The OP said that having vulnerable groups suffer the most in events like this is the intention of the city.

Another way to say it would be: the fact that the most vulnerable groups have worse cases of COVID isn’t a bug, it’s a feature of a system built on inequality.

The intentional part is the literal decades of de facto and de jure racism. The environmental repercussions are a side effect.

Look up what environmental racism is if you aren’t familiar and come back and tell me if you think that’s what they’re talking about.

Is this website a caricature of itself or are you just ignorant and triggered by the word racism?

Edit: what you doing here New Hampshire?

I refuse to believe that you have no idea what environmental racism is.

Iconic!

I think about Mierle Laderman Ukeles’ art so often. I’m pretty sure her work has subconsciously influenced the things I pay attention to lol.

Okay hear me out.

There was a piece I saw at the Whitney a few years back (actually by DSNY’s longtime artist in residence!) that focused on the maintenance staff at the museum and urged viewers to see their work as part of the art too.

You can display art without security guards and desk/maintenance staff but museums and galleries can’t. Those workers aren’t artists but they’re a part of the art industry in the sense that it couldn’t function as it does without them.

Where we stopped talking about the same thing was when I responded to your opinion on lack of ability vs lack of care.

I asked why should we make sweeping generalizations/policies about all kids because a small amount of parents are irresponsible?

I also said from my very first comment that funding equality won’t fix everything and what PTAs and parent groups offer isn’t just money, it’s support/showing up for the kids. It’s pretty much what all of my comments say.

So I’m talking about equity in all resources (specifically support) but you’re talking about money and irresponsible parents. Two different pages.

I disagree but we’re clearly talking about two different things so ok.

Yeah. They’re included in the “some parents who just don’t care about their kid”.

But so what? Should we make policies and sweeping generalizations that affect all of the kids based on outrage at the small portion of parents who just don’t care about their kids? You know the kids of uncaring parents also attend school right? Do you know how many kids with shitty parents lean on their friends parents?

They would benefit from a more equitable distribution of resources (including less tangible ones). Let those kids have a better chance of meeting parents with more resources who can consistently show up and give support.

The only source there is: the 2019 Treyger collection. I wish they committed to collecting this info but it looks like the effort died after that first try.

BUT I picked Sherman because their number seems high but not clearly wrong like the ones that were $10k+ raised per kid. The fact that they have at least 3 professional fundraisers in their Parents Association as well as multiple named yearly fundraising events, lends credence to the accuracy (in my opinion).

Alright this is an exercise in foolishness because there are so many variables that effect costs but you issued a challenge and I’m a nerd so here we go:

William Sherman (PS 87) took in $20.3k per kid and raised an additional $2.3k per kid. The Title 1 school, Irving Gladstone (PS 186) took in $21.3k per kid and got an additional $681 per kid for Title 1. So that leaves our total at $22,600 vs $21,981 for the Title 1.

That’s a small monetary difference per kid but it’s a difference nonetheless. All without any necessary context.

The necessary context is that education and behavioral needs vary which means costs vary:

• 37% of the kids at Gladstone are learning English vs 3% of the kids at Sherman
• 71% of the kids at Gladstone come from a low income background vs 8% at Sherman
• Gladstone has a below average number of teachers with 3+ years of experience and Sherman has an above average number of teachers with experience (a 10% difference)
• They have a similar amount of special needs students but Gladstone spends a below average amount on their education ($25k per kid) while Irving spends a slightly above average amount ($34k). This could be Irving being bad with money OR it could be that Irving’s special needs kids just have more needs than Sherman’s.

So now that tiny monetary difference on paper is less tiny because of course the school with a ton more ESOL and low income kids need to spend more. They literally have more kids with more needs.

But yeah all of that culminates in what I was already saying was the issue: if you put all the wealthy and well supported kids in one school and all the low income latchkey kids in another, they aren’t going to be able to provide the same education. If you mixed up all the kids from both schools, divided them equally and sent each half to each one of the schools, they’re more likely to be able to cover each kid’s needs. You’d also have a good balance of parents who can’t get involved in school activities and parents who can.

It’s fun to think everything has a simple answer but it’s the laziest choice.

Of course there are some parents who just don’t care about their kid, but there are a lot more who love their kid and just can’t show up. Not showing up isn’t a sign of not caring like you’re implying it is when there are so many people, even those without kids, who lack free time after a full workweek.

If a parent feels like they can’t help their kid because they work 40+ hours a week to struggle for resources that aren’t sufficient and their kid is struggling and they have no other support system outside the school, obviously they’re going to lean on the school.

That article actually does say what I think it says though.

Did you click the link provided when they were talking about Title I funding to read the Chalkbeat article about it? Because the organization that collects education funding data specifically stated that they found that schools with the smallest share of low income students are able to raise and spend more. The information for parent fundraising and government funding are in separate places and because of that most education funding analyses (likely including wherever you got your data from) don’t include the parent fundraising money.

For a little bonus, I looked up the funding for the elementary and middle schools I went to (I’m poor, black and an immigrant and the demographics of those schools remain the same). I compared them to the funding info on the elementary and middle school that I picked kids up from when I was a babysitter.

They all get identical amounts of money per pupil from the government which is cool and expected. The PTAs for my schools raised no money in 2019. The other elementary raised over $400k, an extra $756 per kid and the middle school raised $97k, an extra $90 per kid.

What’s funny about the difference between those two schools is that despite being literal blocks away from each other, the middle school gets a lot more kids from outside the neighborhood. So while the elementary school had 9% economic need index, the middle school had a 35% economic need index. My elementary and middle school rates were 84% and 74%. I’d bet money that pattern holds up with an analysis of all the school because the people who collect this data already said it did.

And that funding info doesn’t include in kind donations like a wealthy parent donating a bunch of laptops to a school or a well connected parent setting up an internship program in their field or even a parent donating time to teach an extracurricular.

(And none of this at all even addresses the bigger issue which is ensuring every parent has the ability to be involved and present for their kid’s education.)

Except that it is a widely known fact that parent fundraising does make a difference.

In under a minute, I read your response, googled “discrepancies in education parent fundraising” and saw the 5th article that popped up literally discusses Coney Island schools.

Idk who she is, but I know for sure that the rats that run this city turn around when they get too close to her block.

Perfect bodega cat.

Public schools full of wealthy kids end up better funded not because the state gives them more money, but because of fundraising.

If you crowd all the kids with the parents who have time, money and resources into a few schools then it makes sense that those schools end up with more funding for programs and extracurriculars.

It’s the same as grouping all the kids with parents who have little to no time, money or resources. There’s no chance for them to be able to provide anything close to what “good” public schools get.

The issue is that all over the country spending on education doesn’t and can’t cover the things necessary to cultivate “good” schools. Education funding is great and can give kids resources but it can’t give them parents who can regularly afford to take time off of work to support/advocate for them or parents who can afford to take them to weekly therapy to address their issues.

In the context of everything else, I’m fairly sure they’re talking about medication. Another comment above mentioned staying away from psych meds which isn’t helpful to someone who might benefit from them.

Also wanted to add, from experience it’s worth letting your school know.

If you’re having a hard time overall, they can give you extensions for assignments and relax some of the attendance policies. They might even be able to point you to emergency grants and things like that.

Okay for right now, since you’re in school full time:

If it’s a CUNY they should have personal counseling and a health center. If it’s a cuny without those, see if you can be referred to a CUNY that has it.

Explain to them that it’s a crisis and hopefully they’ll be able to have someone see you asap. I mentioned the medical office because you’re having a physical reaction, they might be helpful for giving you techniques to slow your heart rate etc.

If it’s not a CUNY, see if the school offers any similar services. They should!

I don’t think in school personal counseling is the best long term answer but it’s useful for a crisis.

Oooooh I’ve been looking for something like this for a while! Thanks so much for sharing!

I said the richest and poorest neighborhoods voted for both parties.

I didn’t mention middle class because if you clicked the map, it would be immediately obvious that areas with people making median incomes largely voted blue. Also if you clicked the income map with recent income data, you would have to specifically ignore the large chunk of the reddest part of staten island with the $105k median income to focus in on the tiny part that makes $85k. Wonder why you’d do that?

This discussion is about nyc’s recent election and how it compares to income in the boroughs but now you’re linking a single article from 2021 that discusses the democratic national party.

Good job.

Damn that’s a lot of weird nonsense all to say you don’t care about facts.

Lead with that next time.

You can definitely hold your own views but they aren’t based in fact. Sure, many recent immigrants work blue collar jobs but blue collar is not the same as conservative at all. A lot of white recent immigrants tend to be conservative and will vote that way and a lot of religious non-white recent immigrants have some conservative personal opinions but wouldn’t vote for a party where racism is one of their values.

Also, the reddest part of Staten Island is one of the richest parts of the city so no it should not be separated because of ~vibes~.