Comments on: Do California school districts spend funds efficiently?

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:52:23 +0000

Superintendent Steven Lawrence started educating the public about the district’s financial distress in this “news update,” distributed the day of the school closure vote: http://bit.ly/hEASeC.
There’s no word on when he expects to send out the second “news update,” explaining how the governor’s proposed budget would affect the district.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:43:19 +0000

I understand Theresa’s and Wait A Minute’s points. There are no obvious pools of funds to tap into for a parcel tax marketing campaign, and yes, the district has managed to undermine its credibility even further, as a result of the Measure C fiasco. But the last campaign attracted an amazing level of support, with the district doing, basically, nothing. (OK, maybe that was a PLUS!) But seriously, most districts around us have mounted coordinated organizational and communication campaigns to get their parcel taxes passed. The district mounts a serious argument; the teacher’s union actually comes out in favor of something that can have a bigger favorable impact on teachers than anything else on the table. Imagine that! Here’s why I think it is possible and necessary: all of this talk about saving $1.5 mil in school closures is a side show, in the end. This district is facing massive budget holes well in excess of that figure. People are going to start seeing impacts in their schools that they could not have imagined. It will either rally people to support their schools, or they will give up on MDUSD and let the state run it. I really think we are reaching an inflextion point in public support for public schools, and this district in particular. More and more households do not have school-age children, and if we don’t get this district to clean up its act, voters will toss it under the bus. We have a short window to start funding MDUSD schools locally with a parcel tax. We may have missed the window already, but I don’t see an alternative to trying.

By: Wait a Minute

Wait a Minute — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 05:07:03 +0000

I rather doubt the voters would be willing to pass a parcel tax after all the scandal and disrepute that Eberhart, Lawrence, Marsh and others have brought upon the MDUSD.

When you have a scathing editorial blasting your lack of ethics as Lawrence had after taking gratuities from Chevron while discussing a no-bid contract, that does not endear the voter’s trust much.

By: Sue Berg

Sue Berg — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 20:03:08 +0000

Theresa, You’re right that it’s harder to raise money for a parcel tax campaign than for a bond measure because of the reasons you cite.

And yet, despite the amount of campaign contributions, the last parcel tax initiative (Measure D in 2009, which failed) received nearly the same percentage of “yes” votes (just over 60%) as the 2010 bond initiative, which passed. The difference, of course, is the threshold needed for passage: 66.3% for a parcel tax; 55% for a bond. What’s ironic is that property owners pay more for a bond (based on their property’s valuation) than for a parcel tax (a flat amount, which under Measure D was $99 per property–as compared to the $633/parcel my Lafayette neighbors and I pay for our K-12 schools).

It’s clear that a majority of voters in the MDUSD community are willing to tax themselves to help fund school needs. It’s also evident that parents and others are willing to work hard on assorted fund-raising efforts to help support athletics, music, and school site programs. The long-promised strategic plan could address ways to build on this support and provide the criteria needed for the decisions the Board is facing regarding schools, programs, and students.

By: Linda

Linda — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 07:41:54 +0000

That “or” should be an “and”

By: Linda

Linda — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 07:40:40 +0000

This district will not pass a parcel tax until they do the hard work needed to restore trust and confidence. They cannot do that without leadership that inspires or without a comprehensive plan with stakeholder buy-in that puts into place specific goals to improve the quality of education, better customer service, genuine communication, and fiscal common sense.
It’s February – will there be a strategic plan meeting?

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 02:54:07 +0000

It is much harder to raise money for a parcel tax campaign because potential donors aren’t likely to receive the benefit of construction, design or other contracts if it passes. So, it’s unlikely there would be the same level of mailers, etc. for a parcel tax measure.
However, Lawrence said he would like to revive the CUES committee to campaign for passage of Brown’s proposed tax extensions. Also, the board plans to adopt a resolution Tuesday endorsing the idea of a tax extension measure: http://esbpublic.mdusd.k12.ca.us/public_itemview.aspx?ItemId=3607&mtgId=297

By: Jim

Jim — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 02:26:59 +0000

Mr. Lawrence would like to lower the threshold for approval of a parcel tax? Well, well, he finally discovers the advantages of a parcel tax over taking out a 42-year loan for solar panels. Here’s a thought, Mr. Lawrence: with basically no support from the district or union, a little over 60% of MDUSD voters were willing to support a parcel tax. Just in case the threshold can’t be lowered from two-thirds, suppose the district put just a portion of the effort that was put into the Measure C campaign (multiple mailers, emails, speeches, site rallies) into a parcel tax campaign for reliable funding that we can control and that can go directly into classroom instruction. Whaddaya think of trying that someday?!? Granted, there are fewer opportunities for doling out contracts and enjoying spiffs from contractors. It will just be a boring ol’ parcel tax for teacher compensation and instructional materials. Could he ever get on board with that?

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 19:55:58 +0000

Mdusdmom: You can easily compare the cuts from the 08/09 school year with the 09/10 by comparing the two audits. See page 15 of 08/09 http://esb.mdusd.k12.ca.us/attachments/6d7082f9-9689-4b8d-8d99-e46770d226e2.pdf
and compare with page 14 of 09/10 in post #8
Some categories increased and some decreased.

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 18:48:55 +0000

FYI, Oakland Tribune reporter Katy Murphy has posted an Excel spreadsheet comparing Alameda County district spending to others in the state at http://www.ibabuzz.com/education/files/2011/02/Pepperdine-breakout.xls.
Oakland’s spending on consultants was far higher than any districts in Contra Costa County — at $2,389 per student. Katy blogged about the reasons for this at http://www.ibabuzz.com/education/2011/02/03/report-ousd-spent-big-on-consultants/.