Even though there was nothing to vote on in Alameda, election day was yesterday and the results are in for several measures around the Bay Area, of particular interest are the cities who have willingly taxed themselves in order to provide more funding for schools. From the SF Chronicle:
…Victory was notched firmly for the biggest school tax on the ballot, a new annual parcel tax of $319 in the Reed Union School District, which serves residents of East Corte Madera, Belvedere and Tiburon in Marin County. Measure A will now fund services such as small classes and teacher training.
A similar parcel tax also scored big in the Lafayette School District, in Contra Costa County. Measure J will now impose a yearly parcel tax of $313 on homeowners to help make up for a $700,000 operating deficit in the district.
…
Heading toward success, however, was Measure A, which would improve aging buildings in the Burlingame Elementary School District…
And with the potential deficit that the State of California is facing next year, I don’t think the prospects of getting any more money from the state for our schools is looking very good. It looks like we are going to be in pretty much the same position that we were in earlier this year with the AUSD budget, unless community members are willing to step up and come up with some “creative” solutions…and by “creative solutions” I mean a parcel tax, we might be considering cuts galore again for the next budget cycle, and this time around there might not be the wiggle room to keep the additional counselors or JROTC program or prevent consolidation of middle schools, etc…
I know that some folks are now crowing about the downturn in the housing market, but the impacts could be devestating on varying programs throughout the state.
Er, more taxes are NOT the solution!
Comment by Jason Chen — November 7, 2007 @ 7:00 am
Parcel taxes are a grossy unfair form of taxation. A person who owns a two million Victorian estate pays the same as someone who owns a one-bedroom condo.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 7, 2007 @ 8:54 am
Look a parcel tax is not the solution. Schools need to look long term and start preparing for changes in demographics and population shifts. School consolidation would not be a bad thing, both at the middle and high school levels. There really is no need for two large high school campuses if the district would regulate the out of district students. Since Superintendent Dennis Chaconas opened up enrollment at Encinal there has not been vigorous enforcement for fear of losing the ADA. It is an annual dance that and see what the true population is for all of the campuses, but it needs to be managed better. Take a look at the budget for any TSA (teachers on special assignment) these assignments need to reviewed, there are ways to cut and it must happen. As far as ROTC is concerned it may be past it time, like the way of metal and wood shop. Shop classes would prepare student for good paying careers, but lack of interest and changing economies have made these types of classes almost extinct. NO, NO, NO on a parcel tax.
Comment by Sideline — November 7, 2007 @ 8:59 am
#2 Should read:
Parcel taxes are a grossly unfair form of taxation. A person who owns a two-million dollar Victorian estate pays the same as someone who owns a one-bedroom condo. Sorry, my proofreading schools are slipping.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 7, 2007 @ 9:14 am
Sideline:
Schools’ ability to plan is restricted by state control of funding. Add in Prop 13 and you get the situation we have now — zero local control AND low funding. ~9M per student is simply insufficient funding in a high cost area. Many districts around the country are much better funded in much lower cost areas.
Can schools be more efficient? Undoubtedly; so can you or I. But by public school standards, AUSD is doing pretty well on 9 grand per.
A parcel tax is a poor way to approach the problem but short of a miracle in Sacramento, it’s the only instrument available.
Comment by dave — November 7, 2007 @ 9:41 am
Re. laurendo
“unless community members are willing to step up and come up with some “creative” solutions…”
I’ve got an idea. Let’s have Hillary deposit the $5000 per child, she proposed, into a SCHOOL savings plan instead of the child’s savings plan. The extra money in schools will pay far greater dividends in the long run for the children than a few bucks extra at birth.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 7, 2007 @ 11:10 am
Parcel taxes (like all property taxes — and most taxes) are EVIL.
Anothing thing that is unfair about this election is the “senior exemption”. Seniors get to vote for a tax they don’t have to pay!
In Lafayette the whole cost of the election was incurred to give the populace the opportunity to tax themselves (or the seniors to tax their youngers), all for “the children”.
Anytime polcrats start yammering about “the children” “seniors” or “working families” you had best grab your wallet and the area of your body in which it resides, because both are about to be violated.
Hey, did anyone else notice Ken Kahn failed to unseat Gavin for SF Mayor?
Comment by John Shasky — November 7, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Re. 7
“— and most taxes) are EVIL.”
“Seniors get to vote for a tax they don’t have to pay!”
Amen, but this senior gets to vote -NO- for a tax he won’t have to pay!
Comment by Jack Richard — November 7, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
Like war, taxes may be evil. But also like war, they might be better described as a necessary evil.
I suspect that the active posters on this blog (on all sides) are quite set in their opinions about parcel taxes, so I doubt a thorough defense of the AUSD parcel tax (which more than 2/3 voters approved the last time it was up for a vote) will change many/any minds. So, I’m not attempting that here. Still, I thought I’d share some responses to the series of anti-parcel tax postings here.
I concede that parcel taxes are unfair when parcels of varying value are taxed in the same amount and when senior citizens are exempted. Progressive income taxes are also unfair, as are most/all tax deductions and credits, differential tax treatment for different types of property, payroll taxes with capped income eligibility, sales taxes that have a regressive impact, and even a flat/proportional tax if certain types of income are exempted or taxed at a different rate from other types of income. I could go on.
The reality is that if local school districts in California do want to raise local revenues (if for example, like AUSD, the district has a higher cost of living/doing business than most districts in the state (about 118% of the state average) and yet (also like AUSD) receives less funding per student than average from the state, there is no other viable alternative than an imperfect parcel tax.
Anyone who has looked at the AUSD budget and cuts over the past several years knows that cutting a little waste or a program here or there will not solve the fiscal problems created by California’s chronic under-funding of AUSD.
Alameda’s schools need financial help. California is unlikely to give it. Two-thirds of us voted to give it and should do so again.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — November 7, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
Maybe the city could instead consider increasing other taxes/fees, i.e., sales tax, tobacco tax, business license fees, building
permit fees to offset the shortfall.
Comment by Susan — November 7, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
Susan, #10
The AUSD budget does not levy those taxes and it’s budget is separate from the City.
Base permit fees are about par with other cities until you add all the bells and whistles they through on to cover the theoretical impact on sewers, etc. Long story short, if you have pulled a permit lately you probably wouldn’t recommend that increase.
For folks who consider taxes “evil” I would like them to list all the evil services they enjoy which they would like to curtail. I expect their priorities would correlate directly to their self interests in terms of which services serve them first. As usual, everybody else can take a hike, right?
#3 I don’t have the stats in front of me to verify, but I would be very surprised if by eliminating all out of district students from the system the Alameda High School plant could house all our high school students, even after booting the Adult School etc.
Another point occurs to me. Consolidation would eliminate any complaints about favoritism of Alameda High over Encinal in sports and in other matters, but it would also eliminate opportunities for students. There is only one starting quarterback per team , etc. Just a thought.
Comment by Mark I — November 7, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
btw, why were seniors omitted the last time? Because they are more likely to vote in the elections and will vote for the tax if it doesn’t impact them?
Taxes are a stop-gap approach, fix the root cause!
Comment by Jason Chen — November 7, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
And that root cause is …?
Comment by dave — November 7, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
Re #10 — In California, taxation runs into the sticky issue of “nexus,” or connection required between the taxpayer and the type of services received before the City has the legal authority to impose and/or require the collection of a tax. For example, funding for the Alameda Cineplex comes from grants and redevelopment bonds. These funds cannot be used to pay for city services like public safety. About 60% of the City of Alameda’s general fund revenues ($80M), which come primarily from property taxes, are expended on police and fire. With labor contracts for the police and firefighters ending in 2007, and the declining sales tax revenues in the City, we may need a parcel tax to pay for public safety in order to offset the shortfall.
Taxes also drive public policies and the kind of town we want. Income and property taxes are low or non-existent in Las Vegas because their City derives revenues from gambling.
Comment by C.C. Wanabe — November 7, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Welcome back dave
Root cause is under funding from the state … thought it would be obvious to a wizard like you.
Comment by Jason Chen — November 7, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
CC wannabe –
Please explain ‘nexus’, and CA tax legislation. What laws prevent putting a local tax increase on the ballot to help support AUSD? For example; what law prevents an increase in local sales tax to support AUSD’s General Budget, or certain aspects of AUSD’s budget such as ’school housing’ i.e. building, maintenance, and operating budgets, or for programs to keep school age children off the streets; ie. improved educational opportunities; or an endless variety of ways to phrase assisting the AUSD budget?
Comment by David Kirwin — November 7, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
I would not vote for a parcel tax, we are already paying around $14,000 a year in property tax and we have no children. Given we all use services and should pay some, and good schools benifit all of us, but get rid of prop 13 and let us all pay our fair share.
Comment by Joel — November 7, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
Jason,
Wouldn’t the root cause really be the funding from the feds?
Comment by notadave — November 7, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
If anyone has a ballot measure to ban parcel taxes, I’m ready to sign. You can’t even deduct them since it isn’t a tax on the value of the property. We’re already saddled with the Hospital District white elephant. Considering the current real estate climate, I would suggest that anyone who proposes another parcel tax be forever branded with a scarlet “T” so voters know come election day.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — November 7, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
notadave, see comment #9:
“Anyone who has looked at the AUSD budget and cuts over the past several years knows that cutting a little waste or a program here or there will not solve the fiscal problems created by California’s chronic under-funding of AUSD.”
Comment by Jason Chen — November 7, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
Well, naytiff,
You can tilt at the Prop 13 windmill or you can get realistic. To paraphrase Harry Hopkins, the schools don’t need money in the long run, they need it every day. A parcel tax, as I clearly explained above, is not an ideal method, but it is our only method for the forseeable future.
And speaking of the current real estate environment, that actually is an argument FOR a parcel tax. Homes continue to trade very well in places with top school districts (ie Piedmont, the peninsula, Orinda, etc) Multiple bids are still the norm in those areas. Those areas also have significant parcel taxes for schools. Piedmont, for example, is about $3000 per house for the schools. That is a correlation worth emulating.
Comment by dave — November 7, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
#21
I cannot afford to live in Piedmont or Orinda — and if what you propose ever passes in Alameda, I would not be able to afford to live here either.
Continuing to raise taxes on those with modest means will force us off the island and Alameda will become Piedmont/Orinda. Is this the grand plan to make Alameda a homogeneous community limited to younger families who can afford both high home prices and high taxes? The realtors would do well, but many of those with modest incomes, including many public servants, would be forced into default or forced to sell.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 8, 2007 @ 7:58 am
With fewer public servants, more tax $$$ could go to schools.
Comment by Jack B — November 8, 2007 @ 8:07 am
#23
That would leave the public putting out their own fires, policing their own neighborhoods, maintaining their own streets and teaching their own children.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 8, 2007 @ 8:21 am
Or maybe when someone falls off their bike there would not be two police cars, a fire engine, ladder truck and a paramedic van responding… We might have to do with less.
Comment by David Kirwin — November 8, 2007 @ 8:44 am
Tiff, it’s not so all-or-nothing.
Back to school funding… I think about this a lot. Maybe there’s some way that parents can step up and help out the schools… and get something in return (better education.) Some sort of hybrid public/private education. The progressives will call foul if it’s not completely fair as not everyone can step up, so some would reap more benefits.
Look at it this way. If families could sacrifice their cable tv and video game budgets for their schools, that would be quite an infusion!
Comment by Jack B — November 8, 2007 @ 9:15 am
Naytiff, If a few hundred dollars per year is what makes Alameda unaffordable for you, it’s time for you to move now. Or stay but stop making silly, bombastic statements like that.
Comment by dave — November 8, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
#27
Please carefully read the comment to which I was responding. (You made it, so you should know what you typed.) With your apology, please include a $3000 check made out to me.
#21 “Piedmont, for example, is about $3000 per house for the schools. That is a correlation worth emulating.”
(And frankly, you have no idea of my financial situation and the number of people that I need to support. I find your comment to be rude, insulting and condescending. If you have lots of extra money, then be grateful, but don’t insult the rest of us by telling us to either shut up or leave town if we are not wealthy.)
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — November 8, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
Well said NayTiff!!! We thought we’d seen the last of dave, but he’s back with more of his drivel …
Comment by Alan Ronson — November 8, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
Hey, can we just cool it on the “this person should go away” or “that person said they were gone for good”? Everyone’s opinion is welcome here and if you (the general “you” not anyone in particular) do not like what someone has to say, skip their comment.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 8, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Jack B. How dare you even bring up such a discusting thought. Give up cable bable and video games for education, what are you crazy???
What would these folks do at night read and talk to each other. Or maybe just Blog if they haven’t already given up their computers. I’m just being silly folks. Average John P.
Comment by john piziali — November 8, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
Alameda NayTiff’s attempt to frame the parcel tax question (in response to Dave’s comment about a $3000 Piedmont parcel tax) as an attack on those “with modest means” is misleading and unfair. In fact, due to California’s chronic under-funding of AUSD, the current AUSD parcel tax provides critical support for the most basic functions of the public schools. Good public schools help those with modest means as much (probably more) than those with more resources. Since one of the missions of the public schools is to serve and provide opportunities for our heterogeneous community, an attempt to dismiss the merits of a school parcel tax as part of some alleged “grand plan to make Alameda a homogeneous community” is backwards. If I were to sink to the level of Mr. Ronson’s posting in #29, I might even call it drivel.
AUSD has never proposed anything even close to raising to the AUSD parcel tax ten or fifteen fold, as those comments suggest. Though I don’t think 2/3 of Alameda voters would vote for **any** substantial increase (and certainly not any increase on that scale), my personal view is that the AUSD school parcel tax should be roughly doubled to be equivalent to the hospital parcel tax. One of the primary rationales for such an increase would be that our supplemental local taxes benefiting the schools (which improve the lives of children and the general quality of life in Alameda generally) should be at least roughly equivalent to our supplemental local taxes benefiting the patients of Alameda Hospital (which improves the lives mostly of the elderly (and perhaps the quality of life of in Alameda generally)).
Since Orinda and Piedmont came up on this thread, I thought it might be helpful to share what they are actually doing with parcel taxes. Orinda schools have a permanent $385 parcel tax. The Acalanes Union High School District that serves Lamorinda has a $189 tax expiring in four years. I believe Piedmont actually has two parcel taxes, which vary depending on the size and use of the property. If a parcel tax varying with the size and use of property is possible, it is certainly worth investigating further for Alameda, even ours would be only a fraction of anything Piedmont does. Based on his/her comment #2, perhaps a sliding scale parcel tax might even get Alameda NayTiff’s support. Under one Piedmont parcel tax, owners of single-family homes pay from $1,141 to $1, 937 annually. Under the other Piedmont other parcel tax charges owners of single-family homes from $418 to $710. So it looks like it varies from $1559 to $2647 in Piedmont.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — November 8, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
For background information here is AUSD adopted budget. You will notice 90% of AUSD revenues come from the state revenues (taxes).
http://mikemcmahon.info/FY0708AdoptedBudget.ppt
For background information on Measure A you can review this:
http://mikemcmahon.info/measureaback.htm
Comment by Mike McMahon — November 8, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
I would consider a sliding scale parcel tax based upon size and use. Please remember that my comments were directed at a proposal to charge a $3000 a year parcel tax.
I actively worked to oppose Proposition 13 as I thought that it was a bad piece of legislation that would cause significant damage to our schools. However, I fully understand why people voted for Proposition 13. The Governor and Legislature did nothing to stop the skyrocketing property tax burden that was driving seniors and those on the edge into hardship. In those days people dreaded having their property reassessed. At the last minute a competing measure was placed on the ballot, but it was too late and Proposition 13 remains the third rail of California politics almost 30 years later. I remember those days very well and the level of taxpayer anger was like a tidal wave.
If parcel taxes are abused, then they will likely face the same fate as property taxes and a proposition will appear on the ballot limiting their use. When people start talking about rapidly escalating taxes, then many will consider that the same as having their home taken away by the government. Remember the lessons of Proposition 13 or be doomed to a repeat of taxpayer backlash.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — November 8, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
Revolt Over Taxes
Time Magazine, June 5, 1978
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,916155,00.html
Sound and Fury Over Taxes
Time Magazine, June 19, 1978
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919742,00.html
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — November 8, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
For what it’s worth, I appreciate Alameda NayTiff’s clarification and analysis of Prop 13 in comment #34.
I don’t think the current AUSD parcel tax or any increase that AUSD might ever propose (including my personal preference for roughly a doubling as explained in comment #32) would cross into the “abuse zone.” I agree that a $3000 AUSD parcel tax would.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — November 8, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
So, Naytiff, am I a Nazi for wanting good schools? For recognizing the relationship between funding & school success? For realizing that a small investment in schools reaps great reward in property values?
Come on, go Godwin on me.
Comment by dave — November 8, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
And Mr. Ronson, please do cite an example of “drivel” from me.
Comment by dave — November 8, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
#37
You mention the high school parcel taxes in Piedmont and Orinda. Both are wealthy and predominately white communities. If your $3000 a year parcel tax ever becomes reality in Alameda, it would have an affect on demographics that would make Alameda look more like Piedmont and Orinda. You can call that affect what you want.
High parcel taxes may be viewed by parents as a good alternative to the cost of private schools; however, those of us who do not have children in the public schools would be paying a high price for that alternative. Besides a change in Alameda’s ethnic and racial composition, high school parcel taxes may draw more families with children to the island who see it as a good alternative to private schools. Demographics could shift to a city that is primarily young families with children. Witness what is happening in Edison. If that happens, the District would have to deal with a large increase in enrollment.
We are all for good schools. That isn’t the issue, but all public policy decisions have unintended consequences. Flat parcel taxes place an unfair burden on low and moderate income homeowners. A homeowner does not receive a financial benefit from rising property values until sale.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — November 9, 2007 @ 6:13 am
Quick question:
If you are old enough to have fought Prop 13, are you also a long term property owner who benefits from P13?
Comment by dave — November 9, 2007 @ 6:44 am
#40
I’ve owned several homes. My current home was purchased in the last five years.
I am not against increased public funding of the public schools. However, I am opposed to your specific proposal. It isn’t personal. I have no idea who you are; I only know you by your statements. If you put forward a proposal and receive criticism, perhaps you should re-visit your initial proposal and modify it.
Regarding Lauren’s statement, #30, I find that this aspect of Blogging Bayport to be the most disturbing. I don’t know how many times I have heard that this person or that person should just leave. It is a disturbing aspect of Alameda that somehow we can vote people off the island — and that sentiment seems to be present across the political spectrum. Regardless of how much I may disagree with someone I would never say, “Get Out!” The diversity of opinion is what makes Blogging Bayport and what makes Alameda.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — November 9, 2007 @ 7:31 am
Given the deathgrip of the state on school funding, what choice is there besides a parcel tax?
Comment by dave — November 9, 2007 @ 7:39 am
#42
No easy answers:
School Finance and Governance in California
http://irepp.stanford.edu/documents/GDF/summary-paper-final.pdf
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — November 9, 2007 @ 11:07 am
#26 Jack B. said: “Maybe there’s some way that parents can step up and help out the schools… and get something in return (better education.) Some sort of hybrid public/private education. The progressives will call foul if it’s not completely fair as not everyone can step up, so some would reap more benefits.”
Jack, I started a tangent about being grateful for your use of “progressive” relative to “liberal” as a pejorative, but it will have to wait. Yes, I think public education, preferably paid for with a “progressive” tax system, as pretty much being a keystone of a democratic society.
I don’t understand your reference to some reaping greater benefits in a public/private hybrid. Perhaps if individual schools within the district were funded by district parents, the more affluent districts would fair better? I would not favor any system where that was likely to occur.
Parcel taxes, especially flat taxes are regressive. Without a proper solution a little ($129) regressiveness as a compromise is not the worst thing.
Regarding public/private hybrid, see this web site forwarded to me:
http://www.orindaefo.org/
quote from the site:
“Today EFO, together with Parents’ Clubs and our local parcel tax, now underwrite 30 percent of the Orinda Union School District (OUSD) budget. We are also the largest voluntary funding source for Miramonte High School. This collaboration is essental to the success of our schools.”(typo theirs)
Ironically the pay scale in Orinda is relatively low, but I guess the kiddies are well behaved.
AEF is trying to mount a campaign to build a “legacy endowment” which if large enough would generate annual dividends which can be incorporated as a continuing funding stream. These can be used to offset essentials like salary, as opposed to one time donations which are harder to integrate.
Comment by Mark I — November 9, 2007 @ 11:39 am
Mark I, don’t mean to throw you off w/ the word “progressive”, I think I meant Liberals re: the fair comment. I am far from a tax wonk.
Let me break it down smaller w/ a hypothetical…. let’s say all of the parents in Susie’s class vow to quit their cable tv and infuse $100/month into a fund that pays for an extra teachers assistant 3 times a week in their class. The parents have decided to step up and improve the education for their kids. In the room next door, the parents of Joey’s class aren’t interested because there’s no peace in the barnyard w/out Power Rangers and Spiderman.
Would you be against it because it’s not fair to Joey’s class? or for some other reason?
Zoom out… let’s say the Edison folks want to step up for their neighborhood school and kick in 100/month/kid so that everyone in their district could go there. (they take it upon themselves to buy a double-decker modular or whatever).
Is that fair to Lum or Otis? maybe not… is it a good solution considering that Sacramento is out of our control and by the time you roll out a new parcel tax your kid is in middle school?
I’m totally open on this and I’m not trying to be idealistic. We’re just kinda stuck w/ 3 choices: public, private ($$$$), or Catholic.
There are good reasons for all of society to kick in w/ their taxes but there are even better reasons for parents to kick in because families are the real stakeholders here.
Comment by Jack B — November 9, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
The issue here sounds like there’s a kind of grey area as to what’s fair and what isn’t. Sure- kids that live in more affluent areas with more affluent parents tend to get better educations than those kids that live in less wealthy areas. From a fundamental perspective, this seems fair right? But in reality, the thought that there are kids out there that are at a disadvantage just for being born with less well-off parents seems a bit wrong.
With a more universal tax system where everyone feels the same ‘pain’ financially, this seems perhaps a bit more into fair territory. Besides- isn’t taxation about the advancement of community installations?
Of course the nasty white elephant in the corner remains to be Prop 13, which as we’ve said many times is one piece of legislation that’s had a negative impact on infrastructure maintenance.
I Don’t have any kids, but I would be more than glad to pay a bit more in taxes to help out local children.
Comment by edvard — November 9, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
Jack,
Maybe you misunderstood me. If you meant liberal in the current vernacular, I am disappointed, but forget about that for now.
I don’t think it is unfair to Orinda for Alameda parents to fund raise for their own district and not raise money to be sent to the state. So, I am not against parents at the classroom or individual school level taking care of their little number ones. But my personal choice is to save such contributions for the larger pot to benefit the greater number of kids at the district level, as per the legacy endowment.
There is a certain insularity from the over all societal issue when an affluent community like Orinda subsidizes their district to the tune of 30% and so is all the less likely to care about Alameda or Fremont struggling with the uneven ADA.
Likewise, when a given classroom or school covers their own need as their first priority before tending to the same needs as a systemic district issue, it detracts from the spirit of over all school community at a district level.
It’s one thing to fund raise for a class trip, and things like Close Up, or to volunteer in your own child’s classroom as an art docent or something, but now that I consider it, I would prefer parents work at the individual school or district level in order to encourage a sense of community at those levels.
Comment by Mark I — November 9, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Mark, I will forget about that for now…
I tip my hat to Orinda for doing what they can do and setting a good example. Why should they care about Alameda? Alameda should care about a model for success. (and don’t get me wrong, please, as stated before I’m surprisingly please w/ our public school experience so far.)
I appreciate where you are coming from — the greater good — but there’s something to be said about leading by example.
Not about taxes, but interesting article in today’s Economist regarding New York’s recent charter school success:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10104912
Comment by Jack B — November 9, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
Jack,
I’m not sure where you think Orinda’s example leads, or how.
What I think I infer is that you seek excellence in quality of education and by using all means to achieve it you would hope to set a positive example to be emulated.
I have in-laws from Orinda and have seen the accent of their children through their educations. I am very happy for their success, but it sets no pragmatic example for me to emulate as an Alameda parent. I do not have the marketable skills to compete with these very affluent people and it’s late for me to play catch up.
If I had the means to raise my family in Orinda I would have chosen Alameda anyway, because I have an aversion to the social milieu which dominates the other side of the tunnel and I value our diversity. (Cue for James Chen to ridicule “white liberals” here).
Comment by Mark I — November 9, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
I’m basing the good example on what you posted:
“Today EFO, together with Parents’ Clubs and our local parcel tax, now underwrite 30 percent of the Orinda Union School District (OUSD) budget. We are also the largest voluntary funding source for Miramonte High School. This collaboration is essental to the success of our schools.”
I’m assuming that means the parents are voluntarily kicking in some extra dough. Maybe I misunderstand. But this is what I mean by a good example.
I’m with you… if money was no object I’d still choose Alameda. At Lum, these kids are truly colorblind and it’s amazing to see. I’m not worried about competing w/ Orinda, my point is only that parents could make up some funding shortfalls w/ a little bit of sacrifice (cable tv is my favorite example.) By kicking in, they would/should be more empowered to ensure that the $$ is being spent in the right place instead of going through the admin machine. I don’t want to spend years helplessly cranking on the insufficient tax arrangements.
And yes… I believe excellence in quality of education should be goal #1.
Now… we could always privately hire a tutor to enhance kids education but I’m thinking a little bigger and would like to see the class do well… and then the school do well… and then the district do well. I’m bottom up!
Comment by Jack B — November 9, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
Jack,
The quote from the Orinda site was just a teaser because the amount of the private budget subsidy is so astounding, but I don’t think that is a standard we should emulate or expect the average district to match. It is an anomaly in an affluent community, as is a $2647 parcel tax in Piedmont.
Tangentially, this is fascinating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Comment by Mark I — November 9, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
Please excuse the formatting:
Inequitable by any measure.
http://irepp.stanford.edu/documents/GDF/summary-paper-final.pdf
“Differences in spending across
California districts are substantial
and not systematically tied to costs,
needs or demands. Despite a court-ordered
school finance equalization
plan, there remains a wide variation
in spending across California school
districts. The difference in total expenditures,
excluding capital outlays,
in a district at the 25th percentile of
spending and a district at the 75th
percentile of student-weighted spending
is more than $1,000 per student.
The system could still be considered
equitable if spending patterns effectively
accounted for differences in
local needs. In fact, however, district
poverty level, racial and ethnic
makeup, urban status and district
grade span explain only a small portion
of the variation in spending.”
“The data available on spending and
achievement in California schools is
not sufficient for assessing the effects of
dollars on student outcomes. The relationship
between dollars and student
achievement in California is so uncertain
that it cannot be used to gauge the
potential effect of resources on student
outcomes. Figure 3 illustrates this
point. It plots district API scores as a
function of per pupil spending in 2004-
2005, and finds essentially no relationship
between the two. There are a
number of possible reasons for this lack
of relationship. One is that the data are
too poor to find a relationship even if
one does exist. For example, there are
likely to be differences in learning
across schools and districts that the
simple API measure does not capture.
Alternatively, because of the inefficiencies
in the governance system, there
may, in fact, be little relationship between
dollars and student outcomes.”
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — November 9, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
I am new to this discussion, but I was a bit surprised that a community as wealthy as Alameda appears to be couldn’t come up w/ a other $100 or so per property to fund the schools. It’s clear that people here don’t consider themselves “affluent”, but with homes going for $700K, it kind of looks like it. And yes, I know there are many older homes, long term residents, renters, but there’s also plenty of new residents buying more recently bought homes, often families, I think they’d want to support better education. Also, fyi, I don’t have kids.
Comment by BigDot — November 11, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
Well, Tiff, that’s all great but we’re trying to keep some schools open, eh?
Comment by Jack B — November 11, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
# 53
What if the 700k for homes dropped to 70k in Alameda and income stayed the same, would you rich guys consider yourselves poor? Probably not, neither do we non-rich who bought our houses years ago consider ourselves wealthy just because real estate property prices increased. Real estate price increase doesn’t increase my income one whit and doesn’t give me the ability or desire to bleed cash every time (yearly at least) the octopus of the school financing uncoils its tentacles.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 11, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
http://irepp.stanford.edu/documents/GDF/summary-paper-final.pdf
The study found no relationship between district funding per student and API scores. The public school finance system is so flawed that there is doubt as to whether additional funding would be of any help without significant school reforms.
“Finally, we cannot emphasize
enough that asking the question, “how
much money will it cost to achieve
State goals for students?” is meaningless
without also asking “how can we
develop a system that makes better use
of whatever resources are available?”
California is so far from achieving its
student outcome goals that marginal
policy changes are unlikely to produce
the desired outcomes. Instead such
progress requires a new approach to
reform, an approach that allows state,
district and school decision-makers to
improve their practice and thereby to
enhance the opportunities afforded
California’s students.”
The study did find a negative correlation between the percentage of students in subsidized school lunch programs and API.
Perhaps API scores are measuring a community’s income level more than teaching success? Do rising API scores increase property values or do rising property values increase API scores?
School is only one part of a child’s education. Children born to wealthier (and better educated) parents have more educational opportunities outside of public school. Church and Sunday School also provide educational opportunities. Formal public school education is only one piece of the educational package.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — November 11, 2007 @ 9:16 pm
Summit called to address racial disparities in academic performance
Nanette Asimov, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, November 12, 2007
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/12/MNH8T5LTC.DTL
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — November 12, 2007 @ 6:54 am