Posts
On June 3, we’ll be deciding whether to approve Measure H, which calls for a four-year, $120 per year parcel tax on homeowners for Alameda’s schools. Proponents of the measure say it is necessary to preserve programs in the face of more than $4 million in proposed state budget cuts to the school district; opponents question how the money will be used and say the state’s inequitable funding formulas should be fixed instead. Bill Sonneman and Tom Pavletic have kindly provided us with arguments for and against Measure H, which are listed below. You can view the text of the measure here. It requires a two-thirds “yes” vote to pass.
In favor of the parcel tax, Bill Sonneman:
The proposed AUSD budget cuts are a result of an unfair, complex state school funding system. Waiting for the state to rework the system will prove detrimental to Alameda schools.
Districts throughout our state are rallying to save school programs. Alameda has a chance with the passage of Measure H to help ease our funding woes. A parcel tax will not solve the funding crisis, but will delay further cuts and give our school community time to keep pursuing the equalization of funding that Alameda schools deserve.
All proposed cuts will hurt not only today’s students, but future students as well. For 12 years, I served our district as principal of Wood Middle School and Encinal High School. Test scores rose at both schools. Wood became a California Distinguished School and Encinal's API scores increased more than 150 points. The proposed cuts would make it difficult, if not impossible, to continue the programs that enabled these results.
Students need athletics, music, AP classes and academic assistance. School enrollment will certainly decrease if these programs are compromised or eliminated. As a high school principal, I emphasized school pride, reminding students to allow their actions to exhibit pride. As community members, allow your YES vote for Measure H to exhibit pride in Alameda’s public schools.
Bill Sonneman
Retired Principal, Encinal High School
And for the opposing view, Tom Pavletic:
Yes or No. All thought and action distills to that one choice on the ballot. How one arrives at that choice depends on the information they have about the tax issue and how they value that information. Based on what I read in the news media and hear from others, not many voters know, for example, that some district employees received salary increases on January 1 and are slated to get additional salary and benefit increases July 1 and December 1. My goal is to provide information to voters that is relevant to the Yes/No choice and is not being provided by others. The information in the nine points that follow is factual information or questions about the information.
1. The school district wants you to believe that cutting core programs and academic instruction or raising taxes are their ONLY options. They are NOT. In fact, throughout this “budget crisis” employee salaries and benefits have increased and will continue to do so.
2. The district already assesses homeowners a $189 parcel tax PLUS a $235 tax (for a $500,000 home). For a newer home in Alameda, the two existing taxes plus the new $120 parcel tax could total almost $700 per year! Housing in Alameda will become even less affordable than it is now.
3. The district’s current budget is about $78 million for about 9,800 students, over $8,000 per student. The district’s spending per student is more than the K-8 tuition at the Chinese Christian School or St. Joseph's Elementary School.
4. How is an expenditure increase of $9.5 million transformed into $7.7 million of budget cuts? A recent letter from Ardella Dailey, school district superintendent, states the district “… has cut $7.7 million from [its] budget over the last seven years ...” But financial data submitted by the district to the California Department of Education (CDE) show district expenditures increased from $71,164,000 in 1999-2000 to $80,702,000 in 2006-2007 (see http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/). How do seven years of budget cuts result in increased expenditures?
5. Salaries and benefits have increased $15.3 million from $51,149,000 in 1999-2000 to $66,452,000 in 2006-2007, a 30% increase (see the CDE website). A temporary 3% cut could provide about $2,000,000 in revenue. Eliminating the salary increase of two months ago could add about another $200,000. Instead of a “temporary” tax, why not a “temporary” decrease in salaries and benefits?
6. This new tax will fund additional salary and benefit increases. School district employees will continue to get salary and benefit increases during this “budget crisis.” There were salary increases on January 1. Additional salary and benefit increases are scheduled for July 1 and December 1.
7. The district wants to raise your taxes to increase their paychecks. High school principals – who work 10 months per year – have a top salary of $115,000. That amount does not include generous benefits. What is your salary and benefit package?
8. The state’s school system revenue agreements have been broken for decades. Dublin students receive almost $1,000 per year more from the state than Alameda students. Why has this inequity continued since the Navy base closed? Why aren’t protesters leading the fight to eliminate THIS VERY REAL INEQUITY? With about 9,800 students it could result in nearly $1 million per year!
9. The state should allocate the same amount for the education of each child no matter where they live. Another tax on Alameda property owners will not fix the state’s broken financing system or motivate the district to fundamentally change their operations.
Tom Pavletic
Board Member, 400+ Unit Alameda Homeowners Association, and Business Owner
Ed. note: Tom Pavletic's views are his own.
So there you have it. What do you think?
7 Comments:
Tom - do your comments represent the view of the Homeowners Association of which you are a board member? If not, then don't imply that they do by listing that in your byline.
Taking your points in turn:
1. No-one has said these are the only options. They are the only options we can realistically pursue in the timeframe of this current crisis.
2. The relative effect of these taxes on the overall affordability of a home in Alameda is negligible. House prices are softening, and a weakening school district would push those prices further south. For homeowners that is a far bigger consideration than a $10 per month addition to their tax bill.
3. That's not an apples to apples to comparison. Private schools are not held to the same mandated requirements as public schools. If you compare AUSD to other public school districts, it compares favorably on this and just about any other parameter you mention.
4. Of course expenditures went up between 1999 and 2007! If you take an average rate of inflation of 2%, then that alone would account for an increase from $71 million to $81.5 million in this 7 year period. Or do you think the school district is somehow immune from inflation?
5. You state this as if teacher's take-home salary has increased by this amount. Any employer will tell you that the cost of healthcare alone has grown by a massive amount in the time period you quote - far greater than the 2% rate of inflation I used in my prior example - and that accounts for a large chunk of the increase in cost of salaries and benefits. Besides, Alameda teachers are not particularly highly paid - go check the average salary compared to other districts and you will see they are paid less.
6. This tax fund will be used to retain staff. Contracts with the unions are what they are, regardless of this tax.
7. Alameda's high school principals are paid at market, or arguably below market rate. Relative to some jobs, they are well paid. Relative to others, they are underpaid. What is your point? The libertarian undercurrent in your arguments suggests you understand how the free market works.
8. I completely agree that the state's funding system is broken. Fixing it will take far longer than the timeframe in which we have to pass this parcel tax. We cannot jeopardize the education of Alameda public school pupils and the quality of our school district while we work to fix this at the state level. Both actions need to be taken, this is not an either-or choice.
9. I disagree that all children should receive the same amount of state education funding no matter where they live. Regardless, the main point you're making here is that the parcel tax won't fix the state's financing system. No-one is claiming that it will, so I'm not sure who you're trying to pick a fight with on that point. This isn't an argument for not passing the parcel tax, it's an argument for continuing to pursue reforms at the state level.
Andy - assuming the parcel tax passes on June 3rd, are you prepared to lead the charge on Sacramento for long-term structural changes to the education funding system? Are you prepared also to press the school board to dig deeper into options to pass-through more redevelopment money from the CIC to the school district?
My concern, as you know, is that none of these other issues will get examined after this parcel tax passes, and we'll be back for another parcel tax next year, with nobody really working the structural issues.
David Howard:
The District has been engaged in the work to change the long-term structural changes to education funding system. But much like the existing State legislation on redevelopment which you taken up the charge to change, progess is incrementally slow.
As a member of the "400+ Unit Alameda Homeowners Association" Tom P.'s comments do not represent my views nor of others in the community.
Based on the data presented above, the school district spent $71,164,215 in aggregate in school year 1999-2000. That figure is expressed in year 2000 dollars, so in order to compare the $71,164,215 aggregate against $80,701,685 aggregate for 2006-2007 (which is expressed in year 2007 dollars), you need to adjust the $71,164,215 aggregate for inflation.
If we go to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, we see that the index for the mid-point of 2000 was 170.8 and the mid-point for year 2007 was 205.7 ( http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?cu).
So, voila: $71,164,215 ($2000) = $85,709,131 ($2007). In other words, between 1999-2000 and 2006-2007, AUSD expenditures in aggregate fell by $5 million, from an aggregate of $85,709,131 in 1999-2000 to an aggregate of $80,701,685 in 2006-2007.
Now, you will notice the repeated use of the word "aggregate." Per pupil comparisons are more appropriate than aggregate comparisons since the number of students and corresponding revenues and spending fluctuate from year to year. In other words, we need to analyze costs on an "average daily attendance" (ADA) basis.
In 1999-2000, AUSD's ADA expenditure per Ed Code 41372 was $6,925 ($2007). At that time, the District was slightly below the statewide average for unified schools (i.e. all schools including those in the Central Valley), or $6,935. By comparison, Albany and Piedmont had ADA expenditures in 1999-2000 of $7,837 ($2007) and $7,686 ($2007) respectively. To be sure, these cities more than likely self-assessed themselves an amount to put them at their respective amounts in 96-97. But the point remains that, when compared against the state or what many agree to be quality bed-room communities in the East Bay, Alameda ranked below.
Since 1999-2000, particularly in school year 2003-2004, AUSD worked diligently to bring itself up to par with the state and comparison areas. The parcel tax helped out immensely in this effort. Thus, in 2006-2007, AUSD's ADA expenditure was $8,466. Yet, the District continued to trail the state ($8,499) if only slightly, was somewhat behind Albany ($8,511) and, like many others, far behind Piedmont ($10,510).
In looking at inflation-adjusted data over a ten-year period from 1996-1997 to 2006-2007, the picture that emerges is one of a school district that lagged considerably behind the state and comparison areas for much of that period. While it was able to play catch-up in 2003-2004, the District again found itself in fiscally-challenging situations, most recently compounded by state decision regarding school funding.
Indeed, if you look at the data from California Department of Education ( http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/welcome.asp), you will what some might consider unsustainable reductions in school capital outlays (cost center 6000-6999), starting in school year 2002-2003. In other words, AUSD was able to play catch up in 2003-2004 from years of underfunding (particularly from 1996-1997 through 2002-2003) by, among other things, cutting back on capital outlays, which averaged $1.9 million a year between 1996-1997 and 2001-2002. In 02-03, 03-04, 04-05, 05-06, and 06-07, capital outlays amounted to $176,800, $140,400, $19,475, $8,591, and $55,733 respectively. How long this can be sustained is anyone's guess, and perhaps there is a good explanation for this. But the long and the short of it is that the school district has cut to the bone.
While empirically the AUSD spent more per ADA on an inflation-adjusted basis in 2006-2007 than in 1999-2000 (i.e. $8,466 versus $6,925), this underscores how far the District has come and how much further it must go to deliver quality educational services on par with the state in general and nearby bedroom communities in particular.
http://daysog.info/AUSD_Expenditure_Trends.xls
Post a Comment