Now Evaâ€™s done it; really done it.
The already-controversial Eva Moskowitz committed the one sin that can only worsen the attacks against her and bolster attempts to block her plans to expand her Success Academy charter network: Her kids killed it on the state tests.
Whereas only 35% of New York City students scored proficient in math, 94% of her students rated as proficient. Whereas only 29% of city students met English standards, 64% of her students met the standards.
At her Bed-Stuy-1 school, where 95% of the students are African American or Latino, 98% passed the math test, with 8 in 10 scoring at the advanced level.
If your first reaction is to assume that these positive test results will ease Moskowitzâ€™s pathway for winning the extra 14 schools sheâ€™s asking to be approved at the state level, your assumption is probably wrong.
The New York charter controversies are no different from the charter controversies in Boston, L.A., and San Jose. The better the charter, the bigger the pushback.
What sounds nonsensical actually makes sense: The most successful charters pose the biggest threat to superintendents and teachers unions that fear their expansion. Nobody likes competition.
That fear explains what just played out in Massachusetts, home to the top-rated charter schools in the nation. An example of that excellence is found at Brooke Charter Schools, which operates three K-8 schools in some of the cityâ€™s highest poverty neighborhoods.
Brooke students are posting some of the highest proficiency scores in the entire state. Not surprisingly, Brooke would like to expand, adding another middle school and a new high school for their graduating middle-school students.
But last month, the Massachusetts Senate snuffed out an attempt to raise the cap on charter schools, an action Brooke needed to build those schools.
The vote wasnâ€™t even close, as senators, prompted by superintendents and union leaders, rushed to the microphones to denounce lifting the cap.
The Washington Post has an article outlining how the union movement in the US is marshalling its forces to attack franchise operators.
Those slimy SFWU scumbags will want the same for New Zealand.
The franchising industry in NZ worth about $20b. Unions wanting to unionise entire franchise systemsÂ would destroy much of that value.
Learn from the US, what happens there eventually comes here.
Franchising, one of the great American business success stories, is increasingly and unfairly under attack. Lawmakers need to pay attention and ask some questions.
More than 770,000 franchise businesses operate in 100 different business categories in the U.S., including restaurants, hotels, business services, retail stores, real estate agencies and automotive centers. These businesses employ 8.5 million workers and contribute more than $494 billion to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product, or 3.1 percent of total private sector GDP.
Unfortunately, franchising is the target of a well-financed, national campaign by the Service Employees International Union. The SEIU has launched a multi-pronged assault at the local, state and national levels of government.
The SEIU wants to undermine franchise contracts so it can more easily unionize entire franchise systems. The union and its affiliates want government officials to designate entire franchise systems as a single unit rather than the collection of separate, small business owners they actually are.
The reason is simple: It is much more difficult for unions to organize employees of thousands of independent small businesses than to unionize a single, large entity.
The effort is a desperate, special-interest ploy to replenish the unionâ€™s dwindling coffers and declining private-sector membership. The policy advanced by SEIU is meritless and stands in sharp contrast to years of federal and state legal and regulatory precedent. Â Â Read more »
The teacher unions are never happy.
Despite a resounding majority victory, the first in the world under an MMP electoral system, the NZEI is claiming that John Key doesn’t have a mandate.
The largest teachers’ union in the country says it will continue to fight against the Government’s plans to reform the education system, despite the weekend’s historic election landslide.
In winning 48 percent of the vote, National became the first party to win an outright majority in Parliament under MMP. But New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) national secretary Paul Goulter says that doesn’t necessarily give them a mandate to implement the $359 million Investing in Educational Success (IES) scheme.
“I don’t think there could be any evidence at all to say that parents and communities and teachers in any way support it on the Monday after the election, compared to the Friday before the election. There’s just no evidence of that,” he said on Firstline this morning.
Mr Goulter says parents voted on “bread-and-butter matters”, not individual policies.
Under IES, expert teachers will get up to $20,000 extra pay, and principals up to $40,000. The catch is they would have to spend time away from their usual school to help out others the Government deems are struggling.
In August, 93 percent of NZEI members who took part in a vote on IES rejected it. Three-quarters wanted it dumped altogether, with the rest wanting it retooled.
Mr Goulter says the Government might have a mandate to push ahead with IES if it supplied evidence that it will actually improve educational outcomes.
“The evidence that they’ve bowled up so far is quite frankly pathetic,” he says. “As far as we’re concerned, things like mandates have to be subject to evidence and bringing parents and communities along, and that hasn’t happened.”
The cognitive dissonance of the left continues with two union leaders on Radio New Zealand professing undying love for David Cunliffe.
They both think that poor old David Cunliffe was hard done by.
These guys are so out of touch it isn’t funny.
There seems to be this continuing narrative that Labour should have gone further to the left.
Have they not noticed that 75% of people didn’t vote for labour and David Cunliffe. Read more »
A good case could be made that the Service & Food Workers Union election spending should be added to Labour’s.
Not only is the SFWU a large donor of Labour’s but they are also spending up large in their own right campaigning on behalf of Labour.
No problems with advocating to change the government, but to also advocate for voting Labour is probably well past the guidelines of the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Act.
A complain could also be made about the accuracy of their claims.
This is the poster they are plastering everywhere and my tipster sent this in from the Hutt Hospital.
Labour and the teacher unions spend their whole time treating the parents of school age children like they have IQs lower than a jam sandwich.
Examples are ignoring the benefits of National Standards (they are going to ban them of course), telling families in challenges areas that they don’t want Charter Schools (they are going to ban them of course), telling parents they will save $100 on donations – while charging them $3.50 a week for a “device”, etc.
New Zealanders would rather money was spent on improving teaching standards than on reducing class sizes, aÂ Herald-DigiPollÂ survey reveals.
Education has become a political battleground before September’s election, with both major parties promising to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on it.
Asked about their priorities, more than 60 per cent of those polled said they would spend money on trying to improve teaching standards rather than cutting class sizes.Â Read more »
The NZEI are staunch supporters of the Labour party, even helping them write their education policy.
You would think that Labour would have been easily able to source a Kiwi classroom image for their election messaging wouldn’t you?
Here is David Cunliffe pushing his lie about removing school fees.
â€” David Cunliffe (@DavidCunliffeMP) July 17, 2014
The background photo isnâ€™t from a Kiwi classroom. Â Read more »
Further to my early post about Rodney Hide’s article of union money in politics, we have a good shot of the malign influence of unions on the Labour party.
They have been feted on stage by their bought and paid for leader.
David Cunliffe with Labour’s union affiliates pic.twitter.com/mAidUkGBo1
â€” Tova O’Brien (@TovaOBrien) July 5, 2014
The Owl is not surprised by the press release about the Unions donating funds to NZ Labour Party. The Owl says this is orchestrated because it is showing an incredible â€śsqueaky cleanâ€ť approach with all the donation sagas going on.
Observation by the Owl.
EPMU says they are going to donate $60,000.00 but when you read the EPMU constitution, the executive powers does not state anywhere that they can make donations to a political party.
The Executive Powers are quite clear in Section 6 (paraphrased headings).
- Represent members
The Objectives are as per Section 5 read to promote the members wishes through a variety of methods which are sound and reasonable.
This this is where the Owl thinks it gets all a bit â€śtrickyâ€™Â – the EPMU is affiliated to the NZ Labour Party, votes for the leadership and appoints a member to the NZ Labour Party. Â Â Read more »
Terrible weekend, had to spend it with a bunch of bloody tories in the town hall in Wellington.
The only intelligent discussions I had all weekend were with the cleaning staff and the dustman on the streets when I was out for my early morning run. Nats says that all those Bellamys pies are showing on the middle. Little does she know that those are union approved pies.
Some old duck came up to me and told me I reminded her of Winston in his younger days. Silly old cow didnâ€™t recognise I am much, much taller than Winston. And better looking. And that old bastard Bob Jones has been having a go at me for not speaking properly.Â Read more »