| Author |
Message |
    
Townie
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 10:32 am: |     |
Njjoseph,
I appreciate the "local control" concerns. If at the end of the day, state funding meant statewide standardized test-driven education (which it seems to me bad enough as it is) I would go on paying property taxes so that Maplewood parents stood a chance of giving their kids a real education instead. And then people would be fighting to get in here and my house would be worth so much I could retire to Malibu, like I've always hoped.
Jfb: I missed your earlier post. Haven't you already asked yourself what "a thorough and efficient education" means for your own kids? Didn't you put some real thought into selecting a school for them? Whatever that means for your kids, every other kid in the state deserves the same quality in education, even if they aren't as fortunately-born as your children.
kathleen |
Jfb
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 10:47 am: | |
Townie,
I have no children. I think that parents would decide what that means for them and their children and act accordingly.
Some people put their children in private schools, others move to districts more to their liking. Still others home school.
I believe the worst thing to do is to do nothing. That is to assume that your children are ok and take a hands off approach.
Based on my experience in school, if and when I have children I will be very involved with their schooling experience. To do otherwise is foolish.
And yes townie, I believe that underpriviledged children need every chance they can get. That's why I am pissed that money gets wasted, stolen and misused: That's money that's really needed! Look at Newark, a classic case of the foxes guarding the henhouse. Newark gets most of it's school funding from the state but is a jobs mill for connected locals and politicians. I think it was last year that sixty million dollars was missing. Vanished.
Every time the state or others raise an eyebrow the locals cry racism, making it even more difficult to deal with. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 11:08 am: | |
jfb,
i couldn't have crafted your response any better myself. You hit the important points right on.
You say it is 'excessively' costly without any reference to what it is you want to buy and what it costs to produce.
but the second part is classic. It's called projection. Since *you* would be happy to frivolously spend other people's money, you assume everyone else would too. That's simply not the case, in my experience. Teachers and school administrators go to great lengths to keep costs down, using volunteers, and volunteering themselves when they see that NEEDS of these children are simply and factually greater than the budget allows.
Teachers spend a fortune of their own money on materials. They work long hours like all the rest of us on extra projects and studying up how to best help a student with a particular problem. Why do they do that? Not because they are so terribly nice, but because we put them out there on the front line where they have to FACE these little human beings every day. They see what they need. They see the budget. It's a life or their money and they sacrifice their own needs. We shouldn't be asking this of them.
You don't want to pay the tax. You would waste money if you had the chance. You assume everyone else does too. By that twisted logic you feel entitled to call for cuts in budgets because you are just *sure* there is waste there without even identifying it. Because if you were in charge there would be.
At least that would be my literal translation of your post.
My problem with moving funding to the income tax is about keeping interests aligned. State funding of education moves the people responsible for making the decisions even further and further from the front line.
From your point of view, jfb, the income tax would be even worse. We will have moved decisionmaking even further from the people paying the bill. By your assumptions, waste should skyrocket. |
Johnjdel
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 11:27 am: | |
Njjoseph,
For comparison's sake, according to their website tuition at Union Catholic Regional High School is $5,892 per year, per pupil.
j |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 11:32 am: | |
Johnj -- thanks for the info! So, I can send one child to Union. However, grade schools are probably less expensive, or are they about the same? |
Townie
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 11:40 am: | |
Everybody,
This is a really fascinating article from today's Star Ledger about the average cost of schooling a child in NJ per year ($8,950). It has such interesting facts about why it costs $12K to educate a kid in West Essex (transportation to school cost is enormous) and why security guards beef up the costs in some Newark schools.
http://www.njo.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/page1/ledger/12a7812.html
[edited later to add: I just noticed that the online version is less complete than what's in the paper.]
Jfb, I too want to see the current political administration in Newark changed for many of the reasons you cite. Sorry I misread your earlier post and thought you have children. |
Townie
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 11:48 am: | |
Johnj and Njjoseph,
Are parochial schools any better on extra-curricular activities than they used to be? It wasn't until I transferred to public school in Los Angeles that I was offered the chance to be in the band, the drama department (instead of one play a year), the chorus, a full phys ed department, art classes that included sculpting, pottery and photography, sports equipment beyond volleyball and basketball -- not to mention Chess Club, Folk Music club, Radio-TV, Astronomy, a real library. At Catholic school, we sat on the asphalt in a circle and gossiped.
For kids to discover what they want to do in life and develop their talents, I think those extra-curricular activities really widen their horizons beyond what their own families expose them to. So while some children do best, I'm sure, in parochial schools with an academic concentration, other children need what the extra resources provide in extra-curricular activities.
kathleen |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 12:08 pm: | |
I can't tell you about parochial schools today, but when I went to school in the 70's, we had all the things you mentioned that were only found in the public schools.
I went to an all-boys school, and we merged with the all-girls schools for the band, drama department, sports, etc. It was quite a well-rounded experience. |
Townie
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 12:17 pm: | |
Njjoseph,
Lucky you! Merging with the opposite sex was forbidden in all forms where I was. I put up a stink to get into public school, and had two great years and was able to parlay my extra-curricular activities into a full scholarship to a NYC arts college. So that's why I'm so high on spending on extra-curricular stuff.
Am I right to assume Catholic schools are able to keep costs down by using clergy as teachers? They get low salaries, no benefits? According to the Ledger article, about $5,000 of the cost of sending a kid to public school in NJ is for teacher compensation. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 12:24 pm: | |
Townie, you're mostly right. Since clergy (priest, sisters and brothers) have take a vow of poverty, they make a few thousand a year. However, some benefits, i.e. medical plans and housing are available. |
Bix
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 12:31 pm: | |
NJ,
Clergy (Catholic, anyway) do not HAVE to take a vow of poverty. There are some orders that do, and there are some that take vows other vows, such as silence. But your comment as a broad statement of fact needed a minor correction. Not all clergy take a vow of poverty.
Now give me 10 Hail Marys. 
B|X |
Townie
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 12:40 pm: | |
Bix,
I didn't mean to imply that Catholic school teachers who were in religious orders had taken a vow of poverty. Just that they might not be taking union scale for teaching, have pension funds and other benefits (health insurance). I actually don't know. Do they still live in convents on school property and eat communally? Helps reduce costs.
How does a Hail Mary go again? Don't I need a football or something? ;-}
k. |
Townie
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 12:42 pm: | |
Oops! Sorry Bix, thought you were talking to me. I'll leave NJ to his prayers. + |
Bix
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 12:45 pm: | |
That's 10 stations of the cross for you townie!
B|X |
Townie
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 12:55 pm: | |
Just in time for Easter! I'll run out right now and get a head start! Meet you by the flogging?
k.
(PS: Dave may put it a stop to this light-hearted trip down memory lane in deference to the devout TO WHOM WE MEAN NO OFFENSE). ;-} |
Ejt
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 1:29 pm: | |
Haven't most parochial schools phased out clergy as teachers? I think OLS has one that teaches religion class. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 1:34 pm: | |
Sisters and brothers often live in communal housing, but it is becoming more common to live separately. I think those that teach in the schools are more likely to live together in close proximity to the schools than those that do other types of work, but it's only an observation. |
Mim
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 2:55 pm: | |
You're right, Ejt -- there are far fewer teachers in orders in parochial schools (I guess because there are just far fewer people in orders at all anymore). OLS kids that I know report only one teaching sister at the school. So, if they're tapping the same teacher talent pool, why ARE their costs lower? (Will teachers accept lower pay to teach at parochial schools?) |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 3:03 pm: | |
Mim, are the costs lower, really? I think that teachers in Catholic schools are paid less than their counterparts in public schools. However, keep in mind that most Catholic schools are owned and run by the Church, which supports the school's financing. Therefore, tuition is lower than the actual cost of a student in public school. I'm not sure if actual costs are comparable -- we'd need to see more numbers on it, but I'm sure they would vary from school to school. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 3:25 pm: | |
Catholic (and other parochial) schools do not tap the same pool of teachers (although there are overlaps, of course.) It is possible to teach in a parochial school with only 2 years of college or not having passed the national teachers exam. This is one of the reasons that teachers in those schools accept far lower pay scales. It is not the only one, of course. Some feel very strongly that their vocation or mission in life is to teach in a parochial school. There are some very bright and gifted individuals there but there are also some who simply cannot get teaching jobs elsewhere. And there are many new graduates who spend a couple of years in a parochial school and then look for jobs in the public sector after they've gotten some experience under their belts and feel more marketable.
The wealthier parochial schools (in wealthier parishes) can be more choosy about their teaching staff and demand top credentials because they can pay competitive salaries. Certain orders that include a mission for teaching (Jesuits come to mind) may also have higher expectations of teaching staff in terms of credentials.
If I were considering parochial school for my child I would want to know a lot about the credentials of the teaching staff. And I do know that credentials don't tell the whole story. But I think they're a good place to begin the story.
Bacata |
Ejt
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 4:48 pm: | |
And where does the story continue after their credentials? |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 5:16 pm: | |
Ejt: How about class size, curriculum, afterschool and extracurricular activities, gym facilities, opportunities for extra help or remediation.....etc., etc., etc.? |
Teach66
| | Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 10:04 pm: | |
Before I got my head on (straight?) and started working toward my career, I went to a public high school on Long Island. The school let me "design my own curriculum". The courses I chose: Pottery, Silk Screening, Photography, Drama, Public Speaking, Sewing and Gourmet Cooking. "Reading the Wall St. Journal" was considered an English (and I got extra points because I delivered it in the morning), Sociology and Anthropology were 1/2-year classes and considered Social Studies. Oh yes, and of course I took Gym because God forbid I didn't get to square dance! My scores on the PSAT were so horrific that I never even took the SAT. When I graduated from high school I could not get into a college nor did I have enough background in anything to earn a living in any way shape or form. The rest is a "miracle" and, therefore, I sent my children to parochial school!! |
Teach66
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 8:58 am: | |
Oh yeah, this thread was about what we thought about the reval - it stinks. There are 3 bedroom homes on Elmwood Avenue that are getting a decrease in their taxes (and are currently for sale)- the asking price: $299,000. You're telling me there was no increase in value? There was (is?)a house on Midland for sale. The asking price over $300,000! Then there's the people (on the "west side")whose homes were compared against a 6-month bubble explosion who are getting killed with outrageous increases - just to back into numbers that cover the decreases. And of course there's the division of the town. What a mess, a very pathetic and sloppy job. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 9:12 am: | |
Teach, I'm not sure you've seen any of the houses on Elmwood Ave. that are currently up for sale. The area of town east of Prospect definitely saw the large increases in prices last year. These may not have been on the same scale as those on the west side, as prior years' sales have shown. This is why the taxes are (generally) increasing on one side of town and (generally) decreasing on another. It's been going on for years. And for the record, taxes on my house on the east side (on Elmwood) will go UP.
The 3 houses on Elmwood now available are on the small side. None of them had 1st floors that met my minimum requirements of a nice-size kitchen and a family room that could comfortably accommodate a music room with grand piano.
Meanwhile, the house on Midland is very large. Looks are deceiving.
I'm not sure where you were going with your last post, but we will see over the next few months what will happen to sales. Are prices still going up, despite the reval, or have they leveled or gone down? And are they doing the same all over town? |
Ejt
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 10:28 am: | |
Nakaille, I thought you meant there should be more to a teacher's story than their credentials. Paranoia creeping in I guess! I agree about class size, etc. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 12:09 am: | |
There's a lot more to anyone's story than their credentials, Ejt. But I did wonder what sparked your question.
Bacata |
Johnjdel
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 9:45 am: | |
Back to the Catholic schools for a second...
There was a question regarding extra-curricular activities: In my experience at Union Catholic H.S. and Holy Spirit Elementary (in Union), I found that sports were not up to par with public schools, and mostly because of funding. For example, we had no football team simply because football is a very expensive sport to put on the field. Basketball was the school-sport, and we were (and still are) among the most competitive in the region. Then again, basketball is cheap. There was no difference in other after-school activities, though.
The question about clergy-as-teachers: yes, the Catholic schools have moved away from that, mainly because of the lack of clergy. The priest-shortage has been well documented. There are simply less clergy everywhere. The days of clergy living on-campus are just about gone: school is a part-time committment to go with their parish, hospital, or wherever.
As far as experience level, I found that lay-teachers had either been there for 2 years or 20 years, with very little in-between. Many people use these schools as a step-off to the better-paying public jobs. Others like the comfort level, and just stay forever. |
Teach66
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 12:14 pm: | |
Hey, what about the stock market and the reval? As retirement funds are plummeting, property taxes are going up. How are residents going to feel about shelling out $10,000+ come August when we all get our retro bill?? |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 12:35 pm: | |
Teach -- you're not out of the market yet? :-)
The first thing that is usually taught to first-time investors in stocks is don't invest money you can't afford to lose. Even so, I would hope that noone intends to pay their taxes from their stocks or stock funds. This is not proper financial management. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page