the crony mentality of labor unions, than the rhetoric he employed during stump speeches After all, why should successful endeavors to educate our youth be rewarded when there are so many due-paying members in the United Federation of Teachers?
In the end, to the de Blasio-style liberal, the betterment of children doesnt matter. The concerns of impoverished families who look to charter programs as a way out for their kids, are insignificant to the rookie mayor. (And just to drive this point home: The mayor recently called the public protest, in support of the 700 kids who will be losing their charter program, a side show.) See, taking steps to actually help the poor might damage the constituency of a crony Progressive who received massive amounts of campaign funding from teacher unions. Unions who, by the way, feel threatened by out-performing non-union entities, such as charter schools.
So, sorry hopeful families of the 22 Success program If youre concerned about one of the 700 kids who are about to lose their position in a charter school, then thank de Blasios love for teacher unions; because its apparently stronger than his dedication to the betterment of disenfranchised communities.
Apparently, helping the underprivileged is only progressive when you have the support of wealthy union backers
Why should the rest of the USA care about what happens in NYC?
they voted for him so let them lay in the pile of crap and don’t complain.
Anyone in NYC who is conservative should leave ASAP.
I could go along with him if he insisted on no free rent for anyone anywhere in nyc
Hopefully some private organization or person will step up and provide the space.
Actually less then half did, it was a 3 way race as I remember..........plus you need to care as this sets a president for legal cases........I hope they sue
LOL! I did, last year and I grew up there. Best thing I ever did. The final straw was Bloomberg demanding a list from landlords of all the tenants who smoke, that was it for me. Now we are getting into Nazi tactics “Send us der list of der Juden” so I got the hell out of there, and it seems just in time. Now they got Stalin to deal with.
IMHO.....the people of NYC gave up their rights when they elected this dog.
Let them suffer. Maybe it will serve as a example to everyone else who can think before they pull the lever for a flaming Liberal/commie like De Blasio.
NYC has ceased to be America a long time ago.
So, the socialist lives down to the notion that we should not work to raise the performance against (pathetically lax) standards, but rather we should force the capable to participate in the politics of failure.
DeBlasio, don’t elevate. Denigrate.
You commie POS.
Amen to that.
Ah the wisdom of the brain dead voters of New York and their mind numbingly stupid decision.
“Anyone in NYC who is a conservative should leave ASAP.”
As our Governor has said, conservatives have no place in New York, and Mr. DeBlasio agrees.
So, all you conservatives should convert to Progressivism because if you are not a Progressive you are a
knuckle-dragging, bible-thumping, gun-loving Christian moron, who, of course, is not welcome in New York.
Ha ha look at this...
You mean leftist policies don’t help the very people that leftists “fight” for?
We see this everywhere in our country. People who have absorbed it act like they're brainwashed--psychotic--delusional--unable to see truth and scornful of it--totally saturated with groupthink.
Those who resist it must have a powerful internal moral compass, integrity, and commitment to truth for its own sake. Some do. My children, I am happy to say, are all like this. They resisted steadfastly and truthfully. They think for themselves. They are wise.
The real reason for the disparity (well, most of it) is that charter schools can kick out kids who either don't behave, have special needs, or are simply low-performing. I teach public school in L.A., and we see it every year in the spring in California when the CST is taken. The charter schools kick out their worst kids just before the test to raise their scores, and the children show up in our admissions office about a week before the test.
The two biggest problems that I see are 1) we cannot kick kids out of middle school. It doesn't matter if they start fights, set fires (yes, really), vandalize property, curse at teachers, bully smaller kids, have weapons, sell drugs, disrupt the classroom every single day... we cannot kick them out. At best we can find another school to transfer them to, if that school will take them. That school will usually offer to swap one of their own little sociopaths and we agree, hoping that if we peel a kid away from his little crew he runs around with, the shock might make him straighten up a little. Of course, we can only do this with the parent's permission. (I say parent because there's usually only one.)
The other problem, I admit, is the union. We can't get rid of bad teachers either, but I have to say (though no one on FR will believe me) that bad teachers aren't as prevalent as people think. Most people who can't teach realize it and quit after a year or two. But a few do hang in there, and they can be a bit of a bummer. But even a mediocre teacher can do pretty well if the children are well-behaved. They just can't deal with the wild little thugs we get. I've been doing it for 10 years now and let me tell you, it's like juggling on a tightrope.
“NYC has ceased to be America a long time ago.”
And since then Turtletown, Podunk and Possum Hollow have followed.
I listened to an interview with Eva Moskowitz, very smart and motivated, she has built a super successful charter school program and she is a democrat, most likely voted for DeBlasio.
This should make Spike Lee happy.
Look at the lemon/lemonade scenario. The charter kids if relocated will be safer from the thug class who consider beating them up a little innocent recreation.
I’ve lived in NYC all my life and never absorbed leftism. It’s a daily fight not to be called names and spoken to like a dim child but it can be done. In fact, it builds character. Tell your relative he’s got weak kids.
OK, so let's do the math. You take 1,000 kids from a low performing student body that has 5% of the kids pass a state exam. In order to make those 50 kids (5% of 1,000) account for all of the rise to 88% passing rate in the charter school, you would have to kick out 946 of the 1,000 (50/56 = 89%). That does not account for 824 of the 880 (or 93%) who pass the exam in the charter school.
1. Charter schools can pick and choose from the beginning, and a child who has a record of juvenile delinquency or consistent failure can be denied entrance. Kids actually have to apply for entrance (at least the ones around here.) Public schools can't do that.
2. The kinds of parents who go to the trouble of getting their kids into charter schools are the kinds of parents who tend to have well-behaved children, and learning in school is at least partly dependent on being able to sit still and listen, and do the work.
3. Throughout the course of the year, children who get into trouble can be (and are) kicked out. Not only does that result in their lousy test scores not registering on the charter school's scorecard, it eliminates the kind of chaos in the classroom that brings all the other kids down too.
4. By the time you get to "kicking out the ones who screw the test averages" you're just finalizing the difference. I point it out because it's just a continuation of the trend.
In other words, we all know that one advantage a charter school has is that it can pick and choose its teachers without union interference. And that is true. But the other truth you ignore is that it can pick and choose its students as well. And that is a bigger advantage.
I wonder if those 700 kids are mostly whites? If it is, you won’t hear it. If it mostly blacks or Hispanics, you’ll hear it on the news.
He's very disappointed in them.