Welcome, Guest! - or
Easy to remember!  »  VinNews.com

Trenton, NJ - 800 Lakewood Students Come Out to Support Scholarships For Private Schools [video]

Published on: May 13, 2010 08:30 PM
By:  CBS 3
Change text size Text Size  

Lakewood community amongst the crowd Photo Credit Thelakewoodscoop.comTrenton, NJ - A bill that would use taxpayer money to send low income students to private, charter or better performing public schools statewide drew a crowd of supporters and opponents so big in Trenton that lawmakers had to move their tables outside to conduct their hearing.

“It’s an utter disgrace,” shouted one opponent, “We can’t hear anything.”

“Every student is entitled to a thorough and quality education”, remarked a Rabbi from Lakewood who came 800 strong to support school choice.

“I’ve been fighting for my children for years to get quality education” said Danielle Coleman of Newark, who found it absurd that her son was getting straight A’s in first through 5th grade but could not read.

Governor Chris Christie says School Choice scholarships will create competition and put pressure on failing schools to perform.

205 of New Jersey’s public schools are chronically failing in Camden, Trenton, and Newark.

Advertisement:

“Where you go to school, where you have hope and ambition to learn should not be subject to how much money your parent’s make.” said Christie.

Opponents argue School Choice scholarships will further dismantle and steal much needed money from the public school system.

“Funding will be taken away from my system. We are already severely underfunded by the governor’s cuts,” said Teacer Irene Gilman of Ocean Township High School.

Families of four earning less than $55,000 annually could apply for the scholarships, the first year it would enable 2,500 to 3,800 to get School Choice programs & funding.



More of today's headlines

New York - What does a Jewish child need most from a mother? Forget about the chicken soup—it's all about the eggs, say a growing number of prominent rabbis. Several... Pakistan - The Pakistani government has arrested a suspect with connections to a Pakistani militant group who said he acted as an accomplice to the accused Times Square...

 

Total30

Read Comments (30)  —  Post Yours »

1

 May 13, 2010 at 08:34 PM Anonymous Says:

Way to go Christie, close those Public School, there is nothing the private sector cannot do as good.

Let the parent enroll their kid to any qualified private school.

2

 May 13, 2010 at 08:36 PM End of Days Says:

It works in Milwaukee, WI with 25,000 students. Sure, in the beginning there were some bad apple schools. But they've been weeded out, and cream schools are rising to the top.

My kids' "choice school" test results surpassed the public school's, and they only learn secular studies a few hours a day. And some black schools are doing groundbreaking work for 50% of the cost per student that the public school system spends.

3

 May 13, 2010 at 08:41 PM Oy Meh Huyuh Lanu? Says:

Government sponsored Sha'as and Shulchan Orech.. That should glorify BMG and the rest of Klal Yisroel!

4

 May 13, 2010 at 09:11 PM Anonymous Says:

Why is public sponsored health insurance socialism, and public sponsored eduction is not?

5

 May 13, 2010 at 09:15 PM Green Tea Says:

Considering the state of the public schools, why not give the private sector a shot?

6

 May 13, 2010 at 09:22 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #4  
Anonymous Says:

Why is public sponsored health insurance socialism, and public sponsored eduction is not?

Whoever said it isn't? Gov't-sponsored education is socialism, and it shouldn't exist, but it's got a long history and is very entrenched, so it's impossible to get rid of; the best we can hope to do is make it more efficient and equitable, and get gov't out of actually providing the service. Which is all the more reason to stop the government from turning medicine into the same mess that education is.

7

 May 13, 2010 at 09:51 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #4  
Anonymous Says:

Why is public sponsored health insurance socialism, and public sponsored eduction is not?

It certainly is...so you can use the government's "success" at public education as an idea as to what health care would look like if it, indeed, became government controlled.

8

 May 13, 2010 at 10:25 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #4  
Anonymous Says:

Why is public sponsored health insurance socialism, and public sponsored eduction is not?

Because this is less socialistic than the current system of govt run and funded schools. This would at least by privately run schooling.

9

 May 13, 2010 at 10:33 PM its about time! Says:

Reply to #7  
Anonymous Says:

It certainly is...so you can use the government's "success" at public education as an idea as to what health care would look like if it, indeed, became government controlled.

Right on!The government health insurance is nothing compared to the private system. Our nj public school system is a farce with the unions and teachers just looking at their fat pensions. However, it sounds like this bill wouldn't help too many people. We have tens of thousands of kids in the private sector yet they can only help a few thousand.

10

 May 13, 2010 at 10:43 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #6  
Milhouse Says:

Whoever said it isn't? Gov't-sponsored education is socialism, and it shouldn't exist, but it's got a long history and is very entrenched, so it's impossible to get rid of; the best we can hope to do is make it more efficient and equitable, and get gov't out of actually providing the service. Which is all the more reason to stop the government from turning medicine into the same mess that education is.

Education is "You get what you pay for"; in the parts of New Jersey where the funding is low (due to poverty/lower tax rates), like Newark, Camden, Trenton, presumably Lakewood, the education isn't so good.

In places like Livingston, Millburn, Princeton, Montgomery, though, the education in the public schools is superb, because they spend quite a bit on the schools (and thus have high property taxes)

11

 May 13, 2010 at 10:45 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #8  
Anonymous Says:

Because this is less socialistic than the current system of govt run and funded schools. This would at least by privately run schooling.

Huh? Who cares who's running what. Money is being redistributed from one person to another by way of a centralized governing authority be it local, state, or federal. The principle stays the same. Additionally, the private sector plays middle-man for all Medicare policies and will do so for all "exchanges" insurance policies in the future.

12

 May 13, 2010 at 11:00 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #10  
Anonymous Says:

Education is "You get what you pay for"; in the parts of New Jersey where the funding is low (due to poverty/lower tax rates), like Newark, Camden, Trenton, presumably Lakewood, the education isn't so good.

In places like Livingston, Millburn, Princeton, Montgomery, though, the education in the public schools is superb, because they spend quite a bit on the schools (and thus have high property taxes)

That is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. If there's one thing the history of public schooling has shown it's that spending has no relationship at all to outcomes. You do *not* get what you pay for. No matter how much money you throw into a system, you will not get more than you would have got without it. Decreasing class sizes doesn't improve outcomes either. The only way to improve schooling is to privatise the entire system; failing that, privatise as much of it as possible, by enabling parents to escape from the public system, thus starving it of funds.

13

 May 13, 2010 at 11:07 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #10  
Anonymous Says:

Education is "You get what you pay for"; in the parts of New Jersey where the funding is low (due to poverty/lower tax rates), like Newark, Camden, Trenton, presumably Lakewood, the education isn't so good.

In places like Livingston, Millburn, Princeton, Montgomery, though, the education in the public schools is superb, because they spend quite a bit on the schools (and thus have high property taxes)

Those good schools are better not because of funding but because of the home situation and the emphasis on education rather than other things.

14

 May 13, 2010 at 11:08 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #11  
Anonymous Says:

Huh? Who cares who's running what. Money is being redistributed from one person to another by way of a centralized governing authority be it local, state, or federal. The principle stays the same. Additionally, the private sector plays middle-man for all Medicare policies and will do so for all "exchanges" insurance policies in the future.

I'm not saying it is not socialist, I'm just saying it is a move towards something less socialist than the current system.

15

 May 13, 2010 at 11:40 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #11  
Anonymous Says:

Huh? Who cares who's running what. Money is being redistributed from one person to another by way of a centralized governing authority be it local, state, or federal. The principle stays the same. Additionally, the private sector plays middle-man for all Medicare policies and will do so for all "exchanges" insurance policies in the future.

That is so bizarre. Where have you been hiding for the last few decades? Have you never heard of public choice theory? "Who cares who's running what"?! It's been established beyond doubt that government is an inferior provider of *anything*. No matter what it is, the private sector will do it better and more efficiently than the public sector will. The political process is subject to capture by unions, with the result that the public sector serves the interest of its own employees, not that of the public.

16

 May 13, 2010 at 11:55 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #15  
Milhouse Says:

That is so bizarre. Where have you been hiding for the last few decades? Have you never heard of public choice theory? "Who cares who's running what"?! It's been established beyond doubt that government is an inferior provider of *anything*. No matter what it is, the private sector will do it better and more efficiently than the public sector will. The political process is subject to capture by unions, with the result that the public sector serves the interest of its own employees, not that of the public.

Thanks for dodging the issue. I don't disagree that the private sector does a better job at running things than the government, I simply suggested that the principle of redistributing wealth by way of a centralized government, is no less a form of socialism than a government administered program. If the government is taxing me and buying an insurance policy for a poor person through Aetna, you are still redistributing wealth.

17

 May 14, 2010 at 12:22 AM Charlie Hall Says:

Reply to #15  
Milhouse Says:

That is so bizarre. Where have you been hiding for the last few decades? Have you never heard of public choice theory? "Who cares who's running what"?! It's been established beyond doubt that government is an inferior provider of *anything*. No matter what it is, the private sector will do it better and more efficiently than the public sector will. The political process is subject to capture by unions, with the result that the public sector serves the interest of its own employees, not that of the public.

Public choice theory has not been shown to be backed up by empirical facts. The government is a more efficient provider of education, transportation, health insurance, and energy services, just to name four.

18

 May 14, 2010 at 12:24 AM Charlie Hall Says:

Reply to #12  
Milhouse Says:

That is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. If there's one thing the history of public schooling has shown it's that spending has no relationship at all to outcomes. You do *not* get what you pay for. No matter how much money you throw into a system, you will not get more than you would have got without it. Decreasing class sizes doesn't improve outcomes either. The only way to improve schooling is to privatise the entire system; failing that, privatise as much of it as possible, by enabling parents to escape from the public system, thus starving it of funds.

Actually this is not the case; the few states such as Connecticut that decided to substantially increase public school funding found that better outcomes resulted.

19

 May 14, 2010 at 12:25 AM Charlie Hall Says:

Reply to #12  
Milhouse Says:

That is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. If there's one thing the history of public schooling has shown it's that spending has no relationship at all to outcomes. You do *not* get what you pay for. No matter how much money you throw into a system, you will not get more than you would have got without it. Decreasing class sizes doesn't improve outcomes either. The only way to improve schooling is to privatise the entire system; failing that, privatise as much of it as possible, by enabling parents to escape from the public system, thus starving it of funds.

This won't fly because people won't want to pay the increased taxes that will result.

20

 May 13, 2010 at 11:47 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #12  
Milhouse Says:

That is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. If there's one thing the history of public schooling has shown it's that spending has no relationship at all to outcomes. You do *not* get what you pay for. No matter how much money you throw into a system, you will not get more than you would have got without it. Decreasing class sizes doesn't improve outcomes either. The only way to improve schooling is to privatise the entire system; failing that, privatise as much of it as possible, by enabling parents to escape from the public system, thus starving it of funds.

And if you privatized the entire system, how do you suspect poor people are going to be able to send their children to school? Even at the barest minimum, it costs $5000 per child to run a school. As members of the Jewish community we are lucky enough to belong to a world in which people are always stepping in to subsidize the tuition of families that cannot afford it. This type of close-knit communal cohesion does not exist in rural Alabama, and there is no way a poor or even working-class family would be able to afford an extra 10 grand for their two children per year. Potentially, that would mean millions of kids on the streets with no formal education while their parents are away at work (See India) . Starving government funds for all schooling -- whether public or private -- may save you some money on property taxes, but it will also have unintended consequences you probably haven't given much thought to.

21

 May 14, 2010 at 12:49 AM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #19  
Charlie Hall Says:

This won't fly because people won't want to pay the increased taxes that will result.

What increased taxes? The whole point of vouchers is that the money comes from the school board that has the obligation to pay for the child's schooling. It's not extra money. So there's no reason taxes should increase.

22

 May 14, 2010 at 12:50 AM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #18  
Charlie Hall Says:

Actually this is not the case; the few states such as Connecticut that decided to substantially increase public school funding found that better outcomes resulted.

That is garbage. EVERY state has substantially increased its spending on education over the past few decades, and EVERY state has shown that spending does not correlate with results.

23

 May 14, 2010 at 12:52 AM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #17  
Charlie Hall Says:

Public choice theory has not been shown to be backed up by empirical facts. The government is a more efficient provider of education, transportation, health insurance, and energy services, just to name four.

Surely you jest. Except that knowing you, you're not; you really mean it, and expect others to believe it. It would be difficult to come up with a more ridiculous statement. "The moon is made of green cheese" is less ridiculous than this one.

24

 May 14, 2010 at 01:08 AM mit seichel Says:

Reply to #10  
Anonymous Says:

Education is "You get what you pay for"; in the parts of New Jersey where the funding is low (due to poverty/lower tax rates), like Newark, Camden, Trenton, presumably Lakewood, the education isn't so good.

In places like Livingston, Millburn, Princeton, Montgomery, though, the education in the public schools is superb, because they spend quite a bit on the schools (and thus have high property taxes)

You're an idiot. There are ABBOTT school districts in NJ that spend about $20,000 a year per student and show horrific results.

25

 May 14, 2010 at 01:39 AM Anonymous Says:

you dont understand . Privatizing means giving people vouchers in a reasonable tuition amount and let them go to a private school of their choice A private school can do for 7000 what a public school charges 15000 for .

26

 May 14, 2010 at 07:40 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #25  
Anonymous Says:

you dont understand . Privatizing means giving people vouchers in a reasonable tuition amount and let them go to a private school of their choice A private school can do for 7000 what a public school charges 15000 for .

I understand perfectly well. "Giving people vouchers" is no less a form of socialism than the current public school system, which is precisely my point. The vouchers would be paid for disproportionately by wealthy property owners, thus redistributing wealth from one segment of society to another. If you really were opposed to socialism, you would be opposed to all forms of public funding for education.

27

 May 14, 2010 at 08:02 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #25  
Anonymous Says:

you dont understand . Privatizing means giving people vouchers in a reasonable tuition amount and let them go to a private school of their choice A private school can do for 7000 what a public school charges 15000 for .

Those numbers are very deceptive. You are forgetting that the public school average includes providing for the special education needs of its students, including students sent to private schools, like special schools with one on one care for severely autistic children or children with other serious disabilities. Often districts must pay $60,000 or more for special needs children. That skews the average cost per pupil. The $7,000/year private school is not providing those services.

28

 May 14, 2010 at 08:39 AM Anonymous Says:

The point many posters are missing and why vouchers and other similar schemes haven't gained popular support, is that most middle/upper middle class suburban Americans don't learn about public education from alarmist reports on the worst schools, they know them from themselves and their kids, and they love them.

Its not just that the education is good and comprehensive (and free, albeit paid for out of local taxes) -- but public schools are the essential vehicle of the American promise. Suburban public schools are where the American idea is created -- integrated, diverse, community connected, bonded by sports and family ties. Its actually very socialist -- but for pragmatic Americans its socialism that works so has therefore transmuted into a central element of American life.

29

 May 14, 2010 at 10:51 AM Dave Says:

Reply to #15  
Milhouse Says:

That is so bizarre. Where have you been hiding for the last few decades? Have you never heard of public choice theory? "Who cares who's running what"?! It's been established beyond doubt that government is an inferior provider of *anything*. No matter what it is, the private sector will do it better and more efficiently than the public sector will. The political process is subject to capture by unions, with the result that the public sector serves the interest of its own employees, not that of the public.

So we should shut down the military and just hire mercenaries?

30

 May 14, 2010 at 01:10 PM Old Lakewooder Says:

Wait a minute! "A quality secular education" in Lakewood? Are you kidding! This has nothing to do with quality secular eucation, but is just a money grab of NJ taxpayer $$$$ (which Lakewood residents probably do not add much to)

I wonder- Did the good Rabbi ask a sheylah if 800 children's bitul torah was OK before he set out to demonstrate for his $$$ cause in Trenton?

31

Sign-in to post a comment

Click here to sign-in.

Scroll Up
Advertisements:
Sell your scrap gold and broken jewelry and earn hard cash sell gold today!