On Friday after much brouhaha from the anti-Measure A (parcel tax) campaign folks, threatening protests and picket lines at the League of Women Voters campaign forum about the parcel tax, Alameda SOS the pro Measure A campaign decided that they would pull out of the LWV campaign forum as well.
Susan Davis covered the sequence of events on In Alameda, highlights:
The whole controversy started last weekend, when the League sent out a notice describing the event to both Alameda SOS and CAMA. In it, the League detailed the format: a 30-minute presentation on the school district’s finances by the district’s chief financial officer, Robert Shemwell, then presentations by both sides.
Representatives of CAMA took offense at the format and immediately fired off a press release claiming the forum was “biased” and “unfair,” because the LWV was giving proponents extra time by allowing Shemwell to “advocate” for the tax. If the League didn’t give opponents extra time, CAMA secretary Leland Traiman threatened in the release, “we will drop out of the forum, and instead picket the forum and hand out leaflets at the entrance.”
Under state law, government employees can’t “advocate” for political causes. But in a written statement sent to In Alameda Wednesday night, the LWV said that Shemwell was invited so that he could present factual information regarding state budget cuts and the parcel tax, as well as answer questions from the audience. This format — factual presentation first, then pro and con presentations — is standard fare for LWV forums.
“We are not departing from our time-honored tradition of providing the facts and an opportunity to hear both sides in a format that stresses equality and opportunity for the community to ask questions,” the LWV statement noted. “The League is very disappointed at the mischaracterization of our announced format for this meeting.”
Susan Davis later goes on the decsribe how the LWV attempted to accommodate the concerns of the Committee Against Measure A (CAMA) and allow both sides to review Robert Shemwell’s presentation and take five additional minutes to address the material there, CAMA decides that rather than playing nicely, they would take all their toys and not play at all.
Personally, I think that Alameda SOS should have continued as normal and not allowed CAMA to dictate how and where the campaign gets its message out. CAMA wants to picket and protest, let them. If they want to cry foul at every little slight that they feel is unfair to them, let them. If they want to play the victim, let them. That is in fact the basis of their campaign. They are no longer able to play the “AUSD sucks!” card, or the “bloated administration card” or the numerous other tactics that they have seemed to employ in the past.
It appears as though CAMA thrives on creating drama and conflict by leveling accusations and alleging improprieties. But honestly, this is the tactic that CAMA’s leaders have taken for every other campaign and every other issue that they have been in opposition to, so why should we be shocked and surprised now. The worst thing to do is to indulge and further validate their behavior.
I haven’t seen much campaigning from SOS outside of the usual facebook and street signs- passive campaigning. Are they going to start calling us incessantly with high schoolers on the other line?
Comment by E — January 31, 2011 @ 7:36 am
I’ve noticed that the LWV fears transparency, why is that.
Comment by Dr.Poodlesmurf — January 31, 2011 @ 7:46 am
Anybody know the rationale behind setting an upper limit on the proposed parcel tax for businesses but not for individual home owners?
Isn’t it true that businesses will be paying less under the proposed tax, while most of us will see an increase?
Comment by Huda L — January 31, 2011 @ 7:51 am
Why does LVW allow male spokesmen??
Good question Huh!!
Comment by Dr.Poodlesmurf — January 31, 2011 @ 8:21 am
“… LWV said that Shemwell was invited so that he could present factual information regarding state budget cuts and the parcel tax,”
Seems to me, in order to hear both sides, the LWV should have invited an economic expert to present factual information regarding the overall economic outcome of raising taxes during a severe recession.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 31, 2011 @ 9:27 am
It’s nice to have opinions, Lauren, like a certain odoriferous body part, everyone does. But a debate is about facts. Alameda SOS (so cute!) is preying on feelings and sentiment, and ignoring facts. Nobody on CAMA asked your pals to pull out of the LoWV debate. They chose to quit dramatically when the egregious slant of the format in their favor was exposed.
Please explain: if the schools in Alameda benefit everyone equally, why does everyone not have to contribute to their support equally? Conversely, why should we all have to contribute equally when only 16-18% of Alamedans utilize the AUSD?
Comment by Adam Gillitt — January 31, 2011 @ 10:16 am
“It appears as though _____thrives on creating drama and conflict by leveling accusations and alleging improprieties. But honestly, this is the tactic that ______leaders have taken for every other campaign and every other issue that they have been in opposition to, so why should we be shocked and surprised now. The worst thing to do is to indulge and further validate their behavior.” Just fill in the blanks with your favorite group, blogger, or blogsite contributer and this paragraph works equally well!
Comment by Denise Shelton — January 31, 2011 @ 10:43 am
Adam, can you please clarify what you mean by this?
>>> 16-18% of Alamedans
I believe you have your facts wrong.
Comment by Jack B. — January 31, 2011 @ 11:06 am
You might want to check with Trish Herrera Spencer, Jack… http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_16586786
Comment by Adam Gillitt — January 31, 2011 @ 11:11 am
also, you owe me a reward for my funny tweet.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — January 31, 2011 @ 11:13 am
Here are some of the facts, why I am voting NO on the parcel tax.
I am a small business owner who also owns a small commercial building. In 2008 Alameda voters passed measure H by fewer than 40 votes.. This parcel tax raised my property tax by $1,100. The new tax , measure A, will increase my tax by another $500. That’s $1,600. that I can ill afford to pay. The small commercial property owners are not getting the big discount, the big property owners are receiving from AUSD.
We are paying 32 cents per sq. foot , while the shopping centers and the marinas are getting a big brake. Svendsen’s marina, is saving more than $3,000. per year, no wonder he endorses this tax. Another marina, whose owner complained bitterly in front of the BOA in 2008 that one of his parcels went from $100. per year to $ 9,500. , is getting an even bigger deal, he now pays just $299. No wonder he too is endorsing measure A.
There are business owners that will pay no tax, like the Bladium and all the City owned property leased to private businesses. Those are the businesses that are openly endorsing the parcel tax.
After the failed measure E campaign and all the harassment business owners had to endure, we are now so intimidated, that no one will speak against this tax. Thank God, our voting is still private and secret.
There are many seniors in Alameda, that easily could pay the tax, yet they are exempt. Why not exempt low income people only. We certainly have quite a few in Alameda according to the need the food bank has. I find it undemocratic and un-American, that seniors can vote on a tax, they don’t have to pay. There are many families in Alameda struggling to make ends meet and living from paycheck to paycheck. For the majority of homeowners, the tax will double and for some even quadruple.
We all have to live within our means, let AUSD do the same.
Comment by The smart voter — January 31, 2011 @ 11:23 am
Adam, here is Trish’s quote:
“The problem is that parents make up just about 16 to 18 percent of our community,” said Spencer, who added that business property owners must support any new tax for it to succeed at the polls.
– - – -
Add in their kids (unless you don’t count them as people, which seems to be your angle) and parents + students = xx%?
Safe to say 30% of Alamedans are directly affected by the schools? Somebody have a better number? More or less?
I saw your tweet but I have to confess that I don’t understand it, so I can’t say whether it’s funny or not.
– - – -
Dear The Smart Voter, with all of the debt that older generations have dumped upon the backs to today’s school-aged children, at least find it in your heart to grant them the opportunity to acquire the skills to pay your debts for you. Thank you.
Comment by Jack B. — January 31, 2011 @ 11:47 am
2, 4: League membership – and leadership positions – are open to all registered voters, including men. I have been a LWVA member for years.
As to transparency, the LWVA advocates for it all the time and is not at all “afraid of” transparency. If you want to know something about the LWVA or its activities, feel free to contact the LWVA here:
http://alameda.ca.lwvnet.org/contact.html
You may have better luck using your real name and contact info than your handle here. Doing so would be more transparent, too, in case you want to walk your talk.
Comment by Jon Spangler — January 31, 2011 @ 11:48 am
AUSD students vote and pay taxes now?
Comment by Adam Gillitt — January 31, 2011 @ 12:13 pm
Why don’t you run for head woman, Jon? If you win maybe you could change their brand to something less sexist…like maybe league of sexless voters maybe.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 31, 2011 @ 12:15 pm
Adam, above in #6 you stated:
>>> But a debate is about facts.
>>> why should we all have to contribute equally when only 16-18% of Alamedans utilize the AUSD?
My point is that your facts are wrong, because SUBSTANTIALLY more Alamedans utilize the schools than you stated above. Or do you contend that because youngsters cannot vote or pay taxes (yet — they are most certainly on the hook for the spending of voters before them) that they do not count as Alamedans?
Comment by Jack B. — January 31, 2011 @ 12:25 pm
Either way you look at it Jack, the majority of Alameda, whatever age they may be does NOT utilize the AUSD.
What I am trying to point out is the language doesn’t match. If the schools are a benefit to everyone (and I actually think they could be) then everyone should support them equally. That’s all.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — January 31, 2011 @ 12:31 pm
Adam in post #6:
>>>It’s nice to have opinions, Lauren, like a certain odoriferous body part, everyone does.
Your post in #17 is 100% your opinion only. **could** and **should** are the tipoff words. Adam, your contempt for breeding brings to mind a little ditty I wrote about 14 years ago… http://holeworld.com/news/
Comment by Jack B. — January 31, 2011 @ 12:47 pm
It would be really interesting to see a chart of annual spending and number of students, year by year for the last 25 or 30 years for AUSD.
To my mind, if the annual cost/student showed anything less than 5% compound growth, that would be a good argument for A. Over that, a good argument for AUSD to consider some restructuring.
Comment by John Busby — January 31, 2011 @ 12:49 pm
contempt for breeding? whuck?
Comment by Adam Gillitt — January 31, 2011 @ 12:59 pm
11. I am not going to argue with anybody who finds the tax a burden and feels they must vote no on that basis. $1600 is $1600, however you also offer zero context as to operating cost profit, over head, etc..
I am self employed and run a minimalist operation because the burden of having a standing crew of employees is too stressful of a balancing act. In my line of business (construction) workman’s comp costs are extremely high compared to positions such as an office worker, as is liability insurance proportionally more expensive based on risks inherent to the business ( personal injury and general mayhem).
I pay a few thousand dollars a year in bare bones overhead but this year the EPA has mandated that all remodelers and others who work on older buildings which may contain lead must take a class (at a cost of $300 from private company), and then register with EPA for $300 fee for which we get essentially no service other than threat of over $30,000 fine, should we get busted for substandard work or not being registered. the fee and cost of refresher courses are recurring. It feels like blackmail.
I offer that specific anecdote as context, to illustrate that the costs of doing business vary wildly from business to business, and those costs often seem capricious and arbitrary. It’s hard to make perfect alignment to weigh one situation against another, particularly without context. We have no context to weigh the impact of your $1600. You may reap great benefit from Prop 13 on your commercial space but may also have a laundry list of seemingly dubious and burdensome costs like the EPA fee.
A second point is that all other issues of fairness aside, the rhetoric of “living within means” is often used in an overly simplistic manner, especially when lacking context.
There are real costs attached to operating a public school system effectively. At a certain point, if the means are reduced enough, education simply can no longer take place.
The notion that any system should “live within it’s means” period, while ignoring any context of circumstance in which might inform a realistic and nuanced discussion of what it takes to run such a system is flaccid and meaningless.
In my mind, a rational discussion would not leave 100% of the responsibility on the district to cope with whatever money is available no matter how meager, so when people make blanket statements about living within means I assume that they lump blame without regard for any facts, and generally have no regard for the value of public education in a greater context than their wallet.
I might have greater empathy for your personal situation if I knew more from reading your blog post, but faced with the choice of basic sustenance for a public education system versus slapping a $1600 tax of unknown impact on the back of a person who states the case as you have, I will chose schools every time.
Comment by M.I. — January 31, 2011 @ 1:22 pm
#21
Of course you will choose public education, is not your wife a teacher at Alameda high?
Comment by the smart voter — January 31, 2011 @ 1:32 pm
Schools, like police and fire services and potholes getting filled are a basic community service and need. An educated electorate is needed for a democracy to flourish. In our country, we have accepted support of schools by all as a common good. It is not “pay to play”. Any business will tell us that an educated and well trained workforce is an important part of the economic engine that helps our community to thrive. Whether you want to vote on “A” or not, the concept that somehow only those with kids in school should pay for them is nuts. Something like “I never had a house fire, so I don’t want to pay for fire-fighters” or, “I have never been arrested or been a victim of crime, so I shouldn’t have to pay taxes that support the police.”
Comment by Kate Quick — January 31, 2011 @ 2:10 pm
re 23 What a misdirect. you’re well over 60, Katie Q, and you know you’re not going to pay a penny, so you’ll campaign til you’re red in the face for A.
What is it about the concept of “if the schools are equally important to everyone then everyone should support the schools equally” is causing normally civil people like Jack B.’s brain to seize?
Comment by Adam Gillitt — January 31, 2011 @ 2:19 pm
After much work to attempt to be able to put on the forum it is definitely cancelled. Pro and Con information is available on the League of Women Voters web site http://www.alameda.ca.lwvnet.org This material may be downloaded. If you wish printed copies, please contact us via the web site.
Comment by Kate Quick — January 31, 2011 @ 2:19 pm
Excuse me, Adam, but my husband and I have never asked for an exemption for a school bond, nor will we. We are believers in public education; have both been the recipients of excellent educational opportunities in the California Schools and Universities, and believe in the social contract. No misdirect, and please don’t tell me and others what I do or think unless you have asked me first.
Comment by Kate Quick — January 31, 2011 @ 4:57 pm
do people realize one of the draws of living in Alameda is not the cranky old nimbys or the politicians that yell at old ladies in public, but the great schools? and without the great schools then Alameda will just be a whiter Oakland with Victorians?
Comment by E — January 31, 2011 @ 5:33 pm
26.
To me the “social contract” does not extend into the process of educating one’s children. Those are family matters, and should not be under the purview of government.
What you’re are talking about is a coercive contract, not a social contract.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 31, 2011 @ 6:05 pm
I do not think so, Jack. Any more than I think that our children, who we raised and sacrificed for have any right to deny their role in helping us when we are old and gray. My parents and grandparents paid for my education in public schools; I pay for the generation to come. Society benefits as a whole from an educated populace. Remember the ghost of Christmas future in the Dicken’s classic, where the two wraith like children appeared from beneath his robe: “This child is ignorance; this one is want. . .” If you want to pay far more in providing for those who are ill educated and cannot support themselves, then deny our children an education, and by the way, deny industry workers who can read manuals, think out problems, compute, etc. Ask business how important good schools are to where they locate. Ask real estate people what folks are paying premium prices for in the neighborhoods they choose. It is both a social and an economic engine and must not be starved because a bunch of folks think they got theirs and have no responsibility to insure that anyone else benefits. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Comment by Kate Quick — January 31, 2011 @ 6:51 pm
Jack you cannot really mean that. what happened? did you skip the last few centuries? You sound like a social Darwinist. Once upon a time the rich hired tutors for their children and the poor sent their’s to work. That was called “a family matter.”. Thomas Jefferson called for an educated electorate. It is indisputable that public education fulfills that value. A “coercive” contract is by it very nature illegal. Parcel taxes are not illegal.
Comment by Hot R — January 31, 2011 @ 7:25 pm
Obviously, you don’t think so. But under your shotgun description of reasons for placing education under the exalted state of “social contract”, you would also place every law/ordinance passed past and future from not talking on a cell phone while driving to regulating salt amounts in food would be part of the social contract. In other words, rendering the true meaning of a “social contract” meaningless.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 31, 2011 @ 7:30 pm
Hot
The rich still hire tutors and the poor send their kids to anyone that will take care of them at no charge, that’s called a matter of fact.
Not paying your taxes is, indeed, illegal.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 31, 2011 @ 7:36 pm
I’m confused. Do the anti-Measure A folks posting here (particularly Mr. Gillitt and Mr. Richard) honestly object to the specific structure of the parcel tax, or are they just against the concept of tax-supported public education in general? It sure seems like the latter, based on the comments above.
Opposition to public education generally, rather than to the details of a specific tax, is obviously a more radical position and likely a harder sell politically, but c’mon guys – be honest and have the courage of your convictions! I wouldn’t agree with you, but at least I’d respect you.
Comment by Aaron Rubin — January 31, 2011 @ 8:25 pm
Jack is for social contracts that pay or subsidize him, like SS, Medicare and Prop 13. He was also (prsumably) for public education when his own children were receiving it. But he opposes any social contract that costs him a few hundred bucks a year (or 3 minutes to fill out an exemption form).
Comment by dave — January 31, 2011 @ 8:55 pm
The forum is cancelled.
Comment by Kate Quick — January 31, 2011 @ 8:59 pm
To answer your question Aaron (I can’t speak for Jack’s point of view)- I fall into the former camp. As I have said time and time again- if the schools are something we all benefit from equally, then we should all pay for them equally. This parcel tax is not structured in such a manner. I am in favor of fairness and equality in all our public systems.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — January 31, 2011 @ 8:59 pm
Adam, very few of the taxes that we pay — whether property tax, income tax, or otherwise — are assessed and distributed exactly equally.
I pay more property tax than my neighbors with similar houses, largely due to Prop 13. I pay more income tax than some, and less than others, as a percentage of income due to progressive tax rates.
On the receiving end, I wouldn’t even know where to begin to figure out how much value I receive for my tax payments compared to others who pay a similar amount.
The point is, taxes are paid to support the general welfare, not as a fee for specific goods and services that you receive. It’s part of being a citizen.
Now, obviously, taxes can be grossly unfair, and in those cases we can and should object. But with Measure A, there was an open and fair process involving a lot of hard work by a lot of smart people acting in good faith, and the result is a reasonable compromise that isn’t perfect, but certainly is not grossly unfair to anyone.
There are things about it that I don’t love about it — things I would have done differently if it were up to me — but I am realistic enough to know that perfection is unattainable, particularly where you have a lot of competing interests.
I get the feeling that you are using lack of absolute perfection as an excuse when, in fact, you would not support any parcel tax under any circumstances.
Perhaps you can prove me wrong by describing an alternative tax structure that you would support that is legal, provides at least the same amount of revenue, and that balances the various competing interests as well as, or better than, Measure A.
Comment by Aaron Rubin — January 31, 2011 @ 9:13 pm
#37 — Don’t forget one other important criteria. The proposed tax has to have a realistic chance of getting 2/3 of the vote.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — January 31, 2011 @ 9:36 pm
33/37
Honestly Mr. Rubin, I am for taxes related to educating 1st through 12th grade education that would allow the parents of the children in question decide who and how their children are educated. In other words, I would be for channeling tax proceeds to the parents and let them choose who they want to educate their children If Measure A furthered that concept I would be for it. I do not support an education system who’s raison de etre is to further empower public employee unions.
As far as your # 37 is concerned, your last line has it in a nutshell, “… prove me wrong by describing an alternative tax structure that you would support that is legal,…”. Therein lies the amusing conundrum. The beast of the state legislature has locked 1st -12 education financing into a situation where any reasonable alternative is not legal.
In my view the only way to kill the beast is to starve it to death.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 31, 2011 @ 10:08 pm
Jack, it wasn’t the “beast of the state legislature” that enacted Prop 13, which is the main thing standing in the way of more rational school funding. But I’m glad to hear that you and I agree that Prop 13 should be repealed!
Comment by Aaron Rubin — January 31, 2011 @ 10:30 pm
22. anonymous person who knows about my personal details but about whose business, life etc. we readers know nothing other than $1600 is your tax burden under Measure A, yes my wife is a teacher at AUSD, but so what? what do you imply is my selfish motive? My motive is actually based on my fundamental belief ( which has aa basis far beyond my wife’s occupation)
Comment by M.I. — February 1, 2011 @ 4:40 pm
CONTINUATION OF 41. I have a fundamental belief in the importance of public education as a foundation of democracy and that belief is shared by my spouse, which is part of her motive for taking a huge pay cut to teach modern world history, so that 10th graders might learn the progression of historical events which lead us to this mess, and perhaps as adults be better prepared to deal with the long term solution.
Passing Measure A is not about feathering our nest and if that is what you imply you are under a severe mis-impression. Almost 14 years ago my wife left a position as full partner in a law firm making well over $100,000 to teach in this district at a starting salary well below $40,000 ( I want to say $36,000). She has only been making over $60,000 for two years.
The furloughs last year took away about 4% of teacher income. If the tax does not pass, teachers will simply quit. I know of a new teacher in the district in a subject in demand who as a 14 year veteran is also making just over $60,000 and likes teaching at AUSD, but this person was looking at an opening in another district which paid $18,000 more than Alameda for the same job. The message people like Wise Voter send a teacher like that is to take that other job.
I will repeat my point in 21., there are real costs attached to providing a sound public education and all your whining and misguided emphasis on public employee salaries being the problem, or cutting them being the solution, are terribly misguided. You cannot expect to retain even mediocre teachers, let along good or excellent teachers, if you expect them to take the brunt of every budget short fall and stay in the profession ( yes they are professionals) for dirt wages.
Supposedly Wise Voter, why not be honest and have the guts to admit that you don’t give a rats ass about public education or the long term impacts of having a competitive workforce in the future?
Comment by M.I. — February 1, 2011 @ 5:01 pm
Bogus and common arguments on this thread: “You went to public schools, so you should support them now, totally!”
And this: “Everyone in. The community benefits from. The public schools, so everyone should support them.”
Both arguments ignore how much public schools, the teachers, and student outcomes have changed, or not, during the past 50 years. AUSD teachers, thanks to their unions, are earning much higher salaries and benefits, over $100,000. In many instances, with total job security, (tenure), no matter how effective they are. And in Alameda, proficiency scores of the students are mediocre, not excellent, no matter how much the parents kid themselves.
Moreover, schools on the West End, generally, fare much more poorly than schools in the Gold Coast and on the East End. Prop. 13 has nothing to do with it, anymore than high salaries guarantee teacher dedication and hard work.
M.I., while an intelligent and articulate contractor, has a family bias he can’t escape, so while I respect his point of view, I don’t trust it for a hot minute!
Comment by Dennis Green — February 1, 2011 @ 5:12 pm
No on Measure A has now co-opted the space at the library for Thursday night. Interesting development.
Comment by Kate Quick — February 1, 2011 @ 5:18 pm
43
Isn’t “modern world history” an oxymoron?
Comment by Jack Richard — February 1, 2011 @ 5:42 pm
42
This is exactly why I do not support the current brainwashing that masquerades as education.
“…so that 10th graders might learn the progression of historical events which lead us to this mess, and perhaps as adults be better prepared to deal with the long term solution.”
Comment by Jack Richard — February 1, 2011 @ 5:48 pm
Repeal Prop 13 and only.rich people will be able to own houses. Rents will skyrocket as the taxes on big apartment building will now be assessed on the current, million dollar values instead of the couple hundred thousand they are currently assessed at. I have discussed this issue on this forum before, but it did not sink in with most of you. I ask again, why should I, who bought a 420 sq ft studio cottage in 1999 at a reasonable price of 102,000.00 have to pay the same amount of property tax as my neighbor, who bought her 420 sq ft but spectacularly remodeled cottage for 339,000.00. She works for a major pharmacutical company while i work as a library aide. Due to furloughs last year my gross salery went from 33,000 to 31,000. My take home is 24,000. I pay about 3,000 income tax and 2,400 property tax. Home owners pay taxes for transit, trails, sewers, vector control, park safety, lead abatement, urban runoff, ebmud wetweather, 298 dollars for the hospital, and, of course th schools.Funding schools
Comment by Michelle — February 1, 2011 @ 9:36 pm
Sorry got cut off, funding schools through property taxes is a crappy idea anyway, leading to gross inequities in our systems. Encouraging people to look at low income homeowners as deadbeats or freeloaders for not being able to afford higher taxes or saying we are “subsidized” by Prop 13 is not likely to win us over to your side. I was tending to vote for the new measure because my taxes will probably go down, but I feel sorry for the people who live in bigger houses whose taxes will go up. Also, I was recently violently assaulted and robbed by 2 juveniles, whom I am sure are students of Encinal High, which does not kindly dispose me toward Alameda students in general and leads me to believe my current tax contributions are not being well spent.
Comment by Michelle — February 1, 2011 @ 9:52 pm
47, 48. You seem like somebody who is very difficult to satisfy. Last time your problem was paying the same tax for a cottage as the person in the mansion under E. Now you feel sorry for the guy in the mansion under A.
Same with blaming schools for getting robbed by kids you assume are from Encinal. In direct proportion to the veracity of that correlation, don’t expect things to improve if Measure A fails.
The saying, life isn’t fair is not an excuse for all life’s inequities, but it also seems to be a fact of the human condition. Since taxes and infrastructure are human constructs it may be reasonable to question the inequities which we have embedded in these systems and their delivery, but another apt saying is that everything is relative.
A resident a country like Norway, which tales greater collective responsibility for general welfare, might think paying 14% percent of income for the litany of services you mention (and many others)is a good deal, or they might be resolved in accepting their much higher tax rates because in addition they get full health care, security in retirement, free education per-school through university, etc..
I appreciate your transparency in including real details of a real household to make your point. Much better than Smart Voter. Many school supporters might cringe at my having made specific reference to teacher salaries in 42 because such discussions can so easily devolve into futile relative comparisons, thus deflecting focus from the central need to maintain education standards.
On the other hand I forgot to include that in my household we pay over $10,000 a year for our portion of AUSD health care benefit, which just by itself is about 15% of the teacher salary from which the benefit is derived. (yes, there is a much smaller additional district contribution). As for my annual contribution toward that health benefit from which I as a dependent receive coverage, 2009 was the worst year for construction for me in 30 years and pretty much the same for all my associates. I made about $26,000 gross salary BEFORE deducting overhead like liability insurance licenses, bond, etc. Michelle, be thankful that as a library aide you at least have some reliable continuity for income and budget forecast.
But like I said, these comparisons quickly devolve into futility. Nobody owes any of us a living. But in 41 and 42 I was trying to be transparent through specifics as a credible response to 22 which infuriated me, because I am sick of teachers having to apologize for trying to make a living with relatively minimal compensation for professionals doing a job which is generally much more challenging than most people seem to acknowledge.
Comment by M.I. — February 6, 2011 @ 11:13 am
43. take my comments with whatever grains of salt you require, but to question them as trustworthy seems to ignore some basic facts. Obvious bias is one thing, but I am not a liar.
Since you seem so hung up on proficiency as a worthy benchmark of teacher competence I’ll refer you to the post I made in the thread about getting bang for our buck:
““First off, using student scale scores (or raw scores) instead of simply the percent of students proficient provides more information about the quality of the schools’ output. Using such a binary system as percent proficient to evaluate the productivity of districts can mask important outcomes.”
Teaching is not co-parenting, though I manage to over hear a lot of evening phone calls to the homes of students who are struggling. Most teachers are too busy with their own lives to read to go to their students homes to before bedtime. For for these whopping salaries, maybe we should require that.
I find the degree of responsibility you and others lay at the feet of teachers for things like proficiency, so called achievement gaps, and in the 48 above, delinquency, to all be grossly misplaced.
I don’t trust your arbitrary and rather loose citations of things like fiscal impact per year for teachers. My observation is that you have a regular habit of employing the highest statistical amounts quoted erroneously as averages and otherwise playing fast and loose with the few statistics you do cite in your rhetoric. But we should trust you, right?
Tangential to the local debate, since you are a former employee of the state education system I wonder about your activism in lobbying the appropriate authorities for reform in such areas as the recent executive pension deal in the UC system, compared to your your zealous dedication to undermining local school funding.
Comment by M.I. — February 6, 2011 @ 11:23 am
45. I think most teachers would tell you that the course title would better be Modern European History, as the official curriculum is pretty biased toward the European culture being the center of significant history. But most of these educators go above and beyond the minimum effort to a) explain this irony to their students, and b) expand the in class curriculum to embrace the context of the greater world.
46. Is the above description brainwashing and how would you know anyway, unless you’ve been in a classroom lately? Excuse my hurried and perhaps misleading statement injected with my personal bias about things being a “mess” (like they’re not?), but my point is that teachers are trying to discuss relatively recent past (last 1000 years) events as they correlate to current events, in order to foster enough critical thought about connectivity of events so these kids can better cope with the complex world we face, comparing , contrasting and questioning circumstance attempting to invoke critical thinking process. I stated on another thread how I’m bugged when people demand apologies one another, but I am offended on behalf of these teachers by your unfair brainwashing reference. Should they just turn on CNN and Fox News and call the job done?
45. care to explain what is “oxymoronic”? If history is tracking a linear progression of events into the here now, then I guess we must include the fact that each moment giving birth to history as a continuum, including these mundane exchanges.
Is it brainwashing to try to get kids to consider that history is not some static fossil knowledge, but instead that we breath life into it with imagination and emperics? Most of us recognize all journalists have natural bias for which, if they are competent, they compensate to render relative objectivity. Should teachers have an even higher standard? or perhaps go through screening to match the ideology of their students parents?
Comment by M.I. — February 6, 2011 @ 11:58 am
“Is it brainwashing to try to get kids to consider that history is not some static fossil knowledge, but instead that we breath life into it with imagination and emperics? Most of us recognize all journalists have natural bias for which, if they are competent, they compensate to render relative objectivity. Should teachers have an even higher standard? or perhaps go through screening to match the ideology of their students parents?”
Comment by Jack Richard — February 6, 2011 @ 1:52 pm
Feeling sorry for people living in mansions is perfectly acceptable to me. If you paid a reasonable price for said mansion at one time, that is, what was affordable to you at that time, you should not be asked to pay the same amount of taxes as someone who voluntarily paid overinflated prices for a house. When you pay $825,000 for a bungalow you agree to pay the taxes that go along with it, there is no reason that someone who paid $20,000 for a similar sized bungalow should be forced to pay sky high taxes as well. If you want to live in a place where everyone pays high property taxes, move to Norway, or Piedmont. Alameda is a mixed income city. Or how about you support a plan to build only mansions on Alameda Point so that we can rake in the tax dollars from the millionaires.
It is actually property owners who are subsidizing everyone else. How about we levy a tax fee on every adult living in Alameda, based on their income. As for feeling sorry for people who live in large houses whose taxes will go up, but who might not be able to afford them, and who may have to lower their standard of living or have to sell their houses, I do. Measure A as it is planned, looks to lower my tax considerably, though.
As to my being assaulted and robbed by who I believe to be Encinal students, are you one of the multitudes in Alameda who think that all Alameda kids are angels and that all the bad kids come from Oakland to commit crimes? If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it a thousand times, “The bad kids are bused in from Oakland.” If it is true it is still criminal on the part of the Alameda school system, but I don’t believe it is only Oakland students committing crimes. Since I was robbed, I, and my neighbor, have had our mail stolen as well, which leads me to think that the kids who robbed me are walking by our houses every day on their way to McDonalds and are stopping by to steal more credit cards and netflix than they got when they robbed me of my purse.
Comment by Michelle — February 7, 2011 @ 1:08 pm
Michelle, if extracurricular activities and sports programs are cut for students (see Plan B), do you think that will increase or decrease youth crime?
Comment by Jack B. — February 7, 2011 @ 1:57 pm
So the kid who used to play the violin’s going to start carrying a tommy gun in his/her violin case.
What you are implying Jack, is that sports and other extra cirric activities are just as another method of crime control? (maybe the district $ shortfall should come out of the police budget)
Got some Alameda research stats on before and after sports were instituted to support that possibility?
Comment by Jack Richard — February 7, 2011 @ 2:31 pm
I forgot Jack, your kids are all grown up so nobody needs school programs anymore.
Comment by Jack B. — February 7, 2011 @ 2:39 pm
55. Jack, sometimes people use just plain old common sense. I know that its better for kids to have something to do after school that is positive rather than nothing. We don’t need research facts to prove an issue like the one you are trying to defend.
My own experience was that if I wasn’t playing sports after school I was out screwing up somewhere.
Comment by John piziali — February 7, 2011 @ 3:05 pm
I have more than common sense about this, but maybe not stats. I used to help run a crisis shelter for at risk youth. This isn’t rocket science. Kids need stuff to do.
Sure, for many of us this isn’t a problem. I pay a lot of money/month for my kids’ activities outside the school. But some of their classmates? Their parents are losers. Sorry, but it’s true. Some of these kids are smarter and already better educated than their parents. And their parents don’t have the slightest clue or inclination to help them get involved with after school activities. Jeez… don’t make it harder for them. School programs are the only chance they have.
Comment by Jack B. — February 7, 2011 @ 3:12 pm
That’s the way it works here. Question an assumption and you’re automatically on the receiving end of scurrilous attacks.
56/58. My kids didn’t participate in school supported after school activities, so I guess I’m one of those “jeez” parents.
57. I’m not trying to defend any issue, merely questioning assumptions which, I might add, appear to be all anecdotal.
58 “… don’t make it harder for them. School programs are the only chance they have.” Only chance for what?
Comment by Jack Richard — February 7, 2011 @ 3:38 pm
Jack B. I think that Jack R. is jerking my leg so I’m just not gonna buy into it. I will leave it to you if your interested.
If it weren’t for our “scurrilous attacks” Jack R. wouldn’t be on this site, it would be no fun.
Comment by Jon Piziali — February 7, 2011 @ 3:48 pm
John, John, shame! You know me better than that.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 7, 2011 @ 6:01 pm
59
In the several dozen class years your kids were in AUSD, none played a sport? None was in a play or joined a club or helped out with the yearbook? Nothing at all?
Comment by dave — February 7, 2011 @ 6:17 pm
62
It’s interesting. My nephew just graduated from Alameda high. He loved basketball, was a good player, wanted to play on the Hornet varsity team Wasn’t chosen. Said the coach was only interested in win/loss record, didn’t give a hoot about kids who didn’t make the cut.
He thought he had an inside shot at a decent college in Southern Cal (not playing basketball, obviously). Wasn’t chosen. I told him all along he should join the Marine Corps. His mom wouldn’t hear of it. He joined the Coast Guard.
Point is, after school activities are fine for some but let’s not pretend they’re the holy grail of school life. School is there for one reason, to teach kids how to read, write and do some numbers. Everything else is fluff.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 7, 2011 @ 6:42 pm
Just a little update on the “special” forum held by the anti-Measure A folks when their hijinks caused the League to cancel a balanced forum and they took over the room previously scheduled for that at the library. The folks I talked to said they had about 20 people and presented only their side and it appeared that the attendees were just about all anti-Measure A folks to start with. All that drama and negativity with likely zero converts to their side. Do you think they learned anything from that?
Comment by Kate Quick — February 9, 2011 @ 8:58 am
So it must have been, Dennis, Jack, Adam, Leland, ED, David and fourteen others that Dennis brought from the bar he hangs out at. I wonder if those other fourteen actually vote or were they there just for the free beers afterwards.
Comment by John piziali — February 9, 2011 @ 3:40 pm
the quote was 16-18% are PARENTS, not use AUSD! That should include kids going to Chinese Christian school, charter, Catholic (2 elems +high),Head-Royce, other out of town private/parochial. So the 18%estimate for AUSD should be HI not low. Did all U pro-A folks flunk arithmetic?
Comment by huahine — February 11, 2011 @ 4:25 pm