TBayXXXVII

Oh, I don't disagree with that the kids of poor parents are at a disadvantage, but I don't think restricting school choice hurts them. In fact, I'd even argue that school choice helps them. Why? Because it keeps the teacher/student ratio down. Kids who have a harder time learning, benefit from having more time with the teacher. The more kids in your school equals less time for each kid. I'd even argue that it would be even worse because teachers will gravitate more towards the better students and would be more likely to neglect the kids who are struggling. What I think hurts the kids more from the crappy parents is their lack of putting a focus on education. What I like about the Tech schools here are that it mitigates the lazy/crappy parent affect. The Tech schools are public schools... all you have to do is test for it to get in. That helps the kids of the crappy parents because the kids take the tests in 8th grade. Every kid gets a test. You don't have to register, sign up, or apply... you just take the test. If you get in, then your in. You get on the bus in the morning just like every other kid, and go to school. The parents don't really have to do anything.

Yeah, so was I. Cumberland County didn't reduce the money going to those schools, they increased the school tax to pay for CCTech. No one left to go to a private school, that wasn't already. The enrollment for CCTech is around 1k, which is on par with Millville and about 50% smaller than Bridgeton, but about 2.5x smaller than Vineland. Odds are that the bulk of the kids are from Vineland, that are going to CCTech. There are definitely some from Millville, but I'd venture to say that Bridgeton has the smallest representation. Again though, none of those schools got less money because of CCTech. CCTech opened in 2016. For example, Vineland... for the school year of 2015-2016 (the year before CCTech opened), Vineland's school budget was at $198.6M (of which 80% came from the state). For the upcoming year, it's $218M of which, 81.2% is coming from the state, for approximately the same amount of students. At a $20M increase in spending for the same amount of students after 7 years, they're clearly not being affected by money.

Sure, but I think that's because their parents are douchebags and not because of society itself. Can there be some that don't have douchebags for parents? Sure. But I think we're going majorly disagree on how many that really is.

They're not being taken out of public schools. CCTech is a public school, Gloucester County also has a tech school and so does Atlantic County that allows kids from Salem and Cape May Counties to attend. They're all public schools, free of charge to everyone. The kids leaving for school choice are going to other public schools like Delsea, Buena, Washington Twp, and Franklin Twp.

I don't think that matters because they all live in NJ which is a very expensive state to live in. A child living in a household income of say $75k is NOT a higher income family, regardless of what school they go to.

No, I don't. I think the vast majority of those people are their own worst enemy. I think they're lazy, make poor decisions, and listen to rhetoric that enables them to feel entitled to be coddled by society. It's not a secret. It's not a conspiracy. The Brookings Institute did a study that found that if you graduate high school, get a full-time job, and don't have a child before you're married, you're 80% more likely to NOT be poor. All 3 of those things are controlled by every individual person... it's more true today than ever before because of the number of jobs that are out there that are unfilled. I think "society, race, and economics" is an excuse, not a reason.

Do you consider lower middle class to be a "higher income" family? If so, then I can't say I agree with you.... completely.

Yeah, I think you're right that it is close, closer than I'd originally thought. I'd put Hoosiers just behind The Sandlot.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, I was just pointing out what I see. It's not a racial/poor thing, to me what I see is the people who focus on education as being important are the ones doing well, at CCTech for example, the racial population is 50% white and 40% Hispanic. Sure, it's more white, but the direction of the school (again, it's a public school, so it's free), is more future/education geared. Like prior, it's also the kids that stay out of trouble. Focus on grades, stay out of trouble and you'll be able to go to a local public score (free), and have a better college career path that'll save you money. No race nor economic income is necessary. Cumberland Regional is pretty much on par in the racial demographic as the county, and yeah, it's a pretty crappy school in terms of results. To me, this confirms what I just said. CCTech is free. Kids who go to Cumberland Regional are eligible to go there. They are mostly white and lower income over there. You'd think that if you didn't have money, one of the things you'd focus on for your kids is to get a good education as cheaply as possible. Focusing in on school work and getting in to CCTech would get you a better education at a better quality school where you'd also have an easier time staying out of trouble. On top of that, as I said, you can practically earn an Associates degree there. Saving a year and half's worth of college education should be something that every parent should want. To me, this totally a parent issue/problem... not a societal, racial, or economical one.

He said it's the ones that stay out of trouble... which is what I'm seeing here.

The Sandlot, and it's not even close.

As far as your 2nd point, I did think of that, but what you need to consider is how many of that 482k are perfectly happy with their school system? I found no links to show what districts kids are leaving. My guess is that because Iowa is more conservative than liberal, the bulk of the schools that are mostly conservative don't have many kids leaving. It's the schools that are more "Progressive" (LOL), that kids are leaving. Again, that's a guess though. I didn't see any links that agree or disagree with that guess. I say that because of what I'm seeing here where I live (see my prior post above).

Here in NJ, what I'm starting to see is County-wide Tech Schools as alternatives to the local schools for high school. The County-wide Tech schools are public schools, not private. The Tech schools are basically career geared education instead of standard, where you can actually earn college credits while in high school and practically leave high school with an Associates degree. Funny thing is that liberals down here pushed for it... Menedez and Booker were big proponents. Why is that funny? Because the 3 biggest towns in my county (Cumberland), are Vineland, Bridgeton, and Millville. They make up over 75% of the county population. County-wide, the racial demographic is 40%+/- white, 40%+/- Hispanic 18%+/- black, and 2%+/- other. You know what the racial demographic makeup is of those 3 local high schools? Vineland: 62% Hispanic, 17% black, 17% white Bridgeton: 77% Hispanic, 19% black, 2% white Millville: 25% Hispanic, 32% black, 39% white To note, when you see 39% white and see that on average it's close to the county-wide number, Millville is close to the national average when it comes to the white population. About 62% of the population for the city of Millville is white. What's happening is that the kids who are able to test into the Tech schools are leaving the local high school behind. The liberals down here saw that with school choice, a lot of white people were leaving their district to go to other school districts, so they thought, "hey, let's try and keep them here". All they did was remove more white people from the local public school system. When you click on those links, plus this one for CC Tech (the Cumberland County Tech school), note the rankings of the two schools. Nice how CCTech is top 20%, Millville is top 30%, and the other two are bottom 50%. To say the two are bottom 50% is probably being kind too. This isn't an "income" thing because all of these schools are public schools, but it points directly to what @RLLD noted in his altered post, from @TimHauck. It's a perfect example of what happens when you put education as a priority.

@Strike, @Hardcore troubadour, @Hawkeye21, @TimHauck So, a survey of 805 people... let's assume 50/50 representation with respect to Democrats and Republicans, yielded 62% Dems and 51% Reps not liking the new bill. Basically saying 250 Democrats and 205 Republicans (of the 805), are not happy. The authors of that article, felt that those numbers were enough to say that the majority of the people don't like voucher program. YET, there's this other article that shows that over 15,500 people are signing up for the vouchers (already 1500 more than projected), and at the time more are expected. Now, I don't know the final number, but I didn't go to school in Baltimore, so I know that 15,500 is substantially more than 205 and 250 (or 455 out of 805). How many hypocrites do you think there are who think this bill is bad but still took advantage of it? I'm not saying the bill is a work of art, as I said in my initial response, I'm not a fan of tax payer money funding private education. Also as I said, I'm not surprised this popped up, nor am I not surprised that over 15k people are looking to take advantage of this bill. Many people in this country are not happy with the direction that public schools are taking and I . Like every other politician, Reynolds clearly didn't see the obvious coming. The obvious being that the private schools are going to raise their prices for... obvious reasons, those being supply and demand as well as the need to increase their budget due to an increase of students requiring more teachers and/or facilities.

Exactly. It's a double standard and hypocritical and the people like Tim don't care. Well, that's not true. They do care and embrace it... and demonize you for not agreeing.

Yeah, that's a bit surprising.

I'm actually surprised the public is against it. That's not true, entirely. I can totally understand why Democrats don't like it. In theory, I think everyone should be against a policy like that because as I said earlier, I don't think public funds should go to private school education. That said, something like that wouldn't sway my vote.

It's the public that's not happy? I thought you said it was the teachers?

I'm not a big proponent of giving public money to fund private education. That said, I not a big opponent either. I get the idea of everyone chipping in to pay for public education... when you have kids in school or not. I am also not against having a higher tax rate for those with kids in school as opposed to those who don't. That being said, I'm not sure I'm surprised at the outcome of the voucher system in Iowa, after reading up on it "a little". People aren't happy with the public school system. They aren't happy with the tax money funding a system they don't approve of nor a system they feel they can change. Teachers shouldn't be upset by it though. It would mean less kids in their classroom and a better teacher/student ratio. Theoretically, it should make their jobs easier. The ONLY reason why I don't think teachers would like the voucher system is because the public school teachers are going to find out that the majority of the students leaving their current school for a private school, is the better students. In theory, one would look in the mirror and ask, "why is this happening?" If you're honest with yourself, you'd come to the conclusion of what I said in the prior paragraph. The parents don't like the direction of the school system. If teachers are upset by that, they should approach the board en masse and complain. My guess is that the vast majority don't feel there's anything wrong with the school system and think it's everyone else's fault.

Seriously? That's rather foolish. Both have very important jobs and roles. I see no reason why either should be treated differently. Teachers are charged with developing the minds of the children and educating them to become successful adults. Police are charged with providing a safety net for the public. Both have high levels of responsibility in society. Both are government funded. I'd expect both to be handled similarly. Tax payer money is funding their roles. If the public feels that checks and balances are needed in police, there's no reason to not expect checks and balances for teachers. People want dash and vest cams for cops. Why? Primarily to protect the cops, right? Because we assume they're doing their job and we don't people making false claims and also giving the prosecution a stronger case, because it's no longer he said/she said, there's now video evidence. What it also does is protect the public from overreach and making sure a citizens rights aren't being violated. When they are, the cop is to be held accountable. Why not the same for camera's in the classroom? It's primarily to protect the teacher from frivolous claims made by students. It protects and aids teachers in promoting themselves as good teachers, because that's what we're expecting from them. What it also does is protect the students from being mistreated. When something like that happens, the teacher is held accountable. Back in the day, there was a lot of pushback from cops and their union about not wanting dash/body cam's. What was the biggest reaction from Democrats (primarily)? It was "Why, what are you afraid of". How come there's no reaction similar for people wanting the same for teachers?

Yep... two government entities, treated completely different.

Maybe. I don't live in Iowa. As for NJ, most of the time when I hear teachers complain, it's because of the school board/system and money. Their complaints about money fall on deaf ears to me, but when it comes to policy, virtually every one of them that complains lives in a strong left district and they mostly vote Democrat. I mean, how can you help people who flat out refuse to help themselves?

This is not great.

In what way is she pissing them off? Money or policies?

So when someone posts something about the education systems of the other 49 states, we should be expecting links from you about their teacher shortages and the situation not being great?