Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 131

Thread: The Lottery

  1. #1

    Default The Lottery

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ostpop_emailed

    'What's funny," says Madeleine Sackler, "is that I'm not really a political person." Yet the petite 27-year-old is the force behind "The Lottery"—an explosive new documentary about the battle over the future of public education opening nationwide this Tuesday.

    In the spring of 2008, Ms. Sackler, then a freelance film editor, caught a segment on the local news about New York's biggest lottery. It wasn't the Powerball. It was a chance for 475 lucky kids to get into one of the city's best charter schools (publicly funded schools that aren't subject to union rules).

    "I was blown away by the number of parents that were there," Ms. Sackler tells me over coffee on Manhattan's Upper West Side, recalling the thousands of people packed into the Harlem Armory that day for the drawing. "I wanted to know why so many parents were entering their kids into the lottery and what it would mean for them." And so Ms. Sackler did what any aspiring filmmaker would do: She grabbed her camera.

    Her initial aim was simple. "Going into the film I was excited just to tell a story," she says. "A vérité film, a really beautiful, independent story about four families that you wouldn't know otherwise" in the months leading up to the lottery for the Harlem Success Academy.

    But on the way to making the film she imagined, she "stumbled on this political mayhem—really like a turf war about the future of public education." Or more accurately, she happened upon a raucous protest outside of a failing public school in which Harlem Success, already filled to capacity, had requested space.

    "We drove by that protest," Ms. Sackler recalls. "We were on our way to another interview and we jumped out of the van and started filming." There she discovered that the majority of those protesting the proliferation of charter schools were not even from the neighborhood. They'd come from the Bronx and Queens.

    "They all said 'We're not allowed to talk to you. We're just here to support the parents.'" But there were only two parents there, says Ms. Sackler, and both were members of Acorn. And so, "after not a lot of digging," she discovered that the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) had paid Acorn, the controversial community organizing group, "half a million dollars for the year." (It cost less to make the film.)

    Finding out that the teachers union had hired a rent-a-mob to protest on its behalf was "the turn for us in the process." That story—of self-interested adults trying to deny poor parents choice for their children—provided an answer to Ms. Sackler's fundamental question: "If there are these high-performing schools that are closing the achievement gap, why aren't there more of them?"

    The reason is what Eva Moskowitz, founder of the Harlem Success Academy network and a key character in the film, calls the "union-political-educational complex." That's a fancy term for the web of unions and politicians who defend the status quo in order to protect their jobs.

    In the course of making "The Lottery," Ms. Sackler got to know the nature of that coalition intimately. "On day one, of course, I was very interested in all sides. I was in no way affiliated." From the beginning, she requested meetings with then UFT President Randi Weingarten, or anyone representing the union position. They refused. Harlem's public schools weren't much more accessible. "It was easier to film in a maximum security prison"—something Ms. Sackler did to interview a parent—"than it was to film in a traditional public school."

    Viewers still get a sense of the union's position, but it comes from the mouths of some unsavory New York pols. Take, for example, a scene from the film featuring a City Council hearing on charter school expansion. "The UFT was exposed at this particular City Council hearing," she says, "because they were caught giving out scripted cue cards with specific questions for City Council members to ask charter representatives in the city." Unlike many of the politicians, who came and went from the chamber during the seven-hour hearing, Ms. Sackler remained. And she watched as the scripted questions were repeated and repeated and repeated.

    "It was just a colossal waste of time," she says. "And it was incredibly frustrating as a citizen to be sitting there. Out of all the things they could be talking about—like the fact . . . that at the majority of schools in Harlem kids aren't passing the state exams—instead of talking about this stuff, they were cycling through those questions."'

    Evasion is one tactic. So is propagating myths about Harlem Success—that it only succeeds because it has smaller class sizes; or that its children's test scores are so high because it gets more money. The truth is that the school gets superior results with the same or slightly bigger class sizes and less state money per pupil. In 2009, 95% of third-graders at Harlem Success passed the state's English Language Arts exam. Only 51% of third graders in P.S. 149, the traditional public school that shares the same building, did. That same year, Harlem Success was No. 1 in math out of 3,500 public schools in New York State.

    The unions and the politicians also play on Harlemites' fears by alleging that charters divide the community and are a "tool for gentrification." This canard only holds up if you think uniforms and longer school days are a sign of cultural imperialism.

    In a particularly cringe-inducing exchange captured on film, Councilwoman Maria Del Carmen Arroyo of the Bronx accuses Ms. Moskowitz of lying when the charter school leader talks about being a parent in Harlem (the neighborhood where she grew up, where she attended public school, and where she is raising her children, who attend the charter). The subtext, of course, is that Ms. Moskowitz is white and well-off.

    This is par for the course, Ms. Sackler tells me. Harlem Success Academy is "protested more than any other charter school in this city—and there are some bad charter schools. So you would wonder why that would be."

    Those wondering why need look no further than 2002, the year that Ms. Moskowitz, then a Democratic City Council member, became chair of the city's education committee. "She held a lot of hearings on the union contract—and the custodian contract, and the principal contract," says Ms. Sackler. New Yorkers learned that the teachers' contract is hundreds of pages long and littered with rules mandating every detail of how teachers will spend their workday.

    The union was not pleased. So when Evil Moskowitz, as she was dubbed, ran for Manhattan borough president in 2005, the UFT campaigned hard for her opponent, Scott Stringer, who won.

    Ms. Moskowitz, who confirmed in an interview that she has mayoral aspirations, was surely disappointed by the defeat. But her loss was Harlemites' gain. As one mother says of Ms. Moskowitz at a town hall meeting in Harlem, "She's our Obama. She brought change to our kids, okay?"

    Some parents in the film do not know what exactly a charter school is. And the truth, as the film implicitly points out, is that such technical designations don't much matter. What these parents know is that they desperately want their children to have the best possible education, and to have opportunities that they themselves could only imagine. Winning a spot in Harlem Success Academy—or another high-performing school—is critical to reaching that goal.

    "Going into it one of the goals was to expose one myth . . . which is that some parents don't care," says Ms. Sackler. "The reason for telling the parents' stories is that I never thought that was true."

    In "The Lottery," we are introduced to Eric Roachford, who, like his father, works as a bus driver. As an MTA employee, Mr. Roachford is a "union man, but at the same time, we want our child to learn." He believes that going to college "is the difference between a job and a career." That's why his wife, Shawna, has taken time off to home school their two young sons.

    Nadiyah Horne, a single mother who is also deaf, is raising 5-year-old Ammenah. "If others don't like this school, I don't care," she says, using sign language. "I want my child to get the best education." So does Emil Yoanson, who is raising his son Christian alone, and who prays to God that his name will be drawn.

    "Being a single mom is very, very hard" says Laurie Brown-Goodwine, who has applied to several charters for her son, Gregory Jr. Her husband is serving 25 years to life in prison for a third-strike felony.

    These are parents who don't have the means to move to a richer neighborhood with better public schools, so instead they have to rely on luck. When demand for a charter school exceeds supply, the random drawing is required by law. Some schools inform parents by mail, but Harlem Success holds a public lottery. "Harlem Success is very explicit about why they do it," Ms. Sackler says. They want to show demand. "I've heard them say to parents 'We hope that you'll come and show that this is something that you want. Because if you don't, we're not going to get more schools.'"

    In the film, Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker says he can't go to lotteries anymore because they break his heart. "A child's destiny should not be determined on the pull of a draw." Nothing drives home this point more than seeing the parents and kids, perched at the edge of their chairs, hoping their names flash on the big screen.

    Critics of "The Lottery" will probably contend that the absence of anti-charter voices hurts its credibility. But the scene Thursday night at Harlem's legendary Apollo Theater, where the film was screened, underscored the film's fundamental point about parents' apolitical dedication to educating their kids. After the documentary played, the film's parents took to the stage to answer questions from the theater's packed audience. Their message: Research options early and ignore labels—all that matters is the school's results. It's the same message, the parents said, that they now regularly share in neighborhood grocery markets and libraries.

    Harlem Success, meanwhile, is trying to keep pace with parents' demand. Right now the network has four schools, but in 10 years it hopes to operate 40, with some 20,000 kids enrolled. Even then, there would be more work ahead: This year, some 40,000 New York kids will end up on charter school waiting lists.

    "The public education system is at a crossroads," Ms. Sackler says. "Do we want to go back to the time when children are forced to attend their district school no matter how underperforming it is? Or do we want to let parents choose what's best for their kids and provide a lot of options? Sometimes those options might fail. But . . . I don't see how you could choose to settle for what we've been doing for half a century when it's been systemically screwing over the same kids—over and over and over."

    ************

    I'm looking forward to watch this documentary. The more people learn about what the teachers union really stands for the more likely we can get real educational reform. You can view the trailer for the movie that the articles talk about here -

    http://thelotteryfilm.com/

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    It's real funny, whenever the US educational system and or unions are talked about it's like I'm having a peek at an alternative reality. I don't understand anything about the debate. I don't understand tenure, I don't understand over-powerfull unions, I don't understand the intrinsic evil of charter schools.

    To me it seems that what should matter is not the rights of the educators but the right of the child to a proper education.
    Congratulations America

  3. #3
    Senior Member Evidently Supermarioman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    483
    The sooner the Federal Government bans unionization, the better.
    (Strangely, one of the few points I straight-up agree with Lewk on.)
    I enjoy blank walls.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    It's real funny, whenever the US educational system and or unions are talked about it's like I'm having a peek at an alternative reality. I don't understand anything about the debate. I don't understand tenure, I don't understand over-powerfull unions, I don't understand the intrinsic evil of charter schools.

    To me it seems that what should matter is not the rights of the educators but the right of the child to a proper education.
    We don't understand it, either. It's completely out of whack, it IS an alternate reality.

    There was a news spot on CNN last night about the rubber rooms for NY public school teachers. The place where union teachers wait during hearings for firings and/or layoffs. They must show up, but can do anything they want. Sleep, eat, play music, read, work out, play cards. One man had been there two years, still collecting his $80,000/year salary. The narrator said they found a teacher who'd been paid to wait in the rubber room for TWELVE YEARS.


  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    It's real funny, whenever the US educational system and or unions are talked about it's like I'm having a peek at an alternative reality. I don't understand anything about the debate. I don't understand tenure, I don't understand over-powerfull unions, I don't understand the intrinsic evil of charter schools.

    To me it seems that what should matter is not the rights of the educators but the right of the child to a proper education.
    Its America. Someone in power somewhere has to profit somehow.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Supermarioman View Post
    The sooner the Federal Government bans unionization, the better.
    (Strangely, one of the few points I straight-up agree with Lewk on.)
    Don't be ridiculous. Unions are a classic example of freedom of organization and expression. Banning them would be a ridiculously un-democratic move.

    IMO most of the things that Reagan did were either not done by him at all, or are exaggerated. An exception that I laud him for is decreasing the power of unions. They are much less powerful than they used to be, and that's appropriate. As long as they aren't mandatory I have no problems with them, though I find them very inconvenient and sometimes counter-productive.

  7. #7
    Would like to see this movie, though it's honestly not hard to expose the NYC teacher's union for what it is. Though I am glad it's finally being presented in this format that anyone can see. As I've said before, there's a case to be made for banning municipal employee unions (not private unions).

  8. #8
    Can't do it, Dread. They have just as much right to organize to advocate for themselves as anybody else. Banning unions might actually be unconstitutional. I don't like them any more than you do, but they are an inevitable feature of a free market ideology. It is no different than the Broccoli Growers of America organizing and have a trade organization. Remember Bush I publicly saying he didn't like broccoli, and the fuss and lobbying from the trade union? It was a minor fiasco and he publicly apologized, etc. That's why people organize, to increase their power, since little guys have none. Who are you to say they can't?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIKmp-Ualzg



    But I remembered wrong, he actually didn't apologize.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    But isn't three-quarters or the problem that you guys have got this stupid tenure? It seems to me that if people in education are subject to the same rules as ordinary employees (if you are not good enough you get fired).

    I found out about it existing in talks with an American friend. It took me a while to understand why he thought I had a superb class of job-security just because I am doing a job for the government. In my job I work with a yearly job-assessment cycle and that in combination with the budget are the elements that constitute my job-security. If I don't deliver or if the budget is cut I am out on the street as fast as would be the case with the first Tom, Dick or Harriet.

    It would seem to me that if you can actually fire people, it can't be so impossible to rule in the power of unions.
    Congratulations America

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    Can't do it, Dread. They have just as much right to organize to advocate for themselves as anybody else. Banning unions might actually be unconstitutional. I don't like them any more than you do, but they are an inevitable feature of a free market ideology. It is no different than the Broccoli Growers of America organizing and have a trade organization. Remember Bush I publicly saying he didn't like broccoli, and the fuss and lobbying from the trade union? It was a minor fiasco and he publicly apologized, etc. That's why people organize, to increase their power, since little guys have none. Who are you to say they can't?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIKmp-Ualzg



    But I remembered wrong, he actually didn't apologize.
    Our courts have sustained that some public sector unions can't do certain things, EG firefighters, police and subway workers can't strike in NY state. Government workers (such as those in the military) do have certain rights of assembly abrogated after all.

    Government employee unions are essentially self-dealers; they elect their own bosses and the terms of their employment are dictated as such. Furthermore, their pensions are subject to the full faith and credit of the state. And the mandatory union fee taken out of every unionized state worker's paycheck is funneled right back into the campaigns of state (and federal) legislators. They are simply different from you and me. If you think otherwise, go ask a tenured, unionized public employee and I imagine they will confirm that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    But isn't three-quarters or the problem that you guys have got this stupid tenure? It seems to me that if people in education are subject to the same rules as ordinary employees (if you are not good enough you get fired).

    I found out about it existing in talks with an American friend. It took me a while to understand why he thought I had a superb class of job-security just because I am doing a job for the government. In my job I work with a yearly job-assessment cycle and that in combination with the budget are the elements that constitute my job-security. If I don't deliver or if the budget is cut I am out on the street as fast as would be the case with the first Tom, Dick or Harriet.

    It would seem to me that if you can actually fire people, it can't be so impossible to rule in the power of unions.
    Yup, it truly is an alternative world. Though the Dutch example is often a bit unique, no? There are some countries in Europe where the trade unions have imposed very specific and difficult labor laws, EG the peculiar laws in France that make it difficult to ever fire someone (which has led to the proliferation of French "stages" (internships) that last until someone is in their late 20s/early 30s.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    Don't be ridiculous. Unions are a classic example of freedom of organization and expression. Banning them would be a ridiculously un-democratic move.

    IMO most of the things that Reagan did were either not done by him at all, or are exaggerated. An exception that I laud him for is decreasing the power of unions. They are much less powerful than they used to be, and that's appropriate. As long as they aren't mandatory I have no problems with them, though I find them very inconvenient and sometimes counter-productive.
    Can I take it you also believe in the freedom of corporations to get together to fix prices and monopolize capital?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Yup, it truly is an alternative world. Though the Dutch example is often a bit unique, no? There are some countries in Europe where the trade unions have imposed very specific and difficult labor laws, EG the peculiar laws in France that make it difficult to ever fire someone (which has led to the proliferation of French "stages" (internships) that last until someone is in their late 20s/early 30s.
    Well, we've got our very tough laws on off-loading people who've got any sort of job-related disability. I've seen employers entirely gobsmacked by the near impossibility to fire someone just because 'we' won't allow them. The reason for not allowing them: if they are disabled they are entitled to an invalidity pension and we're not supposed to award that one day before strictly necessary. But even in these cases employment typically ends after 3 years tops.

    Able bodied employees and workers have got some protection but that typically doesn't mean much more than that there is a severance package to soften the blow of unemployment. To stop an employer from firing you is near impossible in this country.

    That isn't the way things are done in most of Europe, but it gives us a relatively flexible job-market and low unemployment to boot.

  13. #13
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Can I take it you also believe in the freedom of corporations to get together to fix prices and monopolize capital?
    Corporations are not people, Loki.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Corporations are not people, Loki.
    But, er, what does this mean then:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person#Examples

    ??
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  15. #15
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    But, er, what does this mean then:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person#Examples

    ??
    Legal bullshit. Corporations are still not people. Treating them as such creates more problems than it solves.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Corporations are not people, Loki.
    So you'd be fine if the owners of small businesses in a given town got together and agreed to fix prices and not to hire workers for more than x dollars per hour?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  17. #17
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    So you'd be fine if the owners of small businesses in a given town got together and agreed to fix prices and not to hire workers for more than x dollars per hour?
    I see. You're once again adhering to one of your dogmas. It's useless to talk to you until you get those black-and-white ideas out of your head and finally accept the world for what it is: An imperfect place which cannot be ruled by absolutes.

    Unions are supposed to balance the scales, Loki, because corporations are in a position of power while an individual is (usually) not.

    Is that really such a difficult concept to understand?
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  18. #18
    Can you please answer my question?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  19. #19
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Can you please answer my question?
    I already told you why your assumptions behind your question are invalid.

    If you engaged your brains once in a while, you'd surely see that I've already answered your question.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    I already told you why your assumptions behind your question are invalid.

    If you engaged your brains once in a while, you'd surely see that I've already answered your question.
    Are you going to answer the question or not?

  21. #21
    You haven't really addressed the issue being brought up, Khend. And your tone is turning the conversation unnecessarily nasty.

  22. #22
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    You haven't really addressed the issue being brought up, Khend. And your tone is turning the conversation unnecessarily nasty.
    Oh, I'm sorry. Fallacies like "Unions are baaaaad!" (imagine baaa-ing like a sheep here, please) and "Market fixeth all!" make me nauseous.

    And I already answered the question: Unions are a tool to balance the scales. If you're in a position of power, you don't need them. Thus it should be obvious that corporations don't need to form unions to represent them against individuals, m'dear.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  23. #23
    If unions tip the balance of power too far in the other direction should they be forbidden?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Oh, I'm sorry. Fallacies like "Unions are baaaaad!" (imagine baaa-ing like a sheep here, please) and "Market fixeth all!" make me nauseous.

    And I already answered the question: Unions are a tool to balance the scales. If you're in a position of power, you don't need them. Thus it should be obvious that corporations don't need to form unions to represent them against individuals, m'dear.
    Why do you continue on insisting that capital is scarce and labor is abundant? We don't live in the third world. Individual firms don't get to set wages. If they set wages at an artificially low level, they'd get either no workers at all or the worst available workers. If your logic held, workers in most non-unionized industries would still get paid minimum wage. After all, why bother paying more? You, as the employer, have pricing power (over wages), right?

    But can you get back to my question, please? Should we allow firms to get together and set wages? How about just in industries where labor is paid a lot (i.e. finance, engineering, medicine)?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Oh, I'm sorry. Fallacies like "Unions are baaaaad!" (imagine baaa-ing like a sheep here, please) and "Market fixeth all!" make me nauseous.

    And I already answered the question: Unions are a tool to balance the scales. If you're in a position of power, you don't need them. Thus it should be obvious that corporations don't need to form unions to represent them against individuals, m'dear.
    That wasn't actually his point, but at least now you're addressing something.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    So you'd be fine if the owners of small businesses in a given town got together and agreed to fix prices and not to hire workers for more than x dollars per hour?
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Can you please answer my question?
    Chamber of Commerce
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    Chamber of Commerce
    Sets prices and/or wages?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  28. #28
    Lobbies (bribes) local officials?
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    Lobbies (bribes) local officials?
    Lobbying falls under free speech. Last I checked, workers can do it too.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Lobbying falls under free speech. Last I checked, workers can do it too.
    Just not for unions, eh?
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •