Monroe wrote:
Quote:

mwa7368 wrote:
The result of the Abbott court ruling in 1985 determined that the Jersey City School District qualified as a unconstitutionally substandard school district and as such was entitled to have state cover all costs for school building and renovation projects in these districts under the supervision of the New Jersey Schools Development Authority.

NOTE: It DID NOT say all areas EXCEPT DOWNTOWN

If the city does not want to have equal treatment throughout then I would call for Downtown to make a motion to separate from the whole resulting in a new municipality that would not receive the Abbott distinction.


Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

hamiltonpkmom wrote:
...
I don?t think there is any need to undermine current parents? hardship nor concerns about their children. It?s getting harder and harder to raise family in one income and pension are thing of the past for majority of us.

...

It's not a hardship to bus your kids to free preK. It's an inconvenience at worst. The City doesn't owe you, because life was somehow easier for previous generations. Wouldn't the City's $750k/year would be better spent directly to help families living in real poverty in the City?

There is a relationship between wasteful spending, higher taxes, and the middle classes ability to make ends meet. The middle class squeeze isn't simply a tale of demons from Wall Street.

There isn't a constitutional right to have an preK school within walking distance of your home. If you don't want your kids to take a bus, you have the option of paying for private preK or driving them to the school yourself-car pool maybe?

mwa7368 wrote:
The result of the Abbott court ruling in 1985 determined that the Jersey City School District qualified as a unconstitutionally substandard school district and as such was entitled to have state cover all costs for school building and renovation projects in these districts under the supervision of the New Jersey Schools Development Authority.

NOTE: It DID NOT say all areas EXCEPT DOWNTOWN

If the city does not want to have equal treatment throughout then I would call for Downtown to make a motion to separate from the whole resulting in a new municipality that would not receive the Abbott distinction.


Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

hamiltonpkmom wrote:
...
I don?t think there is any need to undermine current parents? hardship nor concerns about their children. It?s getting harder and harder to raise family in one income and pension are thing of the past for majority of us.

...

It's not a hardship to bus your kids to free preK. It's an inconvenience at worst. The City doesn't owe you, because life was somehow easier for previous generations. Wouldn't the City's $750k/year would be better spent directly to help families living in real poverty in the City?

There is a relationship between wasteful spending, higher taxes, and the middle classes ability to make ends meet. The middle class squeeze isn't simply a tale of demons from Wall Street.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

hamiltonpkmom wrote:
...
I don?t think there is any need to undermine current parents? hardship nor concerns about their children. It?s getting harder and harder to raise family in one income and pension are thing of the past for majority of us.

...

It's not a hardship to bus your kids to free preK. It's an inconvenience at worst. The City doesn't owe you, because life was somehow easier for previous generations. Wouldn't the City's $750k/year would be better spent directly to help families living in real poverty in the City?

There is a relationship between wasteful spending, higher taxes, and the middle classes ability to make ends meet. The middle class squeeze isn't simply a tale of demons from Wall Street.

hamiltonpkmom wrote:
...
I don?t think there is any need to undermine current parents? hardship nor concerns about their children. It?s getting harder and harder to raise family in one income and pension are thing of the past for majority of us.

...

jcdd wrote:
...
Guess what folks -- this is not the 1970s anymore. It is a colder, crueler world than the one you grew up in.
...

La_Verdad wrote:
1. Everyone thinks they are middle class.
2. Move to Maplewood. You can pay $20,000 a year in property taxes. $8,000 is nothing.
3. I'm sure you can find a pre-K that costs $20,000, but you'd be a fool to pay it. You can go to a quality private high school for a good bit less than that. I'm sure story time and naps at the $10k 3-year old "school" are just as rewarding as at the Harvard of daycare.

jcdd wrote:
Quote:

So I'm supposed to pay my $8000 property taxes, then send my 3 year old to a private PreK for $10,000 near where I live? Thats absurd. Believe it or not, there are many more middle class families downtown than wealthy ones. These folks including myself should have an option near where we reside, not be forced to put a 3 year old on a bus. If our taxes were minimal I'd have no problem going private, but public education options should be a no brainer given the outrageous taxes we're forced to pay here

If you can find a private preK for 10,000K a year, please spill the details. It is really more like 20K (and up). Yes, ridiculous. Many of these objectors probably grew up in families where mom stayed home with them. Guess what folks -- this is not the 1970s anymore. It is a colder, crueler world than the one you grew up in. Most of us downtown "yuppies" have to have two working parents in the household just to keep afloat. Us working moms are generally not out there working 50 hours a week because we want to - it is because we have to.

So I'm supposed to pay my $8000 property taxes, then send my 3 year old to a private PreK for $10,000 near where I live? Thats absurd. Believe it or not, there are many more middle class families downtown than wealthy ones. These folks including myself should have an option near where we reside, not be forced to put a 3 year old on a bus. If our taxes were minimal I'd have no problem going private, but public education options should be a no brainer given the outrageous taxes we're forced to pay here

ceo3west wrote:
Quote:

La_Verdad wrote:
I live downtown. I'm not trying to pit anybody against anyone. Just a little tired of the entitled and/or NIMBY bitching. I agree that the city isn't going to fully turn the corner (and even become an "above-average Mid-sized city") until families can stay, but I don't see how subsidizing Pre-K for folks who can comfortably afford it has anything to do with that.

So I'm supposed to pay my $8000 property taxes, then send my 3 year old to a private PreK for $10,000 near where I live? Thats absurd. Believe it or not, there are many more middle class families downtown than wealthy ones. These folks including myself should have an option near where we reside, not be forced to put a 3 year old on a bus. If our taxes were minimal I'd have no problem going private, but public education options should be a no brainer given the outrageous taxes we're forced to pay here.

La_Verdad wrote:

Yes, something could/should be done in terms of developer contributions to education - but that is a different issue. The amount of entitlement downtown is shocking. The micro units was a great example. This is another one.

La_Verdad wrote:
I live downtown. I'm not trying to pit anybody against anyone. Just a little tired of the entitled and/or NIMBY bitching. I agree that the city isn't going to fully turn the corner (and even become an "above-average Mid-sized city") until families can stay, but I don't see how subsidizing Pre-K for folks who can comfortably afford it has anything to do with that.

hamiltonpkmom wrote:

If one feels it's an entitlement for 3 year olds to go to Prek3 in downtown, the way the law is written, they are legally entitled to go to school no matter what their family income, no matter where in the city they live. Children should use the the building that was built as an education center and currently serving the growing need in the zone. Bussing children will cost tax payers $1100 per student and opens up for liable such as this that just happened in JC.

hamiltonpkmom wrote:
... and there is no way the state will approve what the mayor's proposing, over 30% vs. 10% of the per student's yearly allocation.
...

hamiltonpkmom wrote:
...
If one feels it's an entitlement for 3 year olds to go to Prek3 in downtown, the way the law is written, they are legally entitled to go to school no matter what their family income, no matter where in the city they live.
...

MattSchapiro wrote:
Quote:

by dtjcview on 2014/3/22 1:06:12
The Abbott funding was originally earmarked for impoverished families. Not many of those live in Hamilton Park these days.

Of the 723 students enrolled at PS37/Cordero in Hamilton Park, 314 students are eligible for free lunch which means their annual household income must be under $30,615 for a family of four.

Abbott funding is not means tested. If one lives in an Abbott district, one is legally entitled to public preK.

Even in an area perceived as one of Jersey City's wealthiest, the data shows precisely why we are given the Abbott designation.

The district must be DFG A and satisfy the following criteria. DFG B districts that also meet the following criteria may be classified as Abbott if they demonstrate additional substantial economic hardship:

The district must have a low-income concentration (as measured by eligibility for free lunch under the United States Department of Agriculture free/reduced lunch program) of at least 40 percent;

If the district has a low-income concentration less than 60 percent, then it must have an equalized value per capita at least 3 percent below the state average and equalized tax rate at least 30 percent greater than the state average;

If the low-income concentration is at least 60 percent, then the equalized value per capita must be at least 3 percent below the state average; the equalized tax rate does not factor into the eligibility requirement for these districts; and

The district must be included in the NJRA eligible list.

by dtjcview on 2014/3/22 1:06:12
The Abbott funding was originally earmarked for impoverished families. Not many of those live in Hamilton Park these days.

hamiltonpkmom wrote:
dtjcview, the budget for 2014-2015 school year per allocation per child for PreK is $12, 842 not over $20K. The information can be found here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzPMO9 ... W5TUUpYNzdSSGs/edit?pli=1

?We are talking about early childhood meaning 3 and 4 year olds. With all the developments going on through generous abatements by the administration while the tax dollars are being routed away from the school funds, do we then bus all the 3 and 4 year olds across other wards?

?With the closure of Bayonne Bridge for next two years which will clog up the streets of JC, how long will it take for the 3 and 4 year olds to get to school in school bus in rush hour?

?The Mayor's office gave generous 30% raise to their office for 2014 budget while JCRA facility which is built for community center and school and learning and currently being used for much needed school might evict our students?

Much about this action or I should say inaction is truly shameful by the Mayor.

Here is more light to shed on our mayor: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... ey_city.html#incart_river

JPhurst wrote:
And how soon we forget, just a few years ago former Superintedent Epps shut down P.S. 9, on the ground that there was excess capacity that could be handled by 3 and 5! The real issue I think is that the lack of high school space citywide is even more acute than the lack or Pre K spaces downtown. I believe Ferris HS needs all that space now. Because otherwise we would have another obvious solution!