« Open Thread Rate It: 513 MacDonough Street Sells for $420,000 »
November 4, 2009
Election 2009: No Big Surprises in Brooklyn
You've probably seen them by now, but just in case (and just in case you feel like discussing), we've post the results of all the Brooklyn City Council races yesterday on the jump. In some of the races most relevant to Brownstoner-land, Tish James, Brad Lander, Al Vann, Charles Barron, Sara Gonzalez, Vincent Gentile and Mathieu Eugene all emerged victorious.
2009 NYC General Election Returns [NY1]
Photo by Susan NYC
District 33: Steven Levin (91%)
District 34: Diane Reyna (60%)
District 35: Letitia James (92%)
District 36: Al Vann (64%)
District 37: Erik Dilan (86%)
District 38: Sara Gonzalez (82%)
District 39: Brad Lander (70%)
District 40: Mathieu Eugene (94%)
District 41: Darlene Mealy (96%)
District 42: Charles Barron (93%)
District 43: Vincent Gentile (60%)
District 44: Simcha Felder (uncontested)
District 45: Jumaane Williams (77%)
District 46: Lewis Fidler (79%)
District 47: Domenic Recchia (88%)
District 48: Michael Nelson (90%)
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/12143
Comments
DAMN AL VANN!!!
Posted by: faithful at November 4, 2009 9:32 AM
Where's BHO this morning?????
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 4, 2009 9:33 AM
The only reason Bloomy didn't actually have a landslide was because folks got all "oh -- we *know* he's gonna win" and didn't bother showing up.
I don't know how many registered voters there are, but a turnout of 1.1 million seems pretty damn crappy! And thoroughly disappointing.
He probably could have save 1/2 his campaign money by simply devoting time to a "Make Sure You Show Up" campaign...
Posted by: tybur6 at November 4, 2009 9:33 AM
tybur6, as I mentioned in Wed links, I think the abstentions HELPED bloomberg, not hurt him. I only voted at last minute when prodded by friends since it seemed Bloomberg had it in bag, but I wound up voting for Thompson. Other people I know (who would have voted for Thomspson) didn't bother to go. I know that's pathetic (and I feel strongly about voting so did manage to drag by butt to the polls) but sadly, I think it's the truth. I am disaffected by Bloomberg, and glad that he got the message that his policies on the schools, development, haves vs. have nots are alienating big swaths of the electorate...
Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 4, 2009 9:38 AM
i voted. agreed, turnout was pathetic. at my polling station there were literally about 10-15 volunteers for every voter.
Posted by: CG_ups at November 4, 2009 9:39 AM
I don't see how the abstentions helped Bloomberg. it's just not logical. Anyone who wanted Thompson must surely have actually HATED Bloomberg and would have been motivated to vote.
Bllommberg supporters became apathetic given his big lead in the polls so they just didn't show up.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 4, 2009 9:42 AM
Perhaps Muffy... I have to agree with you about the clear message the election result map will send to the Gracie Mansion. I voted for Bloomberg -- I think he competent and many of the programs I value (like plaNYC and its related greeNYC) are frankly revolutionary... he actually has the guts to do long-term strategic visioning and planning beyond the next election cycle.
That being said, no doubt... he has alienated many residents and I hope the message was received. However, I wish folks would recognize at least SOME of the great works his administration has done -- not least of which given the jokers on the City Council a proper kick in the ass when they needed it.
Posted by: tybur6 at November 4, 2009 9:44 AM
But a lot of would-be Thompson supporters (I speak from my own experience) barely tuned in since it seemed like Bloomberg had a lock on the election. The race was close enough that a pretty small amount of people like myself could have changed the election (and I only tuned in/voted at last moment...)
Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 4, 2009 9:45 AM
I think Ms. Muffet is right. I also know a lot of Thompson supporters who failed to vote because they thought Bloomies' third term was inevitable. In the world of elections 1+1 doesn't always = 2, as in you can hate Bloomberg with a passion and still not feel a motivation to vote.
Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at November 4, 2009 9:47 AM
Two completely different and plausible ways to look at why people don't turn out to vote.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 4, 2009 9:49 AM
I should also say that perhaps unlike others who voted for Thompson, I don't "hate Bloomberg with a passion". I have a lot of respect for him as a good manager, and do think he's done a lot of good things for the city. That said, I am disaffected by his policies on public schools and real estate development, and agree with Thompson that he is "out of touch" with many ordinary New Yorkers, and the city feels increasingly to be pushing out the middle class. So, there might have been lots of people like me who felt apathetic since they did NOT hate Bloomberg, but just assumed he would win.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 4, 2009 9:51 AM
Had I known things were that close, I would have given my vote to Thompson instead of the Rent Is Too Damn High dude.
Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at November 4, 2009 9:52 AM
I'm with you there Miss Muffet. I don't actually hate him either, but I know a lot of people who do for various reasons. The only reason he didn't get my vote was due the the term limits issue.
Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at November 4, 2009 9:53 AM
Well, Bed Stuy/Crown Heights, don't expect anything to trickle down from the largesse of the City Council. Al Vann(ished), with the 2nd worst attendance record in the CC, will be with us for 4 more years. During that time, he will rest on his laurels, and sit in his office on Kingston Ave, holding court with his buds. The Putnam Armory will continue to have problems regarding their homeless shelter, the Bedford Armory will inch towards becoming the city's intake center for homeless men, Fulton St and Atlantic Avenue will continue to lag behind the rest of the area in upgrades and services, and Bed Stuy, especially, will continue to be plagued with out of context and fugly construction. Crown Heights will continue to be the dumping ground for every halfway house, rehab program, and shelter that is looking for a home. Our communities will not be on the receiving end of job creation, or increased police protection. If anything good does manage to happen, we can be confident that Al will be on hand to take credit for it.
So, that means we, the citizens of Bed Stuy and Crown Heights, are going to have to work twice as hard to control the direction of our own futures. Elections over, time to get to work. We'll work with Tish James, our other elected officials, and continue what we've been doing for the last 8 years anyway, which is looking out for ourselves. We have a great example to follow.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 4, 2009 9:55 AM
I would have voted if the Dems would have offered an alternative that was appealing in any way. But since they didn't, and since I wasn't interested in voting for a 2rd term, I stayed home for the first time in a long time.
Posted by: Ringo at November 4, 2009 9:58 AM
I know a bunch of folks who just couldn't pull the trigger for Thompson because he seemed to have nothing positive to offer in the way of skills or vision, but didn't feel like rewarding Bloomie due to the term limits thing or because of being generally fed up with the bullying. Voted either third party protest or skipped the mayoral ballot.
Posted by: slopefarm at November 4, 2009 10:00 AM
I was shocked at the low number of voters yesterday! Why don't people come out and vote? For the life of me I'll never understand that!!!
On another note...I to disagreed with Bloomy running for a 3rd term BUT up against Bill Thompson he was the better candidate (in my opinion).
Posted by: A CrownHeightsLady at November 4, 2009 10:03 AM
Slopefarm, I was almost exactly one of the people you suggested. The little bit I tuned into the race, Thompson often seemed to be on the defensive. It was only when I read more about his endorsements that I felt I wanted to vote for him, but I think he suffered from a number of forces: 1) Bloomberg juggernaut of advertising and a general perception that he can "steer" the city well during moments of financial crisis: 2) lack of strong charisma; and 3) media playing up "slam dunk" probability of Bloomberg victory. I truly think the race could have done the other way if a small sliver of people like me did what I did at the last moment: voted for Thompson. I'm listening to mayor's reaction to the results and frankly, find myself more irritated by him since he's trying to spin things to his favor, instead of being humbled by the results and vowing to learn a lesson from them.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 4, 2009 10:05 AM
slopefarm...I agree Thompson had very little to offer. I listened to several radio interviews and he talked in circles never really answering any questions. BUT way is not voting a option for folks? Why not make a statement and vote for one of the lesser known candidates on the ballot.
Posted by: A CrownHeightsLady at November 4, 2009 10:08 AM
I agree with Miss Muffet... what I take away from this is that once again if the Democrats had had some balls and run a strong candidate and a real race it might have turned out differently.
Posted by: mshook at November 4, 2009 10:08 AM
Bloomy humble?! lol
Posted by: A CrownHeightsLady at November 4, 2009 10:10 AM
Not voting = apathy. Disgusting.
Posted by: ftgreenepark at November 4, 2009 10:15 AM
Not voting = apathy. Disgusting.
Posted by: ftgreenepark at November 4, 2009 10:15 AM
I agree. People who didn't vote because of the term limits issues should be ashamed of themselves. It is not an issue. it is a legal decision.
If you don't know the issues and don't vote that's one thing but to blame it on all these lame-ass reasons is disgusting.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 4, 2009 10:20 AM
Miss Muffet,
What is your issue with Bloomberg on schools? It seems like they are making progress. He busted up the huge hierarchy and countless levels of local beaurocrats, which was a major step in actually being able to put any real reform in place. Next step is breaking the stranglehold of the teachers union, which is the next big obstacle to allowing principals to run better schools.
Quite frankly, the main reason I could never vote for Thompson is that I was scared to death that he would reverse the education reform.
Posted by: Brokedeveloper at November 4, 2009 10:22 AM
Congratulations Bo$$ Tweedberg!!!
***Bid half off peak comps***
Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 4, 2009 10:23 AM
I agree that the teachers union needs to be taken on, but I think there has been way too much emphasis on "teaching to the test". I also think the schools are failing in terms of overcrowding, and overall, I'm very disappointed about how little the famed Bloomberg management trickles down to the schools. The debacles over people not getting into their zoned schools would have been laughable if it weren't so scary. And meanwhile, developers have been able to build with abandon without the city providing adequate infrastructure (i.e. more schools) to support the new development - the 321 zone is a great example of this.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 4, 2009 10:26 AM
BHO - now all that has to happen is the Yankees win tonight and you will be 0-for-prognosticating.....
As for who low turnout hurt or helped it is fairly easy to figure out - it helped Thompson - while turnout was low everywhere it was worse % in Manhattan SI, and Queens- where Thompson did poorly.
Anthony Wierner should hang himself today -he could have been Mayor.....
All I have to say is thank god - 4 more years of a good manager (everyone agrees) - you people have forgotten what a bad manager is like......
Posted by: fsrg at November 4, 2009 10:29 AM
"Quite frankly, the main reason I could never vote for Thompson is that I was scared to death that he would reverse the education reform."
Brokedeveloper;
Right on the money. Thompson is nothing more than a machine politician who would have been in the hip pocket of the civil-service unions and others who feed at the public trough, had he been elected.
Posted by: benson at November 4, 2009 10:30 AM
Miss Muffet, I am definitely with you on this one. Like you, I nearly forfeited my franchise yesterday because I was figuring it to be worthless. However, in a last minute fit of conscience, I managed to channel the spirit of those who struggled hard and long for my right to vote (some even dying for it) and trudged on over to the polls in order to pull that lever for Thompson (and NOT to pull it for Mathieu Eugene). Unfortunately, though, the great majority of folk who live in my district -- and countless others like it throughout the 5 boroughs-- took the view that voting was pointless. In their view, the election was decided the day that our billionaire mayor chose to reverse himself on term limits and to run for a third term in office. The irony, of course, is that Bloomberg was able to buy an election (again) primarily because of the failure of disenfranchised people to engage the system and to act on election day. It does not take rocket science to understand this phenonmenon. All it takes is an understanding that people who are down economically are often those who are the least likely to act politically. Emperor Bloomberg well understands this dynamic -- even if it took $100M of his money to prove it.
And, yes, another significant contributing reason for this mayoral election result is that Bill Thompson did little to ignite the imagination and voting passions of those who are neither disenfranchised nor wildly in favor of another 4 years of Bloomberg. Sigh.
Posted by: Brooklynista at November 4, 2009 10:37 AM
As a public school parent, I'm not at all impressed with Bloomberg's education record. Schools are still ridiculously overcrowded, and the schools seem mainly interested in getting as many children as possible to meet the bare minimum required for promotion. Kids who are doing well enough not to worry about failing, or too poorly to have any hope, seem to be written off at many schools.
As far as Bloomberg getting the message - fat chance. His self-serving term limits change shows exactly how little he thinks of voters who disagree with him.
But considering how uninspiring Thompson was, the 10- or 16- to 1 campaign spending advantage, and his use of millions of dollars or city discretionary funding and his own philanthropic giving to buy support, his margin of victory is unimpressive.
But he won the election, and has a City Council, most of whom owe their jobs to his willingness to overturn term limits.
Posted by: Sparafucile at November 4, 2009 10:37 AM
> Thompson is nothing more than a machine politician who would
> have been in the hip pocket of the civil-service unions and
> others who feed at the public trough
Which is obviously so much worse than Bloomie, who only allows the rich to slurp from his trough.
Posted by: DitmasSnark at November 4, 2009 10:38 AM
....how pathetic. Folks didn't vote cause they felt like the person they wanted to win would lose?!? how effin pathetic. What kind of losers are you people?!? This is America and you are New Yorkers?!?!
Fuckin losers. I hope you don't teach that to your kids.
Posted by: moreteasir at November 4, 2009 10:39 AM
"teaching to the test".
As opposed to what - this is the silliest of all of Thompson's and anti-Bloomberg's argument....
HOW ELSE CAN YOU DETERMINE IF THE KIDS ARE MAKING ANY EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS IF YOU DONT TEST THEM??????
Think the tests are dumbed down - fine
Think the tests are biased or inaccurate - fine
Think the tests are testing the wrong things...fine
BUT if you don't test then you have ZERO accountability (which of course is exactly what lousy administrators and lousy teachers want)
and FYI - Miss Muffett - 321 had a smaller entering class this year than expected.
Posted by: fsrg at November 4, 2009 10:40 AM
> 321 had a smaller entering class this year than expected
So they wont be double stacking the trailers yet?
Posted by: DitmasSnark at November 4, 2009 10:44 AM
Do you think Bloomberg will overturn the will of the people, as shown in their voting yesterday, and refuse to be mayor?
You know what he's like.
Posted by: dittoburg at November 4, 2009 10:46 AM
I think it's funny how the Bloomberg school reform efforts are supposed to be a magical magic wand that has IMMEDIATE effect and brings NYC's completely MISERABLE failing school system to the best in the country *over night*!!
Are you joking?
The NYC Department of Education includes over 1 million students, 1450 schools, over 80,000 teachers and has an annual budget of $17 BILLION not including debt service.
It took a long time for the schools to decline to the pathetic state that their in... many years of neglect and lousy administration. The 8 years of effort by Bloomberg has to be seen in this context... and guess what, he's performing ADMIRABLY.
Posted by: tybur6 at November 4, 2009 10:47 AM
Bloomberg would do well to look at other "mayors for life" like Ed Koch, who flamed out and went spiraling down in his last term. He, too, was very popular in his first 2 terms. 8 really should be enough, and there was a good reason to set term limits. Too many people are ego driven enough to think that the city won't survive without them, or that they have some kind of mandate to do whatever they want. That can lead to rampant misuse of power, and policies that do not have the people in mind. We might remember GWB's last term efforts to create a positive legacy, aspects of which put us where we are now, domestically and in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bloomberg should not think that he had a mandate, last night. For all his money and advertising, he squeaked by. If the Dems had a more charismatic and less tainted by the machine candidate, he would have lost.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 4, 2009 10:50 AM
There's a difference between testing and teaching to the test. If the test scores reflect a student's broader educational progress, that's fine, and I accept that generally there's a very strong correlation between test performance and overall knowledge acquisition. If they reflect only the rote acquisition of the skills necessary to complete a specific test format, that's a problem.
Tests should and can be a useful diagnostic tool, but not when they become the sole focus of the curriculum. I know many motivated and skilled teachers who can't wait till the tests are done in the spring, since then they have a few weeks when they can get the kids to engage in a little actual scholarship.
Posted by: Sparafucile at November 4, 2009 10:50 AM
"Which is obviously so much worse than Bloomie, who only allows the rich to slurp from his trough."
Really?? You mean the two new public school buildings that were built on 4th Ave in Sunset Park were for the rich? Also, the new firehouse on 4th Ave in Sunset Park was also for the rich?
I surely knew that the complete renovation of the BQE and 100's of parks in all sorts of neighborhoods was for the rich, but who knew that public schools on 4th Ave were for the rich?!?!?!
Posted by: benson at November 4, 2009 10:51 AM
Yeah Ditmas - cause the the THOUSANDS of minority children who are graduating today (and didnt in pre-Bloomberg years) are "rich"
The thousands of minorities that are ALIVE today (not victims of homicides that took place pre-Bloomberg) are rich.
Cause the tens of thousands of smokers who are ALIVE today (who wouldnt be pre-Bloomberg) are all rich....
Try taking off your silly class-warfare glasses and looking at who the real victims of bad management are
Posted by: fsrg at November 4, 2009 10:52 AM
And lets not forget who held a high position with the board of education when it was worse and failing during Giuliani's term as Mayor. It's amazing to me how Thompson points the finger at Bloomy when he did absolutely nothing when he was involved with the board of education. He is a joke. A clown that never answered questions. All he did was bring up what Bloomy did or did not do....BUT NEVER got around to telling voters what he would do as mayor. Which leads me to believe he would absolutely nothing!
Posted by: A CrownHeightsLady at November 4, 2009 10:53 AM
> the two new public school buildings... the new firehouse...
Are you saying he caved to civil servants like the firemen and educators, who feed at the public trough?
Posted by: DitmasSnark at November 4, 2009 10:56 AM
Bloomberg has done far more for the schools than Guiliani ever did. All Guiliani ever did was publicly humiliate Rudy Crew, et. al. to make it look like he was doing something. Guiliani is a bad man. Dinkins was just another machine guy, not wanting to upset the parts in the education machine.
tybur6 is right, though, its going to take some time, but its definitely headed in the right direction.
Posted by: Brokedeveloper at November 4, 2009 10:57 AM
Montrose Morris ... I agree with you term limits do serve a good purpose. I can't agree with that. But I just could not vote for Thompson...BUT I still voting! And I happen to also agree with MORETEASIR....anyone that didn't vote because they felt their guy wouldn't win is a loser!
Posted by: A CrownHeightsLady at November 4, 2009 10:58 AM
Correction:
Montrose Morris ... I agree with you term limits do serve a good purpose. I can't ARGUE with that. But I just could not vote for Thompson...BUT I still voting! And I happen to also agree with MORETEASIR....anyone that didn't vote because they felt their guy wouldn't win is a loser!
Posted by: A CrownHeightsLady at November 4, 2009 11:00 AM
Snark
You are being disingenuous today.
It's one thing to build new public facilities in an area with a growing population of immigrants that needs these services, it's quite another to be in the hip pocket of the civil-service unions.
Examples of the latter are not pushing the much-needed reform of the pension and health-care benefits of the civil-service workers. Pension costs are skyrocketing for the city and state, and are consuming a greater share of an already-strained budget. Thomson would have done NOTHING about this issue, simply because he would be at the beck and call of the unions, as are ALL machine politicians in this city.
Posted by: benson at November 4, 2009 11:03 AM
Term limits should only be applied to legislative positions, the power of incumbency and the limited ability of citizens to truly evaluate their performance (no press attention, limited individual power, etc) make term limits a useful tool for legislative vitality
- for executive positions??? I dont agree, we all can effectivly evaluate how a Mayor, DA, Comptroller, Governor, etc..is performing - and if they are excellent - it is too rare and too valuable to just throw them out "because". People can chose to throw them out if they wish, ut should have the option to keep good people - good executives are VERY hard to find.
Posted by: fsrg at November 4, 2009 11:04 AM
> the THOUSANDS of minority children who are graduating today
Taught only to regurgitate answers to a test, but not to think.
> thousands of minorities that are ALIVE today (not victims of homicides...
So if Thompson won, the city would lapse back into increased violence?
> the tens of thousands of smokers who are ALIVE today...
Are there credible stats for this?
Posted by: DitmasSnark at November 4, 2009 11:09 AM
> You are being disingenuous today.
Eh, could be. Plutocracy makes me cranky.
Posted by: DitmasSnark at November 4, 2009 11:11 AM
the "new" firehouse is a renovation of the original. Not a new company. Bloomberg closed firehouses and there is talk of closing up to 25 more. Yes- that is just soooo great. The renovations of various firehouses began under Guiliani.
Posted by: bxgrl at November 4, 2009 11:17 AM
I voted for Thompson. Win some, lost some. Today, I'm back to the same thing I always do. Politics and the results of these elections won't define my approach to life.
HOW ELSE CAN YOU DETERMINE IF THE KIDS ARE MAKING ANY EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS IF YOU DONT TEST THEM??????
Tests definitely serve their place. But as the husband and son of NYC public school teachers, I can tell you with accuracy that CURRICULUM - the stuff that builds learning - has been drastically de-emphasized in favor of memorization of diverse, test-oriented concepts that are not fully explored. The entire basis of learning has being subordinated to training for a specific series of tests. That's NOT teaching and learning. That is what people mean when they make this assertion, and it's a valid one.
Posted by: East New York at November 4, 2009 11:19 AM
> The entire basis of learning has being subordinated to
> training for a specific series of tests.
Thank you, ENY.
Posted by: DitmasSnark at November 4, 2009 11:22 AM
To throw a little wackiness into to mix today, My opinion is that we've exceeded the limits of scale... The consolidation of New York City in 1898 was a great idea back then. But then again, there were only around 3 million folks. The administrative unit is simply too big.
This is a problem that the United States has too... take for example, health care. There are lots of great national healthcare systems around the world -- but many of these simply wouldn't fit America. Not because of our incessant libertarian ideals, but simply because we're too big. Both population and landmass.
NYC should really start to explore the notion of devolution similar to Scotland. Still beholden to a "whole," but far less so. Brooklyn would have it's own Department of Education and Fire Department and Police... and you would only involve the "City" when you crossed boundaries -- like our relationship with NJ and CT.
Posted by: tybur6 at November 4, 2009 11:23 AM
Bxgrl;
I am not talking about the renovation of the firehouse on 4th Ave and 6th Street. I am talking about a brand new building on 4th and around 40th Street. Moreover, whether it was new or not is beside the point. The point is that he made investments in public facilities in non-rich areas.
As for the firehouse closings. If the statistics prove them to be meritorious (i.e. no increase in fire-related injuries and fatalities), then I say: bully for Bloomberg!! THIS is what a good manager is supposed to do: allocate resources where they are need, not where the civil-service unions say they should be allocated (in order to preseve their jobs).
PS: Yeeeeeessssssss!!!!!!
Posted by: benson at November 4, 2009 11:25 AM
There's an argument to be made against term limits. But rather than make that argument and trust the voters to have the final say via a third referendum on the matter, Bloomberg, Quinn, etc. just took matters into their own hands.
And the truth, which voters seem to recognize, is that the powers of incumbency, primarily the ability to curry favor via city spending, make it very hard to unseat an incumbent.
As scandal-ridden as Koch's third term was, he likely would have won a fourth if not for the Yusef Hawkins murder, and his response to it.
Posted by: Sparafucile at November 4, 2009 11:25 AM
"and trust the voters to have the final say"
Voters did have the final say, they voted him back in.
Posted by: dittoburg at November 4, 2009 11:29 AM
I'll never understand the "you have to vote or there is something wrong with you" people.
Abstaining is a form a of voting.
To tell people "just vote for someone you know will lose if you can't support one of the candidates with a chance to win" is idiotic.
Oh, and I didn't vote. Really had no time/interest to learn enough about local races to make an intelligent decision and would rather not vote like a dufus.
As for mayor, I won't vote for Bloomberg (because of his support for G.W. Bush) but sadly thought he was the best option.
Posted by: northsloperenter at November 4, 2009 11:30 AM
Viva Hugo Bloomberg!
fsrq, by your logic there should not be term limits for presidente de los estados unidos then.
btw, did anyone understand Senor Presidente's closing comment. something to the effect, "in Gaelic, disfruta la noche?"
i may be dense but that's espanol (see, he really admires latino dictators).
or is it early onset senility?
Posted by: antidope at November 4, 2009 11:30 AM
"Tests definitely serve their place. But as the husband and son of NYC public school teachers, I can tell you with accuracy that CURRICULUM - the stuff that builds learning - has been drastically de-emphasized in favor of memorization of diverse, test-oriented concepts that are not fully explored. The entire basis of learning has being subordinated to training for a specific series of tests."
What does that even mean????
First lets recongnize that for huge swaths of the NYC public School education system, teaching to a test - is the ONLY teaching that has gone on for decades...second, if tests arent properly designed to evaluate critical thinking and ananlysis - then change the test.
Frankly, I am not a teacher but as a former student, I believe that teaching kids to master subjects is a far better way to have them do well subsequently on tests and trying to teach rote memorization generally doesn't work as effectively.
Anyway I think this whole thing is a red-herring by the unions and politicos, cause it is totally non-quantifiable - all you have to say is "they are teaching to the test" and there is no effective way to refute it or truly examine it. I also believe if their is a greater emphasis on now, it is only because Bloomberg and Klien are attempting to build accountability into the system - now please tell me if you de-emphasis testing how can we effectively measure progress in our childrens education? anecdotally???
Posted by: fsrg at November 4, 2009 11:37 AM
"Abstaining is a form a of voting."
Give me a break. Abstaining from voting means NOT VOTING. And for all those who did not vote you should not complain about who did or did not win the election. Why should you care...you didn't vote!
Posted by: A CrownHeightsLady at November 4, 2009 11:37 AM
> ... great national healthcare systems around the world ...
> simply wouldn't fit America... because we're too big.
I've heard this argument before, but haven't heard any real data to support that assertion.
Posted by: DitmasSnark at November 4, 2009 11:39 AM
I'm glad that the election was as close as it was, but disheartened by the fact that Bloomberg still won't take any lessons from it. It's amazing to me that Hizzoner stated that he wants to change at least 15 out of 40 City Commissioners--- even though they are doing a good job--- just because he thinks that the staff needs to be shaken up after 8 years...but it's OK for him to stay on. Why is it OK for him and not anyone else?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/mike_honing_third_term_ax_with_eye_2YzrkykXhAPEyKAne7zbgI
Posted by: BrookLynn at November 4, 2009 11:42 AM
fsrq, by your logic there should not be term limits for presidente de los estados unidos then.
Yeah so? The republic had no executive term limits for like 150 years and we survived....and guess what only ONE time did a president serve more than 2 terms pre-22nd Amendment -
Posted by: fsrg at November 4, 2009 11:44 AM
"Give me a break. Abstaining from voting means NOT VOTING. "
Not voting for bloomberg prevents him from having a landslide victory and encourages him to have a more conciliatory attitude.
It is a form of voting and it is noticed.
I realize the "everyone must always vote no matter what crowd" will not understand this.
Posted by: northsloperenter at November 4, 2009 11:44 AM
It's a replacement building and there is a difference between replacing a building in danger of collapsing the floor under the weight of its own trucks and manning a new company. Some of those floors had over 60 jackes holding them up becuase new firetrucks and engines are so much heavier than the originals. And all those jacks are rented, not owned by the city. Want to save money? Fix the floors. And don't even get me started on the idiot cost saving measures he instituted- like putting in 4 man crews, or closing firehouses at night.
And no- the stats did not show them as meritorious- oops, I'm wrong- the Bloomberg I am a great manager showed them as meritorious. Response times, morale, etc did not. Let me also point out again- fire companies are insurance- not profit making enterprises. So are cops. You want safety, you pay for it.
Posted by: bxgrl at November 4, 2009 11:45 AM
> It is a form of voting and it is noticed.
It might make you feel better to believe that abstaining is a form of voting, but by definition, it most definitely is not.
Posted by: DitmasSnark at November 4, 2009 11:48 AM
"It might make you feel better to believe that abstaining is a form of voting, but by definition, it most definitely is not."
It's not an issue about me feeling better. I feel fine.
I won't bother trying to explain any more to this crowd though.
Posted by: northsloperenter at November 4, 2009 11:50 AM
Bxgrl;
Your arguments above are exactly those of an insurance sales person who tries to sell me a policy that is well more than what I need.
The civil service unions have used this fear-mongering for years to try to argue against cuts. Basically, it's the same issue as with educational testing - accountability.
I believe that deaths and injuries by fire are near a historic low in NYC, and likewise the murder rate. That's the bottom line for me. If you feel differently, fine by me.
Posted by: benson at November 4, 2009 11:56 AM
I agree with ENY 100% about education. Being able to regurgitate test answers is not doing any of our kids any real favors in life. Real learning involves honing the cognitive processes that allow us to figure things out, make deductive leaps so necessary in the sciences, math,engineering, etc. It enables us to express ourselves decently, even argue intelligently on a blog. Real learning encourages kids to go farther and do their own research, own further reading, or experiments. It stimulates the brain and increases one's intelligence
Knowing that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 14 hundred 92 may allow a kid to pass a test, having them discover the times Columbus lived in, the politics of Spain and Europe at the time, the power of religion, the sailing and navigational technologies of the era, the culture of the peoples of the New World, the natural sciences of oceanography and geology, and on and on, that's an education. How many of our kids are getting that, I wonder?
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 4, 2009 11:59 AM
George Washington: I'm tired of Great Britain, let's start out own nation.
Brownstoner Losers: We'll probably lose so let's not and say we did by not doing anything.
Posted by: moreteasir at November 4, 2009 11:59 AM
DitmasSnark -- I was wondering if anyone would notice my "devolution" comments.
First, I'm all for a radical change to our healthcare system. It should be universal, highly regulated and reward innovation (both in terms of improved health/quality of life and reduced costs). Those are mutually exclusive thoughts.
Second, I'm not referring to ALL healthcare systems in other countries. We most definitely should be stealing, borrowing and co-opting what works and what fits. It's the fit issue that I am referring to... Most nations are MUCH smaller, so a *national* solution is much easier to administer. Take Canada -- it's a 1/10 as populous. Where they have issues, generally, is with their size. Rural Canada gets the shafted. But countries like Britain and France are very successful in various social programs because they have a very efficient scale and population density. Central administration is just structurally easier....
But, my point is not the national healthcare debate. My point was exploring the idea of "Devolution" for New York City. Doesn't it seem a bit much to ask to reform the NYC Department of Education when it involves over 1 million students, 1450 schools, over 80,000 teachers and has an annual budget of $17 BILLION not including debt service??
What if the "City" was broken up into 5 administrative, autonomous units again (or 3 or 4 or whatever makes sense)?
The "culture" of each of these units could be better preserved. i.e., not simply Manhattan-centric. And decisions about how best to serve the population could be made on a significantly smaller scale. Just think about it... Rather than 8.3 million denizens all at once, you would only have to deal with the following:
Manhattan (1,634,795)
Bronx (1,391,903)
Brooklyn (2,556,598);
Queens (2,293,007);
Staten Island (487,407)
It's just a thought... and I'm sure it's been thought about before. And of course, the likes of Marty Markowitz could no longer be elected as the top dog. The chief executive of Brooklyn would actually count.
Posted by: tybur6 at November 4, 2009 12:00 PM
OK, Benson, now you're being disingenuous. First you extol the virtues of building a firehouse, and then propose we have too many fireman.
Posted by: DitmasSnark at November 4, 2009 12:02 PM
MM-"Real learning involves honing the cognitive processes that allow us to figure things out, make deductive leaps so necessary in the sciences, math,engineering, etc. It enables us to express ourselves decently, even argue intelligently on a blog. Real learning encourages kids to go farther and do their own research, own further reading, or experiments. It stimulates the brain..."
All true but public education in NYC (on a macro level) today is so far from this type of goal that it isnt relevant IMHO -upwards of 50% of the kids don't even graduate H.S.(and that is an improvement!!) .
First you have to teach the kids to read, write, basic math and some understanding of civics. The type of "higher" education you espouse is really for college level or in a system that provides the basic building blocks to a much higher percentage of its students.
Posted by: fsrg at November 4, 2009 12:11 PM
Note to Brownstoner Parents:
If you feel that the NYC education is not provided the best education to your child it's your responsibility to ensure that your child gets what he/she needs. You can start by voting! In may case I hired a tutor twice a week. I took the time to figure out what my child was not getting in school that I felt he needed and I am making sure that he now gets it. I too think that there is to much time focused on test but you can't through the baby out with the bath water. The schools are in better condition then they were in the 80' and 90's and are heading in the right direction. It will get better when parents take more responsibility for the education of their children instead of pushing it all on the city of NY.
Posted by: A CrownHeightsLady at November 4, 2009 12:11 PM
benson- and you are like the ostrich who would rather stick his head in the sand, I say you know very little about how and why the Fire Dept. works. You also might ask yourself why fires are crime are down. Maybe it has to do with all the changes and hard work of FDNY and NYPD? Nor have you taken into consideration the changes needed to deal with the future- ie terrorism, hi rise fires, etc. It isn't fearmongering and it isn't union greed. But maybe if you have a fire or you're a victim of crime, you'll finally get it. Or maybe you'll attend a cop or FF funeral. Or see the face of someone who was burned in the line of duty. How about Stephen McDonald? Remember him? I'm done.
MM- good answer
-bxgrl,
soprano, Amen Choir.
Posted by: bxgrl at November 4, 2009 12:11 PM
"OK, Benson, now you're being disingenuous. First you extol the virtues of building a firehouse, and then propose we have too many fireman."
Snark;
Not at all. I'm not making any statement regarding the number of firemen, as I have no expertise in that area. What I am saying is that if the Mayor cuts the number of firemen, and the level of fatalities does not rise, then he has done a good thing. It is up to the executive, NOT the unions, to make this call. He's the one who is accountable on this issue.
Regardless of the proper number of firemen, I would want them to have top-notch facilities. In my mind, the issues are separate.
Posted by: benson at November 4, 2009 12:13 PM
DIBS -- What's your opinion about firemen? :-)
Posted by: tybur6 at November 4, 2009 12:13 PM
Hey, can someone call the fire department???? My arse is on fire from Bxgrl's post!!!
;-)
Posted by: benson at November 4, 2009 12:15 PM
I was the only voter at 6 p.m. at my local polling place.
Posted by: Billions and Billions at November 4, 2009 12:21 PM
Benson! You want a hose to put out a fire on your arse? I didn't think you swung that way :-)
Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at November 4, 2009 12:21 PM
Snappy;
Good point. Cancel the firemen call. Please call for the nubile nurses with the burn ointment. Come to think of it, I've got burns all over. Two nurses will be needed for this job!
Posted by: benson at November 4, 2009 12:25 PM
As bxgrl said, firemen are insurance. May seem like a waste of money until you need them, then you're bitching that there weren't enough, didn't have the right equipment, couldn't get there fast enough.....
Besides fighting fires, the fire department conducts inspections; more than ever, now that the DOB is so non-effective, they have emergency medical training, more so than the average Joe, or the cops. They are called to chemical emergencies, and have terrorist response training. Fire houses are safe houses for latchkey kids, and anyone in trouble, and they do a lot of charity work for the homeless. I think they need more minorities and women, but I greatly admire them and their service. I'd rather have too many, than not enough.
If Bloomberg can foresee the future, and promise that we will not be attacked again, there will be no chemical warfare or accidents, and only a minimum of buildings will catch fire, then he has my blessing to trim FDNY. Since he can't do that, then leave 'em alone.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 4, 2009 12:26 PM
CHL - so true - I would consider MYSELF a failure if my kids went to school (kindergarten) without being able to more-or-less read, understand numbers and basic mathematical concepts like adding and subtracting and other basic knowledge that is necessary for survival in our world.
I then consider it my obligation to tutor them to "think" in the manner that MM so eloquently described as "real learning" - frankly when it comes to my childrens education - I look at schools as an assistant to me not the other way around.
Posted by: fsrg at November 4, 2009 12:33 PM
benson- the nubile nurses won't be coming. However we have notified your wife and she is on her way (fair warning- she is carrying a baseball bat and a tube of hair waxing stuff. The better to see where all those burns are [see yesterday's OT for details]) :)
Posted by: bxgrl at November 4, 2009 12:37 PM
fsrg...I'm so glad someone feels the same as i do when it comes to educating our children.
Posted by: A CrownHeightsLady at November 4, 2009 12:45 PM
fsrg, thanks for the complement, but I have to disagree that "real learning" has to wait until high school, or college, or even for the better public schools. All of that is too late. If kids are introduced to higher concepts early, they can carry them into the upper grades and beyond. It's like learning a second language when you are young, the brain just processes it, and moves on, no biggie. Even the worst, failing bilingual kids can do something most of us can't - function in two separate languages.
My nephew is bilingual. He's 3. He has already figured out who can speak only English, and who speaks his second language, or both, and he addresses us accordingly, without mistakes. It's amazing. Kids are smarter than we give them credit for, and can learn complex things, if given the chance. If they are stifled intellectually and imaginatively, then we suffer the results. It should be possible to teach the basic 3 r's, while not turning them off to the learning process. I know that's much easier on paper than in reality, but we've got to try in our schools.
I also agree that parents are the biggest educators, and kudos to you and CHL.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 4, 2009 12:54 PM
MM - I'm sorry but unfortunately your nephew doesn't represent the 'average'/bulk of the NYC public school system (wish he did) - we can certainly aspire to have all children at that level, and we can try to dedicate some resources to allowing such children to flourish, but for a system like NYC Education to be even remotely successful in any meaningful way - you have to ensure that the bulk of the children can graduate, with decent reading, writing, math and civic skills and the ability to express themselves in a coherent way. Sadly huge populations of children leave school without this basic education; and that is what I believe Bloomberg and Klien have BEGUN to properly address (and against which the criticism of teaching to the test is meaningless IMHO)
Posted by: fsrg at November 4, 2009 1:16 PM
Someone's got to boot this clown Markowitz out. Do we have any decent, experienced people with vision out there who can challenge him? I mean his 9-1 political machine bulldozer win now means even a greener light for him to invite more friends (or more than just friends) like Ratner to make Brooklyn both uglier and more expensive. And he's got the phone number to get The Billionaire's rubber stamp on the documents to boot. Every photo I see of those two they are practically making out. I'd love to see this cat's tax returns and see how much he's augmented his public servant salary (and see if this extra income is connected to moonlighting with bigwigs).
Posted by: Epiphany at November 4, 2009 2:28 PM
On the subject of spiffy new firehouses:
- http://flavorwire.com/47828/hot-hot-heat-nycs-government-approved-architecture
or
- http://bk.ly/VQ
Posted by: DitmasSnark at November 4, 2009 3:58 PM
I agree with Miss Muffett. A vote for Thompson was a repudiation of bloomberg's policy of welfare for the rich bankers and screwing the middle class.
Posted by: dandel at November 4, 2009 8:58 PM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Le Barricou
added November 20, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Der Schwarze Kölner
added November 19, 2009 12:00 PM in Fort Greene -
Oak Wine Bar & Café
added November 18, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Mr. Wonton
added November 17, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Casa Rosa
added November 16, 2009 12:00 PM in Carroll Gardens -
Cousin John's Café & Bakery
added November 13, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Elote
added November 12, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Miracle Grill
added November 11, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Phoebe's Cafe
added November 10, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Ruthie's
added November 9, 2009 12:00 PM in Clinton Hill, Downtown Brooklyn
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.