Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True, awful as it is to say, I would support that type of consolidation. I would support keeping the good districts together but I would not want mixing with the bad...
That's like having your cake and eating it, can't really have both, if some of the poorer (read bad) districts merged with the "good" school districts, (read wealthier) it would expand the opportunities to children in the poorer districts.
That's like having your cake and eating it, can't really have both, if some of the poorer (read bad) districts merged with the "good" school districts, (read wealthier) it would expand the opportunities to children in the poorer districts.
Nope. Instead, all the money in those districts would be funneled to the poorer areas, and fail to improve them, while the wealthier areas would see their taxes increased and their schools starved for resources.
We don't have to guess this will happen; we've seen this happen already on a statewide scale with the Abbott decisions. Nearly all the state money for education goes to the Abbott districts, and the wealthier districts have to cover their own expenses out of property taxes. The wealthier districts have lower per-pupil funding than the Abbott districts, and still get better results.
Nope. Instead, all the money in those districts would be funneled to the poorer areas, and fail to improve them, while the wealthier areas would see their taxes increased and their schools starved for resources.
We don't have to guess this will happen; we've seen this happen already on a statewide scale with the Abbott decisions. Nearly all the state money for education goes to the Abbott districts, and the wealthier districts have to cover their own expenses out of property taxes. The wealthier districts have lower per-pupil funding than the Abbott districts, and still get better results.
I second this. While there are smart kids in poor areas, their home lives and the neighborhoods they live in, surrounded by crime, etc. almost always overshadow their academic possibilities. Sure, there are success stories, but not enough to justify merging good and bad districts so that we all go down the sewer.
Yes, I think the poorer performing districts in inner city areas are that way as a result of cultural reasons and impacts. If you were to take a school in Newark and drop it into Westfield, so everything is the same except the location and thus the students who go there, students would perform well. I don't think the issue is quality of the teachers or admin or anything, but the environment of the students at home and even in school. Kids have to have good role models at home to help push the importance of education to them. They need parents/guardians/older siblings who can and are willing to help with homework, get them to extracurricular activities, etc., support them. In inner cities where crime and gangs and drugs and single parent homes are more rampant, it's just not the best environment. There are too many distractions, and there's often a mentality that joining a gang or selling drugs is cool.
THIS is what I don't want mixing with our "nice" towns and areas. I don't want that to be mixed with good districts and bring the good districts down. It sucks but it is what it is.
Yes, I think the poorer performing districts in inner city areas are that way as a result of cultural reasons and impacts. If you were to take a school in Newark and drop it into Westfield, so everything is the same except the location and thus the students who go there, students would perform well. I don't think the issue is quality of the teachers or admin or anything, but the environment of the students at home and even in school. Kids have to have good role models at home to help push the importance of education to them. They need parents/guardians/older siblings who can and are willing to help with homework, get them to extracurricular activities, etc., support them. In inner cities where crime and gangs and drugs and single parent homes are more rampant, it's just not the best environment. There are too many distractions, and there's often a mentality that joining a gang or selling drugs is cool.
THIS is what I don't want mixing with our "nice" towns and areas. I don't want that to be mixed with good districts and bring the good districts down. It sucks but it is what it is.
Some people just don't get it. Consolidation has nothing to do with diluting the good schools with bad schools.it has everything to do with eliminating redundant management positions.
You do not need 600+ school superintendents when you only have 21 counties.
You don't need a separate police force in a one mile square town.
You don't need a building dept. in every tiny little boro.
The reason NJ is not going to change is because of ignorant people not understanding what the real problem is.
TOO MANY MANAGERS.
Some people just don't get it. Consolidation has nothing to do with diluting the good schools with bad schools.it has everything to do with eliminating redundant management positions.
You do not need 600+ school superintendents when you only have 21 counties.
You don't need a separate police force in a one mile square town.
You don't need a building dept. in every tiny little boro.
The reason NJ is not going to change is because of ignorant people not understanding what the real problem is.
TOO MANY MANAGERS.
I do understand the reason for consolidation. I have even stated multiple times through the years here that I support it for PDs and FDs. I agree that we have too many paid administrators, like superintendents of every district and town level cops, including Chiefs, along with sheriff's offices and sometimes county level, too. We do have far too many employees at the state level, because we have way too many municipalities. For schools, I don't know how it would work to have one superintendent in each county, for example, representing all types of students, teachers, and towns, including various races, ethnicities, and income levels. I imagine it would be a very difficult and time consuming job.
Combining PDs and FDs for small safe quiet towns are one thing, but schools are another IMO. We always joke that nothing ever happens in Cranford (of course things do we just say that because really though it's rare) so why do we need so many full time firefighters, all these crazy trucks like tall ladder trucks, and different divisions in the PD like juvenile, traffic, etc., along with the military police vehicles we have sitting in our municipal lot? However, Cranford has like 7 schools, and controlling 7 schools is a bit harder, I'd assume, than pulling people over for possession of marijuana and dealing with the occasional fire or breakin. I just think it would be much more difficult to manage consolidated school districts.
What we should actually consider first is lowering pay. Some of these people in some positions across the board just make too much money. Even teachers, with tenure and regular raises, can be making over 100 grand at retirement. I had a HS gym teacher who retired making 110,000 a year (it's public record info). For a GYM TEACHER. She'd been teaching for like 40 years in Cranford, and was able to increase her pay over time. To me that's insane for a phys ed teacher. I support salary caps in a situation like that. I would support school consolidation in some way, I'm just reluctant about county-wide. I think county-wide is too broad. Definitely consolidation of nearby similar towns though so we do have less superintendents and other highly paid admin people and such. For example Garwood's district, which doesn't even have a high school btw, can be dissolved into Cranford's or Westfield's just to get rid of some of those positions. Winfield as well, no high school (most kids go to Kenilworth) can be combined with Kenilworth or nearby Clark or Linden. Consolidations like this would be a good start.
NJ should never have had so many damn municipalities in the first place. Asking people to change now, so there's no more Westfield or Cranford and instead we have some combined town, will just **** people off and I understand why. There's local pride and people are very possessive of their towns, I find.
Last edited by JerseyGirl415; 05-13-2016 at 11:03 AM..
Some people just don't get it. Consolidation has nothing to do with diluting the good schools with bad schools.it has everything to do with eliminating redundant management positions.
You do not need 600+ school superintendents when you only have 21 counties.
You don't need a separate police force in a one mile square town.
You don't need a building dept. in every tiny little boro.
The reason NJ is not going to change is because of ignorant people not understanding what the real problem is.
TOO MANY MANAGERS.
Wasting time rallying about change that will never happen isn't healthy. NJ towns are not going to give up local authority in favor of bigger municipal control. Attempt to pass this and both sides of the aisle will reach across to stop it.
Start merging towns and the issue becomes large departments or cities have complete control over the budget & direction for an entire region. Smaller rural towns get the shaft.
Some people just don't get it. Consolidation has nothing to do with diluting the good schools with bad schools.it has everything to do with eliminating redundant management positions.
You do not need 600+ school superintendents when you only have 21 counties.
You don't need a separate police force in a one mile square town.
You don't need a building dept. in every tiny little boro.
The reason NJ is not going to change is because of ignorant people not understanding what the real problem is.
TOO MANY MANAGERS.
Amen! NJ is a place to be for middle-men and other types of administrative overhead.
What we should actually consider first is lowering pay. Some of these people in some positions across the board just make too much money. Even teachers, with tenure and regular raises, can be making over 100 grand at retirement. I had a HS gym teacher who retired making 110,000 a year (it's public record info). For a GYM TEACHER. She'd been teaching for like 40 years in Cranford, and was able to increase her pay over time. To me that's insane for a phys ed teacher. I support salary caps in a situation like that. I would support school consolidation in some way, I'm just reluctant about county-wide. I think county-wide is too broad. Definitely consolidation of nearby similar towns though so we do have less superintendents and other highly paid admin people and such. For example Garwood's district, which doesn't even have a high school btw, can be dissolved into Cranford's or Westfield's just to get rid of some of those positions. Winfield as well, no high school (most kids go to Kenilworth) can be combined with Kenilworth or nearby Clark or Linden. Consolidations like this would be a good start.
Completely disagree - you clearly are not a teacher (or friends with / related to one) if you think that.
Most teachers do not make anywhere near that amount and are vastly underpaid for the amount of time and effort they put into the job. Cutting or capping salaries will only continue to discourage the most qualified candidates from applying to teaching jobs, thereby directly negatively affecting quality of public education.
Consolidating districts and distributing services at the county/regional level is the only solution out of this mess. That is the only way to reduce redundant administrative positions and stop hiring more public employees than are needed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
