For years, school board candidates in Farmingdale and, for that matter throughout Long Island, ran for election on the slogan "Quality Education At An Affordable Price."

Sure sounds like a winning slogan to me, until you take a closer look at words like "quality" and "affordable." They mean vastly different things to different people and reconciling those differences takes place every year as part of the budget process.

But since we live in an imperfect world, the results that residents get to vote on each year seldom make anybody really happy. Some are upset that the educational costs, and the taxes, are too high. Others are upset that the educational costs don't cover all they should and that taxes should reflect changing needs.

Trying to reconcile these beliefs is what gives school board members gray hair, if they don't already have it. Their job has gotten increasingly difficult as the New York State Legislature and the Governor have repeatedly failed to keep up with the needs of local school districts. In this school year state aid as a percentage of local costs is at an all time low of less than 20 percent - down dramatically from 50 percent not too many years ago.

Because the State Legislature has failed even to keep the percentage level while it imposed dozens of costly mandates on local districts, our local residents who are worried about the type of education their children need must rely on the regressive property tax to pay an ever-increasing share of the burden --- just to maintain the status quo.

Next year the signs point to Farmingdale not even being able to maintain the status quo. For example, next year there will be 12 fewer teachers and then another 12 fewer the year after that. The result: larger classes for Farmingdale's children, less invidualized help and fewer educational options.

Will students suffer as a result? Sure they will. Does the School Board intend for that to happen? No, it doesn't. But that's where the Law of Unintended Consequences applies.

The Board members have to balance the revenues from the State and from local residents against the needs of the students. There is a limit to what local residents can and will pay. So, for the very best of reasons, students - who only get one chance at an education - will be shortchanged.

This needn't happen. Local residents can have a fair tax rate and students can get the education they deserve if only our State legislators will resolve to reverse the trend in which state aid as a percentage of local effort gets smaller and smaller each year. It's time to tell our State Senators and our State Assembly members that it's time to stop forcing increases in the burdensome property taxes and start using the broad-based state income tax to finance a substantially larger share of local education costs. Why not do it today?