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.
Hoboken has trouble retaining teachers. Many do not want to stay there. Thus, the higher spending per pupil is to entice teachers to stay in the district. A more experienced teacher has better results than a newbie. One way to do that is by having higher average teacher salaries. Hoboken's teacher salaries are higher than the state average. Hoboken also has more programs geared for those after school as a means to alleviate juvenile delinquency. Some of these programs have worked in other districts.
Hoboken has approximately 77% of its students coming from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Some of the funds also go to Pre-K education.
Only time will tell whether the funds will work, as some of these programs are still relatively new.
OK, this will be my last response to you. You have made up all sorts of things but this one is so obvious false it is laughable. Hoboken is an Abbott district and has been for years, the pre K program has been in place for 15 years.
Hoboken funding has zero to do with old , new or medium teachers. It has to do with a court ruling! Most of the teachers hav been here for years.
Hoboken is a desirable place to teach, it doesn't have the attendant problems you have described, yet these kids still underperform.
By the 2010 census Hoboken is likely to be identified as one of the wealthiest single square miles in the North Eastern United States; yet the pockets of poverty which persist continue to make up a large percentage of the public-school bound population.
"The Court in the Abbott II ruling of 1990 explicitly limited the Abbott programs and reforms to a class of school districts identified as "poorer urban districts" or "special needs districts." In 1997, these districts became known as "Abbott districts." The Court identified the specific factors used to designate districts as "Abbott districts." These districts:
"evidence of substantive failure of thorough and efficient education;" including "failure to achieve what the DOE considers passing levels of performance on the High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA);"
have a large percentage of disadvantaged students who need "an education beyond the norm;"
existence of an "excessive tax [for] municipal services" in the locality where the district is located.[8]
Using these factors, the Court in Abbott II identified 28 districts as Abbott districts. The Court also gave the New Jersey Legislature or the Commissioner of Education the authority to classify additional districts as Abbott districts based on these factors, which would then entitle the children to the Abbott programs and reforms. In 1998, the Legislature classified 3 additional districts, bringing the 2009 total of Abbott districts to 31.
A major difference is that the Abbot districts have free preschools for three and four year olds."
I am sure the rest of you claims meet the same rigor. No wonder our educational system is in collapse!
Further proof that throwing money at education does not work.
Last edited by shorebaby; 03-14-2011 at 11:55 AM..
OK, this will be my last response to you. You have made up all sorts of things but this one is so obvious false it is laughable. Hoboken is an Abbott district and has been for years, the pre K program has been in place for 15 years.
Hoboken funding has zero to do with old , new or medium teachers. It has to do with a court ruling! Most of the teachers hav been here for years.
Hoboken is a desirable place to teach, it doesn't have the attendant problems you have described, yet these kids still underperform.
By the 2010 census Hoboken is likely to be identified as one of the wealthiest single square miles in the North Eastern United States; yet the pockets of poverty which persist continue to make up a large percentage of the public-school bound population.
"The Court in the Abbott II ruling of 1990 explicitly limited the Abbott programs and reforms to a class of school districts identified as "poorer urban districts" or "special needs districts." In 1997, these districts became known as "Abbott districts." The Court identified the specific factors used to designate districts as "Abbott districts." These districts:
"evidence of substantive failure of thorough and efficient education;" including "failure to achieve what the DOE considers passing levels of performance on the High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA);"
have a large percentage of disadvantaged students who need "an education beyond the norm;"
existence of an "excessive tax [for] municipal services" in the locality where the district is located.[8]
Using these factors, the Court in Abbott II identified 28 districts as Abbott districts. The Court also gave the New Jersey Legislature or the Commissioner of Education the authority to classify additional districts as Abbott districts based on these factors, which would then entitle the children to the Abbott programs and reforms. In 1998, the Legislature classified 3 additional districts, bringing the 2009 total of Abbott districts to 31.
A major difference is that the Abbot districts have free preschools for three and four year olds."
I am sure the rest of you claims meet the same rigor. No wonder our educational system is in collapse!
Further proof that throwing money at education does not work.
Responding to you is like responding to a child...it does not want to learn and thinks it knows everything.
Yes, the Abbott funding has to do with poorer districts. However, the rationale behind increasing funding in Hoboken is threefold. I've already outlined.
You've not proven A THING. It is interesting to note that Hoboken High was awarded the second most improved school in the state of New Jersey.
"The Hoboken schools have approximately 77 percent of their students at or below the poverty level, said Schools Superintendent Jack Raslowsky." Hudson Reporter Dec. 11th 2007.
The average teacher salary in Hoboken is $74,000 vs. $57,000 for the state of NJ.
From a 1994 report
"One reason the district's per pupil costs are so high -- close to $13,000 -- is that as it has whittled down, the district has developed a senior staff. None have less than 16 years of experience, and close to 80 percent earn salaries at the highest end of the pay scale (about $59,000)."
Salary retention is a big reason for the high cost in Hoboken, trying to retain a senior staff.
What is happening in Hoboken is that a significant proportion of those students from wealthy backgrounds are going to private schools with more options and
Hoboken is not a desirable place to teach. Compared to the New Jersey average it is below on many metrics. Thus, Abott funding is trying to rectify the situation between richer districts and poorer districts.
Again, parent spending on private tutoring and educational materials does help in richer districts. People cannot do that in poorer districts, thus the idea is to try to emulate such spending for the children as well as try to entice teachers.
So to sum it up, the idea is to retain senior staff, provide more programs and opportunities, and still have a pre-K system. We see that wealthier parents in Hoboken send their kids to more affluent private schools, while the majority of less affluent residents in the area send their kids to public school (which has a bearing on the test scores).
I know data is such a a horrible thing, I would rather just hear what people kinda think. It is much more accurate.
Yes it is really great to have absolutely no responsibility for anything. It's the parents fault, pay us more money. We don't have enough resources, pay us more money. The tests are biased pay us more money. I really like the way this works!
Real live teachers are sharing real life experiences with you and you mock them and ask for hard data? Did you have crappy teachers or parents or something? I've done work in several inner-cities and everything they're saying is true. The way you learn about this stuff is to go and talk to inner-city teachers and families. Your insistence on hard-data is just a ruse and a way to be argumentative. If you don't want to go check things out yourself then you're opinions are irrelevant. It's about kids, friend, not stats. Go find out for yourself.
Real live teachers are sharing real life experiences with you and you mock them and ask for hard data? Did you have crappy teachers or parents or something? I've done work in several inner-cities and everything they're saying is true. The way you learn about this stuff is to go and talk to inner-city teachers and families. Your insistence on hard-data is just a ruse and a way to be argumentative. If you don't want to go check things out yourself then you're opinions are irrelevant. It's about kids, friend, not stats. Go find out for yourself.
So you have no data, only anecdotal evidence. Decisions should never be made on anecdotal evidence. Would you like to take a drug that was brought to market based on some random observations without any data? I think not, or perhaps YOU would, most of us would not. It is so sad that teachers are so unmoved by facts, they think the things they feel is good enough. It is little wonder our educational system is in the shape it is in. Especially considering the contempt they apparently have for minorities.
So you have no data, only anecdotal evidence. Decisions should never be made on anecdotal evidence. Would you like to take a drug that was brought to market based on some random observations without any data? I think not, or perhaps YOU would, most of us would not. It is so sad that teachers are so unmoved by facts, they think the things they feel is good enough. It is little wonder our educational system is in the shape it is in. Especially considering the contempt they apparently have for minorities.
Is "data" your newly learned word of the week? Teacher experience IS data.
Is "data" your newly learned word of the week? Teacher experience IS data.
Lol, ok I know a teacher who says all parents are the same. That's her experience so you are wrong. Persuasive isn't it?
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.
Most of the teachers hav been here for years.
wow!
give it up
