|
Serving Eastside Union High Schools |
|
Save Our Schools |
|
From: Fensterwald, John Thanks, Diane, for the excellent notes and rap. Get it up on youtube. Coincidentally, Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters writes today about the move to do the split roll to charge businesses more for property taxes -- the issue that Dave raised. http://www.sacbee.com/walters/story/1815088.html?mi_rss=Dan%20Walters ... it would take a big grass-roots effort to move the split roll forward either by initiative or through the Legislature. John
John Fensterwald editorial writer San Jose Mercury News W: 408-920-5541 C: 408-391-3068 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- Hi Diane, Thanks, these notes help and your comments are good. It looks like our bus trip will be June 1st. I should know for sure by tomorrow... Dave Cortese
—————————————————————————————————————
Hello, I attended the Town Hall meeting last night (April 27th), and thought I'd type up my notes for those who were not able to attend. Please realize these are just one person's interpretation of what she thought she heard!!! Please don't shoot the messenger, and I may have gotten info incorrectly, in which case...all the more need for YOU to attend, if you didn't, next time! Perhaps these notes can serve as the start of a dialogue on further education/clarification of the problems and potential short-term and longer-term solutions. The forum for that dialogue, however, is unclear!
Panel participants: ------------------------------- Dave Cortese (moderator) Bruce Berg (representing CTA) Jerry Dyer (representing ESTA) Maliha Ahmed (absent...CFJ - there were some students from this org present) Bob Nunez (Superintendent, ESUHSD) Tim Tom, (Community member) Frank Biehl (Board and MP parent of a freshman)
A San Jose Mercury News editorial writer (didn't get the name, John somebody) was also present in the audience and briefly spoke about the ballot measure. I was pleased to see many students - across all of the high schools - in attendance. Many expressed concerns about their teachers, the curriculum, what kind of education they will be able to get, etc.
(As an interesting note which also underscores some of the communication challenges we have in our district, MANY of the people in the audience had to have translation assistance and several brought up the issue that the notifications they receive from the school/district on issues are often not received by non-English speakers, either because they are not translated into their languages, or are only communicated via technology they don't use, or are too last-minute to accommodate their work/childcare challenges).
Topics ------------- 1) Proposition 13 is really one major reason we are where we are today. The money that districts get from the state are determined based on pre-prop 13 property tax assessment formulas. Much of our district was farmlands, quite rural, so our "pot of money" reflects that kind of low property tax base. Our ADA is currently in the $6K per student range. As an example, Palo Alto is around $15K per student (so, at pre-prop 13, their property tax base was much higher). All of the new development/additional property taxes in our district have not been re-factored in to create EQUALIZATION to our "pot of money", according to the panel speakers. Two ways to address. One is to get the state to change this. My assumption is that the reason we haven't been able to do this is that the money we would then get would be taken away from others (this is just my assumption, I raised my hand to ask the question but I wasn't seen) who must have more of a voice to our legislature than we do? The question of why this isn't a "no-brainer" to correct wasn't really addressed, although one person in the audience questioned the amounts (and large ADA gap) represented. That individual stated their research had shown that the equality disparity had been "fixed" by various legal proceedings over the years, and that the disparity was now pretty level... another question that wasn't addressed on why this hasn't been fixed was why this equalization issue isn't an issue for other school districts, such as the elementary school district out here (or is it?). Another way to address this from a different angle is to change how current property taxes flow to the school. I believe the specific issue is that COMMERCIAL property taxes have not kept up with residential (commercial doesn't turn over as often, so the adjustments don't happen).
An interesting side-note on one reason ESUHSD hasn't had as big of an issue in the past from this equalization issue was representing by Bob Nunez as being that the district sold off some property awhile ago and was "living off" of a big check from that, which I believe has now been completely consumed.
2) There was discussion about the bond measure that has already passed, as people have said why can't we use that money. That money can ONLY be used for buildings and facility improvements. So, we can have nice new building and nice new fields, apparently, but no teachers to teach in the new building and/or no-one playing sports on the fields. (Sorry, I couldn't resist being catty)...but it is true, we can't touch these funds for other things the district might need more.
3) We will likely get stimulus dollars in the near future. But even if/when we do, that will only be a stop-gap measure, not a long-term fix for our district.
4) I think one of the great things about our district is its diversity. But clearly, there is a challenge for us within our student demographics as well. 40% of our students (I believe this statistic was high school students versus all students, and I believe it was our district versus all of Calif) are "English language learners", meaning, they don't speak English as the primary language in their home. That makes it very difficult for the district/school/teachers/parents to communicate with each other and I believe the speaker was making the point that our costs are higher because of that? Also, we have 10% of our students being "Special needs" kids, which by law, requires more expense. The speaker referred to these demographics issues as "unfunded mandates", where the school is told they have to provide the education for kids but is not given additional funds. The "No child left behind" act was also brought up as an unfunded mandate.
5) The 2/3 majority rule in California was brought up as a large issue, as it makes getting things passed by the legislature near impossible. The speaker, I believe it was Frank Biehl, said something to the affect that "8 representatives" were basically in control of the budget because of this majority requirement. Even if Californians move to get rid of the 2/3 vote requirement, the lead time on that would be a min of 18 months.
6) The idea of a parcel tax was briefly mentioned. I believe the attitude of this was that it would work as a band-aid to meet some immediate need, but that it doesn't fix the problem longer-term and could be perceived by voters as "fixing" things. Someone said a parcel tax was being kicked around by the "Save our Sports" group as a possible strategy.
7) The Ballot Measure for the upcoming Special election was discussed, and the SJ Merc News editorial writer discussed the newspaper's endorsement of a YES on at least the first 3 propositions. The panel's general consensus, at least those who expressed an opinion was that the propositions are not perfect, but without them things will be a lot worse (how much worse, no-one knows, obviously...). The challenge was how to get the word out, the school/district apparently is not allowed to make an endorsement or publicize anything on the election? My own two cents on this is that most people in the community are oblivious to what the special election is really about and how dire the situation is for ESUHSD if 1 and 2, in particular, are not passed.
8) Dave Cortese mentioned he is once again making an annual trek to Sacramento via bus, the provides a wonderful forum for people to talk to government officials about our specific issues. He did not mention the date. Californians For Justice (CFJ) also mentioned they are making a bus trip on May 13th. Cortese and others reinforced the impact that community members make on Sacramento officials. he said it is one thing for he or officials to talk with Sacramento, but if voters - especially if you can get petitions signed by GROUPS (Home owner associations, PTAs, church groups, sports groups, etc) of voters, they really take notice.
9) I mentioned at the end that there wasn't a real good way for us to all "keep on the same page"...communications and various websites were very splintered. There is a SOS website, but it was very sparse on info when I registered on it a few weeks ago, and the forum part was a software package I have never used (I apologize for using the phrase, "the website sucks")...I thought something easier that people were familiar with would be better, like yahoo groups. Also, I don't know what restrictions that cite might have on the ballot measure stuff, if any? I don't know. But bottom line is that when the group left the meeting, there wasn't really a way to communicate other than we left our email addresses for the organizer. I think we need a website where community members can go to post/share info, etc. What about the District 8 Round Table cite? (although, does the entire ESUHSD fall in District 8? probably not, that would make too much sense!)...suggestions?
10) Other misc comments by the audience that are worth noting. Communication to the community must be stepped up, on both the "state of the district" but also on how the state of our schools impactsthe community! Many people seem to have an attitude of "doesn't impact me" for a variety of reasons. I say that if we elevate our public schools, we elevate our community. Period. One lady said even within their own high school people really didn't have info on what was going on, and it was worse outside of the actual school community. Another couple of comments was made relating to the need to address the language barrier better so that more people know what is going on and how they can help.
——————————————————————————————- I suspect a lot of the ESUHSD financial woes are as much spending and financial management problems as funding problems. Did you know that the average Silver Creek High School teacher has about 15 years teaching experience and earns about $85,000 to $90,000 plus incredible benefits for working up to 192 days per year? And many also earn more in overtime pay. That's great for the best teachers, but appalling for mediocre ones. The District also must pay tons in retiree benefits because the benefit sites show extremely low retiree percent contributions. I expect the administration and District level expenditures might be surprising. Who actually investigates it? Diane thank you so much for the update I was not able to attend last night and was very curious as to the how it went. For those that did not attend and would like another opportunity to attend there will be another forum: Save Our Schools Town Hall meeting on April 30 at 6:30 p.m. at National Hispanic University in the Auditorium, 14271 Story Road, San Jose. Please join us as we will be discussing education funding. The community will be given an opportunity to ask questions.
Just a few comments:
ESUHSD has taken great strides in communicating to parents/guardians in 3 languages: English, Spanish and Vietnamese. The Teleparent message that goes out to families is via phone as well as internet (School Loop) in all 3 languages. These meetings are also attended by translators who are available for parents and families as well. The school sites have been very proactive in accommodating non-English speaking families by providing coalition groups and ELAC groups to help families understand issues and answers questions. More families need to be more proactive in attending these meetings.
Prop 13 has been the Districts worst nightmare. But the spending within has been a problem as well (General Budget). How did we get 23 Million in the Red?? Is this all from State cutbacks or a combination of overspending and cuts?? It certainly does not help that Districts are always second guessing the State Budget Allocations a year before they see actual Allocation figures. You might want to explore the Budget Reports in the Board Docs located at: http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/esuhsd/Board.nsf Attending DAC meetings would help in understanding the Restricted Funds that we receive for Special Ed and Categorical Funds (English Learners, GATE). The Interim Budget combined Report for 2008-09 was $77,923,537. This money is restricted but does not impact the General Budget and is used to fund programs for Special Ed, English Learners and GATE. No Child Left Behind is another issue. Many of the mandates for NCLB did not come with resources to implement them. I like the idea of a Posting Board for questions and ideas but then you need someone to step up to create it and man it. Something to throw out there to the School Board…Patricia Roach is a huge proponent of more parent/guardian communication in all languages.
One thing is for sure if these measures do not pass the District is looking at more cuts. From my stand point I don’t know how the District will be able to function next year with all the cuts they have made. Most being in support staff, approximately 60% of the overall cuts. Just a few things to think about.
Angie Nunn Chair DAC DELAC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Diane, Becky Pounds ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Diane: Ed finance is very complex, and some of what was said last night about equalization was off the mark. Rather than correct what was said, go to the source of information. Here is a primer I found useful from EdSource. If you can stand reading any more about this, see http://www.edsource.org/pub_cat.html The definitive studies on school finances were done two years ago by a group led by Stanford Professor Susanna Loeb. You can find the list of them at http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance-studies.htm Look for her summary of the work that she did. "District Dollars: Painting a picture" and check out the summary. The point is that there are inequalities in what districts receive. I am not sure where East Side Union fits in, because it does receive money for low-income kids outside of the revenue limit. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
Please send comments or concerns to Webmaster |
|
Did you get on the bus to Sacramento and demand accountability from our legislators? Co-sponsored by Supervisor Dave Cortese
Extra-curricular Activities Committee—EVHS Community Association… addressing issues related to extracurricular programs in education. |