simply beyond belief. When the city says it's going to help troubled schools with an influx of funds, it sounds like a worthy notion. Maybe the schools can offer tutoring to kids who have trouble. Maybe they can offer smaller class sizes and give attention-starved kids what they need.
On the other hand, in Mayor Bloomberg's New York, it's always more economical to keep a view on the bottom line. What if they publicly claim to be granting more money, and then simply cut money instead? It's a win/ win. The punters think they're helping, and give credit. If anything goes wrong at the schools, the schools are blamed. Public will look and say, "That noble Mayor Bloomberg gave them money and they suck anyway."
This puts us right back to square one--blame the teachers. People will say, "Throwing money at problems doesn't work." And the beauty part of it is they didn't throw money at it. In fact, they took money away from it.
The only problem is if the press gets a hold of it and reports it.
But what are the chances of that?