Town Square

Post a New Topic

When it comes to numbers, Pleasanton Council, school board 'Excel'

Original post made on Jan 30, 2013

If you like numbers, you should have been at the joint meeting of the Pleasanton City Council and the Pleasanton school board.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, January 30, 2013, 10:11 AM

Comments (11)

Like this comment
Posted by Jill
a resident of Birdland
on Jan 30, 2013 at 11:05 am

HUGE typo in the cost for new facilities. It is not $500,000. It is $500,000,000

Not surprising Grant being the cheerleader and commending staff for figuring out how to spend $500 million. How many more decades do we have in paying off the current bonds and they are already looking on re-doing all of the facilities? I give the district an F in doing a reality check. The people interviewed for the facilities were told to dream and not even think about the costs. Don't you wish you could do that at home? Every 15-20 years completely tear down your house and start over, and have somebody else pay for it?

Like this comment
Posted by Beth
a resident of Walnut Grove Elementary School
on Jan 30, 2013 at 1:44 pm

"0 – Amount of new revenue to become available to Pleasanton school district from new taxes imposed by Prop. 30."

I'm confused. I thought "[t]he passage of Proposition 30 results in a reduction of revenue deferrals that will improve our cash balances by providing $9M in cash this year that would otherwise have been delayed until the next fiscal year."

Web Link

Like this comment
Posted by students
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 30, 2013 at 2:55 pm

"15,000 – Number of students now enrolled in Pleasanton schools, including 53.28% whites, 34.36% Asians, 9.29% Latinos, 2.43% blacks, and 0.65% Native Americans."

Just a question.....and NOT a race based question: Would students from a back ground of India, as well as northern Africa etc, all be combined in the 'Asian' percentages?

Seriously, just a question on how the numbers are created. I have no other motive. thanks

Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jan 30, 2013 at 3:22 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

From the California Department of Education: Web Link

Beginning with the 2010 AYP, there are eight race and ethnicity categories reported on the AYP report: Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Filipino, Hispanic or Latino, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, White, and Two or More Races. The subcategories for Asian (i.e., Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Asian Indian, Laotian, Cambodian, Other Asian, or Hmong) are counted as Asian. The subcategories for Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (i.e., Native Hawaiian, Guamanian, Samoan, or Tahitian) are counted as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. If multiple subcategories are marked in the same racial category (e.g., Chinese and Korean) the student is classified as that category (e.g., Asian), not Two or More Races.
The following steps determine in which race/ethnicity AYP subgroup a student’s test results are included:
1. IfthestudentrecordshowsHispanicorLatinoinanyfield,thestudent’sresults are included in the Hispanic or Latino AYP subgroup.
2. Ifthestudentrecordshowsnon-HispanicorLatinoandonlyonerace,the student’s results are included in the AYP subgroup of that racial category.
3. Ifthestudentrecordshowsnon-HispanicorLatinoandmorethanonerace,the student’s results are included in the Two or More Races AYP subgroup.
4. Ifthestudentrecordshowsblankinallfieldsonly,theCDEwillmatchagainst CALPADS to establish if the race/ethnicity category can be determined. If the race/ethnicity can be determined from CALPADS, the student’s results will be included in the AYP subgroup of that race/ethnicity category. If the race/ethnicity cannot be determined from CALPADS, the student's results will only be included in the schoolwide and LEA-wide AYP results and will not count in any subgroup.

Like this comment
Posted by Bruce
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 30, 2013 at 3:29 pm


Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jan 30, 2013 at 5:20 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Bruce, that was a translation occurring in the post. It didn't look like that prior to hitting submit. You're welcome just the same.

Like this comment
Posted by Philip
a resident of Birdland
on Jan 30, 2013 at 6:25 pm

If not one excuse it's always another.

Like this comment
Posted by Really Sucks
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 31, 2013 at 9:03 am

Those numbers show we will get 10,000 low-income residents added to Pleasanton. The quality of your schools is going to take a bit hit, and the crime rate is going to sour. Meatball Moonbeam Brown is turning Pleasanton into Hayward. Really sucks.

Like this comment
Posted by Daniel Bradford
a resident of another community
on Jan 31, 2013 at 6:11 pm

California Community Redevelopment Law requires that 15 percent of housing developed in a redevelopment project area must be affordable to low- to moderate-income households (persons earning up to 120 percent of area median income).

Median family income in Pleasanton: $134,282.

So you can have a family income of $160,000 a year and qualify for "affordable housing" in the new Pleasanton developments.

When you think that a family of four with a household income of $160,000 (which would be about the income of two Pleasanton full-time teachers in the upper-third of the salary scale ) is going to turn you town into a ghetto, man, you have got wayyyy too much money. Don't fear us poor folk, we don't bite.

Like this comment
Posted by But when it comes to buildings, Fails
a resident of Del Prado
on Jan 31, 2013 at 8:07 pm

This reminds me of the October 2, 2001 Pleasanton meeting in the city records (CCMIN100201 at ) where Deborah Kleffman said that the Developer School Impact Fee Gift Agreement's 'flexibility' in how funds would be spent meant that schools would never be enlarged or built that would keep up with population growth. She also stated that PUSD would then go approach the public with yet another huge bond measure. Does she have a crystal ball, or what?

So instead of building classrooms to keep up with growth, the Gift Agreement money has gone to pay lawyers for all the many lawsuits that the District has fought over Neal (with nothing to show for it) and the Gift Fee has basically been pocketed by the District and spent on "program expenses," not building classrooms.

Lozano Smith in the City Meeting minutes refers to as a broader interpretation -- e.g., 'clocks' and such that equip a classroom. The "Gift Fee" has thus been used for materials and supplies that furnish and equip classrooms, not building additional classrooms.

So here we are today, with PUSD, having failed at doing anything of substance since 2001, now starting Part 1 of going to the taxpayers for a huge bond measure, just as Kleffman predicted would happen.

Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Ridgeview Commons

on Apr 24, 2017 at 5:13 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

GE's re-organization reaches San Ramon digital headquarters
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 1,905 views

Sound and Fury over Vile and Slur-ry
By Tom Cushing | 72 comments | 1,128 views

New state housing requirements could affect Pleasanton
By Jeb Bing | 2 comments | 429 views