"they are explicitly denied some funding streams, like facilities funding, made available to district schools" So the 9 out of 45 charter schools that are being relocated out of public schools were doing fundraising to pay $0 rent? What facilities funding do they need if charter schools aren't paying rent?
"They educate some of our most challenging students, the vast majority of
them low-income, black and Latino. They are open to all applicants,
with seats determined by random lottery." Charter schools gets to
filter out the most challenging students, those without family structure
concerned enough to apply for the lottery.
"proof of what can
happen when you smartly unleash innovation within a system that, thanks
in no small part to a rigid teachers’ union contract," so the only means
of succeeding is breaking the backs of unions? So the egalitarian and
democratic need to have everyone educated
regardless of ability to pay can't be delivered by employees as long as
they have a say in their own workplace? Democracy is great, except in the workplace according to Josh Greenman.
space that the charter schools were using as class rooms, you know the
art, music, & other non-classrooms, they displaced public school
children from their art and music facilities so there was significant
draw back to students, just the ones that weren't in the charter
schools. On second thought both are harmed by duplicating the
bureaucracy of school administration and hampering art & music
education of both segments of the student population.
innovation can be transferred into the public schools system at-large?
If charter schools were acting as they were intended to, as experimental
educational policies that would benefit the greater school system, that
previous question could be answered and the charter schools have self
evident value to all students, currently they are not. When charter
schools are used merely to undercut a unionized workforce, and
educational benefits stem from culling students with family backgrounds
that place value on education enough to enter the school lottery, then
their raison d'etre is non-existent. Pointing out that there are outside
funding sources for district schools just as there is for charter
schools leaves me with the question: What is differentiating factor why
donors contribute to charter schools instead of the public schools other
than political philosophy? If someone is hellbent to privatize all
functions of government, contributing to charter schools is an efficient
means to get the camel's nose under the tent to an American expected
government service. Charter schools should unionize, if they were
creative in their contract maybe using project labor agreements (PLA)
over the school year, and then deliver innovative educational solutions
the so-called opponents of charter schools would either dissipate or
have unfounded objections to charter schools. If in this hypothetical
situation where charter schools tackle resolving both unionized
workforce and policy solutions to our educational system, while
receiving the same support from private sources, then my accusation that
the charter school movement is entirely a stalking horse for
plutocratic sycophants is unfounded; but in the case that a charter
school can't raise funds for a democratic workplace then that would
prove my accusation. And to avoid any benefit from prejudicing student
body of charter schools, NYC should implement a charter school draft of
all non-special needs students so the students with families that do not
speak English at home and are domicile and nutritional insecure are
included in the charter school experiment, since the leaders of these
charter schools are run "remarkably well" despite being "complex and
unique organizations" I'm sure they can handled that.
Feb 4, 2015
If there was any question about whether or not Hillary was going to run for president in 2016, or more pedestrian of a question whether or not Brooklyn would host the nominating convention. The answer can be deduced from the following news stories:
Real estate insiders were thrilled at the idea of hosting Clinton HQ, and said the location makes perfect sense for a national campaign.
"There are 13 subway lines and 15 bus lines serving the neighborhood," said Tucker Reed, President of the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership. "Nearly 60,000 college students that could provide an army of campaign volunteers, and when the DNC convention comes to Barclays Center, headquarters would be blocks away."
The de Blasio administration announced Thursday that it had raised roughly $20 million toward its $100 million target for the event, which would cost an estimated $140 million.Just as the party establishment in 2004 selected the host city to be in Boston for the establishment's favored candidate and eventual nominee John Kerry, it appears likely that the nominating convention will be hosted within a mile of the likely campaign headquarters of the party's favored presidential candidate: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
City officials also announced a group of 10 committee co-chairs, which included Lloyd Blankfein, the chairman and chief executive of Goldman Sachs, and Ursula Burns, the chairman and chief executive of Xerox Corp.
It is of course highly desirable for Ratner Properties to land both Clinton's National HQ and the DNC convention in their properties. Having Goldman Sachs, Xerox, American Express, and the SEIU 1199 behind the effort to get DNC convention to be hosted in Brooklyn coincidentally will also be bankrolling Clinton's presidential campaign.
Not sure of the preposition choice was the Wall Street Journal reporter Mara Gay or Mayor deBlasio's, but no one grew up IN Long Island, people grew up ON Long Island
“I’m going to be spending time with her and updating her on our effort,” he said of the Florida congresswoman. “She obviously knows New York City quite well,” Mr. de Blasio added, noting that she grew up in Long Island.