drpvn

drpvn t1_ix836z8 wrote

Or even the person’s name. (Which means Gothamist couldn’t have verified the story is even true.)

>A staffer for a street safety advocacy group was struck by a driver in Brooklyn . . . .

>A spokesperson for the group did not release the cyclist’s name, but said he was taken to the hospital with minor injuries. It was an example of the dangerous state of the city’s streets the event aimed to highlight.

10

drpvn t1_iwsh72g wrote

Just give me a concrete example of a school with wealthy parents that raises so much money that it outstrips the funding gap between it and a much less wealthy title I school. I don’t think you’ll find one. There are only a handful of schools with PTAs that could possibly raise enough money to make the exercise of comparing worthwhile to even attempt. Generally speaking the wealthiest schools get the least amount of money, even when private fundraising is included. Happy to be proved wrong.

(Also, note that the spreadsheets of data from 2019 that came out of Treyger’s law are known to be inaccurate. I’m not aware of any good data on PTA fundraising, but maybe the data got better after 2019.)

1

drpvn t1_iws8y5g wrote

It doesn’t. Look at the amount that PTAs raise at the wealthiest public schools. Add that to their total state, federal, and city funding. Compare that total to any Title I school in NYC. It will be lower on a per pupil basis.

And that article does not say what you think it says. It just says that some school PTAs raise more money than others. Specifically, it says that Mark Twain’s PTA raises approximately $250 per student. If you think that is enough to erase the gap in total funding with much less affluent schools, you are very wrong.

1

drpvn t1_iws6ho1 wrote

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

You’re correct that the state doesn’t give those schools more money than schools with less affluent parents, but you’re wrong to think that fundraising makes up the difference. It doesn’t.

2

drpvn t1_iwr52cl wrote

>If you put lots of richer kids with more resources in one building, they will perform better. It is an argument for a better distribution of richer children and resources.

>Because it pulled from a huge population and aggregated the highest performing kids and gave them the best resources.

Generally speaking, public schools in NYC with more affluent students do not have more or better resources.

6

drpvn t1_iwnerih wrote

Better yet, rather than rant about what conservatives do, you should write or call your state senator or assemblyperson and say that you believe there should be a dangerousness standard. Let them know that their progressive constituents disagree with them on this so they don’t just assume it’s only conservatives who feel that way.

0