Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_iu2jmqi wrote

>The very over-simplified version is that the schools are kinda meh fucking awful but also super expensive to run (as a result of the state cutting back it’s funding decades of generous contracts because we weren't the ones paying). “Education Matters” candidates are backed by the teachers union and would attempt to prioritize quality of education staff pay and benefits. They are also the current group with control over the board.

Fixed this for you. As I posted elsewhere today, the fact that maintenance staff make more than 98% of their NJ peers, teacher 92%, and the district ranks 11th percentile (bottom) in extracurricular spending tells you all you need to know about Education Matters priorities.

The fact that Change For Children is backed by developers doesn't mean that no one should stand up to the idea that unions should control our schools.Someone has to! One could even argue they're literally more invested in JC's future than school staff who live in the suburbs.

Data source: https://www.nj.gov/education/guide/2022/ind.shtml

18

SyndicalistCPA t1_iu4c2vp wrote

Why are you making an issue on teacher's pay and not the bloat administrative positions?

3

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_iu4y7vw wrote

Just pointing out the lowest hanging fruit, even with bloated admin staff there's still a lot more teachers, that's where most of the money goes.

I have a mea culpa, I already admitted I'm not an Excel wiz, I was misreading the spreadsheet about which was the most recent data and quoted from 2019-20. But it raises more questions.

From file CSG3.xlsx at https://www.nj.gov/education/guide/2022/ind.shtml, The teachers salaries went from 85/92 in 2019-20, to 55/92 in 2021-22! That's quite a shift in a scenario with 92 datapoints. It says the actual cost per student dropped from $10,807 to $10,120. Seems way more likely to me they're cooking the books not cutting payroll. Are you actually a CPA? Do you know how to fix these files so they can be re-sorted?

2

SyndicalistCPA t1_iu5vmzi wrote

Did you export the file onto your desktop? Not really sure what you want to accomplish

1

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_iu6bkbf wrote

I'm trying to see how we spend more than anyone else in the nation on our school system. Sorting helps understand the context. Say we are near the top of our group in teacher salaries, but what if the group only varies by a few percent, then that's not conclusive of much, right? But without sorting by spending, that's hard to see.

I downloaded the files since they no longer allow you to view the data online as in the past.

1

SyndicalistCPA t1_iu6nhy5 wrote

I'd have to know which file you are looking at but the one file I clicked already had filters on. Inside the filter you can sort by "largest to smallest". Not sure if that helps or how familiar you are with excel.

2

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_iu714g9 wrote

Those filters do not apparently function in spreadsheets other than actual Excel, which is often not owned by people like me who have no reason to invest in the MS pro suite. In LibreOffice (open source) I get this error "Ranges containing merged cells can only be sorted without formats." I managed to get them to sort in Google Sheets, but not by those filters. So I need to download the files, then upload them to google!

Government agencies should not publish data in proprietary formats. Jersey City distributed a sheet about boiler inspections in a Word doc instead of a PDF! Yes, I know PDF is originally Adobe, but at this point there's many readers/writers and I've never had a problem with it. Word often has problems with interoperability, as apparently does Excel.

But, to get back to your inquiry as to why focus on teachers rather than bloated admin staff and salaries: teacher are 56% of the overall budget while admin is 8%. I shouldn't need to tell a CPA to follow the money!

Have you ever taken a look at the JCPS "user friendly budget"? I did. I found line item terms that Google couldn't define!

1