jenn2213 wrote:
Breakfast has ALWAYS been offered in the schools. Previously, it was offered from 8:00-8:30 in the school cafeteria. Officially breakfast is now served from 8:30-8:45 in the classroom, but in actuality it is 8:40/8:45. In the elementary schools, children are picked up from line outside at 8:30, they proceed into school and into their classroom and then eat breakfast. This typically is about 8:40-8:45. There is no official end to breakfast this way, but most kids finish up between 8:55 and 9:00. Instructional time starts at 8:45. We are assigning work to be done while they are eating (journal writing, review pages, problem of the day, etc;), but let's be honest...how many 5 and 6 years olds (or even some 12 and 13 year olds) can eat a bowl of cereal and work productively at the same time.

The reason for the change is that not enough students were coming to school at 8:00. Now they are all "in school" at 8:30/8:45 and we can increase breakfast numbers. I am in full support of no child being hungry, but can we acknowledge that children need time to eat and not count that time as instructional time and demand I am actively teaching and the kids are actively working while they are simultaneously trying to peel an orange?

K-Lo wrote:
Kids who come to school hungry cannot learn. Connect the dots.

user1111 wrote:
A few months ago, I hosted a meeting at the NAACP office that was requested by a lady whose name was Ellen Simon. She represented an organization called "Parents for Progress." Ms.
Simon informed me about a federal program that provided free breakfast for children of a certain income level.

K-Lo wrote:
I will be voting for Jessica Resero Daye, Micheline Amy, Carol Lester, and Ellen Simon too.

Pebble wrote:
If you ignore the fact that the public schools have to deal with poverty, single parents with multiple kids, parents that don?t care, and on and on?

Pebble wrote:
How are you talking about salaries? Not a single argument for more spending is based on giving the same people more money. That?s about as absurd a strawman argument as I?ve seen.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
To paraphrase Pebble - "Schools need more money". Bankrupt idea in more ways than one. Why aren't we talking Kindles instead of books, webcams and wifi instead of seats, teamspaces instead of dry erase boards...?

Where did I say "schools need more money"? I wrote why schools argue about needing more money. I didn't say they are always correct in getting it.

Reading comprehension is very important. It is often taught in schools.

dtjcview wrote:
To paraphrase Pebble - "Schools need more money". Bankrupt idea in more ways than one. Why aren't we talking Kindles instead of books, webcams and wifi instead of seats, teamspaces instead of dry erase boards...?

borisp wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
That isn?t ?all you need to know.? If you ignore the fact that Hudson doesn?t actually have a special needs program?

It?s like comparing apples to andirons.

a
Special needs is not that significant percentage of the overall spending. Unless, of course, you use "special needs" as a place where the school would push off all the students who lag behind.

borisp wrote:

How is this an argument?

First, I was talking about the salaries, not the contents of the programs and testing methodology. And my statement stands, - if they tell us that they need more money to hire more expensive people, - that may be fine. If they tell us that if we give more money to the same people they will deliver, - it is not fine at all. It means those people knowingly and intentionally do not do their jobs properly.

Second, on the subject of should we tell them what to do, - sorry, you are wrong too. Plumber or teacher, - it matters not. They sell a service. We buy that service. If they do not want to sell the service that we, consumers, require, - they should pursue other opportunities.

Pebble wrote:
That isn?t ?all you need to know.? If you ignore the fact that Hudson doesn?t actually have a special needs program?

It?s like comparing apples to andirons.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:

There is nothing sound about it.

This would have been sound if they said something like, - "give us more funds and we will fire everyone, and hire some other, better people who are more expensive".

This is not what they are saying.

Imagine you hire a plumber and you are not happy with his work. There are leaks, faucets are dented, paint on the chromed details... So, you tell him that you are not happy, and he responds that if only you pay him more, everything would be better.

What would your reaction be?

Yep, you are going to figure out that this is an extortion.

Imagine you hire a plumber and upon taking the job, you tell him exactly what pipe to use, where to stick it, how much Teflon tape, and then you specify that he can?t touch certain parts of fixture and that he has to do exactly as he?s told?

Plumbing isn?t teaching. The plumber in that scenario would likely say that they need to review the fixture because that might be the part that?s leaking or need replacing. That plumber might say the new pipes you want to put in are fine.

Your scenario is flawed and doesn?t accurately represent the true education environment. You are trying to take a rather complex issue and boil it down to John in one environment versus John in another. This is not the case.

JPhurst wrote:
Also, remember that disabled students have rights under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). A school district must provide an education that accommodates the student's disability. If it can't, the student can demand a fully paid for placement into a private special ed school. These are often very expensive.

Jersey City has some, though not too many, private placements. The district has worked hard to develop its special education programs. Sue Mack had a lot to do with this.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:

One can reasonably argue that there is waste in the school system and that it should not require $20,000+ per student to get the education we get. (Although most critics, when pushed for specifics, can tell interesting anecdotes but point to very little in specific line items that could be eliminated from the budget without affecting education).

Sorry, but don't care. If you buy cucumbers, you do not need to tell the farmer how to budget the process. All you need to know that if one farmer offers good cucumbers for 14, and another offers bad ones for 20, you should not be buying from the second one.

Hudson school's tuition is about 14K a year, so this is all you need to know.

borisp wrote:Quote:

JPhurst wrote:

Nevertheless, the requirement that the state put additional moneys into urban schools to a) guarantee an adequate education and b) ensure that urban municipalities are not crushed by unsustainable property tax burdens, is a sound one. For all the hating on the system, people seem to forget the truly desperate state of the schools before Abbot v. Burke.

There is nothing sound about it.

This would have been sound if they said something like, - "give us more funds and we will fire everyone, and hire some other, better people who are more expensive".

This is not what they are saying.

Imagine you hire a plumber and you are not happy with his work. There are leaks, faucets are dented, paint on the chromed details... So, you tell him that you are not happy, and he responds that if only you pay him more, everything would be better.

What would your reaction be?

Yep, you are going to figure out that this is an extortion.

JPhurst wrote:

One can reasonably argue that there is waste in the school system and that it should not require $20,000+ per student to get the education we get. (Although most critics, when pushed for specifics, can tell interesting anecdotes but point to very little in specific line items that could be eliminated from the budget without affecting education).

JPhurst wrote:

Nevertheless, the requirement that the state put additional moneys into urban schools to a) guarantee an adequate education and b) ensure that urban municipalities are not crushed by unsustainable property tax burdens, is a sound one. For all the hating on the system, people seem to forget the truly desperate state of the schools before Abbot v. Burke.

dtjcview wrote:

From the outside here's what I see:
- Costs per student are outrageous ($20k+ per year)
- Abysmal scores on standardized tests.
- A steady stream of thugs, gang members and murderers being produced.
- Constant demands for more resources and financing.

It seems pretty broken to me. Ultimately the blame lies with us apathetic voters, but I think the choices on the ballot want to give us more of the same.