Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mdervin t1_jdije6t wrote

Reply to comment by _the_credible_hulk_ in NYC: Success Academy Buys New Properties While Planning to Charge Rent to NYC Public Schools by barweis

No. terms have meaning. Let's say for example you work for the city, you save up a bit of money buy a building and the city comes to you and says "We'll rent that building from you." Are you double dipping from the city? No of course not.

Now, let us say you are a lazy incompetent worker, show up late, leave early, shoddy results, but you still save enough to buy a building and the city still rents from you? Is that "double dipping?" Once again no.

Now let's say in the rental agreement with the city it's stated that you are to provide handyman and general repair service included with the rent. A window is broken, you repair it, you send a bill to the city for the materials & labor to repair that window. Is that double dipping? Yes!

6

_the_credible_hulk_ t1_jdil2nk wrote

Money that’s earmarked for educating children should not generate profits. Those profits should not be used to purchase a building that generates further profits. That building should not take further money from the city’s coffers through charged rent.

3

mdervin t1_jdimdoq wrote

So you don't think teachers should profit off their labor? Textbook Publishers? Janitorial Supply companies shouldn't make a profit off what they sell to the school?

edit: NYC spends about 30K per student. Archbishop Molloy charges 11K per year tuition.

3

_the_credible_hulk_ t1_jdin0vw wrote

I don’t think charter schools should exist. They’re fundamentally different from all other individuals and companies you’ve mentioned. Want to start a school? Great. Go use your own money.

5

mdervin t1_jdir28u wrote

So now do you think NYC public schools are giving Children of Color a proper education?

3

_the_credible_hulk_ t1_jdiruf9 wrote

I think NYC schools vary widely in quality, just as charters do. The more charters that exist in the system, the more resources, student talent, and tenacious parents flow out of the public system.

4

mdervin t1_jdisn5a wrote

So you want to force students of color to stay in schools that fail them?

0

_the_credible_hulk_ t1_jdithth wrote

Straw man.

2

mdervin t1_jdivlyx wrote

That's not what a straw man is. You just aren't willing to accept the decisions Parents of Color make for what they believe is the best interest of their children's education.

Black and Hispanic parents want classes where their children are place with students with the same academic level. Black and Hispanic parents want disruptive and dangerous students kicked out of their children's class. Black and Hispanic parents want the school to be able to fire underperforming teachers.

You want them to sacrifice their children to your ideal of a public school regardless if those ideals help Black and Hispanic Children.

1

_the_credible_hulk_ t1_jdiyf9v wrote

No, that’s exactly what a straw man is. You’re arguing against a false opponent that you e created, not my actual argument.

You’re all over this thread arguing for charters charging the public rent on buildings bought with public funds intended to educate children. This is so obviously a money grab by organizations less and less accountable to those parents you claim to represent. Stop it.

I’m done here.

3

mdervin t1_jdj6bhr wrote

And those funds were used to educate children. The Board of Ed is riddled with grifters at all levels, a company with basic financial controls and discipline can make a substantive profit educating children. Once again.

The Catholic High Schools educate their kids at 1/3rd and the grade schools at 1/4th of what we spend on public school students.

1