Submitted by Wendell Livosi, Sep 8, 2007 21:04

We are talking about academic achievement, not some "sand-bagged" study by the UFT. Giving any credence to the UFT study is akin to taking the word from the fox that the hen house is secure.

Tests which are designed to measure academic achievement, as we all know, have been "dumbed down" to accommodate the under-achievers in order to make them "feel better" about themselves and enhance their self-esteem. Actual performance has become secondary. Additionally, the union protected teachers who can barely master the English language themselves, look better if the standards of achievement are relaxed.

As an executive and professional, I look an any diploma issued by a large-city school district (including community colleges to some extent), particularly by New York City, with a high degree of skepticism regarding a student's basic math and reading skills. Let the so-called "socially promoted" students try to take the artificial self-esteem received from a dumbed down curriculum and try to meet expectations of performance and achievement in the private sector. They will be in for a rude awakening when they have a boss who is not protected like a tenured teacher and does not have civil service and union protection. A boss, whose very job depends on the performance of employees. will not stand for or accept substandard performance as easily as the New York City public school system. I, for one, will not even consider an applicant with a diploma issued by the New York City for anything more than the most menial and unskilled position.

Alternatively, the graduates of New York City public schools can always become public school teachers and, later, administrators or UFT officials, because that is all their so-called public school education is worth.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.