Well the Tomes is at it again backing the Neo liberal Cuomo who is ethically challenged just like they did with the Clinton/ Sanders contest. It is these hit jobs that will keep Trump in office in 2020
5
New Yorkers who earn $300k are already paying at least $130k in taxes to fed/state/local. This group does not qualify for any aid and often pays full freight for college
Cynthia Nixon needs to rethink what is rich in NY because this group is already heavily taxed
23
She hasn't put thought into what is rich, she's trying to think what a voter might think is rich. Whether she agrees with it or not doesn't matter to her.
10
Does somewhere in the budget plan include rounding up the parents of these underperforming schools and pounding it in their heads that they have to be on top of their kids' education, sit down with them every night, check if they do their homework and study for exams? If not then this could all be a complete waste of taxpayer money.
21
She should just go back to being a bad actress
19
This piece is reminiscent of the reporting "The Times" did in 2015 and '16 when it clearly favored the neo-liberal Clinton over the progressive Sanders. Cuomo is corrupt through and through. From his disbanding of the Moreland Commission to his alliance with the IDC (DINOS,) to his association with Percoco and Howe, two of his primary henchmen, to his campaign donations from Glenwood LLC and the hedge funds backing the charter schools (which are not in financial or academic accountability public schools) Cuomo has masqueraded (by using social issues such as gun control and gay rights) as a "progressive Democrat" while initiating Republican fiscal policies. He favor providing public funds for religious schools, a direct violation of the Blaine Amendment. While I take exception with Nixon's call for a millionaire's tax on incomes at the $300000 level, a true millionaire's tax, which existed until Cuomo refused to renew it, needs to be reinstated. Her call for greater equality and fairness is a breath of fresh air in light of Cuomo's refusal to implement the law that was established in response to a court order. Cuomo once called public schools, one of the foundational institutions in our society, "government schools." Not different from Betsy DeVos, is it? For the first time, I will be voting for a Nixon.
12
Nixon implies that the purpose of education is to erase poverty. Ok, but then just giving people free money would do that. When I was an English professor, the purpose of education was, more or less, to enable 19 year olds to write better papers on John Milton, which, we hoped, would improve critical reasoning and reading comprehension, which, we hoped, would in turn, improve quality of life and, perhaps, earning power and employment.
If we just give poor kids trust funds at birth, we don't need education. It'd be great to have educated populace, but there's no proof that education (or increased spending) increases the intelligence or competency of the population.
When liberals talk about education, they make education sound like means by which to transfer wealth to the poor. Why not just bypass education?
6
A "millionaire's tax" on families making $300,000 or more. I wonder where Ms. Nixon got her own math education.
20
If the New York Times doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand the difference between "spending" and "investment" then what hope do the average yokels complaining around the kitchen table?
Here, allow me to be pedantic and help out. When you spend money it's given up in exchange for a good or service, gone forever, hence "spent." Lost. Frittered away in the moment. When you invest money, you set it to work in the expectation of receiving a larger return down the road. More money, perhaps. A bigger house. A better job.
Education. Infrastructure. Renewable energy. These are investments. Not spending. Because a better educated populace creates new jobs and new industries, thus perpetuating economic growth. New infrastructure, same thing. More efficient means of getting more goods to market, of moving people. The benefits of renewable energy should be obvious. A whole new sector, more jobs, a cleaner environment, cleaner water, more prosperous businesses, and so on.
So, do us a favor from now on. Stop discussing education and infrastructure "spending" and start talking about them as investments. I cannot believe anyone would have to make this point to the New York Times, but kids, words matter.
17
OK, but what if one invests in things that provide no return on investment? What seems to be the case is that New York DOES invest in students/children, but there's no positive return in terms of academic success. Then people like Nixon argue that the problem is insufficient investment. How much dos the state need to invest in education WITHOUT any evidence of success to convince people that such investment is not productive. If the state spent 50 grand on each student without any improvement, would it show that investment is not the problem?
How much money needs to be spent to show that money isn't a solution?
13
They are only investments if the money is spent wisely.
13
You want to improve education? Get rid of the teachers unions.
10
My father-in-law was a shop teacher in the New York City public school system before there was a union. In order to put his three kids -- and his wife -- through college, he worked several jobs in addition to his teaching job and also in the summers. He continued to do so even after the teachers got a union.
The union was a godsend, but it didn't keep him all that comfortable in his old age.
6
the cost of becoming a recognized electable name is so high that our future political "leaders" will come from celebrity ranks like Reagan, Trump, Bono, Eastwood, & Schwarzenegger.
But cnn is promoting the Cuomo brand name and Nixon is still an inhibitory influence, so she'll lose.
2
“I could see the difference in my own children’s schools, and certainly they were not high-needs schools,” Ms. Nixon said of the increase in funding that followed. “So one can only know how much greater the impact was where the need was greater.”
is that a logical statement? Perhaps high-need schools falter not for lack of funding, but lack of parental involvement or something else. She thinks money will cure all the problems, but I don't believe that. If a child is raised in a non-reading household, how will more education spending increase that child's literacy?
If she raises taxes on people earning 300k, I'll move to Connecticut.
I think religion is the problem. Religious people don't value education and reading the way that atheists do. I won't suffer financial hardship to fund the education of the children of religious parents who don't value education.
the problem isn't with the schools. The problem is with the students.
17
A child who comes from a family of non-readers may become a voracious, sophisticated reader when she attends a school that provides her with a teacher or, better yet, a community of educators who model a love of reading. Her chances of catching the “reading bug” increase when there is a reading specialist on site who works with every student who cannot decode. Those chance increase further when one adds: a fantastic school librarian, a beautiful school library space, funds to update the collection regularly, classroom collections, interdisciplinary units, exciting library programming (e.g. author visits), book giveaways, reading contests and celebrations, and so on.
10
A single mom,
That's a pretty picture, but I don't think it represents reality. It may in a handful of instances, but it doesn't hold for the general.
Anyhow, none of that costs a lot of money. Furthermore, one doesn't need to update the library.
I was an English professor. I wish I believed your take on things, but I don't think it's reality.
my child attends the same high school as her son and while she did make a nice donation of tickets to her show in 2017, her contributions to the PTA in "time and talent and treasure" have been zero. Nothing at all. She is no busier than the rest of us, yet has never attended a PA meeting.
She's addicted to using Other People's Money, just not her own.
25
I could never vote for her after the terrible way she treated Steve.
15
It doesn't matter how much you spend, (NYC already spends over $20k per student), if accountability is a four letter word....please see NYCHA for further explanation.
16
The wealthy are fleeing N.Y. to tax friendly states. The burden of taxes is falling on the middle class and workers at the low end of the tax scedule.
Please, let’s get real and stop reading from a liberal script.
16
Perhaps Ms. Nixon needs to go back to school if her Millionaires Tax is applicable on an HHI of $300K +.
22
Why add an additional "millionaire's tax" on people who make $300,000 a year? $300,000 a year in Kansas probably provides a really nice lifestyle. In New York City after very substantial federal, state and local taxes and insanely high real estate costs much less so.
Also, many of those people that Nixon would like to slap a new tax on, have just watched the loss of their property tax and salt deductions. So we've already shouldered a very substantial tax increase. Stop treating us like the idle rich. We're neither.
42
When in doubt, spend money. It's how Democrats, liberals and progressives roll. Nixon and Cuomo are falling over each other to spend New York taxpayer money, all the while our state budget goes deeper into the red, and businesses and industry continues to flee for tax friendlier states. These people will take us all to the poor house.
17
The Republican led Congress and the Republican President just slashed trillions of dollars of tax revenue and passed a budget in the trillions of dollars. What on earth is this blather about "liberals" and Democrats?
8
Henry B: It's called letting people spend their own money. After all, they did work for it and earn it. The government do a thing but take it.
1
To Gov. Cuomo and Ms. Nixon: What about the rights of the children of Hassidic parents to a sound SECULAR education? Are either or both of you courting the ultra-orthodox "block vote"?
As a civil rights lawyer, veteran and citizen, I believe that ALL children are entitled to a sound secular education, so that they can become educated and informed citizens. I read and hear that some or many Hassidic children are NOT receiving an adequate education for participation in the larger society and body politic.
Our NYS politicians are afraid of the block vote, as it is so powerful on Election Day. Yet our State and its citizens need an educated and informed citizenry--all citizens. This is the only way a diverse, multi-cultural, multi-religious democracy can hope to survive.
15
Cynthia Nixon is not entirely incorrect in her opinion that there is an "education issue" at play here, and part of this issue is the very idea of celebrity politicians. As if the optics of running a Democratic primary campaign which is fundamentally adversarial to the incumbent isn't counterproductive enough, Ms. Nixon seems to be operating under the assumption that voters are too stupid to see through her rhetorical lowest common denominators.
First, she dared to move a little to the left of Cuomo on her position regarding the legal status of Cannabis, citing racial inequity as her rationale. Now, she's making empty promises about expanding the scope of 'No Child Left Behind' so that it also covers a college degree, again in the name of racial inequity. And an increased social safety net too!
The Democratic Party does not need to enlist television 'stars' in order to win elections, it needs policies which are more substantive, and less oblivious to the concerns of people who vote based on more than one or two eclectic issues.
13
WOW, classic out of touch wine and cheese liberal approach: we spend the most money in the country on public education, and Ms. Nixon's answer is SPEND MUCH MORE!!! That's a highly effective approach. All she's doing is pandering to the teacher's union and potential minority voters..... Geezzz, please go back to your mediocre acting career, leave NY alone with your simplistic and ineffective proposals!!
29
Nixon’s The One!
4
Words like "expensive" are part of the problem. How much are our children worth? The funds are there, but they're being wasted in other places.
12
Frankly it is wasted in education on the teacher's union. Total spending is not the problem, the results are the problem: which is a combination of ineffective management, the teacher's union, poor parenting, and frankly student's that often don't really care about an education, a broader societal problem. Spending more money is the guilty liberal's solution to every single problem rather than facing the more substantive reality of the education problem.
13
My cousin was a speech therapist/special needs teacher in schools in the Bronx and Brooklyn. She could tell you that a LOT of our education budget is allotted to kids with learning problems, and those learning problems in large part stem from poor parenting.
Kids who have a limited vocabulary and can barely speak a full English sentence and yet who were born to people born here, whose native language is English.
Heart-breaking to hear a 16-year-old boy say, "What sentence means, Miss?" and to know that his school has him on track for college in a year and a half.
Not every child can learn, especially when his parents see various social programs as cash cows and make it their business to stay in them.
Not enough money spent? Until people understand that real learning entails some hard work, there will never be enough money to make a difference.
15
Me. Nixon is new to Democratic politics, but she is a quick study. The democrats answer to every problem is to spend more money - taxpayers money. New York already spends more than $21,000 per student, by far the most of any state. But of course, for democrats and the teachers unions who control them, it isn't enough.
21
I really don't think throwing more money at the problem is going to solve the root cause of our bad schools. My daughter taught in a NYC school in a poor neighborhood. She now teaches in one of the elite high schools.
The biggest difference is the behavior of the students. She spent a lot of time dealing with behavioral problems because her students came from homes that struggled with all the societal ills that many generations of poverty produce.
Take some of that education money, Ms. Nixon, and put it into social programs that support families where they live. If you help them, they may then see a light at the end of the tunnel for their children. If I were poor, single, and struggling, I'm not so sure I would be able to focus on my child's learning prior to their entering pre-K.
38
I agree with your comments. The only issue is that to make any material impact to improve the lives of poor families to put them on a more equal footing with middle class kids NYS would have to spend many multiples of Ms. Nixon's proposed spending increases on education alone.
We have to recognize that alleviating poverty is largely a federal task. No state has the resources to make appreciable improvements in the lives of poor people.
3
If no State has the resources to care for its poor people, how does the collective action of 50 entities, each having insufficient resources, solve the problem? I must have missed that lesson in high school algebra.
1
The answer is birth control: Have a baby when you have gotten yourself an education and a job, and also a partner, and then plan for a baby. And then have another baby only if your budget and the size of your apartment allows.
After all, that's how middle-class families function.
You'll be surprised how much better our public schools will be when children come to class able to speak intelligibly, to behave themselves, and to focus on the tasks at hand. And then go home and do a little reinforcement of what they learned (you know, homework).
10
College for all is a farce. And too many kids are being pushed on that path. How about continued learning for all including the trades? We need carpenters, electricians, welders, plumbers and more.
56
So only children of the wealthy get to go to college? College for all is about funding, not about forcing unqualified students into universities. Maybe all children should get the same opportunity regardless of their parents' means?
4
Many of the jobs that we call "trades" now require a two year degree. When I taught (History) at Bronx Community College, virtually everyone was majoring in a "craft" skill. Not so bad to teach them some writing skills and basic US history (i.e., what is sometimes call "civics") along the way. I would like those students to feel comfortable picking up the NY Times and feeling they can understand it!
7
'And she sharply criticizes the status quo as a system where “white, wealthy children are prepared for college, and low-income children of color are disproportionately put into the school-to-prison pipeline.”'
And yet the little Russian kids riding the B and Q trains with their mothers, with their heads bent over their books and their mothers paying attention to what they are reading and occasionally asking questions, do well in school. As do the Chinese kids who come from families who do not speak English but convey their respect for education to their children.
As do the many black kids whose parents get an education, get a job, marry, and wait to have children (and limit their children to the number they can support responsibly).
Children who are spoken to, read to, sung to, disciplined lovingly, and shown that getting an education is a wonderful thing, do well.
Children are not "put into" the school-to-prison pipeline. Teachers, librarians, social workers, can do only so much when parents haven't given much thought to parenting.
Irresponsible parenting puts them there.
49