As I posted the other day, the Committee Against Measure E (CAME)/Alamedans for Fair Taxation (AFT) have been using the kitchen sink approach during this campaign. Not allowing facts or good analysis of data get in the way of their messaging that Measure E is just horrible and awful and will only serve the elitist East End families who — could all probably afford private schools for their children — instead have evil machinations to force all Alameda property owners to pay for THEIR kids in some twisted evil plot to make little old ladies lose their homes and send business to India.
One of the “facts” that came out of CAME/AFT’s campaign was the revelation that Alameda has the 2nd and 3rd highest Administrators and Services Staff per pupil. Of course when one actually looks at the data, it was pretty clear that CAME/AFT simply read the chart incorrectly. When eventually confronted with this by commenter Matt Parker, CAME/AFT quickly backpeddled and asked people to look at a different set of data:
See in the middle, after Matt Parker points out what the data actually means, CAME/AFT asks him to instead view the data using the comparison of Pupils per administrator.
Meaning, as pointed out by Matt P., that he is asking us all to compare a metric to the same metric. The common thread between all three of the school districts is the number of Pupils per Administrator, if you are going to make the assertion that AUSD has an unusually high number of Administrators, you can’t simply pull out examples that are equal to within +/- 5% and say that your conclusion is sound. Because it’s not.
As shown by this slide, when compared to similiarly sized school districts, AUSD runs on the lean side when it comes to administrators and staff.
Although the good times just keep on coming from the CAME/AFT campaign, this was one of the most recent messages posted:
An anonymous “supporter” stating the opposite of what the lawsuit against Measure H (and potentially Measure E if it passes and Edward Hirshberg makes good on his promise to keep on keeping on).
I am unclear on how the “rich and the poor” can be taxed “by the same amount” but at the same time not be uniform as CAME/AFT have claimed and is at the base of the lawsuit against Measure H. But I suppose when you are trying every argument out there, there is no time for internal consistency.