Select Page

NYC Public Schools are Incompetent

The‌ ‌NYC‌ ‌public‌ ‌schools‌ ‌are‌ ‌now‌ ‌supposed‌ ‌to‌ ‌begin‌ ‌opening‌ ‌on‌ ‌September‌ ‌29,‌ ‌but‌ ‌unions‌ ‌continue‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌apprehensive‌ ‌about‌ ‌in-person‌ ‌instruction.‌ ‌De‌ ‌Blasio‌ ‌already‌ ‌delayed‌ ‌school‌ ‌opening‌ ‌twice‌ ‌this‌ ‌year‌ ‌after‌ ‌ongoing‌ ‌threats‌ ‌of‌ ‌a‌ ‌teacher‌ ‌strike,‌ ‌‌citing‌ ‌“‌concerns‌ ‌raised‌ ‌by‌ ‌our‌ ‌labor‌ ‌partners.‌”‌‌ ‌On‌ ‌the‌ ‌other‌ ‌hand‌ ‌NYC‌ ‌charter‌ ‌and‌ ‌private‌ ‌schools‌ ‌have‌ ‌a‌ ‌variety‌ ‌of‌ ‌‌re-opening‌ ‌options‌‌ ‌other‌ ‌than‌ ‌virtual:‌ ‌from‌ ‌fully‌ ‌in-person‌ ‌to‌ ‌hybrid‌ ‌to‌ ‌outdoor‌ ‌classrooms.‌ ‌The‌ ‌contrast‌ ‌in‌ ‌competency‌ ‌is‌ ‌astounding.‌ ‌ ‌

The‌ ‌schools‌ ‌have‌ ‌been‌ ‌fully‌ ‌closed‌ ‌for‌ ‌six‌ ‌months‌ ‌because‌ ‌of‌ ‌COVID,‌ ‌and‌ ‌it’s‌ ‌not‌ ‌like‌ ‌educators‌ ‌didn’t‌ ‌know‌ ‌that‌ ‌their‌ ‌singular‌ ‌task‌ ‌of‌ ‌providing‌ ‌education‌ ‌to‌ ‌children‌ ‌would‌ ‌resume‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌fall.‌ ‌Nor‌ ‌are‌ ‌NYC‌ ‌public‌ ‌schools‌ ‌the‌ ‌only‌ ‌education‌ ‌system‌ ‌to‌ ‌face‌ ‌COVID.‌ ‌Virtually‌ ‌the‌ ‌entire‌ ‌country‌ ‌has‌ ‌had‌ ‌to‌ ‌come‌ ‌up‌ ‌with‌ ‌plans‌ ‌to‌ ‌safely‌ ‌re-open‌ ‌schools,‌ ‌and‌ ‌yet‌ ‌NYC‌ ‌public‌ ‌schools‌ ‌continue‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌unprepared‌ ‌and‌ ‌incompetent.‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

De‌ ‌Blasio‌ ‌has‌ ‌proven‌ ‌incapable‌ ‌of‌ ‌negotiating‌ ‌with‌ ‌the‌ ‌unions,‌ ‌and‌ ‌in‌ ‌doing‌ ‌so,‌ ‌he‌ ‌has‌ ‌let‌ ‌down‌ ‌students‌ ‌and‌ ‌parents.‌ ‌This‌ ‌inability‌ ‌to‌ ‌effectively‌ ‌execute‌ ‌a‌ ‌plan‌ ‌to‌ ‌help‌ ‌students‌ ‌learn‌ ‌is‌ ‌perhaps‌ ‌the‌ ‌strongest‌ ‌argument‌ ‌to‌ ‌date‌ ‌as‌ ‌to‌ ‌why‌ ‌charter‌ ‌and‌ ‌private‌ ‌schools‌ ‌should‌ ‌really‌ ‌be‌ ‌the‌ ‌models‌ ‌we‌ ‌move‌ ‌towards‌ ‌in‌ ‌order‌ ‌to‌ ‌provide‌ ‌quality‌ ‌21st‌ ‌century‌ ‌learning‌ ‌to‌ ‌our‌ ‌children.‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 

Private Option In Government

During the health care debates last year, there had been much talk and support on the Left for the concept of a “public option” in the bill.  The rationale behind this, according to the federal government, was that there is not a sufficient free market for health insurance in some parts of our country.

Accordingly, they deemed it their job to get consumers the best coverage at the best price, by offering a competing a public option, seemingly on par with private insurers.

I believe the promulgation of the public option was deceitful. There was never going to be an equal footing, as the Government would severely limit the range of allowable insurance and then use its financial and political muscle to gain customers, as acknowleged by Senator Chuck Schume, among others. Nevertheless, it had so much support that it was included in most of the drafts of the health care bill.

Reflecting on the merits of the public option argument as we debate how to reign in our excessive government spending, my question is this:  if this “public option” was viewed as a necessity in terms of competition and cost, why should there not be a “private option” in every area that the Government – federal, state, local – has staked out an unnecessary monopoly for itself?

Other than National Defense and the Criminal Court Systems, there appears to be no reason – other than creation of a power base to enable the bloated government salaries that we see today – that the private sector should not be given an opportunity to compete on a level playing field.

Based on the government’s rationale, there should be a “private option” in virtually every area of public service.