JCMan8 wrote:
Pebble, your links only provided vague descriptions of where the money was stolen. They say that $20 million were provided to consulting firms, while some foundation claimed it spent $80 million in grants to teachers and increasing access to school options.

Presumably if $500 million was donated instead of $100 million we'd end up with the same result: nothing to show for it and an entrenched Union forcing the highest performing (and younger) teachers out of a job.

Yvonne wrote:
While you claim I know nothing, I have yet seen you at a school board meeting, it is mostly parents and teachers, the same familiar faces. Then again, it must be nice to hide behind a phony name attacking people, Pebble.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Meanwhile, over in Newark, the Democrats in the Legislature and their union supporters will be screwing the kids again . . .

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2 ... _the_de.html#incart_river

Keeping up the cost of running the schools, while ensuring the kids don't have the best teachers? Of course!

Like I said, didn't Zuckerberg donate $100 million to Newark's schools? Or if he pledged to match that, I'm assuming that a substantial amount was matched, leading to hundreds of millions being donated to Newark schools.

And now there isn't enough money to pay their highest performing teachers? Can someone say criminal corruption?

Yvonne wrote:
I know every minute he spoke cost taxpayers $300.00, it was ten minute speech. If you spend $3,000 on this nonsense how much more are you spending on non-important things, while students need books?

Monroe wrote:
Meanwhile, over in Newark, the Democrats in the Legislature and their union supporters will be screwing the kids again . . .

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2 ... _the_de.html#incart_river

Keeping up the cost of running the schools, while ensuring the kids don't have the best teachers? Of course!

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
My oft repeated '25% above the state average' is to point out that, yes, the state is fulfilling its role as required by Abbott. Add to that the funded lunches, pre-school, and other costs JC schools get everything they need. I put most of it on uninvolved parents, and no amount of money can solve that.

Who's constantly accusing the state of underfunding that you're saying it over and over again? I must have missed that. Mostly I hear you saying JC should pay it's own way and leave suburbanites like you out of their problems.

Monroe wrote:
My oft repeated '25% above the state average' is to point out that, yes, the state is fulfilling its role as required by Abbott. Add to that the funded lunches, pre-school, and other costs JC schools get everything they need. I put most of it on uninvolved parents, and no amount of money can solve that.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
No one is worth $3,000 when you cannot buy basic supplies for a school. This is one of the reasons the state took over the school system in the first place: spending money outside of the classroom. I was around when the state said this, Pebble.

It is quite obvious that you don't really know anything. You cannot state a single thing about the speaker's purpose, topic, expertise, etc.

Your statements on "cannot buy basic supplies" is also deliberately opaque. What are these "basic supplies" that the school is missing? How much are missing? which school is missing them? What purpose do they serve?

If you'd like to make claims and accusations, it would be nice if you provided actual information with your broad claims...

Pebble wrote:
Are charters successful because they can banish away the problem children or are they successful because their curriculum is that much better? They function as private schools in this manner.

Yvonne wrote:
No one is worth $3,000 when you cannot buy basic supplies for a school. This is one of the reasons the state took over the school system in the first place: spending money outside of the classroom. I was around when the state said this, Pebble.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Wrong again. I recognize that some districts need supplemental help, but I also expect JC taxpayers to understand that their is a limit to how far their hands can reach into others pockets, especially when the results of the existing largesse have been piss poor.

You keep tap dancing around the basic options of your position. Why don't you clearly state how much JC should spend per student. or what % it should get from the state? You whine a lot but slime out when it's time to actually deal with the reality.

Here's the choices:

1- JC cuts spending to a fraction of it's current budget so as to not to tax suburbanites like you.

2- It raises taxes to the level of economic suicide.

You clearly don't give a crap about the results, only the money, so there's no option 3 of JC's system educating it's kids effectively.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
I don?t disagree with those that say charter schools shouldn?t be dipping into the state budget. These schools are essentially private.

How can you call a school with admissions by public lottery "essentially private"? Exclusion is the defining characteristic of private school. Charters are public schools freed from the bureaucracy to experiment with different curriculum and structures. When the system is failing, rejecting innovation seems insane. But I don't believe charters are a general solution, they are laboratories. Chains of cloned charters should not be the goal. Cloning successful charter models within the system should.

Yvonne wrote:
Spending $3,000 on a speaker is excessive, Peddle, especially when teachers speak before the board to ask for basic supplies: books, working copying machines, etc. There are no marching bands because the board has not purchased equipment. The schools are reducing the sports programs to certain schools to save money. The one thing any inner city school needs is a music and sport programs.

Yvonne wrote:
The teacher asked for the copier because there was no books. She went on-line to get copies of information to distribute to the class. This teacher used her own computer because the schools' computers were not working. Basically, she was using her own money at Staples. Yes, there is a place for kindles but nothing can replace a textbook.

Monroe wrote:
Wrong again. I recognize that some districts need supplemental help, but I also expect JC taxpayers to understand that their is a limit to how far their hands can reach into others pockets, especially when the results of the existing largesse have been piss poor.

Yvonne wrote:
Spending $3,000 on a speaker is excessive, Peddle, especially when teachers speak before the board to ask for basic supplies: books, working copying machines, etc. There are no marching bands because the board has not purchased equipment. The schools are reducing the sports programs to certain schools to save money. The one thing any inner city school needs is a music and sport programs.

Pebble wrote:
I don?t disagree with those that say charter schools shouldn?t be dipping into the state budget. These schools are essentially private.

Monroe wrote:
You have two towns, both with 20,000 residents. One town is more affluent, with homes averaging 750K. The other has homes averaging 500K. Both have the same number of students, teachers, schools, etc. School costs are similar. Of course the town with the less valuable homes will be paying a higher percentage of their home value.

Yvonne wrote:
I have attended a recent board of ed meeting. Each meeting have books that are twice the size of the old phone books filled with contracts. Some are probably necessary but others are questionable. Here is an example. We paid someone $3,000 to speak for ten minutes. I asked about that spending but the board responds to questions at the end of the meeting. I had to leave so I guess I will have to wait for the answer on Channel 1.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
...
As far as the 'pay the students and parents' I'd almost agree, but deliver the money from existing state funding levels, and make the money available to graduates who finish with good grades-and use the money towards college. Carrot on a stick type reward!

Personally - I'd be happy to see school funding initially increased by the 10% or so to cover the cost. What it might do is highlight the wasted spend in other areas - and I'd include charter schools, common core, Abbott, and jail in that. We're currently throwing a lot of money at the problem everywhere - except to those who might actually benefit from it.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
...
As far as the 'pay the students and parents' I'd almost agree, but deliver the money from existing state funding levels, and make the money available to graduates who finish with good grades-and use the money towards college. Carrot on a stick type reward!

Personally - I'd be happy to see school funding initially increased by the 10% or so to cover the cost. What it might do is highlight the wasted spend in other areas - and I'd include charter schools, common core, Abbott, and jail in that. We're currently throwing a lot of money at the problem everywhere - except to those who might actually benefit from it.

I never thought you'd say anything I agree with but I like your idea of paying kids only if they graduate. However, there is absolutely no need to see school funding rise one penny.

There's so much administrative bloat it's ridiculous. People may not be aware, as the national media barely discussed it, but Mark Zuckerberg donated $100,000,000 to Newark's public school system and has NOTHING to show for it. The tremendously bloated and inefficient system gobbled it up, without kids receiving any benefits.

I know you're thinking this will be different because the money will go directly to the kids, but the money is already there.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
...
As far as the 'pay the students and parents' I'd almost agree, but deliver the money from existing state funding levels, and make the money available to graduates who finish with good grades-and use the money towards college. Carrot on a stick type reward!

Personally - I'd be happy to see school funding initially increased by the 10% or so to cover the cost. What it might do is highlight the wasted spend in other areas - and I'd include charter schools, common core, Abbott, and jail in that. We're currently throwing a lot of money at the problem everywhere - except to those who might actually benefit from it.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
I believe somebody posted this link on another topic - http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/cities ... ns-really-pay-taxes-2015/ - but it's useful again here as a reference point. Jersey City does not have the highest overall % of incoming going towards taxes, rather we rank 15th out of the top 100 cities in the US. Our real-estate taxes are quite high, as a %, though.

I would curious if anyone can provide a link to comparable data on what various municipalities spend on schools.

Here you go, and it breaks down by % local support, state support (ie other taxpayers), and Federal support.

http://www.state.nj.us/education/guide/2013/

K-Lo wrote:
Yvonne, have you found any of the same issues with accreditation of charter schools in New Jersey?

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
...
As far as the 'pay the students and parents' I'd almost agree, but deliver the money from existing state funding levels, and make the money available to graduates who finish with good grades-and use the money towards college. Carrot on a stick type reward!

Personally - I'd be happy to see school funding initially increased by the 10% or so to cover the cost. What it might do is highlight the wasted spend in other areas - and I'd include charter schools, common core, Abbott, and jail in that. We're currently throwing a lot of money at the problem everywhere - except to those who might actually benefit from it.