Originally Posted by anon1
I tried to give you a hundred rep points but it only allowed me two...
This is what people who have no idea what they're talking about don't realize about how fragile this educational system is even moreso after everything that's been done to cripple it... There are people on here that claim that at least Bloomberg is trying to better the system but is that really the case... hasn't education taken some heavy cuts since he's been in office... Was he not the one that started this whole idea of removing art and music programs to put more of an emphasis strictly on education (which ended up having negative results)... Wasn't he the one that has continued to cut teachers and cut programs that had been beneficial to the public educational system because we "simply could not afford it"...
Bloomberg hasn't done anything to improve the educational system... all he's done is speed up the process of tearing it down to the point where it's on the brink of collapse... We have already seen that charter schools are not the answer and yet more and more schools continue to join the list of possible closures to make way for more...
Listen, not everything this man does is bad... I am not a perennial hater of Bloomberg and I don't have this extreme disgust for him as some claim I do... But unless you either live under a rock or are completely blinded by his actions this recent term, it's plain as day that this man is unfit to be mayor of this city... Telling me Thompson was no better is the lamest excuse one could present... Just because Thompson was a terrible option doesn't mean Bloomberg was that much better... point is, neither one of them were fit to be mayor and whichever one was elected we would've had to deal with the problems caused by their mistakes... I do agree that Bloomberg at the time was the lesser of two evils but considering how poorly he's handled this term, I wonder if Thompson could have been worse taking everything into account... (Out of touch personality, poor PR moves, mishandling of weather events, lack of school funding, personal agendas to bring in the rich and elite into power (Cathy Black) without the consent of anyone else... etc.)
I think something else that has to be considered here is that if Thompson had won, while he did not have an aggressive personal agenda of "improving" schools, as Bloomberg claims he has, he also would not have allowed and encouraged the rampant abuses of the DOE budget by outside consultants.
Despite the political rhetoric flying around, the ONLY indicator that schools were "doing badly" was the use of the extremely unreliable DOE report cards. Those and the testing data have been proven unreliable and that raises the question as to what exactly was Bloomberg "repairing"?
The truth of the matter is that NYC schools had not changed much over the last 40 years or so, and during the Guliani/Bloomberg years, they either flatlined or worsened slightly. This is according to the Federal test that is considered the gold standard, as opposed to the easily manipulated state tests.
In addition, NYC teachers as a group, only asked some attempt at pay parity with the suburbs. They never expected to be at an equal pay scale and accept that they never will. No matter what Bloomberg tries, we still lose 50% of new teachers within 5 years.
Finally, it is a widely accepted conclusion, even in the DOE administration, that the old District Office/Superintendent system was more efficient and responsive to school and neighborhood needs. The alleged waste nowhere near rivaled the scandalous waste of money since mayoral control was instituted.
It would seem that the whole Guliani/Bloomberg legacy as far as schools are concerned will be one of amazing incopetence and destruction.