Rebuttal To NY Post Editorial

The Post denies that a New York City public school teacher attrition rate of over 40% over the first five years is a crisis or even a cause for concern.

You attribute City Comptroller Scott Stringer’s idea for addressing this  catastrophicloss of talent to nothing more than a career-jockeying move to curry the favor of  the United Federation of Teachers for his potential mayoral candidacy.

You believe that there is something suspicious, tainted and incriminating about the motives of any elected official who makes a proposal that isn’t created expressly to do the teachers union and its members harm.

You  are mired in the fallacy that all teachers want to do is raid the public’s pockets, dodge accountability, and grab power.
You dismiss the opinions of expert  professors of education, (who are obviously most familiar with the research in their field), when they support experimental programs to address critical issues. Why?  Because these true authorities tend not to share your loathing of teacher unions.

Most brazenly, you also claim that “the UFT contract guarantees senior teachers the right to choose their schools”.  That is a deliberate misrepresentation that anybody can easily verify as false.

On the stage of education journalism, The Post is a bad actor.

Ron Isaac