| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri, Mar 27 2009, 2:00 pm EDT Post subject: Re: CRANBURY: Tuition drives school plan |
 |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Is this accurate? I had heard that Princeton does not need Cranbury kids and that because of their increased enrollment might be closing the deal to allow Cranbury kids to attend their school in the future. I have no facts to this just have heard this rumor. |
That was the sentiment a couple of years ago. However, Princeton does need Cranbury funds and our Cranburian student test scores have elevated the Princeton HS overall HS test scores.
So, in fact our children are needed and benefit the Princeton. It all has to do with financing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Mar 27 2009, 3:53 pm EDT Post subject: Re: CRANBURY: Tuition drives school plan |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: |
First of all, the article references "smart boards" not lighted chalk boards or lighted chalk. SmartBoard makes a white board and projector system that integrates with a laptop in the classroom and allows for Interactive learning programs. They are pretty useful and are already in some Cranbury classrooms.. |
A smartboard is not a necessity and maybe a cool addition to learning. However, this is just a tool and there is no proof that using one will increase testing scores of our children. To me that is a want and not a need.
With the school asking an addition $1 million, residents out of work and many others taking a pay cut; I don't think the smartboards or any other non-necessity item should be even considered by the school board.
We are a small town and need to look not only at this year's budget, but we need to plan ahead and view expectation for the next 5 years. What will happen if COAH hits us, will our schools need to consolidate, will cranbury have to build a new HS? With the Cranbury school to constantly ask for $1 million extra per year over the last 3 years; when will the increased spending halt? |
Why did you cut off the second half of the post you were quoting that said that the article had pointed out that the smart boards HAD BEEN CUT FROM THE BUDGET and that the poster agreed with that decision to cut them. Instead we've had two non-posts now that make a point about how smart boards are not an essential expense as an example of the budget problems when in fact the they were cut from the budget and thus demonstrate the opposite of the point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Mar 27 2009, 3:59 pm EDT Post subject: Re: 2009 Cranbury School Budget |
|
|
I'll be paying almost $20,000 a year in property taxes next year. Most of the reason we live here is the school system -- both Cranbury School and the sharing arrangement with Princeton High School. I would agrue that this is true for a vast majority of the people who have bought homes in this Township (excluding the 55-and-older community) in this decade, at least. Any discussion to simply consider an arrangement with a lesser ranked school like Monroe or Hightstown not only undermines the reason I am paying that $20,000 a year, but I guarantee you it would negatively affect property values, disproportionate to the regional housing economy, for every homeowver, whether they still have school-aged kids or not. Its a seriously dumb idea.
That said, I do resent the idea that I am supposed to pay more and more taxes every year to accept their short term contract that may only benefit parents with kids in the program now or soon, when even the oldest of my kids is still 5 years away from enjoying the benefit. I agree with the previous poster who said we should at least get the benefit of locking in a longer term contract if we're going to be expected to pay substantial more per year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Mar 27 2009, 5:28 pm EDT Post subject: Re: CRANBURY: Tuition drives school plan |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Why did you cut off the second half of the post you were quoting that said that the article had pointed out that the smart boards HAD BEEN CUT FROM THE BUDGET and that the poster agreed with that decision to cut them. Instead we've had two non-posts now that make a point about how smart boards are not an essential expense as an example of the budget problems when in fact the they were cut from the budget and thus demonstrate the opposite of the point. |
For clarification, the Smartboards are not totally cut just pushed back.
According to the newspaper article,
"”Slowing down upgrades of projects like SmartBoards (a type of electronic chalkboard for classrooms) is a hard decision, but one that was made easier when we consider the sacrifices we know our constituents and neighbors are making this year,” said Lynne Schwarz, chairwoman of the board’s Finance Committee, in the release. "
Smartboards are just one example of a want and not a need. I'm sure there are other items in the budget that can be cut further that will not negatively affect our children from learning. Adding $1 million dollars per year to our school budget for the last 3 years is absolutely disturbing especially since this is a public school funded by ALL Cranbury taxpayers wether they have children utilizing the public school system or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe the plumber
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Mar 30 2009, 10:17 pm EDT Post subject: Re: 2009 Cranbury School Budget |
|
|
I know that this is a stupid question.................but..................why do we need so many school buses? If you live out in the hinterlands of Cranbury, don't you own one or two cars? Can't Mom or Dad drop the kids off on the way to work? Can't we carpool? Maybe, just use the bus for the kids who really need it and can't really walk too far to get to school. Maybe, we can get it down to just one bus VS the 5 or 6 that we already use.
It's just an idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe the plumber
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Mar 30 2009, 10:20 pm EDT Post subject: Re: 2009 Cranbury School Budget |
|
|
Oh, yeah, the smartboards.
Why do we need so many? Can't we just get a few in the more specialized classrooms, or in the Large Group Room? I don't think that we need one in EVERY SINGLE classroom.......... do we? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Mar 31 2009, 8:56 am EDT Post subject: Re: 2009 Cranbury School Budget |
|
|
| joe the plumber wrote: | I know that this is a stupid question.................but..................why do we need so many school buses? If you live out in the hinterlands of Cranbury, don't you own one or two cars? Can't Mom or Dad drop the kids off on the way to work? Can't we carpool? Maybe, just use the bus for the kids who really need it and can't really walk too far to get to school. Maybe, we can get it down to just one bus VS the 5 or 6 that we already use.
It's just an idea. |
In accordance with State law, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-1, all public elementary school students (grades K-8) who live more than 2 miles from their school and all public secondary school students (grades 9-12) who live more than 2 ½ miles from their school are entitled to transportation. These students are said to live "remote from school". Whenever any school district is required to provide transportation to students attending regular public school programs, students attending nonpublic schools who meet those distance requirements may also be entitled to transportation services. In addition, any student classified with special needs who either meets these distance requirements or for whom transportation is required in the student’s Individual Education Plan must be transported.
At the farthest point for example, Shadow Oaks is 2 miles so they bus in. There is also a safety issue on the roads in Cranbury because many parents can't drive kids to school. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Mar 31 2009, 9:38 am EDT Post subject: Re: 2009 Cranbury School Budget |
|
|
| Quote: | | At the farthest point for example, Shadow Oaks is 2 miles so they bus in. |
Well, not to argue but Shady Brooke Dr. is almost 4 miles from school.
There are a lot of safety issues to be sure. A noted lack of sidewalks on both side of many streets and some of those streets do not have marked crosswalks to allow safe crossing to the side that does have a side walk.  There is the concept of courtesy bussing but that cost is minimal i'm sure. I think that the bus contracts are bare bones as it is so that probably is not a place for real savings |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Mar 31 2009, 9:59 am EDT Post subject: Re: 2009 Cranbury School Budget |
|
|
| Does Shady Brook bus? I assume they do. I only used Shadow Oaks as an example because I live there. Not to say they should be the only one who gets buses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Times
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Apr 3 2009, 12:24 pm EDT Post subject: Princeton Regional will put $80.8M budget to voters |
|
|
Princeton Regional will put $80.8M budget to voters
Friday, April 03, 2009
BY KRYSTAL KNAPP
Special to the Times
PRINCETON BOROUGH -- The Princeton Regional School Board has approved an $80.8 million budget for the 2009-10 fiscal year that would increase the school tax rate about $41 for average homeowners in the township and $281 for average homeowners in the borough.
After a public hearing at the John Witherspoon Middle School, the board unanimously approved a budget Tuesday that includes a tax levy of $57.9 million. Voters will be asked to approve the budget in the April 21 school elections.
Advertisement
The budget includes the elimination of 12 staff positions, including 10 support staff and two faculty positions. Under the budget, all school and department budgets will decrease. School board members said the board worked hard to keep the tax increase as low as possible without cutting programs.
"This budget is cut to the bone," said board member Josh Leinsdorf. "All the flesh has been cut off."
If the budget is approved by voters, the school tax rate in Princeton Borough would increase 4 percent -- adding an estimated 8 cents to the current school tax rate of $1.96 per $100 of assessed value.
That means the owner of a home assessed at the borough average of $351,761 would face a $281 increase in annual school taxes, based on the proposed rate of $2.04 per $100 of assessed value. The average residential school tax bill in the borough would increase to $7,176 for 2009-10.
In the township, the owner of a home assessed at the township average of $434,108 would see an increase of $43 in school taxes, based on the proposed rate of $1.71 per $100 of assessed property value. The 2008-09 township rate is just under $1.70 per $100 of assessed property value. An average residential school tax bill in the township would total $7,423.
.................................
http://www.nj.com/news/times/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-16/123873154218350.xml&coll=5 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Apr 3 2009, 12:26 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Princeton Regional will put $80.8M budget to voters |
|
|
| The Times wrote: | If the budget is approved by voters, the school tax rate in Princeton Borough would increase 4 percent -- adding an estimated 8 cents to the current school tax rate of $1.96 per $100 of assessed value.
|
If Princeton increased the school tax rate by 4%, why did Cranbury get hit with a 9% increase instead of 4%? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Apr 3 2009, 3:40 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Princeton Regional will put $80.8M budget to voters |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | The Times wrote: | If the budget is approved by voters, the school tax rate in Princeton Borough would increase 4 percent -- adding an estimated 8 cents to the current school tax rate of $1.96 per $100 of assessed value.
|
If Princeton increased the school tax rate by 4%, why did Cranbury get hit with a 9% increase instead of 4%? |
I'm curious about that too, especially since our rate is not defined by Princeton, as I understand it, but by the state which is supposed to assume that it is a fair presentation of Princeton's costs. Perhaps some expenses, like busing, went up disproportionately to their overall costs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest2
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Apr 4 2009, 11:29 am EDT Post subject: Re: 2009 Cranbury School Budget |
|
|
Here is why our percentage rise is different.
Cranbury sets its budget. The big numbers are a) staff salaries and benefits and b) tuition to Princeton High School. Those numbers are set ahead of time -- by contract with the staff and by contract with Princeton. The only play here can be in 1) laying off staff - [our class sizes are already large - ask any parent with kids in the school -- and the number of special ed staff is pretty much dictated by state law] and 2) the number of students we have in the high school -- this number is set by population and there is no way to change that.
The discretionary items, i.e., technology, after-school activities, are really nominal in comparison and are really the only items the board can "play" with.
The percentage change comes later -- i.e., if we have more ratables - the cost is born by more payers - and hence reduced to all -- and if we have less ratables (which is probably the case in a down economy since many of our ratables are based on occupancy rates in the warehouses) - we all pay more. Additionally -- if we have a large jump in the number of kids going to high school -- that can cause a large percentage jump (again -- we DO have more kids and frankly probably less kids will go to private school this year then in the past).
Princeton of course follows a similar course - but of course their variables (ratables - staffing) are different than ours due to their size.
In the end -- the percentage rise has no correlation one to the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
