OT - Christie's proposed school funding plan

[NotInRHouse]

Kids in asbury park aren't going to get a better education because some rich guy in Rumson pays less. Why shouldn't the guy in Rumson get some return on his investment? I have no illusions that my taxes are going to go down but how can someone justify me paying a poop load in property taxes and my town getting a few hundred from the state?

That is actually my point- that money should be otherwise invested rather then sent back to the wealthier districts.

If it in fact costs less to educate in charters and they work as Christie said, then why isn't his proposal to fund charters more and return the remainder to the suburban districts? That seems like a compromise which is something in which he does not engage.

And if the unions were against charter formulas that have worked, they would be wrong in their opposition. But at the same time, just taking all the funding, instead of an alternative, is just a pathetic, politicized slap job.

 

[NotInRHouse]

gef, honestly it sounds like the best situation for everyone is shutting down your district & redistributing the students to surrounding districts. I'm guessing you'll still be in demand, and those of your colleagues that have stopped giving a $#!t can be free to pursue other career opportunities.

Connecticut is doing that, or trying.

What you think the politics in NJ will be like, if say, we shut down Asbury Park SD and said, everyone to Wall and Ocean?

Might be decent idea- but are there votes for that?

 

[NotInRHouse]

First move to save some money is to remove Hoboken and Long Branch from Abbott designation. I am sure there are others that we should consider removing.

Technically there is no such thing anymore because during the Corzine years the state argued that Hoboken was too wealthy, so now there are formulas for how the money is spent.

In theory any district could "place out" if their results changed.

Remember that while Hoboken has one of the highest average incomes in NJ...the families who send their kids to school there, especially at the older age levels, are as poor as any other district on the list. The west side of Hoboken is full of poor housing projects. The people making 121k either have no kids or do not send them to public school so they are not calculated.

Long Branch is similar in the sense that the wealth is mostly with second home owners or the young or old without children in the home.

In either case, there is no real list anymore, and if tomorrow every Hoboken parent sent their kids to the public schools, they would likely be on a similar funding plane to other towns with 50k people and six figure income on average.

 

[RUevolution36]

That is actually my point- that money should be otherwise invested rather then sent back to the wealthier districts.

If it in fact costs less to educate in charters and they work as Christie said, then why isn't his proposal to fund charters more and return the remainder to the suburban districts? That seems like a compromise which is something in which he does not engage.

And if the unions were against charter formulas that have worked, they would be wrong in their opposition. But at the same time, just taking all the funding, instead of an alternative, is just a pathetic, politicized slap job.

Legislators who toe the party line and do not act in the best interests of the people in the district that voted them into office are the ones who are giving the public a pathetic, politicized slap job (see Mila Jasey). For an assemblywoman representing Caldwell, Chatham Township, East Hanover, Essex Fells, Florham Park, Hanover, Harding, Livingston, Madison, Maplewood, Millburn, Roseland, South Orange, West Orange, she has come out against the proposal. Despite the fact that every school district in her voting district would benefit greatly from such an arrangement.

 

[gef21]

gef, honestly it sounds like the best situation for everyone is shutting down your district & redistributing the students to surrounding districts. I'm guessing you'll still be in demand, and those of your colleagues that have stopped giving a $#!t can be free to pursue other career opportunities.

10000 kids to other districts would not be welcome. Haha

 

[gef21]

A big issue in NJ is that we have very few regional high schools. I went to a nj conference where it was talked about how 90 percent of minorities go to schools that are 90 percent, or more, minority. Used Collingswood, West deptford, Audubon, and the other school down there as the example. All 4 tiny schools, each with a superintendent, and assistant superintendents, that cost the state a ton. If they regionalized it would save a ton of money but a lot of people don't want the communities to mix.

 

[brianoc]

gef, honestly it sounds like the best situation for everyone is shutting down your district & redistributing the students to surrounding districts. I'm guessing you'll still be in demand, and those of your colleagues that have stopped giving a $#!t can be free to pursue other career opportunities.

If that was proposed the towns that are now so supportive of this funding proposal would do a 180.

 

[LevaosLectures]

A big issue in NJ is that we have very few regional high schools. I went to a nj conference where it was talked about how 90 percent of minorities go to schools that are 90 percent, or more, minority. Used Collingswood, West deptford, Audubon, and the other school down there as the example. All 4 tiny schools, each with a superintendent, and assistant superintendents, that cost the state a ton. If they regionalized it would save a ton of money but a lot of people don't want the communities to mix.

Exactly. This is the point about localism. It invariably leads to segregation and inequality. Can someone explain to me why NJ needs 565 or whatever municipalities and over 600 school districts? Honestly, maybe bussing is the answer, but urban to suburban is the only kind that would ever fly.

 

[vkj91]

Exactly. This is the point about localism. It invariably leads to segregation and inequality. Can someone explain to me why NJ needs 565 or whatever municipalities and over 600 school districts? Honestly, maybe bussing is the answer, but urban to suburban is the only kind that would ever fly.

Why? because the geniuses that make up our state have been electing big government liberals for decades. Elect people who run on giving away free crap, increased taxes, distribution, and growing government and this is what you get.

 

[gef21]

I would actually say it is more conservative communities that do not want to combine to regional school districts. They want to keep their good small town feel going on. This costs the state much more money.

 

[Rutgers1]

gef, honestly it sounds like the best situation for everyone is shutting down your district & redistributing the students to surrounding districts. I'm guessing you'll still be in demand, and those of your colleagues that have stopped giving a $#!t can be free to pursue other career opportunities.

Are you insane? You read about his students fighting/stabbing/raping and you want to send those kids to other towns without that problem? NO F*CKING WAY. What they should do is keep them where they are and get serious about giving them life skills that will help them.

 

[mdk01]

Exactly. This is the point about localism. It invariably leads to segregation and inequality. Can someone explain to me why NJ needs 565 or whatever municipalities and over 600 school districts? Honestly, maybe bussing is the answer, but urban to suburban is the only kind that would ever fly.

Busing was tried in the 70's in many parts of the country and was an abject failure in most cases.

 

[LevaosLectures]

Busing was tried in the 70's in many parts of the country and was an abject failure in most cases.

Believe me, I'm not a fan. But closing down urban schools amount to pretty much the same thing, does it not?

 

[LevaosLectures]

Why? because the geniuses that make up our state have been electing big government liberals for decades. Elect people who run on giving away free crap, increased taxes, distribution, and growing government and this is what you get.

Uh, no. Localism is mostly a conservative thing. Little "c", I would say....not ideological, but driven by a fear of change and a desire to be around only those like you.

 

[jmc11201]

And, as I've said many times, it's hard to reverse deep social problems, and playing a gotcha game of "how much money" is silly. Certainly, the RADICAL reduction in funding Christie is talking about is going to hurt, and hurt badly. We aren't talking about 10 percent cuts here.

Do you know what turned Newark into an almost 100 percent minority city? It was the racist policies of our very own federal government. Sure, it's not ALL about racism but to say race is not a factor is ridiculous. If race isn't a factor then why are all the "crap schools" black and Latino?

Question: You have stated that you live in a town likely to benefit by the new school funding plan. Have you considered moving your family to Newark or Camden or one of these other towns to bring in an educated family with resources and help reduce the segregation in the town (I don't know your race, but segregation can be racial, economic, education, etc.).

 

[vkj91]

Uh, no. Localism is mostly a conservative thing. Little "c", I would say....not ideological, but driven by a fear of change and a desire to be around only those like you.

yes conservatives are all racist and just want white kids in their schools.

 

[gef21]

yes conservatives are all racist and just want white kids in their schools.

Not at all. But we tend to see push back from conservative communities about things involving lower income communities.

 

[patk89]

Part of the major issue I see is the programs we are required to bring in, by the state, because we are a failing district. We have to spend a ton of money to try a new program and then two years later we are told we need to try a different program and have to buy new books, bring in new speakers, and trainers etc. That adds up quickly.

And part of the issue is kids and families that do not want to be here. Being a failing district you are only allowed to suspend or kick our a certain percent of kids. After a certain number we can not suspend kids anymore. This causes a lot of problems in the school.

We added an adult school for our over age kids and have seen huge success from it (this costs money though).

Gef, you sound like a great teacher and really make a difference for your students. Some are born to teach and some do it for the paycheck.

But how do we change the problem with kids/families not supporting education? Young children will follow the lead of their elders. Why are the elders not guiding them? Do they think striving to learn will not change their outcomes or that the system is gamed against them? Charters have saved some kids who were able to reach their full potential. Even with the same family, they would have been lost in the public school.

 

[Rutgers1]

Question: You have stated that you live in a town likely to benefit by the new school funding plan. Have you considered moving your family to Newark or Camden or one of these other towns to bring in an educated family with resources and help reduce the segregation in the town (I don't know your race, but segregation can be racial, economic, education, etc.).

LOL, that's silly. He's all for OTHER people sacrificing, not himself. It's the libtard way.

 

[vkj91]

Not at all. But we tend to see push back from conservative communities about things involving lower income communities.

True and in some cases do you blame them? you said yourself one of the issues with your school is kids and families that don't want to be there. Is it fair to force those kids into the Millburn district? They end up taking an enormous amount of time and resources from teachers. Time and resources that could be spent on kids who want to learn.

 

[jmc11201]

True and in some cases do you blame them? you said yourself one of the issues with your school is kids and families that don't want to be there. Is it fair to force those kids into the Millburn district? They end up taking an enormous amount of time and resources from teachers. Time and resources that could be spent on kids who want to learn.

I generally agree, but not entirely with the bolded.

People with choices make rational decisions to live in places with good schools. They tend to be nice places to raise families, it helps maintain property values, etc. Good schools tend to be filled with relatively homogenous populations (race, economic, etc.). My personal view is that the vast minority of people making these choices do so to avoid schools with people of different races. I personally think most people would prefer more diversity in their school districts to less (in fairness...to a degree), but what they don't want is diversity if it means classroom disruptions and other problems. Unfortunately that is what gets associated with predominantly minority schools (rightly or wrongly...probably some of both). Now...if you have middle-class Latino and African American kids in your districts which share similar values...I think most would be all for it as most of the middle-class white people I know recognize the world as being a diverse place and are empathetic to racial disparities in terms of outcomes.

Now...to the bolded...I think this is where we talk about the cycle of poverty. Kids that were neglected due to parental indifference, single parent households where the mother worked all the time, etc. are less likely to succeed and have the tools to pass on to their kids in terms of academic achievement, life skills, etc. So I hesitate to sit there and say some kids want to learn and others don't....I don't know that it is fair to place that on the kids.

 

[vkj91]

I generally agree, but not entirely with the bolded.

People with choices make rational decisions to live in places with good schools. They tend to be nice places to raise families, it helps maintain property values, etc. Good schools tend to be filled with relatively homogenous populations (race, economic, etc.). My personal view is that the vast minority of people making these choices do so to avoid schools with people of different races. I personally think most people would prefer more diversity in their school districts to less (in fairness...to a degree), but what they don't want is diversity if it means classroom disruptions and other problems. Unfortunately that is what gets associated with predominantly minority schools (rightly or wrongly...probably some of both). Now...if you have middle-class Latino and African American kids in your districts which share similar values...I think most would be all for it as most of the middle-class white people I know recognize the world as being a diverse place and are empathetic to racial disparities in terms of outcomes.

Now...to the bolded...I think this is where we talk about the cycle of poverty. Kids that were neglected due to parental indifference, single parent households where the mother worked all the time, etc. are less likely to succeed and have the tools to pass on to their kids in terms of academic achievement, life skills, etc. So I hesitate to sit there and say some kids want to learn and others don't....I don't know that it is fair to place that on the kids.

I don't disagree but that comment was a direct response to "kids who don't want to be there" quote. I took that no so much as kids who want to learn and struggle but kids who suck the energy out of teachers because of behavior etc. Regardless, I think we are on a similar page. I grew up in a town that was pretty white but my Catholic HS was pretty diverse. However, most of those kids wanted to be there and came looking to learn.

 

[LevaosLectures]

LOL, that's silly. He's all for OTHER people sacrificing, not himself. It's the libtard way.

Dear idiot: nowhere did I ever say people should move to Newark. I even said I wouldn't want my kid bussed. I did, however, say I would accept higher taxes for the betterment of all. This problem is fifty years in the making.

 

[T2Kplus10]

Not at all. But we tend to see push back from conservative communities about things involving lower income communities.

This is a bit of a cause and effect fallacy. Wealthy towns don't want lower income folks moving in for many reasons way beyond race.

 

[LevaosLectures]

yes conservatives are all racist and just want white kids in their schools.

If the shoe fits...but no, that's not what I said at all. I said LOCALISM is generally an oppositional force when it comes to progressive ideas about integration. I even specified small c conservative as I'm not talking in a political sense.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Legislators who toe the party line and do not act in the best interests of the people in the district that voted them into office are the ones who are giving the public a pathetic, politicized slap job (see Mila Jasey). For an assemblywoman representing Caldwell, Chatham Township, East Hanover, Essex Fells, Florham Park, Hanover, Harding, Livingston, Madison, Maplewood, Millburn, Roseland, South Orange, West Orange, she has come out against the proposal. Despite the fact that every school district in her voting district would benefit greatly from such an arrangement.

I don't agree. When Newark gets worse as a result, it will be precisely those neighboring towns who will suffer.

Because here is the reality- the NJ Supreme Court will then just start issuing decisions like the one in CT that will close bad districts and Newark students will be in Millburn. And then what?

And something else, Christie has burned the state for millions that we all pay no matter we live, he hasn't done one good thing for this state and the next governor will have a swamp of corruption and fiscal disaster to remedy.

 

[NotInRHouse]

If the shoe fits...but no, that's not what I said at all. I said LOCALISM is generally an oppositional force when it comes to progressive ideas about integration. I even specified small c conservative as I'm not talking in a political sense.

Careful there. The current brand of conservatism shut down Charlotte for trying to ban companies from firing gay people, and banned Texas towns from banning fracking within their borders.

Christie's move is get those outside of the 26% that support him- basically what he is saying to the suburban whites who despise his corruption and who are ready to smash the Republicans to bits in NJ until he is gone- hey I'll give you lower taxes so let's say we're even on me stealing from Sandy victims and shutting down the bridge lanes, capisce? How about that bridge trial and the racist I endorsed for President- oh wait here look a shiny new lower tax bill!

Christie and Trump have a defined brand, it is rallying the respective 26% and 30% who don't despise them and trying to hoodwink enough people to believe they will give them lower taxes and make them look the other way at the corruption, racism, and the fact that neither of them are actual fiscal conservatives, to get to 51%.

NJ is too smart for this. People associated with RU need to realize the crap sandwich they are being handed.

 

[RUevolution36]

I don't agree. When Newark gets worse as a result, it will be precisely those neighboring towns who will suffer.

Because here is the reality- the NJ Supreme Court will then just start issuing decisions like the one in CT that will close bad districts and Newark students will be in Millburn. And then what?

And something else, Christie has burned the state for millions that we all pay no matter we live, he hasn't done one good thing for this state and the next governor will have a swamp of corruption and fiscal disaster to remedy.

Why would you assume that Newark would automatically get worse? What examples do you have that the extra money has done specifically to better the student experience? Does shipping textbooks into Newark cost 5x as much as it does to Millburn? Do the teachers get paid more? Do Newark schools provide that much extra instruction with longer school days to make up for the lack of academic support at home? And...Newark's problems should be secondary to this Assemblywoman's district. Her constituency voted her in to represent them, not Newark. There are going to be many cases where the needs of Newark run counter to the needs of Millburn, Chatham, etc. It is her responsibility to make sure her district gets what it needs to the extent possible.

Also, the lack of independent thinking and latching onto the loudest party leaders is how we get these instances of corruption and financial disaster. Letting a party dictate what a constituencies representatives do, rather than holding them accountable to the voters wishes, is the biggest degradation of the democracy we pretend to live in.

 

[gmay8]

Dear idiot: nowhere did I ever say people should move to Newark. I even said I wouldn't want my kid bussed. I did, however, say I would accept higher taxes for the betterment of all. This problem is fifty years in the making.

How about you volunteer to pay higher taxes.... hell you can pay 100% of your salary in taxes if you'd like, and I can volunteer to pay lower taxes. That way you can feel great about yourself and helping others, and I can keep my hard earned money. Fair?

 

[brianoc]

This is a bit of a cause and effect fallacy. Wealthy towns don't want lower income folks moving in for many reasons way beyond race.

Lock the doors 3 times I agree with you. (Clark NJ is an exception though)

 

[RU_DIO]

Lock the doors 3 times I agree with you. (Clark NJ is an exception though)

Agree about Clark.

 

[T2Kplus10]

Lock the doors 3 times I agree with you. (Clark NJ is an exception though)

Let's go for #4 - cut pension benefits in half and save even move on property taxes! :)

 

[NotInRHouse]

Why would you assume that Newark would automatically get worse? What examples do you have that the extra money has done specifically to better the student experience? Does shipping textbooks into Newark cost 5x as much as it does to Millburn? Do the teachers get paid more? Do Newark schools provide that much extra instruction with longer school days to make up for the lack of academic support at home? And...Newark's problems should be secondary to this Assemblywoman's district. Her constituency voted her in to represent them, not Newark. There are going to be many cases where the needs of Newark run counter to the needs of Millburn, Chatham, etc. It is her responsibility to make sure her district gets what it needs to the extent possible.

Also, the lack of independent thinking and latching onto the loudest party leaders is how we get these instances of corruption and financial disaster. Letting a party dictate what a constituencies representatives do, rather than holding them accountable to the voters wishes, is the biggest degradation of the democracy we pretend to live in.

And where are the situations where less money worked? There are none. That is the problem. If they have to close schools and have classes with 50 students, or end the free pre-K, results down the line will be worse. Free pre-K in Union City for example has become a national model.

If the plan was actually work with the districts to limit overhead, limit administration excess, that would be different. To pretend that just cutting off the funding will fix the problem is naive. It is just about taxes.

If you look at what other states have done, and the NJ Supreme Court always does, what they will say is, well, this is is super unconstitutional, or just call the bluff and say OK, shut down the Newark schools and send their students to that list of towns you provided. So I would say voting against the plan is taking that into consideration.

Also, the spill from poorer results will come into those towns. Worse education will have even less students in college or in the schools and the on the streets.

Even still, it seems to me that the Republicans are the ones who have voted with Christie every time. Port Authority reform was unanimous in both houses. He veoted it, they refused to override. On the other hand, some Democrats have supported this plan because they are answering their constituents who just want lower taxes, even if it means screwing over students in the cities. If anything this assemblywoman appears to be an exception.

 

[KaKaKen]

Agree about Clark.

whats wrong with Clark?

 

[T2Kplus10]

Agree about Clark.

Just curious, what's up with Clark?
@brianoc

 

[LevaosLectures]

How about you volunteer to pay higher taxes.... hell you can pay 100% of your salary in taxes if you'd like, and I can volunteer to pay lower taxes. That way you can feel great about yourself and helping others, and I can keep my hard earned money. Fair?

Dip derp derpy deep doop

 

[vkj91]

Careful there. The current brand of conservatism shut down Charlotte for trying to ban companies from firing gay people, and banned Texas towns from banning fracking within their borders.

Christie's move is get those outside of the 26% that support him- basically what he is saying to the suburban whites who despise his corruption and who are ready to smash the Republicans to bits in NJ until he is gone- hey I'll give you lower taxes so let's say we're even on me stealing from Sandy victims and shutting down the bridge lanes, capisce? How about that bridge trial and the racist I endorsed for President- oh wait here look a shiny new lower tax bill!

Christie and Trump have a defined brand, it is rallying the respective 26% and 30% who don't despise them and trying to hoodwink enough people to believe they will give them lower taxes and make them look the other way at the corruption, racism, and the fact that neither of them are actual fiscal conservatives, to get to 51%.

NJ is too smart for this. People associated with RU need to realize the crap sandwich they are being handed.

so they basically stole your sides playbook? Instead of promising free Sh%t they are promising to let people keep more of their money?

 

[vkj91]

Where is the money going? What is it being used on? We already know they are graduating a lower % than the rest of the state. Their test scores stink. Few kids are going to college and yesterday we learned they have almost as many guards as Ringwood does cops. Even many of the liberals on this board have said the problem goes way beyond money. If money isn't the problem, how does getting their spending in line with other districts actually hurt the students? Has anyone actually been able to illustrate how much of that 33,000 gets to the students or classrooms?

 

[gef21]

Gef, you sound like a great teacher and really make a difference for your students. Some are born to teach and some do it for the paycheck.

But how do we change the problem with kids/families not supporting education? Young children will follow the lead of their elders. Why are the elders not guiding them? Do they think striving to learn will not change their outcomes or that the system is gamed against them? Charters have saved some kids who were able to reach their full potential. Even with the same family, they would have been lost in the public school.

I think the big issue is not that people are not pushing the kids or not supporting education but they do not understand what a high level of success really is. Many of my kids come from the DR, or Mexico, or PR, and they think making 25000 dollars a year, having running water, and having food available is the end goal. Most of their grand parents spoke one dialect, their parents spanish, and this group of kids english. Many parents want help but are not educated themselves and struggle to help their kids. There is also the major gang influence that causes a lot of problems.

 

[Rutgers1]

Dear idiot: nowhere did I ever say people should move to Newark. I even said I wouldn't want my kid bussed. I did, however, say I would accept higher taxes for the betterment of all. This problem is fifty years in the making.

Dear f*cking @sshole, you are a f*cking racist douchebag spouting policies that have been proven to fail for decades and yet you think we are the idiots. Do you think looking up multi-syllabic words in your thesaurus makes you sound smart? Guess what, it does the opposite. You and your ilk are the reason there is mass poverty and segregation in this country by convincing people that their problems are never on them and there is always someone else to blame. You should post a picture of yourself in your KKK gown and come out of the closet.