SOUTH BRONX SCHOOL: Gracie Capital CEO Daniel Nir Refuses To Condemn Corporal Punishment AT HSA 3

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Gracie Capital CEO Daniel Nir Refuses To Condemn Corporal Punishment AT HSA 3

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think the more we shine a light on Eva Moskowitz and her dubious practices, the more she will scurry towards the baseboards and hopefully her, and her movement will just wither and go away. But Eva must not be the only one accountable. So should her sycophants and enablers, and by this I mean the board members of all her schools, and in particular, Harlem Success Academy 3.

As you all recall the New York Times reported on the plight of Karen Sprowal and her son Matthew at the hands of HSA 3 in September of 2008. My two cents were added here and here, as well as Ms Sprowal's fascinating retelling of the horror that Matthew endured on my radio show. But, should we just me content to hold Eva responisble? I say no.

The board members of HSA are just as responsible for the corporal punishment that Matthew Sprowal endured. According to Chancellor's Regulation A-420;
Corporal punishment is prohibited. Disruptive behavior by a student must never be punished by use of physical force. Such behavior usually reflects underlying problems that require guidance intervention. School personnel should take steps to identify the problem(s) and, working closely with parents, help the student receive maximum benefit from the educational program offered at the school.
Surely, as a charter school, HSA3, and all of the Success Academy school adhere to Chancellor's Regulations. What is troubling is that according to the New York Times story and Mrs Sprowal none of the above mentioned steps were taken.

Regulation A-420 defines corporal punishment as;
Regulations of the Commissioner §100.2(I)(3)(i) defines corporal punishment as any act of physical force upon a pupil for the purpose of punishing that pupil.
Matthew was punished with physical force. Walking the halls for thirty minutes because he acted out is physical, he is being made to walk.

So we here at SBSB got to thinking. Wouldn't the board members of HSA 3 be aghast at what transpired to little Matthew? We thought naturally so.

So we contacted hedgefund manager Daniel Nir, he who summers in East Hampton and is CEO of Gracie Capital, and who probably has never met or dealt with a minority in his life, too put it to him directly. Will he condemn the corporal punishment inflicted upon Matthew Sprowal?

Mr Nir refused unequivocally to condemn corporal punishment inflicted on a 5 year old. Too make sure, he was asked again and still refused to condemn such behavior brought on by adults on a 5 year old boy. When asked if he would condemn corporal punishment on his own children, he hung up the phone.

One can only conclude that Mr Nir has no problem in what transpired with Matthew Sprowal. Why else would he not condemn it? Surely, as a super duper rich man, Eva needs him more than he needs Eva.

The question of whether or not corporal punishment upon Matthew would be condemned was also put to the chair of HSA 3, Joel Greenblatt CEO of Gotham Asset Management and adjunct professor at the Coulmbia University Graduate School of Business. Mr Greenblatt failed to condemn what happened to Matthew. Again, the same conclusion must be surmised.

Ben Appen CEO of Magnitude Capital was contacted as well as Bryan Binder, portfolio manager at troubled SAC Capital, which for some reason is headquarted in Anguilla. Both refused to condemn the treatment inflicted upon Matthew.

So of the 10 board members of HSA 3, four members, or 40% of the HSA 3 board refuse to condemn corporal punishment. Sad. I guess when one is living a gilded life they see only what they wish to see and admit to what Eva will allow them to.

6 comments:

Pissed Off said...

They want to get the kids ready for the whip when they enter the employment world they will not be prepared for.

JW said...

I'm not sure to what extent — if any — charter schools have to follow Chancellor's Regs.

A couple of years ago, a DoE rep asked to attend a meeting we were having at Sen. Perkins's office in Harlem. There was a parent there whose child attended an elem. school located in the same building as a charter. We were discussing what most of thought was an abusive remark the parent had heard a charter school teacher make to a student from the public school.

I remember specifically asking the DoE rep if the Chancellor's Regs applied to charter schools, and I remember being horrified that she didn't have an answer. Said she would look into it, never heard from her again, maybe the Senator's office did. But we did learn that her position at the DoE was changed soon after -- don't know if she was moved laterally, downward, or upwards.

Does someone have a clear answer on this, whether DoE regs pertain to charters?
South Bronx: Can you find out, and if charters are NOT bound by Chacellor's Regs, can you go on the attack?

Bronx Teacher said...

Very good question JW. Anyway, even if they aren;t covered by chancellor's regs, HSA 3 inflicted corporal punishment upon Matthew.

ed notes online said...

That question was asked in relation to discipline codes public schools have to follow when Cathie Black appeared at a CEC 14 meeting in March - the DOE answer was that no DOE regs apply as charters are independent bodies who make their own rules. The audience was shocked. I taped it and may have put it up on you tube.

Anonymous said...

Chancellor's Regulations generally restate the Regulations of the NY State Education Commissioner.

Anonymous said...

Are you stating that making a child practice walking in a hallway is corporal punishment??? What is this world coming to??