Share this
Twitter
Myspace
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
Tags
Residents oppose Christie's expansion of charter schools and school vouchers
BY TOM HESTER SR.
NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM
New Jerseyans, by a 62 - 17 percent margin, have a favorable opinion of public school teachers, but their opinion of the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA), the statewide teachers' union is 44 - 27 percent unfavorable, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.
The teacher union, New Jerseyans say 52 - 36 percent, are playing a negative role in improving public education, residents. The poll found New Jerseyans favor merit pay for teachers who do an outstanding job by 68 - 27 percent, and they favor limiting teacher tenure by 62 to 30 percent. The oppose school vouchers by52 - 43 percent and oppose charter schools by 50 - 41 percent.
"Voters agree overwhelmingly that Gov. Christopher Christie has one tough problem on his hands as he prepares to submit his budget Feb. 22," Maurice Carroll, the poll's director, said. "What would they like that budget message to say? They like the idea of a ‘Millionaires' Tax' on high-income people. And they don't want to cut state school aid.
"They like their kids' teachers, but don't like the teachers' union," Carroll added. "And they favor two items that the union hates — merit pay and some limits on teacher tenure. But voters are unenthusiastic on two school items that Governor. Christie likes — vouchers and charter schools. More than two-thirds of voters agree with Christie's move to curb school superintendent salaries. One-quarter think it's meddling in local affairs."
Christie's proposed cap on salaries for school superintendents is a good way to help balance the budget, 68 percent of New Jerseyans say, while 25 percent say it is meddling in local government. A majority of New Jerseyans support the salary cap for teachers.
By substantial margins, New Jerseyans support layoffs, wage freezes and reduced pensions for state workers, the poll found.
They approve 53 - 41 percent of the way Gov. Chris Christie is handling the state budget, but split 47 - 48 percent in their approval of how he is handling education, the poll finds.
The state government's budget problems are serious, 82 percent of New Jerseyans say, while 15 percent say they are "somewhat serious." To balance the budget, 64 percent of them say cut services, while 26 percent say raise taxes. Among measures New Jerseyans support:
- 56 - 38 percent support layoffs for state workers. Democrats oppose layoffs 53 - 40 percent and New Jerseyans with a union member in the household oppose layoffs 53 - 44 percent.
- 65 - 24 percent support furloughs for state workers, including 61 - 25 percent among Democrats and 61 - 28 percent in union households.
- 77 - 20 percent support wage freezes for state workers, including 72 - 23 percent among Democrats and 64 - 34 percent in union households.
- 66 - 29 percent are for reducing pensions for new state workers, including 56 - 39 percent among Democrats and 57 - 42 percent in union households.
"As the reality of tough budgets begins to sink in — in New Jersey and everywhere else — voters are starting to get tougher on state workers," Maurice Carroll, the poll's director, said. "Furloughs and wage freezes had won some approval in the past. Now voters approve even layoffs and reduction in pension benefits for new workers."
New Jerseyans support 55 - 34 percent the so-called "Millionaires' Tax." Support is 72 - 21 percent among Democrats and 55 - 32 percent among independents, while Republicans oppose the tax 53 - 33 percent.
New Jerseyans oppose 71 - 25 percent cutting aid to public schools, with no group in support of such a cut. They split 47 - 48 percent on tax cuts for corporations to help stimulate the state economy.
From Feb. 3 through Monday, Quinnipiac surveyed 1,347 registered voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points. Interviewers called land lines and cell phones.
However, it's interesting that respondents are favorable on "reforms" that actually affect their school systems--salary caps, merit pay and tenure limitations--while they oppose some that may not--vouchers and charters--depending upon where they live
It would be interesting to see results where geography is a factor--for ex, living in a district where students may receive Opportunity Scholarships or where charters are more likely to be approved versus a district where neither is likely to happen. People who live in a community where they have these options might react more favorably to them. If they do not that is huge news. Same if they oppose teacher tenure, though more enthusiasm for vouchers and charters would suggest that these options are preferable to fighting with the local union.
There also needs to be clarification on what is meant by merit or performance-based pay. Some might interpret that as meaning that a teacher's raise, which was automatic under a union contract would now be merit-based. I can see poll respondents reacting favorably to that, based on the answers given here. Others might interpret it as incentive pay; the best teachers earn larger salary increases than they might have earned under a union contract. I'm not sure people would react as favorably to that, and school systems may not have the money to do implement a merit pay plan like that in bad times. The school systems in Denver and D.C. had to approach foundations to provide money to assure the merit raises.
I put "staff" in quote for a good reason. This "staff" participate tn the same (or very similar) Pension Plans ..... do you think they can OBJECTIVELY make this determination .... when responding affirmatively would mean a reduction in their OWN pensions ?
Wouldn't it make more sense to inquire as to the legality of options from those farther removed from the Plan or its benefits ...such as uninvolved University Legal Scholars ? Even if the odds of winning the guaranteed lawsuit that would be brought by the Unions of affected workers were only 25% (or even 10%), wouldn't imposing the reductions be worth it with the payback if won (a) likely being 500 times the legal cost to defend the lawsuits, and (b) significantly increase NJ's odds of remaining solvent ?
By the way, CURRENTLY, NJ's Pension Plans are 2, 4, even 6 times greater in value that those of comparably paid Private Sector workers retiring at the SAME age and with the SAME years of service. Gov. Christie has talked of rolling back the 9% increase of 2001. Not a bad idea, but hardly what is needed) (or fair to taxpayers).
With cash pay in the Public and Private Sector now basically equivalent (and yes I know we have dueling studies) there is no reason for ANY greater Public than Private Sector pension accruals.
I'm not suggesting a reduction of pension accruals for PAST service, but for FUTURE service, pension accruals need to be reduced by AT LEAST 50%. Even WITH that reductions, they would STILL be greater than those of 90% of comparably paid Private Sector workers.
Taxpayers have been hoodwinked long enough.