News

School budget situation still uncertain

District shortfall likely to total $16.5 million due to state budget woes

With Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger calling for more cuts to education after five of the six state propositions failed and Concord-area voters defeating a $99-per-parcel tax Tuesday, there's even more riding on Pleasanton's Measure G.

The hotly contested measure on the June 2 ballot would have Pleasanton residents pay $233 per parcel for four years in order to save programs, including small class sizes, reading and math support, libraries, counselors, technology instruction, music, and safe and clean schools. It needs two-thirds support in order to net an estimated $4.5 million for the district.

Since the board voted to put Measure G on the ballot in March, the state's budget climate has gotten worse, with estimates of an additional $15.3-billion shortfall. The failure of propositions 1A to 1E, which were designed to cover the $41.6-billion state deficit, results in a loss of $6 billion for the state.

At Tuesday night's special budget workshop meeting, Luz Cazares, assistant superintendent of business services for the district, said these figures would result in $6.8 million of additional reductions for the school district, totaling about $16.5 million in lost revenue.

As for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, Cazares said the district has received award letters for the $2.5 million for special education, but hasn't received any cash yet. The funding is divided into two payments over two years, with the first half available to offset encroachment. The $5.6 million to be received from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) is considered an estimate.

Cazares said they anticipate reductions in SFSF dollars because of the growing state deficit that will be accounted for in the newest budget update. Called the May revise, it is typically released in mid-May and is used by the board to adopt the final budget in June. Gov. Schwarzenegger released a copy May 14, but is expected to have another version May 28.

"The governor, in agreeing to take the federal dollars, had agreed to certain assurances," Cazares said. "One is tied to the level of base funding. He had to guarantee not to reduce funding beyond fiscal year 2005-06. [The May revise is taking us well beyond that level of cuts."

Superintendent John Casey said the federal money will give relief for a short period of time, but won't cover the level of cuts going into the new school year.

"Measure G is relief of $4.5 million over four years, during which we would hope the economy would start to turn," he said. "It provides stable, reliable, predictable funding for this time of concern and supports program identified as critical by the community."

Some relief has been found through the February 2009 Budget Act. Funding items listed in the lowest priority (tier three) could be used for other purposes. Early estimates show this potentially adding $988,197 to the general fund.

The state also allowed some modification to the class-size reduction agreement in the act. A student-to-teacher ratio of 20:1 is currently funded with $4 million by the state and $1.6 million from PUSD. If the ratio were increased to 25:1, the state would reduce their contribution by 20 percent, but it would save PUSD $1.6 million in teacher salaries.

Cazares said, however, that the board approved the elimination of class-size reduction when it made nearly $10 million in reductions in late February.

"We would be restoring [class-size reduction if the parcel tax were to pass," she said. "We've been using the 30:1 ratio to develop the budget and didn't go beyond that because of contractual obligations."

This picture of the budget is not final, Cazares said, because there are several issues that could impact it. The board will hold their regular meeting at 7 p.m. May 26 at the district offices. They are also expected to meet after the June 2 election. Casey said they hope to meet soon after the election to move forward on the budget process, which includes a June 4 deadline for teachers to receive layoff notices. The board would need to adopt a budget at their June 22 meeting, which was moved from June 23.

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Federal Bailout
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2009 at 8:45 am

Obama will come and save the day! The feds are going to bail us out of this mess and things will be hunky-dory again here in the Golden State!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Chas Bell
a resident of Danbury Park
on May 22, 2009 at 9:10 am

Quick Question:

Why couldn't we put the election from this past Tuesday and this Prop G on the same ballot? I've gotta think there could have been some cost savings if the powers that be got their acts together and combined the two.

Oh well...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Done and Done
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2009 at 9:57 am

I am so over this blog...

The same questions are asked repeatedly that have been thoroughly researched and explored in previous posts. If you want to know why Measure G was not put on the last ballot, research it. It is a simple question and has been answered many, too many times...

The consultation firm PUSD hired, told them people who are against a measure are less motivated to go to another special election and vote. The people that are hugely for it will be more motivated, at least in previous issues. It would have been cheaper to put it on the 19th's ballot, but the only way to set it up for the best positive vote is to hold a separate election.

If PUSD was truly EVER interested in cost savings, like those to keep the district running fiscally sound, they would have organized a mail in ballot only, just like SR did. But they aren't interested in saving any money, saving OUR money, what do they care...they'll waste money at the poll or at the district. The only thing they are interested in now is more cash. 15.5 million of the parcel tax for pay raises...them are the facts, jacks.

I'm voting NO! Done.

And I am done with the nasty tone of this blog by the Yes on G supporters. Done.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by duh
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2009 at 10:02 am

Because opponents of G would be less likely to show up to vote on 6/2, making it easier to pass.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Emily West
Pleasanton Weekly reporter
on May 22, 2009 at 10:29 am

Emily West is a registered user.

From my understanding at the meetings in late Feb/early March the board realized the cost savings of having it on the May ballot, but were afraid negative reaction to the state propositions could hurt measure G's chances.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Beth
a resident of Birdland
on May 22, 2009 at 12:09 pm

You mean there is some chance that people will not vote to fund four years of continued raises? How selfish of them.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by YES on G
a resident of Mohr Elementary School
on May 22, 2009 at 5:59 pm

It is for the kids. Don't let problems in Sacramento destroy our community.

YES ON G!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jb
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2009 at 6:09 pm

It's for the teachers and administrators. If it were for the kids, the teachers would have immediately agreed to halt raises during this economic situation.

Sounds like the same people who keep voting to add taxes and fees and then say that their kids cannot afford to live in California. Our kids will not be able to afford to live in our communities or California with all these high taxes we have.

NO on G; It's for the Kids.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by YES ON G
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2009 at 8:07 pm

It's not for the teachers and administrators. If teachers were selfish and greedy would they choose this profession? I don't think so. 33 students in each class for K-3 is absolutely absurd. How can anything be accomplished with that? I think the teachers will be making many sacrifices. Let's keep in mind that the teachers and administration didn't do this to our schools and give them some credit for all the hard work they are doing!

YES ON G! IT'S FOR THE KIDS!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by NO ON G
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2009 at 8:35 pm

Agree that 33 kids in k-3 class is too many.
But passing Measure G doesn't guarantee that won't happen.
To really support the teachers and what parents have said they wanted, the ballot language should have and could have specified that K-3 classes would have no more than a certain number of students.
It doesn't.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Valley View Elementary School
on May 22, 2009 at 8:40 pm

To Emily West's response (not her issue for supplying the actual answer): That is a lousy way to justify doubling the cost for the election. And the negative reaction is no less.

To Yes on G: The many threads have pointed out how well paid teachers how given the length of their work year and they receive handsome retirement packages. Not saying it's even the major reason they choose the profession, but it is part of the entire picture. Pleasanton schools survived larger classrooms before and can again, but I don't think anyone is saying they'll be 33:1. In fact, were your classes only 20:1 growing up? The administration and the contracts they negotiated had everything to do with the fact that the district now is ill prepared for the downturn in the economy. $8 million gives us time to fix the systemic problems BEFORE we determine if a parcel tax is needed and for how much.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 22, 2009 at 8:43 pm

ooops . . . how well paid teachers are given . . .


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 22, 2009 at 8:46 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

$4.1MM of the budget shortfall is due to increased District costs, the majority of which are employee raises (all employees) that are normally funded by COLA grants from the State. That number doesn't really change no matter what the State cuts. So how is the District planning on funding that $4.1MM? The usual way, by cutting programs like CSR. Then they come asking for a parcel tax to fund those programs because no one would ever vote yes on a parcel tax to fund raises. And if the parcel tax doesn't pass, they cut the programs and lay people off.

It brings up the question of who's interests the district is looking out for, the employees' or the community's? This is a recession of historic proportions. Why is the district treating this as business as usual, cutting programs instead of raises?

Web Link
"William Floyd teachers averted the layoffs of nine teachers, and helped the 9,600-student district restore 10 other teaching positions, by agreeing to give up part of their raises.
"We did not want to see any of our teachers lose their jobs, or good programs suspended, and that's what was going to happen," said Karen D'Esposito, a high school social studies teacher who is president of the union."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by YES ON G!
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2009 at 8:54 pm

Teachers aren't paid enough for what they do. End of story. You're able to read my post, aren't you? Thank a teacher for that.

Let's not make this an attack on teachers. It is the legislation that screwed up and now our community is paying for it. (No pun intended.)

Yes on G!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by NO on G!
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2009 at 9:08 pm

You're using a computer aren't you? Thank an engineer and give them a tax break as they are losing jobs.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by YES ON G!
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2009 at 9:12 pm

I completely agree with you. But we're just talking about Measure G here.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by No on G
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2009 at 9:16 pm

Who do you think will fund Measure G? The funding for G doesn't come from thin air, or even tree in Ruby Hill. It comes from my household's bottom line...AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE TO GIVE.

Are you offering to pay my share?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by YES ON G!
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2009 at 9:20 pm

If it meant Measure G passing, by all means YES! I'm not made of money and money doesn't grow on the trees outside of my house. I'm just afraid of what is to come of our schools if it doesn't. I'm not by any means out for personal attacks.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by No on G
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2009 at 9:29 pm

I can appreciate your desire to not personally attack, but you wrote

"Let's not make this an attack on teachers. It is the legislation that screwed up and now our community is paying for it. (No pun intended.)"

And you are right. The legistlature messed up big-time and I'm not voting for anyone to get a bail-out or a pay raise (just flat out disrespectful). I would pay for this tax without a second thought if the teachers had agreed to a salary freeze and ALL 18MM generated by this tax went straight to the programs and a reserve fund with a guarantee to not go towards salary/benefits. Instead, my spouse, who has had to take a pay cut, a cut in our benefits, and give up vacation time (and we're the LUCKY ones) is expected to pay this tax so people won't even tighten their belt a little?

This whole situation literally sickens me at how greedy one group of people can be.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by No on G
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2009 at 9:31 pm

Thank you for your respectful tone, by the way. I am clearly frustrated, just not at you. I respect your right to vote however you feel represents your interest and those of others you care for. I wish we were on the same side! :)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Another no on G
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2009 at 11:47 pm


I'm willing to thank teachers for a lot of things, but please stop posting "if you can read this, thank a teacher." My child learned to read at home, taught by me, before entering school. I learned to read at home, taught by my mother, also before entering school.

Many Pleasanton parents send their kids to school very well prepared to face any academic challenges.

Unless teachers want to take the full blame for any kids who can't read, or don't score well on standardized tests, then please stop taking full credit for those who can read and do score well on standardized tests.

We lowly parents play a big role in our children's education and it's getting very tiresome to read posters like Yes on G! who seem to forget that we parents gave teachers great students.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Me Not Dumb
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 23, 2009 at 1:21 am

If this measure passes, and I don't think it will, the moans from the supporters when the school district cuts class size reduction and other programs in favor of teacher rasies is going to be so loud that it will measure on the richter scale.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sandy
a resident of Mohr Park
on May 23, 2009 at 4:40 am

Measure G is about much more than class size reduction. Reading intervention, counselors, libraries, music, technology instruction, school safety.

I spoke with stste senator Hiyashi yesterday, and he has heard nothing specific about CSR being back on the table.

$1.5 is not half of $4.1, Stacey. No one else besides the teachers who are eligible for a step-and-column raise this year is getting a raise. Your assertion is incorrect.

And the quote you give -- ""William Floyd teachers averted the layoffs of nine teachers, and helped the 9,600-student district restore 10 other teaching positions, by agreeing to give up part of their raises." Did you miss the words *part of*? Pleasanton teachers have given up *part of* their salaries. Not just part of their raises, part of their base salaries. Two fewer days of paid work is a salary cut. $654 worth for a teacher making $60000,$975 for a teacher making $80000.

All the revenue from measure G will not go to salary increases. It will go to pay for programs. The $1.5 million in step and column is only locked in because the contract negotiated 4 years ago does not end this year, it will end next year.

There is no way to know whether the next contract will include ANY step and column increases.

Even if measure G passes, all the teacher layoffs will not be averted. Just some of the ones in K-3 and 9th grade teachers, and a few music teachers.

If measure G fails, the teachers who remain behind in K-3 will be teaching 32 students instead of 20. They'll be doing more work, for little or no new pay.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carl
a resident of Country Fair
on May 23, 2009 at 8:14 am

Sandy -

Who did you speak with yesterday? There is no CA state senator named 'Hiyashi'. There is a CA state assembly member named Mary Hiyashi. And unless her voice is really low, I don't think Mary is a 'he'. Now, who did you speak with, if at all? And should I trust the rest of what you write?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by YES ON G
a resident of another community
on May 23, 2009 at 9:14 am

I'm fed up and have had enough. I don't have any children but I support my community. It has to stop somewhere. How many sacrifices to our kids have to make for you people.

YES ON G!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ptown resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 23, 2009 at 9:55 am

@ Sandy,
Where in the Measure G ballot language is it specifically stated that no one will be getting a salary raise this year except for teachers eligible for step & column increases? If not on the ballot, where on the PUSD website is this stated?

Where in the Measure G ballot language is it specifically stated that if Measure G passes, K-3 classes will not exceed 20 students?

Where in the Measure G ballot language is it specifically stated that Measure G will guarantee that existing music programs will remain, and current levels of counselors, and reading, math and technology specialists will continue?

As for teachers giving up two days of pay - that is only IF measure G passes. If it doesn't, they will not be doing that. The same is true for any admininstrator pay or perk cuts.

Call a school board member to confirm any of this.







 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 23, 2009 at 10:57 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Sandy wrote: "$1.5 is not half of $4.1, Stacey. No one else besides the teachers who are eligible for a step-and-column raise this year is getting a raise. Your assertion is incorrect."

I assumed you understood that the total shortfall is over two years. I also assumed that you knew already from the PUSD website that their costs rise by $2MM in one year, $1.5MM of which are employee raises (all employees, not just teachers). $9.7MM total shortfall over two years - $5.6MM of actual cuts from the State over two years = $4.1MM in rising costs over two years. $1.5MM annual increase in employee costs x 2 years = $3MM. $3MM looks like "the majority of" $4.1MM to me, more than half.

Additionally, the classified and management salary schedules also have step increases, if you didn't notice. Only certificated staff have both step and column. While CA law requires step and column for certificated staff, there didn't appear to be such a requirement for other staff. My guess is that the William Floyd teachers gave up their step increases. I read about a month ago of another district doing this too, but I forgot to bookmark it. The point is that they gave up raises. There's a big difference between taking furlough days versus giving up raises. Furlough days are one-time cuts. Raises have to be sustained in the future so any give-back of raises affects future costs too.

Sandy also wrote: "All the revenue from measure G will not go to salary increases. It will go to pay for programs."

I think you're not thinking this through enough. Not all of the "programs" listed in Measure G are actual programs. There's a lot of jobs listed there: librarians, counselors, custodians, even CSR. Now the cost for the counselors is said to be $960,000. We don't know if that number is only today's cost or if the District included the cost of those employees' raises over four years. I'm going to assume it's today's cost and doesn't include raises because raises normally are paid for by State COLA or increased enrollment. Now if there's no COLA or increased enrollment, how will those raises get paid for? We will have to either use more than $960,000 of Measure G funds to pay for counselor raises (and perhaps cut the music program) or pay for those raises out of the General Fund by cutting somewhere else. So no, these raises are not paid for by Measure G directly. Measure G just helps exacerbate the problem.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sandy
a resident of Mohr Park
on May 23, 2009 at 11:43 am

Carl, I was typing too quickly. Three typos in one sentence -- very unlike me!

Let me retype more carefully.

"I spoke with state assembly member Hiyashi yesterday, and she has heard nothing specific about CSR being back on the table."

Of course, you are free to believe anything or nothing I say.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sandy
a resident of Mohr Park
on May 23, 2009 at 11:55 am

Stacey,

thank you for the clarification about the $4.1 million. I understand how you calculated, and yes, $3 million is more than half of $4.1 million. I apologize.

My understanding is that the $2 million increase in costs per year includes step-and-column and several other non-salary items that Luz Cazares mentioned at the board meeting 10 days ago.

Is it true that raises have to be sustained in the future, or is it not possible that the next time that contracts are renegotiated with teachers and certificated workers, it would be possible to negotiate salary reductions?

My understanding is that the teachers' contracts are renegotiated in the coming year. It is difficult to predict, from next summer forward, what the year-over-year costs for salaries will be. Total costs may rise or fall, depending on the salary schedule and on the number of people on payroll.

It is true that programs are staffed by people. It is also true that the library is not a "program" in the strict sense of the word. Reading intervention is a program, as is music.

We are operating from different assumptions, which is part of why we reach different conclusions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ptown resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 23, 2009 at 1:53 pm

Sandy,
At a school board meeting, Association of Pleasanton Teachers (APT) president Trevor Knaggs stated that losing even one year on a step and column increase has two long term effects on teachers. It sets them back each year by that amount on the paycheck. Also, since pensions are the accumulated contributions to the pension fund, the pension would be altered downward.

Mr. Knaggs' comments do not sound as if they're coming from a union willing to consider a freeze on step and column.

They do sound like the kinds of comments the president of an organization would make whose main purpose is like any other union, to benefit its members.

I do not think APT will be willing to negotiate step and column. There may be individual teachers willing to accept a pay freeze rather than get laid off, or see their peers laid off, but the majority, and particularly the union leaders, are not willing to do this.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 23, 2009 at 2:50 pm

Sandy: Classes at 20:1, librarians, school nurses, counselors, reading intervention, technology. We need the opportunity to discuss what it is we value and are willing to pay for. None of that will occur or has occurred with this parcel tax.

Once the district has the $18 million, there will be no incentive to explore other measures, except the next parcel tax. There are many ways to pay teachers that reward the best, those who've continued their education in education areas, and to insure proper evaluations. The contract that will be negotiated this coming school year, but again, with no incentive to change if the parcel tax is in place.

Historically contracts roll over with little change except to salary, benefits, hours and NEVER for less. Why would anyone believe it will change this time through, particularly with a parcel tax in place.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by RS
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 24, 2009 at 12:27 pm

So many keep saying that "We grew up in large classrooms...these kids can too".



Humm...let me see - are those the same kids that are now the adults that are in charge of our government, bank institutions, wall street, etc?

(said somewhat 'tongue in cheek') :-)

I'm all for IMPROVING the education that WE grew up with - and to me, I can't think of a betetr way than to be sure we do a betetr job with the next generation.

Smaller classes may not be an 'end all to beat all'....but I'll take it as part of a larger emphasis on education - which is sorely needed.


Saying no to a local parcel tax to be used here in Pleasanton, - for Pleasanton's benefit is not going to "send a message" to anyone. It will impact students, and I'll be voting Yes on G.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ptown resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 24, 2009 at 2:11 pm

@ RS
I'll ask you the same question I've been asking Sandy to respond to - Where on the Measure G ballot is there any definition of "small" class sizes?
I agree that smaller class sizes are better than large class sizes. There may not be any evidence that links class size to student achievement, but I have to believe that it's much easier for teachers to manage a class of 20 rather than 30, and smaller classes probably allow students to have more 1 on 1 time with a teacher.
So why didn't the school district or the board members write Measure G to state something like no more than 25 students in K-3 and 9th grade classes?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Castlewood
on May 24, 2009 at 2:16 pm

You are not getting an answer because class size is not in the bill. It is all about teachers raises and the union.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sandy
a resident of Mohr Park
on May 24, 2009 at 2:45 pm

Ptown Resident --

I believe the trustees thought it was necessary to keep some flexibility in the language of the measure, because they anticipated the $8.6 million in additional cuts that is anticipated for next year.

I do know that the current budget for next year is based on the assumption of class sizes of 30 in K-3. (I think in grade 9 English and Math too, but I'm not positive.) The budget can be modified if measure G passes.

It is my sense that the intermediate option between 20 and 30 is 25. If each school that has 5 kindergarten classes of 20 now loses one teacher, then the average class size will go from 20 t0 25. If each school loses two K teachers, then the average class size will go to 30.

I know others have argued that it is possible to go up to an average of 22, 24, or some other number, but I have not heard an explanation of the logistics for how that would work.

The trustees approved the bill, though, so I cannot speak for them directly about why they chose the language they did.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by RS
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 24, 2009 at 2:45 pm

The measure includes these words:

"keep class sizes small"

Today that means 20 kids to 1 teacher.

The word "Keep" in the language tells me the goal is to maintain the size they have today.

However, if the classes ended up a bit larger than today...but still much, much smaller than 32-33 to 1 - I'm all for it. And, I say this as someone with no students in the district, any longer.


I understand there are valid concerns about the district. I hope all that are concerned do get involved in a personal way and not just on a blog....and they work to eliminate those concerns. In the meantime, the kids have done nothing to deserve what the cuts will do to their education. For me, the $233 a year for a few years is an investment I am willing to spend. Heck knows we have done worse with our tax dollars - giving it to the state to use as they see fit. It will be nice to see these dollars stay right here.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 24, 2009 at 4:43 pm

RS: Today does not mean 20:1--the state has given flexibility on class size reduction with smaller fines. So it can easily be 25:1 without your having anything to say about it. The school district also had a "goal" to have a 7% reserve; they ignored that goal and gave 14.5% in raises instead. By the way, students as young as their 20s did not have CSR and haven't yet made it to government. Won't they be an unhappy bunch when they try to figure out the bills we've left behind?

As to the parcel tax, you will be paying for past salary increases and not much else. What is wrong with waiting a year to sweep up the mess? There is money and time to accomplish it without hurting kids.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 24, 2009 at 6:17 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Sandy wrote: "I believe the trustees thought it was necessary to keep some flexibility in the language of the measure, because they anticipated the $8.6 million in additional cuts that is anticipated for next year."

I dunno, Sandy, which is it? That the trustees anticipated these cuts or that no one could have anticipated this economic recession. Now, if they REALLY anticipated cuts, then they'd have their 7% reserve instead of abandoning that goal some time in 2006.

The truth is that the District is unprepared for cuts, no matter what size.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by RS
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 24, 2009 at 10:13 pm

Kathleen,

You and I have different viewpoints...and have for many years actually.

You ask what is wrong in waiting a year. You of all people should know what difference a year can make in a child's education.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Witheld
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jun 2, 2009 at 2:47 pm

Just got back from voting No on G. I've put 2 kids through PUSD and from what I've seen our teachers and especially the administrators are all overpaid for what they do (or don't do).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jun 2, 2009 at 5:39 pm

RS, I don't know who you are, so I can't speak to those differences specifically. If you want to talk, I'd be happy to have the conversation. I'm one person with an opinion, but discussing opposing viewpoints often can lead to finding common ground to build on for solutions to any number of issues. I don't know if my opinion will be shared by a majority today or not. I have said that if the measure passes, I will pay. Not just because I have to, but because a yes win says it's what was wanted by the majority of voters.

I do know what a difference a year makes; I also know CSR at 22:1 won't be the cause of any harm. But much of what has occurred at the district office; much of what happens in more than just a few classrooms has hurt students (and often great teachers) and will continue to do so. I think it means systemic change is necessary. If the measure passes, we'll see what we have at the end of the four years—--possibly just a long delay in getting to long-term solutions.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

A second half of life exceptionally well lived
By Tim Hunt | 1 comment | 687 views

Vote YES on Measures 45, 46, & 47, NO on 48
By Roz Rogoff | 9 comments | 423 views