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.
Let's abolish the practice of using local property taxes and fund the education of all kids in NJ with state taxes. Every child will get a voucher for education, which will be exactly the same amount for every child in the state, no matter where they live, and they can take that voucher anywhere they want, any private or parochial school, or any public school in any town that would take them. If kids from the city want to come to my town in the burbs, I am fine with that. Buses are cheaper than Abbott.
Property taxes would go down 60-70%, school costs would be cut in half, and kids would actually get educated. The only people hurt would be the people who are getting rich looting the system now
Let's abolish the practice of using local property taxes and fund the education of all kids in NJ with state taxes. Every child will get a voucher for education, which will be exactly the same amount for every child in the state, no matter where they live, and they can take that voucher anywhere they want, any private or parochial school, or any public school in any town that would take them. If kids from the city want to come to my town in the burbs, I am fine with that. Buses are cheaper than Abbott.
Property taxes would go down 60-70%, school costs would be cut in half, and kids would actually get educated. The only people hurt would be the people who are getting rich looting the system now
Spoken like someone who either a) doesn't have kids, and therefore doesn't have to deal with the ramifications of his statement or b) hasn't rationally thought through the ramifications of the statement or c) is confident enough that such a program will never come to fruition, and therefore will never actually have to deal with the ramifications of his statement.
Spoken like someone who either a) doesn't have kids, and therefore doesn't have to deal with the ramifications of his statement or b) hasn't rationally thought through the ramifications of the statement or c) is confident enough that such a program will never come to fruition, and therefore will never actually have to deal with the ramifications of his statement.
agreed. it would not be fair.
I would not want the trash from the citys of NJ to be able to go to my kids schools. People buy houses in decent areas because they want their kids not to go to school with gangbangers
I would not want the trash from the citys of NJ to be able to go to my kids schools. People buy houses in decent areas because they want their kids not to go to school with gangbangers
The thing is trash wont be able to commute that far...
I would not want the trash from the citys of NJ to be able to go to my kids schools. People buy houses in decent areas because they want their kids not to go to school with gangbangers
Funny thing is, this is what all of the "progressives" sitting in their liberal, lilly-white towns really think deep down inside. Well, that and "I don't want to see my property values fall (further, faster) once I no longer 'own' a school district."
Education is by default a state responsibility, the states have merely shirked their duty and outsourced it to the towns and local govt. A state-wide education system is the fairest way to ensure that all children across the state receive equal education. It's also, incidentally, the only real hope for revitalizing the crumbling ghetto towns that are sprawled across the state; no desireable and productive citizenry will move into those towns because of the horrid school districts, so they languish no matter how much money is dumped on them.
Funny thing is, this is what all of the "progressives" sitting in their liberal, lilly-white towns really think deep down inside. Well, that and "I don't want to see my property values fall (further, faster) once I no longer 'own' a school district."
Education is by default a state responsibility, the states have merely shirked their duty and outsourced it to the towns and local govt. A state-wide education system is the fairest way to ensure that all children across the state receive equal education. It's also, incidentally, the only real hope for revitalizing the crumbling ghetto towns that are sprawled across the state; no desireable and productive citizenry will move into those towns because of the horrid school districts, so they languish no matter how much money is dumped on them.
I am not liberal.... And I really dont care about the people in Paterson, Newark, or Camden, since they obviously dont care enough about themselves to improve their lives.
I am not liberal.... And I really dont care about the people in Paterson, Newark, or Camden, since they obviously dont care enough about themselves to improve their lives.
Point taken. I didn't mention conservatives because I thought it went without saying that conservatives are against any idea to implement a statewide school system. But at least conservatives are honest about it, and don't pretend that they want more "equality" and "fairness" or pretend to want to improve the circumstances of the lower classes.
Point taken. I didn't mention conservatives because I thought it went without saying that conservatives are against any idea to implement a statewide school system. But at least conservatives are honest about it, and don't pretend that they want more "equality" and "fairness" or pretend to want to improve the circumstances of the lower classes.
I don't think there's a problem with having a state-wide school system- in fact I'd be for it. Here in GA we have county-wide districts, which are far more cost effective than having districts at the town level. Within each county there are still high-performing schools and low-performing schools, which would happen in a state-wide program as well, and- surprise, surprise- the low-performing schools still tend to be in the lower income areas of the county.
So, implementing a state-wide or county-wide program won't level the playing field for all students in the state/county (I doubt that could ever happen, unfortunately), but it would at least reduce the tax burden for all involved by reducing the overall cost of providing education. Paying a superintendent $150k/year in a one-town school district that has 500 kids is moronic, yet it happens in dozens of NJ towns.....
Well I agree with you, Bob. A statewide school system wouldn't completely equalize things, but it'd be a huge step toward a much more equal education for all students within a state. County-wide is better than town-wide, and statewide would be even better.
It's not perfect, but it sure would shake things up and I really think it would help reduce inequality not only in education, but also in quality of life in towns across the state, as young couples starting families might be willing to more to less-desireable towns if they knew it wasn't locking their children in to poorly performing school districts. Over time, that would bring more such residents to these marginal areas, and help lift them up until they were quite nice places to live.
I have no illusions that this will happen in NJ, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. It's just good to keep it real when it comes to all the BS thrown around about supposed concern for helping others. Sad but true.
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.
