Vote "Change for Children" this Tuesday

Submitted by Organic-Hovercraft-3 t3_yo9bbc in jerseycity

So the names of these different education parties on the ballot are confusing. So here is the tldr

Alexander Hamilton (yes hell of a name) and Change for Children have voted AGAINST raising education taxes.

I work as a school teacher myself - and know throwing money at a school district doesn't mean "better schools". Most of the time the money is spent on absolute bullshit and nothing that actually helps the classroom.

Alexander Hamilton has a history of voting against increased taxes for the board of education and is agreeing to continue to do so.

Vote AGAINST "EDUCATION MATTERS" . They will keep raising your education taxes beyond control with no improvement to the school district.

That is all.

12

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Successful_Pen_2387 t1_ivd33hp wrote

> and know throwing money at a school district doesn't mean "better schools". Most of the time the money is spent on absolute bullshit and nothing that actually helps the classroom.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have any examples of what things we're wasting money on. I dont see anything obvious.

27

Economy-Cupcake808 t1_ivd73s3 wrote

No, and that’s part of the problem. There needs to be more budget transparency

26

Organic-Hovercraft-3 OP t1_ivdbdfe wrote

I'll give you multiple real examples I've seen in just the past two years (I've been a teacher 10 plus years)

In my district (NYC DOE) they just spent millions of dollars on testing. We, the teachers, administer these computerized tests to students multiple times a year to "track them". The students do not take the tests seriously because they are not graded. Nothing is done with the results. The tests themselves are not even measuring anything meaningful. AND it takes away from class time where the kids are learning.

Second example -- they bought every teacher an ipad. But they loaded the iPads with all this security software that prevents it from being useful. Teachers cannot download the actual software we use in our classrooms. So every classroom has an iPad in it that none of us can use. It's just an expensive paperweight. Has they told me what I wanted for my classroom I would have purchased a MacBook with the appropriate software.

15

Belindiam t1_ivgiq37 wrote

So you work in NYC? What does that have to do with JCBOE? I am against the tests too and am hopeful that JCBOE will be a little less focused on them now that they are no longer under state control. People here talk about transparency without mentioning that it was the state who was responsible for everything the JCBOE did for years.

2

DontBeEvil1 t1_ive1977 wrote

And how exactly is voting for the Change for Children slate going to fix these things?

−8

DirectorBeneficial48 t1_ivdcd14 wrote

aaaaaah, the NYC teacher knows the inner workings of the JC board. got it.

−13

Organic-Hovercraft-3 OP t1_ivdcnqp wrote

I'm not saying I know the inner workings of this district (sorry if that wasn't clear).

I'm just saying that throwing money doesn't fix anything.

I can also tell from all the edu buzz words written on the campaign flyers for "education matters" that they have no idea what they are talking about

15

DontBeEvil1 t1_ive1e1s wrote

Have you seen the Change For Children flyers? They actually say nothing. So I can't even tell that they don't know what they're talking about...because they're not talking.

4

Jahooodie t1_ivgvc3p wrote

Haha, com'on man. It's a flyer!

I literally have an education matters flyer with a sketchy filter picture of Lefrak with Trump (all helpfully labeled) with a few sentences about he's the worst, and 2 sentences of platitudes that the Education Matters folks will build a bright future & improve accountability.

The Change for Children flyer is a bit less shock, but similarly has a few news lines about taxes and failing students, with a blurb about helping children and taxpaying citizens.

They're more the same in content than different.

3

SyndicalistCPA t1_ivf3ix9 wrote

Not sure why you are being downvoted. She said she would give us two examples and then gave examples of schools in NYC.

5

DontBeEvil1 t1_ive1asf wrote

Exactly. Probably married to a Jersey City Real Estate developer.

−6

The_Nomadic_Nerd t1_ivd6bmd wrote

The admin is bloated and the amount of money increased per student while performance hasn’t improved is all you need. Also the actual infrastructure is shit as the water fountains are spewing bad water so this hasn’t been spent wisely.

Finally, Change for Children wants to increase transparency for how this money is being spent since right now, taxpayers are being left in the dark.

13

Organic-Hovercraft-3 OP t1_ivdbzxz wrote

This is 100% accurate. The superintendents office in my district has a gigantic "team" of people that never set foot inside of a school. Or to be more accurate, they visit schools once or twice a year to put on their show. Nothing meaningful ever comes from their visits. And then they return to their office , far removed from any school building, and collect their six figure salary.

Meanwhile every year we cannot find enough ppl to teach math and science. Every year we are short 1 or 2 teachers. Nobody wants to teach in these schools. The working conditions are difficult, the pay is low, and there is no flexibility for remote work which is very common now in other industries.

16

ApolloRubySky t1_ivjt4x2 wrote

Why you keep talking about NYC DOE when the matter at hand is about JC

1

DontBeEvil1 t1_ive1guj wrote

And you think 2 inexperienced newbies are going to change that overnight? LOL. 🤦

−1

The_Nomadic_Nerd t1_ivekqmt wrote

It would give a majority to people that voted or would vote against future tax increases, so yes the tax hikes would stop quickly.

3

DontBeEvil1 t1_iveslno wrote

1 person voted for tax increases. Not any majority that is currently running, and when she ran, she ran on the other side. You can't predict the future. You have no idea how many of these new people (from either side) will vote, nor how that 1 person will vote, moving forward. And, yet again, taxes aren't the only reason to vote for or against someone for the Board of Education. And yes, taxes will inevitably be raised to fund things...that's how taxes work, and people screaming "bloody taxes," at the BoE aren't the 1at people to be unhappy with the amount of taxes they're paying, the lack of transparency where the money is going and the perceived lack of improvement to infrastructure.

−2

The_Nomadic_Nerd t1_ivd5zxe wrote

This 100%. Already voted. Enough people read this sub and the latest budget only passed 5-4, so we have a real chance in making change. Spread the word!!!

24

DontBeEvil1 t1_ive12hq wrote

No.

Considering Hamilton, but not voting for an entire slate backed by real estate developers, and comprised of 2 new comers with no experience, just because...taxes.

I'm more concerned in improving the quality of the educational experience for the children, not just reducing taxes. Hamilton has already been there, and the 2 others on his slate have not. What exactly are they going to do differently that will better Jersey City's Educational system and the experience for the kids? Not voting to raise your taxes is a bs reason to vote for a school board, if it is your only reason. Talking about taxes and never talking about children is just plain sad.

17

Especiallymoist t1_ivep7af wrote

Who do you suggest voting for if not them? Honest question.

5

DontBeEvil1 t1_ivfpmop wrote

I'm not thrilled with the entirety of either slate, and will vote for individuals, rather than slates. I do like Anthony Hamilton, but will not vote for anyone else on his slate, nor will I ever vote for a slate with real estate developers in their pockets.

0

BookOfMormont t1_ivg00oa wrote

Personally, I have a knee-jerk aversion to voting for the developer-backed slate, but I do have a hard time wrapping my head around a billion dollar budget to educate 27,000 students. $37,000 per student is a massive amount of money, more than triple the national average, 80% higher than the state average, and according to a 2021 Independent Budget Office report, about 20% more spending per student than New York City.

What makes this a reasonable amount of money? Our much higher than average educational outcomes? Are there specific challenges that Jersey City faces that make it uniquely uneconomical to school our kids? Can we address such challenges in other ways than increasing taxes? I can imagine we face a unique challenge in being both a high cost-of-living area as well as a relatively small municipality in terms of our total buying power, should we examine something like having schools funded and run at the county level rather than the city level?

Education matters. So does affordability. We won't have to worry about public schools if working families can't afford to live here.

12

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_ivg4qfh wrote

>I have a knee-jerk aversion to voting for the developer-backed slate

More than an aversion to a BOE controlled by the union it supposedly negotiates with?

4

Positive_Debate7048 t1_ivgyq6w wrote

What’s hard to understand? Nj teachers unions lobbying for grossly inflated salaries at the expense of the children. This is an easy choice. If you like higher taxes and no improvement for schools, vote education matters. If you are a sane person, vote for change for children.

3

DontBeEvil1 t1_ive5l2n wrote

"Alexander Hamilton and Change for Children have voted AGAINST raising education taxes."

Just to clarify for those who may not know, Hamilton is the only person on that slate of 3 who previously voted not to raise taxes.

"I work as a school teacher myself"

In New York. Not in Jersey City. So why are you telling Jersey City residents who to vote for using anecdotal stories from the NYC classroom, as if they have any relevance with the inner workings of the Jersey City Board of Education? 🤔

"Alexander Hamilton has a history of voting against increased taxes for the board of education and is agreeing to continue to do so."

Alexander Hamilton and his Change for Children slate have a history of being backed and funded by real estate developers. Real Estate developers have THEIR interests at heart, not the interests of the children.

Only 1 person on the current slate of 3 for Education Matters has previously voted to raise taxes, and she has stated that she reluctantly felt it was needed so the budget could be fully funded. It is also worth noting that when she was elected SHE TOO RAN ALONGSIDE ANTHONY HAMILTON ON THE CHANGE FOR CHILDREN SLATE. And both she and Hamilton were elected. The other 2 candidates running on Education Matters have NOT previously voted to raise taxes and they all too, believe in increased transparency, better allocation of funds and more creative ways to obtain funds to lessen the tax burden on property owners.

Why is a supposed NYC school teacher so adamant to get Jersey City residents to "Vote AGAINST "EDUCATION MATTERS?" Own property in JC and only concerned about bringing your tax bill down? Married to a real estate developer? Just sounds plain suspect. 🤔 And to vote for a real estate developer backed slate, with no substantive evidence that they will make any real change or even vote against future tax raises (remember the 1 person running on Education Matters, who voted on the fully funded budget that resulted in property tax raises ALSO ran on Change For Children, and then flipped after she was elected. 🤷

"They will keep raising your education taxes beyond control with no improvement to the school district."

You have zero evidence to support this claim, and they have already expressed disinterest in doing so.

VOTE FOR EDUCATION MATTERS, Independents or Change For Children...any slate or INDIVIDUALS you feel will best benefit the kids...not real estate developers and owners. And don't forget that you CAN pick and choose individuals from all 3 categories. You don't have to be stuck with an entire slate if you're not feeling all of them. Make up your own mind, from educated decisions, to help the children, not because someone with real estate and property tax interests is trying to sway you.

That is all.

10

SyndicalistCPA t1_ivf427g wrote

Thank you for a reasonable post. Really sick of the astroturphing. Maybe people should be more mad at the police budget.

1

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_ivg4dvq wrote

The entire Public Safety budget, both police & fire, is less than the BOE budget increase. Follow the money!!!

3

SyndicalistCPA t1_ivg9xp5 wrote

Seeing the budget for Public Safety at 217M vs 15M for education according to PDF page 4:

https://cdn5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6189660/File/City%20Hall/City%20Clerk/Public%20Notices/2022_Budget_Audit/0906_fbi_2022.xlsm.pdf

Can you point out what you are looking at?

−1

Mindless-Budget9019 t1_ivgawtl wrote

He is referring to the nearly $1billion budget the BOE approved compared to the public safety budget.

3

Belindiam t1_iveev0w wrote

That's actually not true. Vasquez was with him on the ticket last time and she voted for the budget (In an op ed this week she explains why.) The other two on his slate now are new so they have never voted.

9

DevChatt t1_ivex9e8 wrote

we are having a somewhat similiar election in our BoE in neighboring hoboken. Although for us its a little bit more....crazier...maybe?

The side that seems to be good in keeping the tax burden afloat seems to be extremely....republican and one side has done a good job portraying them as trumpists/ anti progresssive (and arguably some of it is probably true, i can't find too much data otherwise on it).

The other side is incumbents that have gotten way too comfortable with their seat and try to propose a massive high school bond in january after election season for a 240+m school. The focus for them may be to continously raise taxes.

Man, makes this whole situation hard to decide for for an undecided voter.

6

flippenstance t1_ivdemm1 wrote

Thank you. I have no clue about the JC school board.

2

DontBeEvil1 t1_ive2oq6 wrote

https://jcitytimes.com/letter-vote-for-board-of-ed-candidates-who-will-put-the-kids-first/

This is much more insightful, than some dude on Reddit only concerned with his tax bill.

14

JerseyCity_Nuyorican t1_ive3w3h wrote

Does Nancy's kids attend JCPS, like 2 of the 3 Change for Children candidates?

5

rbastid t1_ive9omi wrote

Nancy is a political activist that poses as "just a working mother"

She's also a NY lawyer who expects others to pay for her kids to go to school.

8

DontBeEvil1 t1_ive43og wrote

Yes. Which is why she is so informed. She's an actual, involved parent.

3

JerseyCity_Nuyorican t1_ive49b3 wrote

Hamilton and Reyes, CFC have children in JCPS. Are they not informed and involved?

5

DontBeEvil1 t1_ive66bx wrote

Link me to their essays, and I'll let you know.

Having children in JCPS doesn't make you informed and involved. Being informed and involved does. 🤔

7

JerseyCity_Nuyorican t1_ive6x80 wrote

Nothing in Nancy's article states she is informed. Hamilton did an AMA on here and is already on the BoE.

6

DontBeEvil1 t1_ive70ph wrote

Lol. Interesting take away from the post. 🤔

0

JerseyCity_Nuyorican t1_ive76ma wrote

Yea, learned jackshit from that article you sent.

1

DontBeEvil1 t1_ive7i6c wrote

Oh, and for what it's worth, I also learned "jackshit" from this entire post. Previously, I didn't feel it was necessary to explicitly state that, but I want to sound cool like you.

0

DontBeEvil1 t1_ive78cj wrote

I am aware Hamilton is already on the BoE. He ran alongside Noemi Velazquez and they both won. His other two running mates are not on the BoE. Noemi Velazquez, again, is also on the BoE. Her other 2 running mates are not.

−1

JerseyCity_Nuyorican t1_ive7xbg wrote

I know all of this.

1

DontBeEvil1 t1_iveunak wrote

As I knew Hamilton is already on the BoE. Yet you felt the need to tell me that in a comment. Which prompted me to respond to that comment. 🤔

Seems like you didnt know why I commented. It was a RESPONSE. 🤦

−2

mikevago t1_ivg3o0n wrote

Simplest version: a billionaire developer bankrolls the Change For Children ticket every two years, on a platform of cutting school funding so there's more money to give taxx cuts to billionaire developers.

Education Matters is a ticket actually supported by educators, and the main arguments against them are Union Bad and How Dare They Spend Tax Money On Paying Teachers.

−1

Mindless-Budget9019 t1_ivganuf wrote

This makes no sense. Teachers already get paid generous pensions. That’s the deal for government employees. The pay is worse than in the private sector but you get a better pension at retirement. You can’t get better pay than the private sector and a better pension. No one is seriously expecting a tax cut. They just want accountability and not having to worry about a 15% to 35% increase in property taxes and no improved educational outcomes.

2

dreggers t1_ivheced wrote

imagine thinking that teachers' unions care about anything other than keeping the most tenured educators on bloated compensation plans

2

mikevago t1_ivhvg4m wrote

Right, it's not teachers who care about education, it's billionaire developers! Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?

1

dreggers t1_ivi1dxs wrote

In HS, my favorite teacher was given a pink slip because she only had 2 years of tenure, while the garbage teachers that everyone hated sat comfortably because they were mediocre for 20 years. Since then I've always voted against every teacher union.

1

mikevago t1_ivi84h6 wrote

And has that helped? Is putting a developer in charge of the Board of Ed going to help?

1

dreggers t1_iviaeas wrote

Insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. Developers may not be better, but I don’t see how they are worse than a teachers union that doesn’t believe in transparency

1

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_ivkh5d3 wrote

Technically correct.

And every time the social media push is huge to pretend this isn’t some rich person trying to get some favors for tax season.

This is an organized campaign the last two weeks on this subreddit, and if you look at their profiles. 99% of their comments are on the same topic, and are unused outside of election season.

2

Mindless-Budget9019 t1_ivkn1g2 wrote

Or perhaps, people are talking about issues that affect everyone in Jersey City. What is so surprising about people speaking up after the 30% to 35% increase in taxes and wanting more accountability on how the money is spent. It’s kinda sad that there are parents out there that had to spend some of their children’s Christmas gift money on the outrageous BOE tax levy and yet a lot of schools don’t have clean drinking water. Talk about the BOE being the epitome of being a grinch.

0

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_ivkujam wrote

You’re entire comment history is just republicans talking points.

Let’s not distract from what it is: campaigning for elections.

Without the legally required disclosures.

1

Mindless-Budget9019 t1_ivkv6sl wrote

I am confused… what are you trying to say? A regular resident can’t have concerns about the way their tax money is being spent? Also all of the candidates are non partisan so why are you bringing up Rs and Ds.

0

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_ivkx4jt wrote

Reddit gets flooded with politically funded accounts trying to push agendas days before any election.

But 99% of the time, they don’t properly disclose that they’re part of a social media campaign.

1

DontBeEvil1 t1_ivndc6d wrote

Reddit is not real.

The people of Jersey City have spoken and they did NOT vote Change For Children. Education Matters swept it. Too bad. So sad. 🤷

Congrats to the winners! 🥳

1

ChilltownEdPHD t1_iybqy16 wrote

Man those guys that run JCEA be whipping dat booty

1

mikevago t1_ivg4e64 wrote

If I wasn't already planning on voting for teachers and against real estate developers, the nonstop high-decibel astroturf campaign running on this channel would have convinced me several times over. #EducationMatters

−1

Mindless-Budget9019 t1_ivg7xhw wrote

It takes a lot of noise to get people to look at the issue logically and not stop thinking every time someone utters “But the children…”

0

mikevago t1_ivgn87c wrote

Yes, well, logically I think educators should be on the Board of Education and not shills for a developer.

0

Mindless-Budget9019 t1_ivgnwjg wrote

Let’s speak in 5 years when your house gets put up for a tax sale because you couldn’t pay your property taxes or you can’’t afford your rent.

2

DirectorBeneficial48 t1_ivd4k1b wrote

fuck em and this stupid astroturfing campaign that's been on here nonstop. can't wait for this election to be done with.

−5

Jahooodie t1_ivdf8bf wrote

They do seem partnered with the developers (who want taxes low), but do also seem to have expertise and bona fides to be legit outside of that. With the very recent tax increase and last few years of ‘not so good’ budgets, it does seem logical for there to be a ‘throw the bums out’ push for change.

What makes it seem like Astro turfing to you? Doesn’t seem like it to me, there seem to be legit concerns about the incumbents & the rival party seems to have legit popularity because of it.

7

needimmortality t1_ivdmkb3 wrote

This guy seems like a bitter troll. Don’t bother writing and engaging with sensible replies @jahoodie . Change for children sounds like a pragmatic vote here.

3

DontBeEvil1 t1_ive1rn3 wrote

>What makes it seem like Astro turfing to you?

Telling people who to vote for. Constant talk about tax reduction, no talk about children, and little talk about actual plans to fix things, while acting as if the other side isn't saying the exact same thing about wanting to make better use of the budget, allocate funds to where they are truly needed, and lessen the tax burden. I've spent the past couple of days reading up on all the candidates, and the other side, as well as the independents are saying the same thing!

3

Jahooodie t1_ivegtbi wrote

Yes the sides are saying similar things, but one is in bed with the Union and status quo more heavily than the other.

Also it’s not astroturfing to make a case for a candidate. And both sides have vague plans (in my opinion). I’m just seeing normal political speech going on, not a concentrated artificial effort to influence (but it is the internet, anyone could be a troll or a dog for all I know). You yourself set up a case against the OP and basically weave a argument to vote anyone but CFC, which is also fine speech by me

1

mikevago t1_ivg45nt wrote

> one is in bed with the Union and status quo

Translation, one side is "in bed with" teachers and have long been involved with JC public schools. I guess those things are bad somehow, so we should put a developer's lackeys in charge?

1

Jahooodie t1_ivgu6gx wrote

They have an invested interest to keep the status quo of the Union & Board. You realize only one of their slate up to vote is a current educator? The others according to their material a doctoral candidate & Democratic Committee member. They are putting forth arguments for the most part that they are also for change, and it's up to the voter to decide.

I fundamentally don't believe that the only folks who can have expertise in BOE control are necessarily teachers or teacher's union folks. Their voice carries weight of first hand experience, but so do those who've graduated from JC public schools & their parents. Or people who've studied sound budget administration at the scale of the school system here... their budget is more than some municipalities altogether.

I am concerned that CFC has strong ties to developers, but then again anyone involved with the Democratic party trying to get stuff done in town sorta is (ala Fullop). I'm not fully convinced on their ideas for change, but I think perhaps at least they would be a conflicting voice at the table to push reform. I think the main thing I've been concerned with our BOE for years has been the status quo has to change & modernize to the sunlight.

For the record I'm not voting a straight slate I don't think, but I've not read a compelling to me argument that CFC is the devil & Education Matters are saints

1

mikevago t1_ivg3ywe wrote

And God forbid you acknolwedge that /r/jerseycity has turned into /r/changefordeveloperscampaignhq or you get downvoted into oblivion.

1

[deleted] t1_ivdnjz4 wrote

[deleted]

−9

JerseyCity_Nuyorican t1_ive432w wrote

This impacts most JC homeowners, many whom are elderly/senior and lower income.

5

DontBeEvil1 t1_ive6vcd wrote

Board of Education elections should not be about "who's going to lower the elderly's taxes." I know I might sound crazy, but I think what's best for actual children, in school, should be the focus. 🤷

8

JerseyCity_Nuyorican t1_ive736o wrote

Yea, focus on where the hell all the money is going.

1

DontBeEvil1 t1_ive7e72 wrote

Um....yea?

2

SweetheartAtHeart t1_iveopzz wrote

I think the majority consensus is that throwing money at the schools won’t fix it or make it better necessarily. A lot of us want transparency on how the budget is being used. I don’t mind paying up for taxes as long as it’s going towards something productive and not just into the pockets of people who do nothing for the schools. I have lots of friends and family who’ve worked in the JCPS system and they all say they haven’t seen any signs of the budget being invested in the children.

To;dr: I just want transparency on how this budget is being spent. A breakdown would be cool and no, I’m not against taxes. I’m against random idiots pocketing large salaries for contributing nothing while teachers and children suffer in inadequate classrooms.

3

attrice t1_ive95tx wrote

Yup. Voted early yesterday. The incessant posting here by people who scare monger about teachers unions motivated me to make sure to get it done.

3