Town Square

Post a New Topic

PUSD Already Receives From The State $4.0 MM Each Year To Pay For Class Size Reductions K-3

Original post made by frank, Pleasanton Heights, on Apr 30, 2009

The actual cost is $5.6 MM to run the program. Why would PUSD threaten to cut the difference of $1.6 MM and therefore lose the guaranteed $4.0 MM in order to balance their budget? You guessed it. To extort votes for passing a PARCEL TAX! If you don't believe this is the case, then find on the PUSD web site the following question and answer.

"Isn’t class size reduction funded by the state?
Since its inception, class size reduction (CSR) has never been fully funded by the state. The number of teachers it takes to meet the requirement of 20 students per teacher has always cost more than the funding received from the state. In Pleasanton, we receive about $4 million to support the program for grades K through 3. The actual cost is $5.6 million. By eliminating CSR for these grades, we would save $1.6 million from the general fund. The unfortunate part is that we would also lose the access to the $4 million from the state. At this writing, in order to realize a savings, we would have to eliminate CSR at an entire grade level—there is no option to increase class sizes a little (like to 25) and still receive funding. "

Now here is what SavePleasantonSchools writes on their web site about this issue:

"I’ve heard that the district gets millions of state dollars for the Class Size Reduction (CSR) program. Why is the district cutting it? Is this a scare tactic to get a “YES” vote on Measure G?

It is true that annually, Pleasanton Unified receives $4 million dollars from the state for the CSR program. However, it requires approximately $6 million dollars to adequately fund the CSR program. PUSD provides the remaining $2 million dollars. This $2 million is equally divided amongst K-3 and 9th grade to the tune of $400,000 per grade level. Since the state’s cuts to education are so severe, it is necessary to make cuts to all programs beyond the basic required classroom ratio come Fall of 2009."

If you throw out the $400,000 for the 9th grade (everyone is emotional about K-3), you get the same numbers as the PUSD website FAQ, $1.6 MM must be added to the $4 MM from the state. Nowhere is there stated that the $4 MM from the state is not coming into the district because of funding cuts.


The answer: to extort votes for passing a parcel tax. No one in their right mind in business in the private sector would cut contribution to a co-funding arrangement where the co-funder supplies such a high proportion of the funding. (Note the SPS web site answer begins with "it is true".)

Comments (5)

Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 30, 2009 at 10:48 pm

Stacey is a registered user.



Like this comment
Posted by Practical Parent
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 1, 2009 at 1:15 am

And the district information also states that if CSR is eliminated at the elementary level, 75 teachers will be cut. (Remember all the pink-slip drama a month ago?)

So for $1.6 M, 75 jobs could be saved. That seems like a no brainer to me. And talk about local economic stimulus effect!

Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on May 1, 2009 at 7:03 am

Send out pink slips to the least senior staff--pink shirts, teachers in tears, students crying . . . paint a picture of "overcrowded" classrooms at 30:1, Johnny and Susie aren't learning anything, some child sneezes . . . So, let's repeat, the biggest emotional hammer in the district's toolbox.

I'd like to think this community is smart enough to see past the bs and hold this district accountable for past fiscal practices and the drama they are intentionally creating. There is $2 million in the budget they can cut and still keep CSR (and I'm leaving out that they can move classes to 21:1 or 22:1, etc. and save money). That's about $8 million over the life of this proposed tax . . . what do they need the other $10 million for . . .

Like this comment
Posted by Community of Character
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 1, 2009 at 9:05 am

Dr. Casey and the school board members considered all possibilities before putting CSR on the chopping block. There are no better alternatives. I suggest that you educate yourself in this issue.

Moreover, the board members and Dr. Casey held multiple public hearings prior to putting the tax on the ballot. This topic was covered on numerous occasions. Never once did I hear a voice of opposition. Hmm...

Do the right thing and support our children, our schools, and our community.

Vote YES on G!

Like this comment
Posted by John Adams
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on May 1, 2009 at 9:06 am

what do they need the other $10 million for . . .

Kathleen, they don't NEED it, they WANT it for a "stable funding source." (Does this imply the parcel tax will become a permanent fixture on our tax bill?)

Instead of working to fix a broken tax allocation system, they just ask for MORE MORE MORE. It's easier to use that emotional hammer than to negotiate real change.

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


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

Twin tunnels plan in Delta is critical to Livermore Valley customers
By Tim Hunt | 1 comment | 1,178 views

Feeding the hungry in Alameda County
By Jeb Bing | 7 comments | 360 views