Town Square

Post a New Topic

Pleasanton Schools Receive WAY MORE Money Than Other Districts

Original post made by checking on Apr 12, 2011

More important that which district are receiving parcel taxes, you have to look at how much money the district receive from the state, per student. This is called the Revenue Limit. You can also look at Total Revenue. All of this information is available (per student) on ed data website at www.ed-data.k12.ca.us . They allow you to compare the districts. Below are the numbers from their website for the district listed at the top of this thread. The latest data they have is for the 2009-10 school year.

Dublin: Revenue Limit: $5,812, Total Revenue $7,870

Fremont: Revenue Limit: $5,029, Total Revenue $8,083

Pleasanton: Revenue Limit: $5,513, Total Revenue $9,842

San Ramon: Revenue Limit: $4,983, Total Revenue $7,809

Walnut Creek: Revenue Limit: $4,794, Total Revenue $7,334

So except for Dublin, Pleasanton receives more per student from the State. Comparing us and San Ramon, we receive $530 more per student from the State.

For Total Revenue, Pleasanton is WAY ABOVE the others. Comparing us to San Ramon we are $2,033 per student more (and this includes a parcel tax San Ramon already receives). Comparing us to Dublin (which has a higher State Revenue Limit) we are $1972 per student higher.

So without the parcel tax, we already enjoy a significant amount of more funding. With this much extra money coming in, we should not be having financial problems compared to the other districts.

No Parcel Tax is needed.

Vote No on Measure E

Comments (31)

Posted by comment, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2011 at 9:32 am

This proves nothing. Just because some other districts make due with less doesn't mean we should. Pleasanton residents demand a top quality district and are willing to pay for it.

Yes on Measure E.


Posted by checking, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2011 at 11:00 am

Absolutely, money is not everything. Paying more in local parcel taxes does not guarantee a better education system.

San Ramon and Pleasanton are pretty comparable in education and test scores although Pleasanton is spending much more money. I wonder how San Ramon can give a quality education for less than Plesanton.

It is interesting that some people say we need a parcel tax since other districts already do. But the same people dismiss Pleasanton already receiving more in income than comparable districts, like San Ramon.


Posted by comment, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2011 at 12:17 pm

"Paying more in local parcel taxes does not guarantee a better education system."

Doesn't guarantee it, but I think it will help. San Ramon has increased what they are getting in the 2010-2011 school year, so your numbers are out of date. Even so, cutting down to their level isn't what Pleasanton should be doing. We should be looking to make our schools even better.


Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Apr 12, 2011 at 12:30 pm

"resident" said:

"Dublin: Revenue Limit: $5,812, Total Revenue $7,870"

"Fremont: Revenue Limit: $5,029, Total Revenue $8,083"

"Pleasanton: Revenue Limit: $5,513, Total Revenue $9,842"

"San Ramon: Revenue Limit: $4,983, Total Revenue $7,809"

"Walnut Creek: Revenue Limit: $4,794, Total Revenue $7,334"

"So except for Dublin, Pleasanton receives more per student from the State. Comparing us and San Ramon, we receive $530 more per student from the State."



I see that we have the typical extremist conservative behavior of cherry-picking statistics again. Come on, if the facts are really on your side, then why resort to cherry-picking?

Here are a few more numbers from the same website:

Oakland: Revenue Limit: $5,108, Total Revenue $11,263

Albany: Revenue Limit: $5,088, Total Revenue $13,549

Berkeley: Revenue Limit: $5,227, Total Revenue $12,951

Castro Valley: Revenue Limit: $5,079, Total Revenue $11,998

Emery: Revenue Limit: $6,427, Total Revenue $14,475


All of these values are WELL ABOVE Pleasanton's per student total revenue of $9,842.
(See? I'm just as good at cherry-picking as you are!)

In all honesty, I don't believe that Albany and Berkeley students are directly seeing the classroom benefits of thousands of more dollars per pupil than Pleasanton students. More likely these total revenue costs are going more into things like building upkeep and other needed infrastructural items (i.e., items you're too lazy to investigate in your haste to draw conclusions).


Posted by Observer, a resident of Downtown
on Apr 12, 2011 at 12:33 pm

Albany residents don't blink when parcel taxes are on the ballot. However, comparing Albany school support to Pleasanton is unfair because Chinese parents truly care about their children's education.

It all starts at home.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 12, 2011 at 2:37 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Sam wrote: "More likely these total revenue costs are going more into things like building upkeep and other needed infrastructural items"

The demographics of those districts allow them to qualify for more special funding. It isn't for building upkeep either.


Posted by Observer, a resident of Downtown
on Apr 12, 2011 at 3:08 pm

Stacey sounds much like a broken record repeating herself over and over on this blog.

Let's set the record straight according to Stacey's point of view, once and for all:

1.) Teachers are overpaid.
2.) Merit pay would rid our schools of incompetent teachers.
3.) The teachers' union must be busted, if progress is to be made in our schools.
4.) Voting yes on E is like giving a pay raise to teachers.

Is there anything that you would like to add, Stacey?


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 12, 2011 at 3:20 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Yes, I'd like to add that I have never made those claims. If I have, then point readers to where I have said those things so that readers will know that you're not just misstating another poster's positions for your own purposes.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 12, 2011 at 3:23 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

And moreover, what does your point of view about me have to do with how much California districts spend or receive?


Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Apr 12, 2011 at 3:27 pm

Stacey wrote:"The demographics of those districts allow them to qualify for more special funding. It isn't for building upkeep either."

The idea of "building upkeep" was pure and open speculation on my part. Perhaps as you say the difference is due to special funding for demographics. In either case, the figures can't be used for the purposes claimed in the original post.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 12, 2011 at 4:18 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

You can find it out on Ed-Data. Look at the General Fund under Financial Reports for District.


Posted by Observer, a resident of Downtown
on Apr 12, 2011 at 5:30 pm

@ Stacey, did you not make the following comment on one of the many Measure E blog posts regarding Pleasanton teacher salaries on Apr 5, 2011 in response to apples and oranges:

Posted by apples and oranges, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2011 at 10:19 pm

Teachers who live in the other 49 states could not afford to live in Pleasanton.

Be nice if the teachers who teach here could afford to live here.

Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2011 at 11:15 pm
Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com

If most of their compensation wasn't deferred, they probably could.

***

I apologize for documenting your own self-misrepresentations and self-contradictions, but you did make the public request in the above post. Any Pleasanton Weekly reader with the time and energy could scan your numerous negative comments regarding Pleasanton Schools and Measure E.

However, Sam said it best:

Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2011 at 11:49 am

Give it up Steve. I think that Stacey's strategy is to bore you to death with endless quibbling over minutiae - just the same as she's already done with me.


Posted by curious, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2011 at 5:40 pm

Observer, if that's the best you can find, and obviously you've been trying hard, that is pretty pathetic.


Posted by Voting no, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2011 at 6:23 pm

My take-away from all the spending data points above is that there seems to be little correlation between spending and results (at least for communities in the bay area).

Also the more a poster is personally attacked, the more I listen to the words of that person being attacked. They must be on to something and a threat to the other side.

Lastly, this argument that real estate prices will decline if we don't vote in the parcel tax is humorous. How do you explain the fact that when the last parcel tax didn't go through, our real estate prices held up much better than surrounding communities?


Posted by Observer, a resident of Downtown
on Apr 12, 2011 at 6:28 pm

Obviously it is Stacey that is trying much too hard. "Curious" and "Stacey" have the identical IP address. How is that, just curious? Stacey may even have more than two blog names. I would not put it past that person, given her rants and raves. Take a moment and scan the blogs yourself, less than five minutes and you will dicover that the person is bent. Not too much effort is necessary. By the way, multiple postings on the same the topic is a violation Pleasanton Weekly policy, but that doesn't stop "Stacey".


Posted by Arnold, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2011 at 6:32 pm

"Obviously it is Stacey that is trying much too hard. "Curious" and "Stacey" have the identical IP address."

And just how would you know that?


Posted by curious, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2011 at 6:46 pm

I'm "curious" and definitely not Stacey. She knows quite a bit more than me about politics and has lived here a lot longer than me and I don't think is afraid to use her registered name for any comments she makes. And she, I think, is voting no and I am voting yes on Measure E!

Funny you make the statement you did though . . .


Posted by Observer, a resident of Downtown
on Apr 12, 2011 at 6:53 pm

Hello Stacey aka Curious aka Arnold, Do you want to add some more names to the list? Yes, PW does know!


Posted by curious, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2011 at 7:00 pm

I'm flattered, I do respect both of these posters, even when we differ!

You, on the other hand, I think the "yes" side could do without and that's it from me on this subject!


Posted by Voting no, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2011 at 7:03 pm

Observer - are you b, YAT, etc. all the same person?

You seem to use the common tactics of attacking anyone who disagrees with you and making statements that clearly aren't factual.

Unless you work for PW and have access to their server, you can't possibly determine IP addresses.

I suppose you are going to assume that I too am Stacey?

Ha ha ha


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 12, 2011 at 7:07 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Observer,

I fail to see how my comment relates to any of the items you listed. It is unfortunate that the PW website software doesn't include any sort of user post history to make it easier for you to find my posts. You cherry-picked a single post and stretched its meaning until it fit your ideas. You missed my posts from the Measure G campaign where I've written that I think teachers should be paid more.

It is well-written about that public employee unions have pushed for greater benefits over greater salaries and teacher unions are not alone in that. If a lot of teacher compensation wasn't tied up in post-employment benefits/CalSTRS promises, they'd have money in their pockets right now to live here. One could even interpret my post you picked as to indicate that I think teachers are adequately compensated.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 12, 2011 at 7:14 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

"Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com

I see your ideology getting the better of you, as if "human concerns" are completely unrelated to fiduciary responsibility. I would not ask teachers to work for free just because you have an ideology that believes that money does not matter in the equation. Teachers need to be paid more than they are making now, but that doesn't excuse the locking in of automatic raises during years when there isn't money to pay for it and then cutting programs or passing new taxes to pay for them."


Posted by One of "those" teachers from another district, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Apr 12, 2011 at 8:23 pm

@Stacey
"If a lot of teacher compensation wasn't tied up in post-employment benefits/CalSTRS promises, they'd have money in their pockets right now to live here."

As a California teacher, I don't understand your statement.


Posted by Voting no, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2011 at 8:50 pm

When one has flat revenue for education for the past four years (like Gov. Brown outlined today) and retirement costs increase, the money has to come from somewhere like current salaries.

But unfortunately we have an even worse situation where both salaries and retirement costs are increasing while revenue remains flat. This means that program cuts and layoffs will continue to maintain the higher salaries/retirement benefits for the remaining teachers.


Posted by checking, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2011 at 8:50 pm

Sam, I don't know who you are accusing of cherry-picking. I took the districts that were named in another thread and put the data together. I did not select these districts; only used the districts another poster submitted which has parcel taxes.

You are right that there are districts with money money than Pleasanton. Even though we are above the average, some districts have more than us. Districts you mention of Castro Valley, Berkeley, Oakland, Emeryville have more funds than us but I do not think they perform as well as Pleasanton. Shows you that more money does not ensure a better education.



Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 12, 2011 at 9:29 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Teacher from another district,

I'm not sure which part you didn't understand. Employee compensation practically everywhere is more than just a salary number.


Posted by One of "those" teachers from another district, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Apr 12, 2011 at 9:45 pm

Stacey-

I very much understand that compensation is made up of more than just salary. The district contributes 8.25% and the teacher contributes 8% towards retirement. This not on top of social security since neither the district nor the teacher pay social security. The district is not paying for fringe benefits such as medical or dental.

So, where is this "tie-up"?


Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Apr 12, 2011 at 9:59 pm

"checking" said: "Sam, I don't know who you are accusing of cherry-picking. I took the districts that were named in another thread and put the data together. I did not select these districts; only used the districts another poster submitted which has parcel taxes."

So let me get this straight: You're saying that while scanning the tables listing the funding per student for all of the other districts, you just focussed on the districts listed by the other poster and concluded "Pleasanton Schools Receive WAY MORE Money Than Other Districts" (your own words) without noticing that there were a number of other districts (e.g., Berkeley, Oakland, Albany) which have much higher funding than Pleasanton?

As for the rest of your logic, you're flip-flopping so many ways I don't know what to make of it. First you tell us that Pleasanton schools don't need more money because it already gets more money than other districts. Then when I point out that there are a number of districts that get more money, you flip-flop and abandon your original argument ( which would require you to admit that Pleasanton schools need more money since other school districts get much more than Pleasanton) and instead say that money doesn't matter! Heads you win, tails I lose, huh? OK, got it.


Posted by checking, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2011 at 10:36 pm

Sam, I am just responding to the other poster who said that since the other districts he/she had listed had parcel taxes, we have to also. I pointed out that you cannot just look at the parcel tax. You have to look at the complete funding. That poster had one column in the table. I added a couple more data points. If the argument is that we have to have a parcel tax since those listed districts had parcel taxes, I counter that argument that if you are looking at those districts you need to look at the complete picture. A district with a parcel tax is not necessarily better or worse than a district without a parcel tax. To be honest, a $98 per parcel tax is probably not going to make much difference one way or the other as it is not enough money to actually solve any real issues.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 13, 2011 at 11:02 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Teacher from another district,

Since you brought up SSI, here's the comparison. It is probably a valid comparison since both SSI and CalSTRS are defined benefit pensions. One key difference is the way benefits are calculated; SSI is progressive, giving higher benefits (percentage of wages) to those who made less over their careers, whereas CalSTRS gives the same benefits no matter how much one made. SSI percent of payroll is 12.4% (10.4% in 2011, paid by employee and employer). CalSTRS contributions are roughly 20% spread between employee, employer, and state). That number is expected to go up (not the employee part) because it needs to in order to keep paying out CalSTRS benefits. Subtract the employee part and contributions to CalSTRS remain much more generous than SSI.

Here's the CalSTRS valuation report showing how the contribution needs to go up by roughly 15% (to 35%, table 15 pg. 42): Web Link

Here's a good summary of the CalSTRS issue and possible solutions: Web Link
"over the next decade, billions of dollars in retirement obligations may have first dibs on new revenue that could have gone toward restoring programs and teaching positions cut over the past three years."
"A teacher with 35 years of experience retiring at 65 will receive more than twice what a worker making the same pay will get from Social Security."

Bottom line: money that could be going into wages instead goes into benefits. There's a reason for it. A wage is more transparent than benefits. Personally I think all that money should go to wages. Higher salaries with, say, a switch to SSI and 403(b)s or a much smaller CalSTRS pension would allow teachers to have more money in their pockets and still retain retirement security.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 13, 2011 at 11:07 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Please, do read that second link. It is rather important to understand what is going on with CalSTRS, which is expected to go bust right when many current teachers are set to retire. Web Link


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

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

Moneyball, the Sequel: Billy Beane for President!
By Tom Cushing | 6 comments | 1,004 views

Spedowfski Announces run for Livermore City Council
By Roz Rogoff | 1 comment | 885 views

Planning the "Pleasanton way"
By Tim Hunt | 11 comments | 860 views

Take Full Advantage of Free Standardized Testing Opportunities
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 358 views