Sick: NYC's Bill de Blasio Puts Politics Before Poor Kids
The mayor has a vendetta against charter-school leader and former political rival Eva Moskowitz.
About 11,000 charter-school students and their parents descended on the state capitol building in Albany on Tuesday to protest New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio's decision to block two new charter schools from opening next year and to halt the expansion of a third.
De Blasio will allow 16 other charter schools to move forward with their plans to open next year. So what does he have against these three schools in particular? The answer: He's settling an old political score on behalf of his cronies in the teachers union.
The three schools sunk by the mayor are part of Success Academy, a charter network that posts exceptional test scores and had five applicants for every opening last year. "You're stopping one of the best charter schools with the highest grades," says Dyreeta Donahue, whose child attends a Success Academy school. "That just doesn't make sense. If the school was failing, then I would understand."
But Success Academy happens to be run by a former politician named Eva Moskowitz, who made enemies with the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) during her tenure as chair of New York City Council's education committee.
In November 2003, Moskowitz held a multi-day hearing on how union contracts imposed inane work rules on public schools and made it nearly impossible for principals to fire bad teachers. At the hearings she went toe to toe with one of the most powerful political figures in the city, UFT President Randi Weingarten.
During her testimony, Weingarten was flanked by the head of New York City's Central Labor Council, Brian McLaughlin, who would later go to prison for embezzlement. McLaughlin told New York's Daily News that he showed up because he "wanted to remind the city council members that the entire labor movement in the city is watching them."
They got the message. Bill de Blasio, at the time a member of the city council, did what he could to distance himself from Moskowitz during the hearing. When a group of witnesses spoke about how the UFT contract made it difficult to remove bad teachers, de Blasio was dismissive. "I served in the Clinton administration, so I know what spin looks like when I see it," de Blasio said. "And this is spin."
Two years later, when Moskowitz ran for Manhattan borough president, Weingarten and the teachers union campaigned against her. Moskowitz lost the election, which (for the time being at least) ended her career in politics.
During a public forum held on May 11, 2013, which was hosted by the UFT, de Blasio told the audience: "It's time for Eva Moskowitz to stop having the run of the place…. She has to stop being tolerated, enabled, supported."
Now that he's the mayor, de Blasio is doing what he can to please the teachers union and undermine Eva Moskowitz's schools—even if it means taking away the opportunities for thousands of kids to get a better education.
But at Tuesday's rally, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) and several state lawmakers from both sides of the aisle threw their support behind Eva Moskowitz and the kids she serves. Because many of the rules and funds governing charters are set at the state level, Cuomo in many ways has more control over the issue than de Blasio—and he may intervene and provide the funding that Moskowitz' schools need to open after all.
New York's battle over school choice is just getting started—and nobody has more at stake than the parents and kids who may be forced to return to their failing district schools next fall.
About 5 minutes.
Produced, written, and narrated by Jim Epstein.
Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But I've been assured that de Blasio is a man of the people and has the best interests of the less fortunate at heart.
He's so dedicated to the less fortunate that he's willing to use them as human shields!
this is why New Yorkers are leaving for red states like Florida, Georgia, Tennessee and Texas in droves.
The trouble is these a-holes still vote for the blue team.
true - you would think they would have learned
true - you would think they would have learned
I've heard a fat guy with a beard and a red suit drops off free gifts in the winter.
and who exactly is surprised by this?
Astonished, yes. Surprised, no.
nobody who has a clue
Once again, the state is the biggest bully of them all.
No, in a case like this you really do have to blame the individual. Not as if Top. Men. would fix everything, but just that things would be better if people weren't this evil.
Unions are scum
agreed
Charter schools are just the New Jersey Turnpikes of New York - you close them to score points against your political enemies.
I'm sure we'll hear all about this in the MSM as soon as they're finished with Christie.
I'll volunteer for his firing squad....what an evil bastard.
It is false to say that the kids would "have to" return to the failing schools. They could be private schooled or home schooled. Heck, they could simply NOT school them at all and that could hardly be worse.
Parents have a responsibility to train their children. Delegating this responsibility to the state isn't an excuse. A child who turns out poorly is still the parents' fault.
OK, hold it. Illiterate and innumerate parents are in no position to educate their children, even if they had the time and energy after earning enough to put food on the table. And if they are on "welfare", they are probably at least as exhausted at day's end; Ive collected unemployment a time or two, and the requirements of the bean-counters trying to justify their jobs can easily eat up as much of your life as full time employment.
Should they have been more responsible than to have children? Maybe, in an ideal world. If a generation came along that behaved that way about reproduction, they would be the first.
We may not want The State to have a near monopoly on educating children, but I really think that as a society we want to make sure that it happens, and happens as easily as is reasonably possible.
Do I have an answer? Other than to give generously to scholarships? No.
But I'm ready to listen to ideas.
C. S. P. Schofield|3.6.14 @ 7:06PM|#
"OK, hold it. Illiterate and innumerate parents are in no position to educate their children,..."
CSP, much as I enjoy your posts, you have a problem right here.
The historical fact is that many children were 'schooled' by parents who were both illiterate and innumerate, and they managed to learn both 'languages'.
The scholastic level of the parents is irrelevant to the scholastic level of the children; caring parents can bootstrap those kids far beyond what might be presumed.
You can go further back in history, but read Feynman's biographies for example; he 'learned it from his Dad'. The schools provided the facts; you can get those on the web now.
For Liberals, especially liberal politicians EVERYTHING is politics. Children are just pawns in their game. If it hurts them, too bad they are just being sacrificed for the cause. Liberal politicians will lie steal and cheat to advance their ideology and careers.
Look at Harry Reid's latest screed that "ALL people claiming harm to their lives and medical care are lying to prop up republican opposition to Obamacare". Really Harry?- every single person with these claims are LIARS! All of the liberal leadership parroted this absolutely absurd claim hoping some idiot would believe it knowing that the mainstream media would give this claim a pass.
that is why you should never ever ever vote for a democrat.
...or for a Republican
they aren't great but they are better. Biggest problem with Republicans are that they don't understand the concept of personal liberty. At least they think they are doing the right thing for the country
Democrats simply don't care. They use bribes and lies to stay in office even if it hurts the country.
tru dat,
while the outcomes are the same, motives matter. Lefties believe that their utopia is coming and that utopia will absolve them of all the evil they do in the here and now.
He knows which side the butter is on. 100% owned creature of the Teacher's Union. Next.
What do you expect from a full communist and a former Sandanista supporter?
The answer: He's settling an old political score on behalf of his cronies in the teachers union.
See! It's for teh CHILDRENZ, I tellz ya!
Those kids who benefited from school choice championed by libertarians will all vote for Obama's third term.
You just can't win in places like New York.
I think in all this, we are forgetting who the real winners are when charter schools are destroyed like the kulaks they are: the children.
You see, public schools are so bad that the kids will drop out, half literate and inoculated with platitudes. Then they will use these powers and abilities to go to college for free with free healthcare and follow their dreams! It's beautiful, when you think about it.
..."It's beautiful, when you think about it."
Not the term I'd use.
Hmm, think I should stop with the straw-progressive?
Personally, I think this is disgusting what de Blasio is doing, utilizing his union ties as blunt instrument of mafia-like force.
If NYC does go through with the charter school banning, which is their eventual plan, parents will either home school or leave.
And since de Blasio seems to be gunning for an education system that's strictly public, I'm sure he'll make some statute that makes home schooling illegal too.
Besides all this? I think de Blasio's a coward - not just for cozying up to union monopolization. He says it's "for the kids," and most times people hide behind that "for the kids" claptrap because they want to hide their own morally insidious plans.
De Blasio's a pretty narcissistic dude - he'll stop at nothing to get his way.
All the more reason we need an amendment mandating to summary execution of any politician who utters the words "children", "safety" or "fairness" in relation to policy.
Unions suck. Why does the state continue to hold a monopoly over education?
I'm stumped. I have to answer this question for a survey but unsure how libertarians view this. Thoughts?
Background: During Quebec's past election campaigns, public opinion polls were sometimes conducted and results were published right up until two days before the actual vote. The poll results showed voters' preference throughout the campaign. Some suggest legislation should prevent the release of poll results within seven days of an election.
Supporters say:
Polls unfairly influence election outcomes, as undecided voters tend to vote with the majority;
Polls discourage voter participation, because some may feel their vote will not make a difference.
Opponents say:
It is relevant to know how public opinion evolves in light of the events of the election campaign;
Voters have a right to access all information required to cast their vote including the vote intentions of the population.
A ban on polling at an arbitrary pre-election cutoff point would bar private citizens from asking too many other private citizens to voluntarily divulge their intended vote, if they intended to share that information with a third group of private citizens; in other words, it would prohibit people from speaking to other people about certain topics based on the scope of their speech and their motives for doing so. And it would then have to be enforced.
Seems pretty clear-cut, no?
Polls unfairly influence election outcomes, as undecided voters tend to vote with the majority;
Polls discourage voter participation, because some may feel their vote will not make a difference.
Have these effects ever been demonstrated to be either significant or consistent? In any case, the answer is "tough shit."
Voters have a right to access all information required to cast their vote including the vote intentions of the population.
No, they don't. However, if someone wants to provide information gathered from willing participants and other voters wish to be aware of it, it is illegitimate to forcibly prevent them from doing so.
How come NYC always manages to make Cuomo look like some kind of level headed moderate? It is very disturbing.