The Globe cites sources.
Golar Richie sent e-mail to supporters tonight inviting them to "a Mayor of Boston endorsement event" at 10 a.m. on Saturday at First Parish Church, 10 Parish St., in Dorchester.
To get theses endorsements?
these endorsements are usually political deals. Something tells me if walsh wins it'll cost us.
Understatement of the year! Perhaps not in the way Stevil intended.
I believe Walsh's election will be the start of an awful decline for Boston, as compulsory unionism in the public sector will experience its glory days...and taxpayers by and large reach their breaking point.
Connollly may be no knight in shining armor, but I will certainly vote for him in that it amounts to a vote against Walsh.
If Walsh gets in we will see Curley levels of cronyism and will see a similar exodus of the tax base from punitive taxation.
On the bright side New York City is about to elect Dinkins 2.0. So both our cities can compete in an epic decline competition.
Why would [John Connolly insinuate] he was a professionally credentialed and experienced teacher prior to joining the City Council when in fact he was merely a volunteer at a small Catholic school in NYC [for two years] and then taught a year at [Renaissance] charter school in Boston while also in his first year at B.C. Law. That’s not night school. Full time days. The hardest year by far of the three. Little time for anything else but reading law books. Yet this is when he.. tells us he was teaching kids from every neighborhood in Boston.
Using the police contract and the school bus drivers' wildcat strike as a gauge, I have more confidence in how Marty Walsh handles labor disputes -- fairly for all interests -- than in John Connolly.
I guess you like big banks controlling the city. I understand
You mean like Goldman Sachs? What the hell does that even mean? Oh, that's right, because a guy went to Harvard and became a lawyer he is under control of "big banks". Get a clue.
“Charlotte believes that Marty understands the struggles of working people because he has lived through it, She knows that he will stand up for the people who have been marginalized and disenfranchised because those people are his neighbors.”
You really should pay a visit.
Here's what you should do. Visit the Ryan Playground. You've heard of it, right? It's where Marty got shot. Anyway, that was late at night between drunks, but during the day you can see his neighbors. All races. All classes. All sorts.
Sure, the St. Margaret's where Marty started out was white and Irish. Then the Vietnamese came. Then the Cape Verdeans. Then Haitians, Hispanics, UMass students, and now the start of yuppies. Working class (saving the last two groups)
Go on, see what he sees every day.
Look, I'd love to knock the "union boss" view that people have of him, but unlike most of you, Charlotte Golar Richie actually knows him from the State House. She is not gritting her teeth to say what she said.
She promised the crowd Walsh would appoint a woman police superintendent and that his City Hall cabinet will reflect “50 percent people of color and women.”
So you're saying I should vote for someone because he got shot at a playground during a late night drunken exchange? Why is that? Because he knows what it means to be an inner city youth surrounded by gun violence? Go pound sand you twit.
Golar Richie endorsed Walsh because he "promised" her more. Walsh "promised" her more because he's a yes-man. A yes-man is typically a great candidate, but more often than not a poor leader. It's legitimately impossible for a politician to please every voter, especially in a city as diverse as Boston, yet Walsh is trying to convince us he can do exactly that...
Because running the city by super PAC's and corporations is the better thing to do. Looks like it's working well in DC. Dismantle unions and cut workers pay doesn't generate tax revenue.
You're responding to what exactly? Or are you just in the habit of using a straw man?
After Hurricane Katrina, the school privatizers got into New Orleans. Today 80% of the charter schools in New Orleans get a D or F grade from the LA Dept. of Education. A majority of Charter schools, even as they "cream" students (keep the good test takers, council the bad test takers out) do not outperform public schools over time.
Here in Boston we have the best urban public school system int the US. And we can make it better still.
Sorry but that's holding the bar awfully low, no? If a third of the kids drop out then how do you consider that remotely OK?
Of course it's not ok. Why do kids drop out?
Jshore, why do you always trumpet this line in Twitter, but only post here anonymously? The BPS has room for improvement, especially at $1b/yr
I'm not Jshore.
It matters that Boston has the best urban public school system in the nation. And if people would listen to students, teachers and parents here in Boston, instead of WalMart-funded ed reform astroturfers, lobbyists funded with hedge fund assets, free-market think tanks, and corporate ed reformers we could make BPS better still.
Every new charter we open causes a BPS neighborhood school to merge or close. And yet both candidates allegedly endorse a neighborhood school model.
BLS is part of BPS and you wont hear anyone say we should close it and open a charter school instead.
The heart of the challenge in urban public schools starts before age 5; it's poverty and it has a stark impact on early development. Ed reformers say education is the path out of poverty. That argument has merit in terms of potential earning power later in life but early in life the effects of poverty must be mitigated to give a student a chance.
I don't see parents choosing those over a lot of the private charters - although many probably prefer it to a mainstream school.
How is it that even the in-districts can't seem to compete with the private charters?
Like it or not - the private sector does most things better than the government - look no further than the chaos that is the Obamacare sign up system. That kind of failure in the private sector would be a death warrant. In the public it's a SNAFU and I mean that in every sense of the acronym (and for the record - I support the core of Obamacare - universal coverage and no exceptions for pre-existing conditions - but that still leaves a lot to be fixed).
> That kind of failure in the private sector would be a death warrant.
Then why are banking executives some of the only people that came out ahead from the disaster they created?
Or were out out the country for several years during our still not-yet-quite-over banking crisis?
Just one article: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/oct/12/us...
They obviously did not cause nor could they have prevented the crisis. Name me a c-level exec at a major "guilty" firm that didn't see his/ her firm go bankrupt or still has a job.
keep in mind every "guilty" firm is either out of biz or their stock took a 90% hit meaning the execs got creamed relative to their former wealth much/most of which was typically in company stock or options.
you seriously can't blame people for just doing their jobs.
People don't turn to privatization of public services because private does it better, they turn to private because private does it more cheaply, usually by cutting pay and benefits. In the case of charters, private does it more expensively than public by about $3000 per student per year. Charter schools recruit teachers directly out of college, in other words they have zero experience teaching. The bargain is two years commitment in return for forgiveness of school loans plus entry level pay. The majority of charter teachers move on after 2 year to attend grad school.
... that these folks find Walsh himself and/or his basic political stances more acceptable?
Sorry, I don't see privatizing public education (at public expense -- but with private profits) is a very good idea -- so, I too will pass on Mr. C.
In mass is a private company reaping wads of profits? All the charters I have seen appear to be pretty much hand to mouth as the public subsidy doesn't come close to covering the cost.
...is privatization of public education. There may be independent charter schools that are not profit-oriented, but there is no big money to be made from these. If opening charters is made much easier, do you really think the for-profiteers can be kept out?
I like Daine Ravitch's charter myth-busting:
The hedge funders who love to invest in charters love them because of the New Market Tax Credits and "average cost" reimbursement per student -- about $15,000/student/year. They're looking at a 39%-50% return on investment. Highland Capital Partners are into it. Charters hire recent grads from good colleges, train them for 5 weeks, and let them loose in the classroom for dirt pay and student loan debt forgiveness after 2 years, when they usually move on to grad school. They teach to the test and they council out kids who aren't doing well. This is how they show improvement in test taking on the average. It's called creaming. They also don't forward fill - replace the empty seat of a student who left - with a new student.
In Mass. we have a for-profit operator, SABIS. They like to hire teachers from Turkey. I think the state law says for-profit charters are illegal so I don't know how they got a charter. But truth be told, people are profiting plenty off the non-profit charters.
Please do consider adopting a nom de forum -- so that your future (hopefully equally useful) replies have a brand name (so to speak).
First I read this stuff from charter opponents and a lot of it doesn't apply to schools in mass like all these profits.
also, why are thousands of kids going there year after year w the support of their parents w thousands more on waiting lists while I never read about such things in bps including their in district charters?
finally don't both candidates support lifting the charter cap anyway - so what difference?
Did it become RedState in here? Yikes.
Maybe there's actually some balance here...you know, fodder for debate, the absence of all-blue?
Anyway, you don't have to be Scott Walker to loathe the prospect of a union-enabling mayor.
What do you have to be to loathe unions..
...an idiot who thinks unions present a significant threat to your prosperity but the top 1%, who've captured 95% of all economic gains since the crash in 2008, are not?
There is no profit without labor and labor -- all of us and not just organized labor -- are getting screwed. Meanwhile you wrongly focus your anger on the people helping to prop up the wage scale.
That's what I wrote. It's quite different from what you wrote, which twists the topic into loathing of unions.
The reference to Scott Walker infers my dislike of what public-sector unions have done (and threaten to do) to government budgets (read; taxpayers).
you don't have to be Scott Walker to loathe the prospect of a union-enabling mayor.
I asked what you have to be, and I answered it.
The unions are doing fine in Boston, thanks to taxes we all pay in Boston - middle class families, rich people in the Back Bay, etc... The 1% has nothing to do with the amount we pay for police, fire, bus drivers, custodians, etc... in the city. To argue that we need to support high union contracts blindly in order to fight against 'the 1%' and country-wide economic shifts is nonsense.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2022 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy