Author	Message
Guest	Posted: Sat, Jan 16 2010, 9:01 am EST    Post subject: Re: Commissioner of Education Guest wrote: What would vouchers mean to Cranbury? Would we suddenly have an influx of children from other towns coming into our school? First, your statement seems to misunderstand vouchers. They don't allow people outside a district to send their kids to a public school they like in a different district. What they allow is for a parent to remove their kid(s) from their default public school and get credit toward sending them to a private or charter school with open enrollment. This allows the parents to potentially improve their kids education but at the same time removes tax dollars from the local public school which can make matters worse for the majority remaining students. So opponents fear a vicious cycle that puts more and more pressure on struggling public schools as their budgets are impacted and proponents point out that individual kids and parents should not be trapped in failing schools so its not their problem. So the only potential impact on Cranbury or Princeton would be if a meaningful # of parents didn't want to send their kids to either of these award winning schools. What is unclear, in the unlikely event that happened, is how it would impact the enrollment deal Crnabury Township has with Princeton since the agreement probably didn't anticipate vouchers. That said, voucher programs usually (and we're talking hypothetically since the guy hasn't even been appointed or proposed any specific programs so everyone is jumping to conclusions early) have certain requirements to trigger eligibility. Chances are neither Cranbury or Princeton would be eligible since they are high performing schools. So the debate is llikely acacdemic as it relates to our particular community and more ideological as it relates to the state or nation in general.
Guest 2	Posted: Fri, Jan 15 2010, 8:27 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Commissioner of Education Charter schools work not because of new administrations/teachers (mostly), but because the population of students in these schools are unique in one way. Parents of these students WANT them to have a good education and are willing to take steps to ensure that they do. They are involved. Schools fail when no one at home cares how students perform.
Guest	Posted: Fri, Jan 15 2010, 5:55 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Commissioner of Education First of all the purpose of COAH was not to depopulate urban areas. The original Mt. Laurel decision was to provide housing for people being priced out of places like Mt. Laurel who had ties to the community. My problem with COAH is not its mission, but its poor and at times hair-brained execution. As for failing urban schools, there was a time when funding was so low they did not have a chance. That is no longer true. A failing school should hire an entirely new administration and faculty. This is what Charter schools essentially accomplish, but the do it on a small scale and allow the large failing public school to die a slow death. The better solution is to start all over with the public school.
sharing is caring	Posted: Fri, Jan 15 2010, 4:32 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Commissioner of Education Guest wrote: Good it is nice to hear that I am consistent. I hate COAH and vouchers. That being the case, do you care to share your ideas on how to improve urban education in NJ?
Guest	Posted: Fri, Jan 15 2010, 12:26 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Commissioner of Education Yep wrote: Guest wrote: Serious question, does anyone see the irony. COAH is good because it gives families the opportunity to leave the city and kids the chance to go to suburban schools. It takes the families who are working hard who could be models to their neighbors and removes them from the city. Vouchers is bad because it takes kids who work hard and want an opportunity to learn to leave the city schools which are failing. It seems it is a pure money issue. The city schools fear the kids leaving for better opportunities and therefore the potential lose of extra aid. The cities see COAH as a means to reduce their population and costs so they support it. Am I missing something? It would seem those who support COAH would be yelling for more school vouchers and not opposing them because it gives a chance for high risk kids to have a better education similar to what COAH does for families. That about sums it up. I would add that it is also counter-intuitive to argue for COAH to assist adults who have the power to change their circumstances AND against vouchers that will help children who cannot. Good it is nice to hear that I am consistent. I hate COAH and vouchers.
Guest	Posted: Fri, Jan 15 2010, 9:46 am EST    Post subject: Re: Commissioner of Education Guest wrote: Guest wrote: Serious question, does anyone see the irony. COAH is good because it gives families the opportunity to leave the city and kids the chance to go to suburban schools. It takes the families who are working hard who could be models to their neighbors and removes them from the city. Vouchers is bad because it takes kids who work hard and want an opportunity to learn to leave the city schools which are failing. It seems it is a pure money issue. The city schools fear the kids leaving for better opportunities and therefore the potential lose of extra aid. The cities see COAH as a means to reduce their population and costs so they support it. Am I missing something? It would seem those who support COAH would be yelling for more school vouchers and not opposing them because it gives a chance for high risk kids to have a better education similar to what COAH does for families. Why do you say cities like COAH because tey want to reduce population? That's not what I've read. I thought the cities liked COAH when townships could buy down their obligations by paying for more affordable housing in the larger areas and cities instead of in their own communities, like the way Cranbury used to handle part of its obligation in Perth Amboy? Corey Booker and Palmer were on NJN news during the 3rd round initial discussions. They stated that the COAH rules would allow hard working citizens the benefit of moving to the suburbs. In turn, Newark and Trenton would gain because of the reduction in size and that the services provided would be able to be more affordable and it would mean the reduced need for hiring on city services and expenses thus helping their cities. Now other cities that can absorb the population liked the money from taking the other towns obligations.
Guest	Posted: Fri, Jan 15 2010, 9:18 am EST    Post subject: Re: Commissioner of Education What would vouchers mean to Cranbury? Would we suddenly have an influx of children from other towns coming into our school?
Guest	Posted: Fri, Jan 15 2010, 8:42 am EST    Post subject: Re: Commissioner of Education Guest wrote: Serious question, does anyone see the irony. COAH is good because it gives families the opportunity to leave the city and kids the chance to go to suburban schools. It takes the families who are working hard who could be models to their neighbors and removes them from the city. Vouchers is bad because it takes kids who work hard and want an opportunity to learn to leave the city schools which are failing. It seems it is a pure money issue. The city schools fear the kids leaving for better opportunities and therefore the potential lose of extra aid. The cities see COAH as a means to reduce their population and costs so they support it. Am I missing something? It would seem those who support COAH would be yelling for more school vouchers and not opposing them because it gives a chance for high risk kids to have a better education similar to what COAH does for families. Why do you say cities like COAH because tey want to reduce population? That's not what I've read. I thought the cities liked COAH when townships could buy down their obligations by paying for more affordable housing in the larger areas and cities instead of in their own communities, like the way Cranbury used to handle part of its obligation in Perth Amboy?
Yep	Posted: Fri, Jan 15 2010, 7:53 am EST    Post subject: Re: Commissioner of Education Guest wrote: Serious question, does anyone see the irony. COAH is good because it gives families the opportunity to leave the city and kids the chance to go to suburban schools. It takes the families who are working hard who could be models to their neighbors and removes them from the city. Vouchers is bad because it takes kids who work hard and want an opportunity to learn to leave the city schools which are failing. It seems it is a pure money issue. The city schools fear the kids leaving for better opportunities and therefore the potential lose of extra aid. The cities see COAH as a means to reduce their population and costs so they support it. Am I missing something? It would seem those who support COAH would be yelling for more school vouchers and not opposing them because it gives a chance for high risk kids to have a better education similar to what COAH does for families. That about sums it up. I would add that it is also counter-intuitive to argue for COAH to assist adults who have the power to change their circumstances AND against vouchers that will help children who cannot.
Guest	Posted: Fri, Jan 15 2010, 7:17 am EST    Post subject: Re: Commissioner of Education Serious question, does anyone see the irony. COAH is good because it gives families the opportunity to leave the city and kids the chance to go to suburban schools. It takes the families who are working hard who could be models to their neighbors and removes them from the city. Vouchers is bad because it takes kids who work hard and want an opportunity to learn to leave the city schools which are failing. It seems it is a pure money issue. The city schools fear the kids leaving for better opportunities and therefore the potential lose of extra aid. The cities see COAH as a means to reduce their population and costs so they support it. Am I missing something? It would seem those who support COAH would be yelling for more school vouchers and not opposing them because it gives a chance for high risk kids to have a better education similar to what COAH does for families.
Guest	Posted: Thu, Jan 14 2010, 10:31 pm EST    Post subject: Commissioner of Education Bret Shundler has been nominated for commissioner of education. Talk amongst yourselves