Probably going to get downvoted, but I think Success Academy is doing an incredible job providing a valuable alternative for kids in neighborhoods where public schools have already failed multiple generations. Yes, it's different from public schools. It's more strict. It's more traditional. It's more test-oriented. And yes, they have the ability to wean out weaker students from the system, which they really shouldn't do. If parents choose to send their kids to Success Academy, then Success Academy should have to take them. Period. No ifs, ands or buts. That should be a requirement for any Charter school.

But despite all the negative comments about Success Academy, some of which may or may not be true, the one positive thing that makes them better, in my opinion, is that the teachers seem to actually care that students learn. I say that as someone who went through NYC public schools K-12, so I know what it is like.

There is really a very obvious dichotomy here between the relentless parade of negative press and comments about Success Academy, and Success Academy's continued ability to attract more students, open new schools and produce far-above-average standardized test scores.

For those vehemently opposed to Charter schools, I have to ask why would you deny that choice to parents who choose to send their kids there?

Page 2 of the report says the study was funded by Arnold Foundation. Then go to Arnold Foundation’s website and see what causes they support.

I agree that the only valid takeaway from this study is that the data is mixed (but that’s not the kind of conclusion that is conducive to receiving additional funding from the Arnold Foundation). The relatively small differences in comparison groups from which the authors try to derive conclusions is completely outweighed by the fact that the comparison groups were not (and could not be) comparable, because one group was before the pandemic and the other was not. The effect of the pandemic on crime and policing in the city was far more significant than the effect of bail reform. If anything, I would guess that because arrests were down significantly during 2020, re-arrests would also be down. So an increase in re-arrests, even if slight, is something that needs to be looked into more carefully.

I would just point out a few things. First, is that re-arrests for violent felony increased, and that is the one statistic that actually matters. Secondly, that “slight” increase occurred despite the fact that overall arrests decreased dramatically during the pandemic. Thirdly, this was basically a “study” funded by the Arnold Foundation, which states very clearly on its website that it is strongly in favor of bail reform: “We must reform every aspect of the pre-trial system from policing to bail…”. Fourthly, this wasn’t a study that was published in an academic journal after peer-review. It appears to be a self-published report. I’m all for using data to guide policy and legislative decisions. The data is what it is. But the way that data is interpreted and presented can introduce a lot of bias. This study could just have easily been titled “Study shows that re-arrests for violent felonies increased after bail reform.”

To the folks who are thinking that city workers should pay for supplemental Medicare like private sector retirees, I would just point out that the offer of retiree health benefits to city employees was a major reason why many chose to enter city work, as opposed to working in the private sector where compensation tends to be higher. To retroactively change these benefits for retirees who already completed their service to the city, and who planned their retirement based on having these retiree health benefits available, is fundamentally unfair and may be considered against the law when this change is ultimately challenged in court. It would be like your private employer deciding to claw back their 6% contributions to your 401(k) after you have already retired.