On
Saturday morning, September 17th, the Pacifica Democrats Club will host a
Measure L Local School Parcel Tax Forum at its monthly breakfast
meeting, scheduled to be held in the rear banquet room of the Sharp Park
Golf Course Restaurant, Hwy 1 and Sharp Park Blvd, in Pacifica.
Kalimah Salahuddin, mother of
three school age children and campaign manager for the "Yes on L"
campaign, as well as being president of Saving Pacifica Schools, a
political action committee dedicated to preserving the quality of
education in Pacifica schools, will share the Measure L Forum with Matt
Levie, a professional video and film editor, who also teaches Junior
Achievement to fifth graders at Sunset Ridge school. They will discuss
the need for both the renewal and increase of the local school parcel
tax, originally called Measure N in 2008, but now known as Measure L in
the upcoming November 8, 2011 election.
In
2008, the local school parcel tax was passed because the state
threatened to cut the Pacifica School District's budget by a million
dollars...a move that would have been the elimination of a critical
number of programs and teachers in the Pacifica School District (PSD).
The Pacifica community refused to let that happen. The community came
together and passed a funding measure to support Pacifica schools. The
students, teachers and district leaders continued to work hard to
achieve educational excellence. The local funding, which the state
cannot touch, helped attract and retain qualified teachers, support math
and science programs and aid struggling students. Today, every school
in the Pacifica School District maintains an API score well above 800,
the state's target for academic performance. The latest API Score is
845.
One result of this attained level of academic performance in the
PSD is the fact that while other school districts continue to lose
population, it has been reported that the Pacifica School District is
growing. The schools are attracting new families to Pacifica, which
helps keep property values stable. However, this 845 API score is
a remarkable achievement by the students, because the Pacifica School
District remains one of the poorest funded school districts in San Mateo
County, with a current per pupil funding of $4,982 in 2011, down from a
per pupil funding of $5,531 per pupil funding in 2007.
The combination of fundraising efforts and volunteer labor, by
both PSD parents and other community members, have greatly contributed
in helping to retain programs and teachers who, in turn, have helped the
PSD students to attain the current levels of academic achievement.
However, in light of the constant shrinking of revenues, other sources
of funding, such as those that come from local parcel taxes are of
fundamental importance.
Since
2008, the state has kept slashing--it has cut more than $1.7 million
from Pacifica's elementary and middle schools during the past four
years. Also, as federal stimulus funds expire in the upcoming year, the
district stands to lose more than $500,000 in current
funding, meaning potentially more significant cuts to academic programs,
as well as the additional potential loss of great teachers in the
district. The local school parcel tax funding measure, which at this
point, is a small percentage of the school budget, but a critical one,
is up for renewal on November 8th.
If passed, the parcel tax, based on an unanimous decision by the
PSD School Board on August 9th, will be increased from $96 a year to
$118 a year and extended until 2017. It's reported that this new
tax would replace the old one before it expires, but there would not be
two taxes levied at once. Seniors over 65 years old can continue to
receive an exemption and revenues from the tax will still be under the
watchful eye of the Pacifica School District Citizen's Oversight
Committee.
To learn more about how to apply for a senior exemption, please contact the District Office at 650-738-6600.
The
renewal must receive a two-thirds majority approval by voters on
November 8th. The new tax would generate a much needed $1.2 million
annually for a variety of needs such as core academic programs in math,
science, reading and writing and the retention of qualified teachers and
staff. Additionally, the money will go to various areas of concern,
including library programs and classroom computer instruction, as well
as programs for struggling students, among others.
All members of the general public are invited. It is not necessary to be either a club member or a Democrat to attend.
A full breakfast
is available for $12; continental breakfast for $6; coffee for $3. Doors
open at 9:00 a.m. Seating is between 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. Meeting
begins at 9:30 a.m. and runs until 11:30 a.m. For any questions or to
RSVP, please call 415-246-0775 or email barietta@hotmail.com.
Barbara Arietta
Correspondent - Pacifica Tribune
415-246-0775
31 comments:
Blzzt! I have a better idea. If you want to help out the schools, every month write a check. This will eliminate all middle parties , create a shortcut. You don't have to give money to the same school every month. You can give to any school you want at any amount you want. Just think of all the time and money saved when you just donate on your own. WE DON'T NEED NO STUPID POLITICIANS TELLING US WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
"If you want to help out the schools, every month write a check."
Really, "Smart" Anon (957), how much was the check you wrote?
The local politicians we need to get rid of are those which keep this city too poor to do anything but struggle and encourage extreme volunteerism.
I give often and frequently, and I don't even like school. I write a check and hand it over. Do it. Try it. It will make you feel a little better. It feels better because you know it is directly going to the school, not some politicians pocket.
Kathy, the council has no jurisdiction over the school district at all and you know it. As for the economy that has been generated by your precious business people blame them for ruining the city's revenues. You also know this but refuse to cop to it. Business interests have ruined our city finances and those of the school district as you well know not our city council. Please stop this childish repetitive incorrect ranting, or should I start calling it ignor-ranting?
"...I don't even like school."
Sure, you write those checks.
"Business interests have ruined our city finances and those of the school district as you well know not our city council."
Todd, your rant is wasting my time. You seem to be talking about the immediate recession, whereas I have been talking about the structural deterioration of this city. Structurally, a city cannot survive well with 50-60% open space, and anti-growth obstruction where economic development is possible.
The Highway 1 widening DEIR indicates although school buses would help peak AM traffic, the overall highway congestion improvement would be "marginal", and "expensive to operate", (page 38 and Matrix page 40).
As for "jurisdictions" my opinion was based upon observed, brief city council conversations only, no regulated text. With money a city can improve and supplement civic function, that's the bottom line.
Todd Bray is the one ignor-ranting as usual. Kathy, Steve, and several others have already provided numerous examples of how the council has ruined the Pacifica economy with their anti-business policies.
Todd, please provide an example of how a Pacifica business ruined Pacifica's economy. Keep in mind that this blog and all of us are talking about PACIFICA, so check your Wall Street tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories at the door.
Want to help? Saving our Schools, Measure L. The website includes support information and a FAQ. Kalimah, Matt and Lisa gave an informative presentation.
A few notes I took from that presentation, some information overlaps in Barbara's article above:
1. Pacifica has 140 teachers.
2. The Academic Performance Index (API) scores meet state and federal progress guidelines of 800 at 100%, very impressive. Compare to San Mateo County at 58%, and the State of California at 43%.
3. Pacifica is the second lowest funded School District in San Mateo County, East Palo Alto being the lowest.
4. Our special education program has become the San Mateo county model (described by the San Mateo Grand Jury).
5. Funding per student is approximately $5,000 per student. Compare to San Mateo county at $11,000, and State of California at $8,000.
6. Measure L is similar to Measure N that was passed by the voters with a 2/3rds vote in 2008. Measure L will replace Measure N effective 7/2013.
7. The parcel cost to your household is $118 annually. The benefits include: 1) help keep our School District cash flow stable throughout the year, 2) supplement state funding cuts and delays, 3) supports core, 21st century education programs.
8. Measure L will be on the November 8th ballot. Consider voting "yes" to maintain school quality.
9. Similar to Measure N, there is an annual Senior (65+) exemption if elected.
10. Similar to Measure N, a citizens oversight Board will review expenses, and funding will benefit students 100%.
Note from the article: "...current per pupil funding of $4,982 in 2011, down from a per pupil funding of $5,531 per pupil funding in 2007."
Kathy unfortunately you are being had. The District spends over 29 million a year and when the proponents of this tax increase and extension tell you such figures as those above they leave out at least 20% of the Districts operating budget in their calculations. If the proponents of the tax included all District expenses the amount spent per student is above 9k a year. This is something I've discussed with kalimah in person at my house and through email. I'm saddened the proponents of this tax extension/increase continue with this deceptive political tactic. I've expressed to them that I feel they must make public this accounting trick which makes it appear the District only spends 7k a year per student.
Kathy, if a business or other government agency removed 20% or more from it's operating budget before calculating cost per unit per year I think you would balk at that practice as I am with the District.
Maybe someone on the school board can answer this question?
If the school district sells Oddstad School site for housing, Does the school district get to keep all that money?
Reason why I am asking many school sites around town where sold over the years and I wonder how much money got put back into the school district.
..."the Pacifica School District remains one of the poorest funded school districts in San Mateo County, with a current per pupil funding of $4,982 in 2011, down from a per pupil funding of $5,531 per pupil funding in 2007," from Barbara's article above.
Todd (1058), what we are talking about is a State funded student per diem (counting heads per day) operating income. This is not the same as total cost to maintain buildings, buy equipment, books, pay utilities, and run the school district-- which may be the $9,000 per student cost you have stated.
Compare to: City General Fund (day-to-day operational), vs. the total city budget.
View the outcome of our elementary school district, and compare to San Mateo county and California statistics. Pacifica is among 1) the lowest cost, and 2) highest API progress scores. What that tells me is many people in our community are sacrificing their productive time and money to make this high quality elementary school education happen.
Maybe not for you "Mr. Charm", but for others: During these difficult economic times, a $118 annual parcel fee will continue to add formative education value for children in our community. Many cities through-out California are doing the same during this economic downturn.
Creative accounting is old news. Don't we sort of expect it? Despite that, I've always voted to support public education out of a sense of social responsibility. My kids never went to public schools but I supported every ballot measure for public education. For the public good. But I'm not doing it again because there is no end to this "hat in hand" parade. Is my sense of social responsibility shared by the schools? Is it reflected in their budgets, their priorities? I no longer think so. The schools need to make do with what they have and don't bother hiring consultants to massage the numbers to find new ways to tell me it's not enough or everyone else has more. It's enough. Make it work or thank you and step aside.
Slumber on Kathy.
Vs. "wake up" Todd! (2:41pm). A "race to the bottom" financially is a good thing for this city to abandon. It doesn't work in the elementary school district, and it doesn't work with the City economy. Compounded over 30 years, it really doesn't work.
Do I believe Anon (1:49pm) has "always voted to support public schools" but this time "no"? Nope, not this time either.
"Race to the bottom"? Right, and every day voters like me who have "been there" for the schools on every ballot for decades decide they no longer want to go along for the ride. The schools have the money to educate. Make do, do your job, and provide a powerful example.
Kathy, bottom line the parcel tax is already budgeted for additional staff, meaning payroll. Kalimah and Joan flat out said so, again when we all met at my house at their request. This tax increase/extension is for payroll only.
I'm not advocating for or against this issue but the propaganda being generated by the SPS folks is misleading, uninformative and is relying on high emotion rather than simple straight forward honesty.
I'm advocating for a large turn out in November. It would be a shame if this tax increase/extension was decided one way or the other by a handful of residents.
Kathy, bottom line is that the money from Measure N is already budgeted for payroll and payroll only, Kalimah and PSD board member Weideman flat out told me so at my house.
Why do we need City Hall when we have Todd's house? Seems most city business is transacted there anyway. Besides, running the city seems to be his hobby. And just think of the money we will save that can go to more Council pet projects.
Todd (859), that's your version of bottom line, not mine. The State has chopped $1.7 million out-of-the school budget beginning 4 years ago. These budget cuts would have been the initial reason for the current Measure N. Measure L is an updated continuation of Measure N. Measure L will also allow for even cash flow distribution, because the State is delaying payment.
Without the funding, there will be more children per classroom (35 was the number mentioned), and with formative education large class-size is big disadvantage for children. Another funding reduction mentioned was a 2 weeks shorter school year added to the already short school year.
The "Yes on L" flyer states that math, science, reading, writing, library, computer and technology, and struggling student programs will be protected. Pacifica teachers are paid about 30% less than more competitive nearby cities-- do you really think that Pacifica teachers are paid too much? Guess you do.
Think that "no on everything for Pacifica" ideology is working well for this city, including the citizens who sacrifice to make up the economic deficiency? This ideology you promote is regressive.
Kathy the state hasn't cut funding to the District the economy has.
Any claim by the Measure N literature that does not address the money is already budgeted for staff is misleading the public.
Again like the city, the District is trying to maintain compensation by asking us to further erode our person finances for their staff gains.
I'm not advocating voting one way or the other but day light needs to be shed on this issue.
"...the state hasn't cut funding to the District the economy has." Todd (113) guess that like saying, "guns don't kill, people do".
However, from the flyer: "Our schools need this critical local funding to continue quality educational programs and retain qualified teachers." I don't find "retaining qualified teachers" misleading, or a contradiction to the purpose of the Measure. More of that, see saving Pacifica schools.
There is an oversight Board, and when this elementary school district is functioning at 100% API with the 2nd lowest funding in San Mateo county, what's not to like? Even you should support that, and say so.
Kathy, the measure is equal to 5% of the District $29 million annual budget. Are you suggesting the District can't find that 5% within that 29 mil budget to teach? I don't think you are. I think if you took a look at the 2009-2010 budget numbers you would question the validity of the Districts claim the measure is needed as advertised and can't be squeezed from administration costs.
Todd (741), here's how I see the same information you are looking at: Per diem funding from the State -10% over 4 years. Without the 5% parcel tax, -15%, with the parcel tax -5%. And, part of the planning problem is cash-flow, the result of delayed per diem funding from the State (recessionary dominoes).
As usual Pacifica is already the "poor city". Out of 20 San Mateo county cities, Pacifica is #19 in State per diem funding, beating-out East Palo Alto #20 at the bottom.
Yet, Pacifica's elementary school district Students have achieved an API score over 800, (845, according to Barbara article above, and that is "remarkable"). This high API score is probably the result of a student-orientated, caring school district and extreme volunteerism.
Foundational education is important for any individual (reading especially, but also writing, math, modern skills, ability to reason, to build from core skills, understand information, and inquire). Miss that and most people are behind in life, maybe forever, maybe even a plague on society.
Other Cities that expect better quality and/or stability in their educational districts are at this time supporting parcel taxes. $118, amounts to less than $10 per month, .33 cents per day. We can do this as a community.
Hahaha, okay Kathy, I get it, we disagree.
Todd, of course we disagree. You were never "neutral". Nor, do I understand what the "ha, ha, ha" is about. No doubt you do.
Todd,
Do you not have a day job, or a job at all? You post on all three websites, Patch, Riptide, Fix Pacifica, and you never answer a simple question.
Since you have all the answers maybe you should run for City Council.
The city needs someone of your vast untapped knowledge
Kathy, truly I'm undecided at the moment.
Couldn't hurt! Todd would show up for the meetings.
In response to question from Jim Alex on 9/18:
Yes Jim if PSD was to SELL any property the district can keep the funds in a restricted account which can only be spent on Capital projects such as buildings. It cannot be spent on General Operating expenses such as books, salaries, or utilities. If the building and or grounds are LEASED, the rent received can be spent in the General Fund for salaries, books and other bills. The lease income would be unrestricted funds.
Thank you for the explanation Mike. You have my sympathies funding is so difficult.
Mike
Thanks!!
Post a Comment