Has the Parcel Tax become a Social Tax? Schools & Kids, posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 7:25 am
With the upcoming launch/rally for raising $2.8 million for "I Love Pleasanton Schools", will we have turned what was a private ballot box/exemption process into a public 'with us or against us' social pressure campaign?
Posted by Einstein, a member of the Mohr Elementary School community, on Jun 17, 2009 at 8:26 am Einstein is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
I believe this to be the proper means of raising money and if you want to give you can give and if you do not want to give don't give. It works for everyone and I doubt you will hear anything negative as there is no negatives that I can see. Good luck and hope they get the money they need.
Posted by no more teacher raises, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 9:00 am
@DCoT - I agree with your observation. But I also agree that this is exactly the right way to get the funds. Those of us who refuse to subsidize teacher raises in this dismal economy still have the option to hang onto our money. When the teachers decide to do the right thing, if that ever happens, I will be right there with my checkbook even though I have no kids and have never used the system. A big dose of realism is needed now but is sorely lacking.
Posted by oddly enough, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 9:18 am
When this was brought up as a possible option at a Jan/Feb.(?- whenever the financial problem first came to light) PTA meeting it was quickly dismissed and were were preached at that "the parcel tax is the *only* solution" - needless to say I've given PTA a shot previously, but this was the nail in the coffin. They don't want input, but tacit agreement...I expressed my concern the tax would not pass and thought they should "consider all possible options", and inquired about an educational foundation soliciting support to fund specific programs. I guess I'ma bit of a visionary after all ;o)
Posted by Parent, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 9:39 am
DCoT- are you concerned that you won't be able to "hide" this time, behind anon. blogs and a secret ballot. If you don't want to give, stand up and say why not- you are entitled to your opinion, but maybe now is the time to own it publicly? I know I will make mine known- oh, is it that you don't support kids?
Posted by no more teacher raises, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 10:01 am
birdlander -- I won't speak for DCoT but I do not support GREED. If your children are symbolic of the greed in the district then I guess I don't support them either. Sounds more like you think all of us, childless or not, should support your kids as well as raises for everyone in the district. Not happening. Instead of providing your kids with every accessory and all the designer jeans they can wear, give the money to the school. Just get off your holier-than-thou soapbox when you do it cause I really could care less how you feel about my refusal to support GREED.
Posted by June, a member of the Alisal Elementary School community, on Jun 17, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I am happy parent clubs and non-profits are stepping in to raise funding in the absence of the parcel tax passage, and that the district is evaluating other strategies to try to help solve problems or lessen impacts to the extent possible. I hope the community will stop characterizing people as being either selfish-parents or not supporting children and teachers at this point and just move on to solving the issues. I think damage from the negative dialogue must have been done to some of the kids as well as people living on tough economics times.
Posted by Kyle, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 8:58 pm
If you don't support this then simply don't cough up the $233 and shut your mouth. What's it to you if I want to donate my own money? The teachers' shouldn't have their members take a pay increase but PUSD either lacks the resolve or resources to go after the unions so here we are. Class sizes are going up and services are being cut - that's a fact. I'm reluctantly cutting a check because I don't want education to suffer. Unions, poor administration and entitlement programs are hurting us but so is a lack of funding to maintain the current programs.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2009 at 8:19 am
I'm not sure why you directed your post to me. I was making almost the same point to the original poster here (although I don't think the unions, etc are as big of a problem as they're being made out to be. S & C raises for next year are $2 mil of an $18.7 mil deficit).
Posted by "PUBLIC" school, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Everyone should share the burden of funding public education, regardless of whether you have children or childless. I pay my share of taxes to fund public services that YOU regularly use. If it's every man for himself, then I can pay much less taxes and use that money on my children's education. So funding public education should be a burden shared by everyone, not just those with children. Using donations to fund schools is not sustainable.
Posted by June, a member of the Alisal Elementary School community, on Jun 18, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Resident: Yes, you are correct that education should be a cost shared by everyone (I think you are saying whether you have children or not). But I have a question. Is it then equitable when a relatively affluent or straight out rich community spends more money per pupil (say that is when compared to Vallejo or Oakland districts)simply because they can? Or what about someone who pays more in assessments toward school fees than someone else because they have a newer home (check it out, homes here younger than 10 years old pay an extra $800/00 year). The fact is that education is a cost that is simply not equally shared by everyone.
Posted by "PUBLIC" school, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2009 at 5:19 pm
"But seems to work well in San Ramon."
Define "work well". The amount of funding available is unpredictable so advance planning cannot be done without a lot of guess work. That's far from being "work well", unless if you live inside a bubble.
Again, a good chunk of the taxes I paid go to pay for services that YOU use. Why should I pay for services you use when you aren't willing to fund public education for all the children?
Posted by How far at what price?, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2009 at 5:20 pm
"Everyone should share the burden of funding public education, regardless of whether you have children or childless. I pay my share of taxes to fund public services that YOU regularly use. If it's every man for himself, then I can pay much less taxes and use that money on my children's education. So funding public education should be a burden shared by everyone, not just those with children. Using donations to fund schools is not sustainable."
How far are taxes sustainable? At what point does the burden exhaust the resources of funding? Where is the line of completion? I'm not necessarily promoting private schools, but why can they succeed at half the cost, or at the very least a percentage/fraction of the cost? The children that attend private schools are often seen in light of a superior education...at a cost far less than those in the public school in most cases.
Shouldn't the "public schools" be funded responsibly, meaning not more than is needed, since it is at the expense of the people? Shouldn't we be able to expect "more" performance for "more" money?
There seems to be a demand that we have a lack of expectation after we give our money away. It seems to me, only one side gets to expect and that comes down to, "You may or may not eventually benefit from those that participate in a school funded by your tax dollars at an ever increasing rate, nor you do not get to have a say in how that money is spent or prioritized."
Do I get a percentage of my money back when a child drops out? Fails a class? No. Why are my hands only untied to get money out of my wallet, but then quickly retied and a gag put back over my mouth?