Average cost per pupil in NJ is $19k.

[gotsmack]

Who is going to pay for the technology in the economically disadvantaged districts and other districts that don't have the money for a computer/tablet per student or the ability to outfit every classroom with a classroom set of pcs/tablets?

That shit costs money(to buy, to maintain, and to eventually replace every X number of years), and when you are talking about large urban districts you are easily talking in the hundred million+ range for each purchase/replacement cycle. Take out more debt to pay for it? Have their already low bond ratings be lowered thus costing them even more money to service their debt?

The OP of this thread is bitching about money. Others are talking about fixing education. Some are saying its a waste to spend more money trying to fix education. Technology means spending a shit ton more money, not less. Often times technology in education becomes a massive money pit.

You don't need 1 computer per student. You just have to work out a test schedule so that every student in a class has access to the computer for the test.

BTW, I don;t know where you're talking about, but in NJ the big poor area is Newark where they spend $17k per student. That's the LOW estimate. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703859304576307632665599402 Also take into account that Newark so more densely populated so there is more cost savings in infrastructure. That means more of that money is going to the student instead of the maintenance of the physical building so actual money spend on direct education of children would be on parity to some of the suburb schools or greater.

So NJ IS SPENDING MONEY ON POOR DISTRICT STUDENTS, but unfortunately there are no results.

So I don't see why they can;t afford to have 1 computer per student AVAILABLE to do the testing when it is time. not everyone in the grade has to take the same test at the same time.

 

[Exterous]

As for charter schools. Charter schools are to depress teacher wages. Teacher wages are NOT the problem.

This. Michigan is one of the largest charter school states in the country and one of the few that requires charter schools to completely open their accounting books*. There was a very in depth study done a few years ago and found 0 correlation between charter schools and decreased wage expenditures

*Most states do not require charter schools to disclose how they spend the money they receive from the stat\feds - which IMO is a huge issue with them.

The nice thing about public schools is that their finances are open to the public so I took two schools from the list and looked at how they are spending their money.

Middle of the road:
Barnaget (Ocean) spends $7,293 per student on teachers or $23m a year. Teacher ratio 1:12. $3445 is spent on other staff or $11m a year spent on non-instructional staff. They spent $100,130 on legal services.

High end:
Asbury spends $12,295 per student or $30m a year on teachers. Teacher ratio 1:8. They spend $8546 per student or $21m a year on non-instructional staff.

Over twice as much spent on non-instructional staff per student at the high end school

http://education.state.nj.us/directory/pub.php

 

[nehalem256]

Does your toaster have a pointy white hat just like yours?

Things were ever so much better before

Funny that you want to claim that sending students to the closest neighborhood schools is racism...

As directed by the NAACP leadership, the parents each attempted to enroll their children in the closest neighborhood school in the fall of 1951. They were each refused enrollment and directed to the segregated schools

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

Busing students across town is a waste of taxpayer money and students time. Time and money better spent on actual education(you know the supposed purpose of schools).

 

[Newell Steamer]

Hm.

If we kept kid rearin' to stick wittlin', possum/squirrel huntin' and general chores, none o' that money need be wasted.

Spits

,... I reckon.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Funny that you want to claim that sending students to the closest neighborhood schools is racism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

Busing students across town is a waste of taxpayer money and students time. Time and money better spent on actual education(you know the supposed purpose of schools).

So, you're a 'separate but equal' type. Can't say as it surprises me.

 

[nehalem256]

So, you're a 'separate but equal' type. Can't say as it surprises me.

Nope. I am for people attending their neighborhood schools. Exactly what the black parents in Brown v. Board of Education wanted.

The purpose of schools is to educate children. Busing them across town does not further that purpose.

 

[CLite]

Most of the top list are low population shore communities so you have to consider the following two points
1) Shore communities generally have small year around populations that get huge money from property taxes on the vacation home population that really don't use most of the services.
2) Cost per pupil is almost always going to be higher in small population districts, economies of scale.

Another point beyond the shore community outliers is that cost of education difference between NJ and the national average is about consistent with the difference in cost of living index.

However, those points aside I still think NJ local governments need an overhaul.