This is probably the best overall analysis of the Bloomberg "candidacy" that I've seen. They'd probably never print it, but this should really be a newspaper op-ed.
I'd like you to analyze whether he'd be a good president or not. It appears that you don't think so, but you don't exactly say that here. If I'm right about that, what is the reason? As far as I can tell, Bloomberg is the best mayor in the country in both education and public safety - test scores are up and the dropout rate is down, teachers have seen huge salary increases, the city has the lowest murder rate ever, the smoking ban, trans-fat ban... those are all incredible accomplishments.
And the fact that he has a sky-high approval rating despite the worst economic downturn in 5 years... that's pretty impressive, especially considering the fact that he started with a low approval rating, which persisted until it became evident that his policies were working (and despite the blatant opposition of the NY Times).
Tests scores are up? According to who? Joel deKlein?
Bans bans bans. If I want a nanny state I'll move to Scandinavia. When Jonah Goldberg wrote about Liberal Fascism he had people like Bloomberg in mind.
It's okay for Bloomberg to think that I am not living the right way, eating the right food. When he has the long arm of government enforce his beliefs on my person he has gone further than any Democrat in my memory.
Not to mention that his righteousness extends to how the community should look and who should live and work there. He approves the use of eminent domain to pave the way for private development of his taste and run by his pals, see Atlantic Yards.
He is an enemy of individual liberty and combines in his practices the worst elements of Big Government and Big Business.
As to his accomplishments the crime downturn credit belongs to Ray Kelly and 38,000 men and women in Blue. I don't think you will find Bloomberg among the top ten in popuarity amongst them. The statistics for the schools are at best inconclusive and at worst deceptive. Anecdotally, my middle school received a B from Klein's report card, a rating of Proficient from the acclaimed Quality Review and a School In Need of Improvement from NY State and NCLB. They can't all be right. I'd trust the State, Bloomberg and company will use their communcation skill to spin the results to make it appear their reforms(three and counting in five years) have turned NYC schools into Garden City or Great Neck.
Wow. Even I didn't think Bloomberg had THAT much money. How the heck did he buy off Socrates?
Hmm....maybe it's not the REAL Socrates? That one understood pedagogy. Bloomberg never hires anyone who understands the basics of teaching.
Caught Bloomberg's State of the City address on CSPAN today. Wow. What can I say? Every time he opened his mouth I thought "that's got to be the worst idea I've ever heard." Then he kept talking. It got worse and worse. All I can say is wow. WOW.
He's scary. Talk about nanny state!
Socrates must have be a Google-maven on his staff. Look for that first paragraph of his comment to crop up elsewhere in various shapes and sizes.
No, tests scores are not up. Recent NAEP (Federal) test results show no improvement in 8th grade math or English and none in 4th grade English. State test scores are up in the four years since the mayor's reforms, but not as much in the four prior years. I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the schools are better under the mayor despite the fact that he's held complete control over the schools for six years.
There is a very chilling article in today's (Monday's) NY Times about how the chancellor and the mayor (under the guidance of wise Christopher Cerf) are going to use test scores to measure teachers and that they may publish this data.
It is so evil that all teachers must fight this crap. These tests measure nothing but test taking skills....
I just am so angry that Randi Weingarten has known about this and has not done anything to stop this at all.....
Here is the link to the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/2...eachers.html?
hp
EVERY TEACHER NEEDS TO READ THIS ARTICLE!!! THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS--using the test scores, publicly humiliating teachers and turning the schools into nothing more than testing mills is going to destroy our country.
This post was exceedingly informative. Thank you so much for taking the time to lay everything out so eloquently.
Rhoda- Read the piece in the Times this morning- I am still sick to my stomach. A sick-out in protest is in order, at the very least.
Hmm, I guess mocking someone’s name is only impermissible if the person whose name is being mocked is sympathetic to the blog host… pretty sure that if I would chime in with some inane anti-Klein vitriol every once in a while, our friendly moderator would have publicly chastised, and perhaps even banned, my good friend “Just a Cog.” Oh well, I’m a grownup, and can handle the jabs, even if I am not allowed to jab back.
The fact of the matter is, NAEP scores under Klein ARE up: +8 points in 4th grade reading since ’02; +4 points if you include LEP students in the ’07 scores even though they weren’t included in the ’02 scores; +11 points in 4th grade math; +7 points in 8th grade math. The only place the scores went down is 8th grade reading, and there by only 3 points since ’03. So there were dramatic score increases in 4 out of 5 major tested areas and a small decrease in 1 out of 5 areas – sounds pretty good to me.
I guess the New York Times didn't bother to read the latest Bloomberg propaganda.
Neither did Diane Ravitch.
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/
B...the_distri.html
"...when The New York Times published a first-page story that accurately described the NAEP results for the city, the Chancellor's office sent out an email that went to over 100,000 recipients, denying that acheivement was flat. He sent out a graph showing NAEP gains that started in the 2002-2003 year, before his reforms were implemented.
Even Lynn Olson, the very smart and able editor at Education Week, was taken in by the Department's statistical legerdemain. In her story about New York City, she reiterated the spurious claim that reading scores went up in the early days of Children First, but this was wrong. They went up on the NAEP test between 2002 and 2003. The 2003 test was given in January-February 2003; at that very moment, the mayor and the chancellor first announced what they intended to do in September. Klein started his "Children First" program in the schools in September 2003."
The NAEP published very clear analysis stating there were no significant differences in 8th grade math, reading and 4th grade reading. The mayor, being a testing hawk, is going to have a very difficult problem explaining away his poor test results.
Commenting by HaloScan
