From the Foundation for Pleasant Hill Education:
If you missed the delicious and enjoyable Oak Park Restaurant Walk or you'd like
to repeat the experience, this is your chance! Be sure to attend the:
Downtown Restaurant Walk
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
6:00 - 8 :00 PM
Crescent Drive, Pleasant Hill
Support the Pleasant Hill public schools by sampling and enjoying the
food specialties of:
Chipotle
Daphne’s Greek Café
Juste le Debut
Monsoon Masala
Pasta Pomodoro
Shaadzee Bakery
Sweet Tomatoes
Bubbles and Crepe
Coco Swirl
Jamba Juice
and more!
There will be live music and activities for children.
Purchase tickets at these locations:
Online at www.fphe.org
Online at www.pleasanthillchamber.com
$20 Adults, $5 Children (ages 5-12).
Bring canned goods and your gently used clothing to the Downtown Restaurant
Walk for the Food Bank of Contra Costa/Solano. Look for the collection bins at the event.
The Downtown Restaurant Walk is sponsored by the Pleasant Hill Chamber of Commerce.
Proceeds from the event benefit the 11 Pleasant Hill public schools through the
Foundation for Pleasant Hill Education (FPHE).
We’re looking forward to another wonderful community event. We’ll see you there!
Questions? Email generalinfo@fphe.org or info@PleasantHillChamber.com.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Comment Problem
Over the last few weeks we have been experiencing a problem with commenting. I believe it is corrected, but several comments have not made it through.
June 30, 2009 Agenda
Tonight, June 30, 2009, the MDUSD Board will meet at our headquarters at 1936 Carlotta Drive, Concord. The open session will begin at 7:30 PM. Click HERE for the agenda.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Equity (or Lack Thereof)
At the board meeting last Tuesday, I spoke about some of the inequities in school funding. I have had several requests for more information on this topic. The below is certainly somewhat of a simplification due to the fact that there are multiple law suits and changes from the legislature that have occurred over the years, but I think this captures it pretty well.
Prior to 1972, California school boards had the ability to control their revenue. By adjusting the local property tax rate, a simple majority of any given school board could raise or lower the revenue in the district. The result of this system was that there were great disparities in the funding of school districts between rich communities and poor communities. In 1972, the California Supreme Court ruled that these disparities were not allowable and required that the legislature create a solution to the problem that would result in funding did not vary more than $100 per student between districts.
The legislature’s response was to take away all taxing authority from school districts and shift the funding to the state level. The state’s plan was to then slowly begin equalizing the districts. The state did so by setting each district’s “revenue limit” per pupil at approximately the amount the district had spent the year before, with the plan to make adjustments in future years. This plan was largely foiled by Proposition 13. Prop 13 did what the legislature had done to school districts to all other local government agencies. Prop 13 eliminated 57% of the property tax revenue the state collected, created the 2/3 requirement for parcel taxes and equalized everyone’s tax rate, but it interrupted the equalization process. In addition, Prop 13 allowed any school district that generated local revenue in excess of the “revenue limit” to keep the money. These districts were originally called “basic aid” districts (because the state still provided a little funding (about $120/student). Now they are called “excess revenue” districts as their revenue exceeds the revenue limit amount.
There are basically two categories of inequity in school funding: 1) inequities between revenue limit districts based on varying revenue limits and parcel taxes; and 2) inequities between districts that are revenue limit and those that are “excess revenue.”
It is a bit of a tangent, but I think it is important to understand how some school districts can collect local revenue that exceeds their revenue limit. There are two factors that allow districts to glean excess revenue from their community. First is that typically in these areas, assessed values are on the high end. The more assessed value, the more property tax that is paid. Second, in these areas, a larger percentage of their tax revenue is dedicated to local schools. In other words, a larger portion of a larger pie results in there being more local revenue for schools, revenue in excess of what the district would otherwise get in its “revenue limit.”
The next issue is upon what basis should districts be compared? There are two major categories of funding for the district, restricted and unrestricted. Generally speaking, restricted revenue is given to a district for a specified purpose. Typically, this specified purpose represents an additional burden that the district must bear. For example, it is well known that it is more expensive to educate English language learners and low income students. They simply need more support. Accordingly, a district may be given money to support these needs, while another one, which does not have that need, does not get the money. A simple example of this (although one that does not hit the general fund) is free and reduced lunch. Mt. Diablo provides free and/or reduced lunch to 33.4% of our students, while San Ramon only serves 2.0% of its population. If MDUSD has a huge chunk of state and federal money to provide these lunches, does it provide a source of funding that should be looked at in comparing district revenues? The answer is clearly no – each district gets the amount of money that is needed to fund that need, but we should not include such funding in a comparison.
In addition, it simply makes sense to compare the revenue that the district has the ability to make decisions with. If we have restricted money that is dedicated to a particular purpose, can I use that money to save programs (like Class Size Reduction, music or sports) or to save positions outside of that specific purpose or to raise the sub-competitive salaries of our employees? Obviously not.
So what does all of this mean? When we look at the hard numbers, what kind of disparity is there? It is drastic. I will, at some point pull the data for Marin and Santa Clara, but I don’t have it handy, so I will only provide a few examples in those counties, but I have the entire comparison for Alameda.
Below is a chart that shows the per pupil amount of unrestricted funding per pupil for all districts in Contra Costa and Alameda (these amounts include parcel taxes whether or not the district lists the parcel tax in its unrestricted or restricted revenue as the board actually controls what is put on the ballot). As you can see, MDUSD is $925 per student below the average. This represents a shortfall of about $32 million below the average (when multiplied by MDUSD’s ADA). (Click on the chart for a larger version or HERE for a PDF version).
The chart below shows the comparative revenue that other districts have compared to MDUSD. MDUSD is shown as $0. The amount shown for each district represents their per pupil amount multiplied by MDUSD’s ADA. (Click on the chart for a larger version or HERE for a PDF version).
As you can see, MDUSD is very close to the bottom and districts have as much as $140,000,000 (comparatively) per year than MDUSD.
I will provide a few examples from Marin and Santa Clara so that you can see the great disparities.
Palo Alto Unified, Unrestricted Per Student = $11,773 or a comparative $188,000,000 more per year than MDUSD.
Mountain View – Los Altos, Unrestricted Per Student = $10,546 or a comparative $169,000,000 more per year than MDUSD.
Tamalpais Union High, Unrestricted Per Student = $13,092 or a comparative $256,000,000 more per year than MDUSD.
Reed Union Elementary, Unrestricted Per Student = $11,358 or a comparative $197,000,000 more per year than MDUSD.
As you can see, the disparities are enormous and unfair. What needs to happen is that all districts need to be put on equal footing.
UPDATE: Here is an article that indicates some funding may be taken from "basic aid" districts. We should be fighting to get all districts equalized. The article indicates that employees in one of the districts are getting a 3% raise.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/746652.html
Prior to 1972, California school boards had the ability to control their revenue. By adjusting the local property tax rate, a simple majority of any given school board could raise or lower the revenue in the district. The result of this system was that there were great disparities in the funding of school districts between rich communities and poor communities. In 1972, the California Supreme Court ruled that these disparities were not allowable and required that the legislature create a solution to the problem that would result in funding did not vary more than $100 per student between districts.
The legislature’s response was to take away all taxing authority from school districts and shift the funding to the state level. The state’s plan was to then slowly begin equalizing the districts. The state did so by setting each district’s “revenue limit” per pupil at approximately the amount the district had spent the year before, with the plan to make adjustments in future years. This plan was largely foiled by Proposition 13. Prop 13 did what the legislature had done to school districts to all other local government agencies. Prop 13 eliminated 57% of the property tax revenue the state collected, created the 2/3 requirement for parcel taxes and equalized everyone’s tax rate, but it interrupted the equalization process. In addition, Prop 13 allowed any school district that generated local revenue in excess of the “revenue limit” to keep the money. These districts were originally called “basic aid” districts (because the state still provided a little funding (about $120/student). Now they are called “excess revenue” districts as their revenue exceeds the revenue limit amount.
There are basically two categories of inequity in school funding: 1) inequities between revenue limit districts based on varying revenue limits and parcel taxes; and 2) inequities between districts that are revenue limit and those that are “excess revenue.”
It is a bit of a tangent, but I think it is important to understand how some school districts can collect local revenue that exceeds their revenue limit. There are two factors that allow districts to glean excess revenue from their community. First is that typically in these areas, assessed values are on the high end. The more assessed value, the more property tax that is paid. Second, in these areas, a larger percentage of their tax revenue is dedicated to local schools. In other words, a larger portion of a larger pie results in there being more local revenue for schools, revenue in excess of what the district would otherwise get in its “revenue limit.”
The next issue is upon what basis should districts be compared? There are two major categories of funding for the district, restricted and unrestricted. Generally speaking, restricted revenue is given to a district for a specified purpose. Typically, this specified purpose represents an additional burden that the district must bear. For example, it is well known that it is more expensive to educate English language learners and low income students. They simply need more support. Accordingly, a district may be given money to support these needs, while another one, which does not have that need, does not get the money. A simple example of this (although one that does not hit the general fund) is free and reduced lunch. Mt. Diablo provides free and/or reduced lunch to 33.4% of our students, while San Ramon only serves 2.0% of its population. If MDUSD has a huge chunk of state and federal money to provide these lunches, does it provide a source of funding that should be looked at in comparing district revenues? The answer is clearly no – each district gets the amount of money that is needed to fund that need, but we should not include such funding in a comparison.
In addition, it simply makes sense to compare the revenue that the district has the ability to make decisions with. If we have restricted money that is dedicated to a particular purpose, can I use that money to save programs (like Class Size Reduction, music or sports) or to save positions outside of that specific purpose or to raise the sub-competitive salaries of our employees? Obviously not.
So what does all of this mean? When we look at the hard numbers, what kind of disparity is there? It is drastic. I will, at some point pull the data for Marin and Santa Clara, but I don’t have it handy, so I will only provide a few examples in those counties, but I have the entire comparison for Alameda.
Below is a chart that shows the per pupil amount of unrestricted funding per pupil for all districts in Contra Costa and Alameda (these amounts include parcel taxes whether or not the district lists the parcel tax in its unrestricted or restricted revenue as the board actually controls what is put on the ballot). As you can see, MDUSD is $925 per student below the average. This represents a shortfall of about $32 million below the average (when multiplied by MDUSD’s ADA). (Click on the chart for a larger version or HERE for a PDF version).
The chart below shows the comparative revenue that other districts have compared to MDUSD. MDUSD is shown as $0. The amount shown for each district represents their per pupil amount multiplied by MDUSD’s ADA. (Click on the chart for a larger version or HERE for a PDF version).
As you can see, MDUSD is very close to the bottom and districts have as much as $140,000,000 (comparatively) per year than MDUSD.
I will provide a few examples from Marin and Santa Clara so that you can see the great disparities.
Palo Alto Unified, Unrestricted Per Student = $11,773 or a comparative $188,000,000 more per year than MDUSD.
Mountain View – Los Altos, Unrestricted Per Student = $10,546 or a comparative $169,000,000 more per year than MDUSD.
Tamalpais Union High, Unrestricted Per Student = $13,092 or a comparative $256,000,000 more per year than MDUSD.
Reed Union Elementary, Unrestricted Per Student = $11,358 or a comparative $197,000,000 more per year than MDUSD.
As you can see, the disparities are enormous and unfair. What needs to happen is that all districts need to be put on equal footing.
UPDATE: Here is an article that indicates some funding may be taken from "basic aid" districts. We should be fighting to get all districts equalized. The article indicates that employees in one of the districts are getting a 3% raise.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/746652.html
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Piedmont Passes Two Parcel Taxes In Excess Of $2000.00 Per Parcel
On Tuesday June 2nd, Piedmont School District passed two new tax measures. Measure B which extends their $2,082 parcel tax for 4 more years and Measure E which is an emergency flat tax in the amount of $249 per parcel. Are you kidding me? If we had parcel taxes that size we would raise over $164 million dollars per year. That really says something about the community of Piedmont and how much they value education. It saddens me that our community couldn't see their way to providing a $99 parcel tax.
Tonight we cut class size reduction in grades 1 through 3 and grade 9. We also cut 5th grade music tonight. Had our Measure D passed at $99 per parcel, we would not have had to make those cuts. We really need to reassess our values as a community.
Click here for the story
Tonight we cut class size reduction in grades 1 through 3 and grade 9. We also cut 5th grade music tonight. Had our Measure D passed at $99 per parcel, we would not have had to make those cuts. We really need to reassess our values as a community.
Click here for the story
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Drive for Contributions
The following is from Teresa Torbett, a very active parent in the MDUSD. I strongly support Teresa's effort.
I am promoting a grassroots MDUSD GIVING CAMPAIGN in response to the failure of Measure D. Our school district still faces serious funding problems, and despite the fact that Measure D fell short of the required 2/3rds vote--- people in our community have expressed that they are willing to give to support our students and programs, but they just need to know how. The time to act is NOW!
Consider making a donation to MDUSD at the School Board meeting:
7:30 PM-- TUESDAY, June 2nd
Monte Gardens Elementary School next door to district headquarters, 1936 Carlotta Drive, Concord, CA 94519-- during the public comment portion of the meeting.
Overwhelming turnout would make a statement and encourage others to send donations before the last day of school on June 10!
Who will join me! Please pass this email to those you think will join this worthy cause. Please include Measure D volunteers and your PTSA/PFA/PTA members. A big donation at the Board meeting will be a great photo op and make for good news in the morning paper!
Help get the word out by sharing this email (use the BCC (blind copy) option when selecting your email addresses to protect privacy).
Please RESPOND to me if you will be coming to the Board meeting to make a donation, would like to be a part of future GIVING events, or would like to help plan…. (teresa.torbett@astound.net).
If you are planning on attending the School Board meeting this evening (TUESDAY, June 2)—please wear a RALLY Cap* and a shirt/sweatshirt with your school logo.
If you are NOT able to come to the meeting, but would like to participate in our first GIVING OPPORTUNITY, please ask a friend to bring your check.
Please consider forwarding my original email to business and service group contacts that would support our school district at this important time.
*A Rally Cap is a baseball cap worn while inside-out or in another unconventional manner by players or fans, in order to will a team into a come-from-behind rally late in the game.
$99? How About $2000?
Check out this article in the Chronicle - Piedmont taxes are $2,000 per parcel. That would raise $140,000,000 per year in MDUSD. That would put us at the top of funding in Contra Costa (but not in the Bay Area, we would still be more than $100,000,000 per year behind some other districts).
If our district had this level of funding, we would be one of the most desirable places to live in California and the value of our homes would go up dramatically.
Here is the link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/02/BARU17USSL.DTL
If our district had this level of funding, we would be one of the most desirable places to live in California and the value of our homes would go up dramatically.
Here is the link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/02/BARU17USSL.DTL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
