I don’t object to any of Anthony’s suggestions, identified as 1-4 in his recent post. He is also correct that less condo owners have kids than home owners. But those new buildings will have some children. To follow his analogy, there are still some who would rather own a 2-bedroom condo in Hackensack than rent an apartment in River Edge, if those are the only economic choices available in today’s housing market.
However, Anthony doesn’t seem to grasp the enormity of the socioeconomic factor in the test scores. I have to respond to Anthony’s statement, as follows: “I want the school system to show me that despite the huge immigrant population and economic situation many of the parents are in, the Hackensack schools rose to the occasion and educated their kids”.
This is asking something of Hackensack that no community in the history of the state of New Jersey has ever achieved. There is a direct relationship between the average socioeconomic level of students to test scores. This is ironclad and undisputable, and known as fact within the State Dept. of Education. In fact, the state DOE rates the socioeconomic level of schools from A through I, (or is it A through J), with A being the lowest. “B” schools outperform “A” schools, “D” schools outperform “C” schools, “I” schools outperform “H” schools. Rarely is there an exception to this.
I think Hackensack is a C or D. If through renovation of the city's older housing stock and new construction of high-quality duplexes and condos, Hackensack can elevate to level F or E, school test scores will rise accordingly.
I have long been advocating condo construction in the downtown area, and my recent proposal to redefine the 2-family zone is currently kicking around city hall. The latter will allow and encourage high-quality duplexes.
Has anyone ever wondered why all the money NJ taxpayers are throwing at the Abbott Districts has essentially been for nothing. The test scores have barely risen in those communities. That is because nothing is being done to raise the average socioeconomic level of the students in those district. That’s too politically incorrect to be fashioned into public policy, as long as there are ultra-left newspapers such as The Record waiting to pounce onto any such movement.
Although I agree with Anthony’s four suggestions, they are “peanuts” compared to tackling Hackensack’s socioeconomic situation, which is very heavily the product of NIGITO REALTY. That one corporation has really brought down the city’s school system.
Our city administration needs to do something about Nigito’s holdings as well as the “drug block” of Central Avenue and the northern block of Fair Street. With a little TLC, there is no reason why Central Avenue can't be as safe and quiet as the other blocks in the Carver Park neighborhood.
I think a lot of the young families that you say won’t move to Hackensack will reconsider this community if the troubled areas are not no troubled areas. Hackensack has a lot to offer, especially in its diversity, and as long as the city is perceived as clean and safe, people will be more attracted to move here with their families. Is this something that Anthony would agree on?
