Mark: My primary point is that Abbott funding was made a constitutional right for the kids in districts that lack funds, so I wouldn't worry about the state scaling back the funding - they have to give it; the Supreme Court made it mandatory - the state can't refuse. I thought it was a nutty decision and still do, but it helps places like AP because we get paid.
I concede your point that if Asbury becomes more solvent, theoretically we could start loosing Abbott funding, but that is supposed to happen. You want that to happen. Better a thriving AP that takes care of itself then a languishing AP that needs state aid. Now I'm no expert on the Abbott funding formula, but I assume (so I concede I could be dead wrong here) that if the Ocean was not tax abated, that extra tax money would be used against he Abbott formula, and we would lose Abbott money sooner than later when the condos come online. It appears to me that with the abatements, we get cheaper condos to purchase and keep the Abbott money longer. Isn't that the best of both worlds? Wish we could get the opinion of someone who knows the funding formula on this board so we could know for sure. As for voting down school budgets - it doesn't matter (IMHO) what the status of state funding is, $18K per year is just too much money; we can be thriftier than that for the poor results we are getting. As for Dan's idea, it is interesting, but I understand the school board to be an arm of State government, so I don't believe we could combine it with the City government (again I'm no expert there, but it's just a thought). --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BB82 - Not sure I understand what you're saying. The state is covering our > education nut and when they drop out we have to cover it without the help of > the ocean-front tax base. Voting "no" on the school budget won't be a > solution because that budget could never be low enough to avoid a large tax > increase. The Asbury Park kids have right to the public education > consistent with No Child Left Behind mandates as well as the state laws that > include the Abbott ruling. Even if spending is cut back to the point you're > dreaming about I think we would still have a sizeable increase. > > -----Original Message----- > From: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of bluebishop82 > Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 2:49 PM > To: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [AsburyPark] Re: Abbot Funding cuts.... > > > I understand you. Another option too is to vote no on the school > budget and force them to spend less. $18K a year is rediculous. Other > schools with good grades are spending about $8 or 9K. > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "oakdorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While I'm all for every kid having a chance as the next kid (poor > > district = rich district) and I am willing to throw a few extra $ > each > > week to see that way - from my various posts over the years - the > > imbalance is becoming really absurd - therefore the amount of STATE > > funding has to be re-examined. So if the STATE funding is reduced - > > taxes will eventually be increased. IF. > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
