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.
I read what you posted & understood it. Not only that, keep in mind that many districts in South Jersey have superintendants for K-8 because there have been consolidated high school districts since at least the 1960s. Some of the regional high schools are very successful & others are a bad mix, demographically. Imagine that! Over 40 years of consolidated schools. Nobody told the South Jersey districts that it was illegal.
HUH? And this is 2010, not dealing with already established situations.
Last edited by JerseyG; 05-26-2010 at 01:18 AM..
Reason: double post
I read what you posted & understood it. Not only that, keep in mind that many districts in South Jersey have superintendants for K-8 because there have been consolidated high school districts since at least the 1960s. Some of the regional high schools are very successful & others are a bad mix, demographically. Imagine that! Over 40 years of consolidated schools. Nobody told the South Jersey districts that it was illegal.
I read what you posted & understood it. Not only that, keep in mind that many districts in South Jersey have superintendants for K-8 because there have been consolidated high school districts since at least the 1960s. Some of the regional high schools are very successful & others are a bad mix, demographically. Imagine that! Over 40 years of consolidated schools. Nobody told the South Jersey districts that it was illegal.
It isn't illegal for the districts themselves to decide to cosolidate. If you read the law you can see the proceedure for consolidation. It requires the consolidating districts to vote on it. There isn't a provision to bypass that step so the state can't simply say this district and that district will consolidate. Only the district themselves can authorize consolidation.
Ha ha you have been proven wrong repeatedly I provided you with a Jersey study you claimed didn't exist.
I provided you with 2 studies that show consolidation doesn't save any money.
I use the law you linked to prove to you that consolidation is not currently legal.
The left is in tatters. Costs will be cut. Consolidation is a non starter. Taxes will not be raised. And NJ is on it's way to a sound financial footing. The union lost. It is a bad night for you.
Apparently YOU did not read the link I provided with the RECENT New Jersey study that included the recommendation, Keep trying to pass one over.
YOU DID NOT USE A LAW I LINK BECAUSE I DID NOT LINK A LAW? Now you've moved from stating unfounded facts to straight out LYING. Why is that? Why do you need to lie. Are you assuming that others on these boards will not read through any link other than yours? Do you believe others on these boards will take what YOU say at face value and NOT read what is clearly out there. You did not provide the law that states clearly THAT CONSOLIDATION OF SCHOOLS WERE ILLEGAL AND IN FACT ONCE AGAIN CORZINE DID EXACTLY WHAT YOU CLAIMED HE COULD NOT DO. But YOU didn't read the article, You didn't sight the law on the books or written in the NJ contstitution that states CONSOLIDATING SCHOOL DISTRICTS WERE ILLEGAL.
Its a shame that you are now resorting to straight out lies to try an deflect for a incorrect statement. Pitiful
I read what you posted & understood it. Not only that, keep in mind that many districts in South Jersey have superintendants for K-8 because there have been consolidated high school districts since at least the 1960s. Some of the regional high schools are very successful & others are a bad mix, demographically. Imagine that! Over 40 years of consolidated schools. Nobody told the South Jersey districts that it was illegal.
Isn't that something? And YET Shore still hasn't provided the LAW or Precedent to show that its illegal.
It isn't illegal for the districts themselves to decide to cosolidate. If you read the law you can see the proceedure for consolidation. It requires the consolidating districts to vote on it. There isn't a provision to bypass that step so the state can't simply say this district and that district will consolidate. Only the district themselves can authorize consolidation.
NO, that is NOT the law, it is the recommendation to have the districts to vote on it. You ONLY skimmed through the documentation without fully reading and comprehending it. Due to the complexity of the consolidation and the fact that their are questions concerning the active teacher contracts and the salaries. But when it comes to administrations, its fair game, they are NOT apart of the unions and in FACT the States can take over the administration duties or appoint a district administrator (This is something the Governor Can most definately do) to each county.
And again, Corzine has already done what you claimed was ILLEGAL
HUH? And this is 2010, not dealing with already established situations.
In 2009 Corzine began merging the smaller school districts. There were 15 more planned this year 2010. This I definately a good thing. We tax payers pay out $533 million per year on School Administrators alone. Since they are not unionized, one would believe that it shouldn't be difficult to decrease this cost. Wouldn't you think?
First off - I really hope this thread doesn't get locked down; I am enjoying the "banter"
I do know the opposite of consolidation is controlled by the state - Lincoln Park tried a few years ago to get out if its sending relationship with Boonton HS, and was prepared to build its own high school or look elsewhere for a new send/receive deal. The state, however, ruled that LP could not leave due to the negative impact it would have on the school (over 50% of the students were from LP). LP appealed and the state said no again.
Anyway - back to the conversation
(But I do have one small request - B and P, please watch the all caps mixing in with lower case on your posts; it makes it tought to read and is giving me a headache )
First off - I really hope this thread doesn't get locked down; I am enjoying the "banter"
I do know the opposite of consolidation is controlled by the state - Lincoln Park tried a few years ago to get out if its sending relationship with Boonton HS, and was prepared to build its own high school or look elsewhere for a new send/receive deal. The state, however, ruled that LP could not leave due to the negative impact it would have on the school (over 50% of the students were from LP). LP appealed and the state said no again.
Anyway - back to the conversation
(But I do have one small request - B and P, please watch the all caps mixing in with lower case on your posts; it makes it tought to read and is giving me a headache )
Wow, the state would not allow them to have their own district? Who knew
I'm glad the caps got your attention, apparently the other poster just did not want to move away from the talking points. Sorry it gave you a headache though.
OK...that's 10+ pages of arguing in circles between 2 or 3 posters. Time to shut this down.
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.
)
