I can’t drive by a San Jose Unified School, especially those located downtown, without frustrations, questions and concerns. We live in an area where we have the confluence of high-tech and some of the smartest minds in the world, yet our school system in San Jose boasts poor facilities, program cuts and low test scores. This year especially, we have seen regime changes at the county and politics at the top of the food chain in the district; but are the kids and teachers getting the funding and the money they need to improve the educational system in San Jose?
Schools have to depend so much on state and federal funding that isn’t always given, and when it’s given, it isn’t always enough. Public schools “done right” seem to be the ones in the small towns or the affluent towns where parents can give more money to improve facilities and offer additional programs and services. But can what the “rich” districts do be translated to San Jose Unified School District (SJUSD)?
I researched what most affluent districts do to keep their programs and schools at the top, and one thing that kept resurfacing is the “parcel tax.” School districts use the money from this tax for a number of things, including retaining teachers, keeping classes small and adding music and art programs. There is no real limit on what you can use the money for, giving administrators and schools the flexibility (which I know isn’t always a good thing) to help in areas of need. Los Gatos Union School District raises about $2 million a year for a district of 6 schools through their $290 per year tax; Marin County has upwards of $300-600 dollar per parcel taxes, while Los Altos charges their residents $597 per parcel to keep their neighborhood schools small and programs strong.
Does this tax translate into better test scores, happier, well-rounded kids and better teachers in these districts? Or would they be that way anyway because they come from more affluent areas and probably have highly-educated parents that can afford extra programs? Obviously, this extra money does give schools the ability to offer more to their students in smaller classes—and large classes, poor facilities and the cutting of programs are huge problems in our underperforming schools.
The SJUSD has had difficulty with the parcel tax, and had a hard time getting parents and residents to buy into raising the tax. I can see why people are skeptical though. They use the tax to offset budget deficits, and in giving money in the past, facilities have not really improved. Test scores in the SJUSD haven’t improved either, so why would people want to pay more taxes if the money isn’t going to where it’s needed?
The last information I could get was that the SJUSD was trying to raise their tax to $195 a parcel, which is a small amount compared to what the more affluent districts can get from their residents. But, in these areas, has it translated into many more people sending their children to public schools where they live? How many homeowners in San Jose actually send their kids to public school? I would think the number of renters is higher and it’s the homeowners that are paying those taxes in the schools they don’t use. So are these taxpayers ever going to reconsider paying more, especially when they pay so much in property taxes as it is?
There are so many questions and it’s an issue that we will see constantly in the news as new elections come up, and school districts decide whether or not to renew or increase parcel taxes for their schools. Are people fed up with paying taxes and not seeing results, or are we asking for too little to make a real difference? As we now know, public schools surviving on what they are given by the government are not models; yet, when additional money is given, public schools can transform into “schools done right.” Fixing the system and providing great schools in San Jose should be a priority for everyone—but will that translate into paying more each year at property tax time?
Single Gal,
Perhaps an act of faith on the part of the school districts might help. Were we to consolidate the many and varied districts, and end the nonsense of having some districts with as little as one school, voters might then be inclined to pitch in with increased taxes.
Can you imagine the burden we currently bear… Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, and all of the other managers or Department Heads?!
Let’s end the waste and streamline what we have before we raise more money just to feed the duplicate efforts now in place.
When one hears about these parcel tax measures, there are several good questions to ask: how often are YOU involved with your school district? Do YOU go to your school district’s meetings and speak up on the issues?
From my experience in being educated in New Jersey, the one thing I found is that the best school districts have parents involved. This means that they do not make excuses for not being involved. They take responsibility for their children’s education, and ensure that their tax dollars are being properly spent.
I have never heard of such efforts (at least from the press) about watchdog groups for local school districts. It would be nice to hear of some of these watchdog groups. If none exist, they should be formed. A good example of this might be ones for the Alum Rock district in San Jose and Ravenswood in East Palo Alto, given the issues I have read in the press about this school district.
In the end, when you don’t take responsibility for your school, your community gets the uninformed, uneducated, and unproductive citizens it deserves.
YES, PEOPLE ARE FEED UP WITH THE NUMBEROUS PARCEL TAXES THAT ARE ADDED ON THE THEIR BILLS EVERY YEAR. MOST WILL VOTE FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY DON[‘T OWN A PARCEL. THIS IS AGAIN RICH AGAINST POOR. IF WE KEEP THIS UP THERE WILL BE A CLASS WAR. IF WE FIRED HALF THE ADMINISTATIONS THERE WOULD BE LOTS MORE MONEY FOR SHCOOLS. THIS GREAT REFORMER GOVERNOR HAS TURNED OUT TO BE A FLAKE AND A SELL OUT TAKING AWAY FROM SCHOOLS.
I once heard there are close to 100 different languages and dialiects spoken by kids @ SJUSD schools. Until we get them all learning in English, success will be difficult to achieve.
One common factor of most “affluent areas” is they have good public schools.
Why do they have good public schools? Because people support parcel taxes and, when asked, support their schools through educational foundations, fund raisers, etc..
One of the best ways to raise property values is to improve the local schools. Often that extra 100 bucks in taxes results in a an extra $5-10K in the value of your home.
S.G.:
It’s not about the money…it’s about parents nurturing their kids, reading to them when they’re young, and making them do their homework. (But, it’s not “PC” to point out that too many people are not doing an adequate job of raising their children). And, there are those who think it is the goverment’s job to raise the child. ( I cringed/laughed when I read the recent argument (think it was in the MERC) that safe/well maintained parks were necessary to combat childhood obesity…Please…what does that have to do with monitoring your child’s caloric intake?)
Pete Campbell
p.s. Yesterday’s column by Pierluigi asked about MLK. I believe that King would be appalled by the current debate. I believe that he would completely reject the “victimhood” arguments, and that he would be pushing the sentiments advanced by Bill Cosby and others.
Single Gal,
I’m glad you have broached the subject. Given the unstable funding of public schools in California, the only way a school district can take it to the next level is through extra local funding. Fundraising and grants are great, but can only bring in relatively small amounts. The only way to get an adequate level of funding to make a real difference is through a parcel tax.
It is shortsighted for landowners to vote against increasing taxes for education. The $200/year is a small price to pay to improve the quality of schools in the district. Even if you don’t currently have kids in the public schools, your home value will increase by more than the $200 if schools improve. Where are the most expensive homes? Where schools are best. Why are schools best in those places? Because the residents value schools and those districts have way more money. Palo Alto has 2x the amount of money of some of the poorer districts. It’s not because they get more money from the state – it’s because residents support the schools through local funding.
Another factor is media coverage. In Palo Alto, both the Palo Alto Daily and Weekly do a good job covering school board related issues, especially during elections. Unfortunately for San Jose residents, the Merc provides no coverage of local school boards except when there is a major scandal. If the Merc were not so lazy, San Jose residents might have more confidence in the school board (and voting yes for bonds) if they could read articles on a regular basis about the challenges facing our local schools.
Greg Howe is correct. Don’t ask me to support yet another parcel tax until administrative bloat is reduced.
Parcel taxes might be worthwhile if they applied to all areas, but there are to many school districts in San Jose. So, while one area could add a $1000 parcel tax dedicated to school funding, the schools directly adjacent to this area would get nothing.
Personally, I feel that we need to consolidate all SJ school districts into one. It should be easier to manage, more cost effective due to economies of scale, and easier to equally distribute funds to each school.
A parcel tax for San Jose schools should be understood for what it is: a pricey suppository that will allow the public to stave-off the horrors of reality. The only real question is how many more years of comforting myths and wishful thinking the tax will provide before the charlatans return to us with more failure, new promises, and those familiar upturned palms.
Our public school dollars have been squandered by bloated administration, social busing, unachievable promises, and a disciplinary philosophy of endless tolerance. What was once an institution that served taxpayers by confronting students annually with the pass/fail reality of adulthood has been reduced to one that shields students from reality and instead confronts the taxpayers on an annual basis.
Single Gal, if you want to understand the basis for the disparity between test scores and school achievement I suggest you read The Bell Curve. In it you will find the science revealing the role of genes in intelligence and enough data to crush any egalitarian’s dreams. Then I suggest you visit a few of our lowest performing schools and get to know the kids. There you will discover what I learned by attending such schools: that even in the best of circumstances, students can go only as far as their brains will take them. The idea that all children are college-material, or that the offspring of slow-witted people or parents devoid of intellectual curiosity will ever compete with the children of our professional and intellectual elite is founded on sociological dogma, contradicted by science and common sense, and not fit for use as an educational doctrine.
It is also cruel to the students. There are tens of thousands of average and less-than-average students in San Jose who would be best served by a school district that forces discipline upon them, provides the basics in math (necessary to survive our economy) and English and then directs them onto a path consistent with their abilities and interests (vocational or military programs, for example). What they don’t need is to master the minutia of their particular ethnicity (the responsibility of parents and churches), be indoctrinated to equate success with unfair advantage, or deluded into believing that some mythical form of “social justice” will someday bring to an end the unequal outcomes produced by the very real disparities in human ability.
We must put to an end the notion—sinister when employed by partisans—that a system that fails or overlooks the talents of one child is itself a failure. A school system that does absolutely right by 99.9% of its students will, in the case of a district with an enrollment of 30,000, will produce 30 potential examples of failure—enough ammunition to arm any critic looking to get a headline in the Merc or sic upon the district a swarm of career-building crusaders from the federal government.
But don’t get the idea that those failed in such a system will all be talented kids of color who ran into an indifferent teacher (or the ubiquitous, racist counselor of anecdotal fame). A good system will be just as likely to fail a gifted student, one with a unique talent, or one whose academic maturity develops late. Sad, maybe, but that’s just the way it is. Institutions challenged with educating, moulding, or reforming great numbers of human beings will never be perfect—a reality that long ago gave birth to private schools and has, unfortunately, made it today perfectly easy to criticize public schools.
The quickest way to improve service to the students is to return discipline. Return to the classroom teacher the authority and administrative support he or she needs and you will instantly reward the majority of the students with the order and power structure under which young people thrive (no matter if its math class or football practice). Challenge each student academically, but do not treat raw ability and aptitude as myths. Keep kids in their neighborhood schools, reinforce parental accountability in both attendance and behavior, and recognize the value of physical education (burn calories and energy, instill discipline, etc.).
A vote for a parcel tax is a vote for more of the same. Better to recognize that a crisis is upon us, that change is needed, and that there was much wisdom in the old ways.
Pete #6: you got that right! Teacher friends tell me that kids show up in pre-school/kidergarten with poor social skills, lacking basic table manners (can’t use utensils like forks and spoons correctly…or at all), and suffer from complete lack of self-control. And the wayward parents of these poor urchins expect the schools to teach them the things parents should have taught them years earlier.
There is also a huge correlation in this situation with income—poor kids are more likely to suffer from these social deficits than middle class or rich kids.
Add to the mix the percentage of non-English speakers, and we have a recipe for total distaster in the public school system. That’s why anyone who can afford it takes their kids out of public school in all but the best districts.
Of course, that exacerbates the problem, since now we have the convoy theory (proceed at the pace of the slowest ship in the convoy) warped to the worst—almost everyone has a “special need” that must be addressed.
Add to that the Al Sharptons of the world who espouse the theory that standard math tests are somehow racially biased, and (perhaps) well-meaning folks who want to educate kids in a myriad of languages and we have a problem that will never be solved.
How do these limousine liberals possibly believe that educating kids in their native language for years will help those kids find real jobs in an English speaking country? They will forever be an underclass.
Single Gal, what’s wrong with you? The biggest issue is the burned out historical building on First, not parcel tax b.s.. You’re out of downtown scene, I guess.
I never could understand why people seem to like giant unified districts. LA Unified, SF Unified, Oakland Unified, and SJ Unified all are pretty poor academically.
There are significant problems with our elementary, middle, and high schools that are not caused by less funding than school boards wish.
For example, the Merc revealed a couple of days ago that the chancellor (Martha Kantor) of one of the peninsula community colleges claimed that 80% of their new admissions required math and English remedial studies. At a community college!
The best thing we could do is to require the middle schools to publish figures on how many promoted elementary students by school site require remedial studies.
The high schools should publish figures on how many promoted middle school students by school site require remedial studies.
And so on for community colleges and SJSU.
This would at least give us a handle on which school sites need work, something that “No Child Left Behind” was supposed to do, but which has already been hollowed out by exceptions and waivers.
Until we know the remedial rates required of students by school site as they are passed through the system, and what the district proposes to cure the situation, it beggars the imagination to consider voting for more parcel taxes.
East Side Union High School is testing the waters on a similar issue. It has a very large bond measure on the Feb. 5 ballot, and resolutely declines to identify the exact projects that will be cleaned up if this bond passes. We’ll learn a lot about the state of mind by voters from East Side’s Measure E on Feb. 5.
Single Gal—Thoughtful ruminations on education and on school funding, sparking a very interesting debate. FinFan, as usual, is so right about keeping our malignant, ignorant educational system afloat. It needs to crash and burn. It cannot be fixed, and funding it is just as bad as funding the war in Iraq. What a waste of dollars that could be spent actually doing something constructive. Your point about property owners getting parcel-taxed for the “benefit” of hordes of renters’ kids, and no benefit to themselves—and the indignity of having to deal with legions of illiterate graduates they paid to “educate”, is well taken. Demographics, not dollars, is the difference between Los Gatos school kids and districts on the East Side. The teachers in both districts have the same “training” and “certificate”, same textbooks, same pool of administrators. The only difference is the wealth of the areas they “serve”. Moreover, though Los Gatos High is mentioned prominently in all the local realtors’ ads, a quick check of the AP classes offered at LGHS and the Palo Altlo schools shows that Pally is far superior academically. And they don’t have the drug and gang problem that LGHS has. Not a coincidence that Palo Alto is higher on the food chain than Los Gatos. Of course PA scores would be higher. Until teachers are held accountable for the result of their effort nothing will improve. CTA cares more about protecting their members from evaluation than they do about what they get paid. Even worse, the teacher training at SJSU needs to be evaluated; that’s the root of the problem.
Evaluation seems to be unAmerican—unless you’re a musician or a sports superstar, in which case your performance is evaluated constantly, and dealt with immediately—with millions, or a pink slip. The problem with the city of San Jose is the same—no evaluation of effort, or even worse, you offer two expensive plans for landscaping the entrance to the airport and you still have a job, or you can’t do your job so you get hundreds of thousands to hire a consultant to do it for you. How come the consultant doesn’t get the job instead? Just a thought. George Green
Until all schools have music and arts programs they are under funded. Until all high schools have moderate levels of vocational training as a curriculum option, they are under funded.
Money however is not the main issue. The difference is parent participation, parent education, and parent expectations.
More competition and choice in the form of charter schools would most likely help too.
First of all I agree with what everyone has said about our bloated and oversized school district, many people wish there was a way to divide it into smaller districts with greater accountability and involvement among families.
More important though is to realize why SJUSD is floating a parcel tax—it’s because their Plan A—a refinancing of our Measure F bond, is now widely understood to be an illegal way to raise additional property taxes without the required vote of the residents.
SJUSD illegally took an extra $21 million from taxpayers when it secretly refinanced our Measure C bond in 2005. If SJUSD returns that $21 million to the taxpayers I would wholeheartedly support a parcel tax. But SJUSD has stubbornly refused to do so, and only reluctantly acknowledged that it took those millions from the taxpayers for additional projects outside the scope of the ballot measure presented to the voters.
For those of you Insiders who don’t recall the SJUSD bond refinancing scandal, I ask to you refer to the archives. But in short, under state law, districts may refinance bond to save the taxpayers money. Instead, without any public disclosure, SJSUD refinanced the bonds at a higher than market interest rate (which we’re repaying with artificially high tax rates) and kept the “investors premium” for those attractive bonds to fund undisclosed projects. Taxpayers should not have to put up with deceptive tax raising practices like this, especially now when so many are pinching their pennies.
DW # 15-
We have good numbers for how many kids require remediation.
Both middle and elementary schools publish numbers about the percentage of students who are proficient in math and English. Subtract from 100 and you have the percentage who need remediation.
It doesn’t tell you whether the school is actually providing it, of course. But it tells you whether the kids know their stuff.
You can even do a good time series analysis. Look at the 2nd grade scores from 2002, the 5th grade scores from 2005, and the 7th grade scores from 2007. If proficiency drops, then that’s a really bad sign.
Go to http://www.greatschools.net, and hunt around for CST results.
Throwing money at people not interested in learning will not improve their grades or test scores; nor will it reduce the dropout rate signficantly.
I love this site.
I am away for a few months and when I return, I get to relish in FinFin’s defense of Eugenics. Maybe we should pay these “slow-witted people” $100 if they agree to be sterilized? Or maybe we should stop spending valuable resources teaching them how to read-if they are genetically pre-destined to flip burgers. These concepts of racial/genetic superiority didn’t work out to well for William Shockley or Adolph Hitler and I don’t think it’ll fly-even in San Jose.
BlandBung obviously took my comments about the slow-witted personally, something perfectly understandable judging by the intellectual content of his/her reaction.
I sincerely hope that everyone reading this blog will examine BlandBung’s post and then compare it with the post it critiques (mine, #11). What you will see is not a mere misreading or overreaction, but instead a form of attack that is widely-used, terribly destructive, and cunningly designed to control the scope of examination of an almost limitless list of important topics. It is a tactic that is flexible enough to employ in any environment, and simple enough, as in this case, for use by even the cognitively-crippled.
BlandBung accuses me of defending Eugenics, despite the fact that I mentioned in my post neither race as a measure nor reproduction control as a cure. But accuracy was never the intent of the allegation; the intent was to unfairly color my contribution with the stain of something guaranteed to evoke a powerfully negative reaction in the reader.
Next up is the sterilization charge, also something for which there is no evidence. What BlandBung would like you to do is to equate my mentioning the existence of slow-witted people with Dr. Mengele. This unfair, scumbag tactic is intended not only to discredit me, but to send the message to anyone else thinking of exercising free speech to either toe the politically-correct line or be subjected to slander.
My post was about dealing with the very real differences in talent and ability and how our school system could best serve its students and the taxpayers. I never suggested denying anyone their rights or the opportunity to reach their true potential. BlandBung’s deception is there for all to see, every bit as ugly as are his/her motives.
BlandBung would like to convince you that simply acknowledging human differences opens the door to discrimination and abuse. I would suggest to you that the real danger comes from the BlanBung’s among us, those who think so little of their fellow human beings that they will cheat and lie to control them.
Sorry finfan. Your attempt to justify and rationalize your ignorant post (#11) by trying to hide your bigotry and stupidity behind verbiage is futile and ineffective.
Once again, you have exposed yourself to be the useless charlatan that you are.
FinFan #22—but surely you will give Blandbug credit for using an intellectual word like “Eugenics” (even if he used it improperly)instead of the more common “racist”, which most folks use to spatter you.
It’s an old tactic.
Whenever someone makes a point you dislike, compare them to Hitler. Voila! You end a discussion you found uncomfortable.
With any luck, everyone will forget the original point- in this case, that people are born with, and develop, different abilities, and that any decent school system has to address those differences honestly.
Until English is given the rank of national language, rather than common language, we’re just pouring $ down a bottomless pit. Proficiency in English should be a requirement for advancement to higher grade levels, as well as graduation.
S.G., you make a good point by identifying affluent neighborhoods and affluent school districts of producing better educated and well rounded students. You also point out how some districts can pass a parcel tax twice the amount San Jose Unified School District can ever hope to pass. However, the problem I see; if SUSD were able to pass a $400 parcel tax, the lion’s share would still end up in Willow Glen or the Almaden Valley and the inner city schools would continue to struggle with oversize classrooms and some of the least qualified teachers.
This is evident just by driving by each campus. Drive by an inner city school and you can see the low budget upgrades and artificial turf. Drive by a campus in Willow Glen or Almaden, and you see the quality upgrades with real manicured green grass on their playing fields.
More money will only translate into more benefits for the campuses that need it the least. Administrators know how to keep the pressure off. Keep the most affluent area of the district happy and pacify the least affluent with a few pet projects.
I’m JWII, and I approved this posted comment.
This thread may be closed by now, but an interesting articles n the Murky News on 2/3/08 sheds some light on our schools “crisis”.
According to the Murky News “About 85% of their 9school distrcts) expenses pay salaries ans benefits locked in by union contracts”.
So, all the teacher wailing and beating of breasts wrings a bit hollow when you realize that the reason kids don’t have books is that the teachers and administrators suck up 85% of the budget.
Does anyone know any business that can survive with an 85% labor cost?
The article quoted a Christine Mallory, the “director of business for the Fremont Union High School District in Sunnyvale”. HHHMMM, what business development does a school district engage in? Having a higher birth rate so more kids can add to the ADA?
Sylvia Alvarez of the Evergreen School Board complained that “We don’t have assistant principals…” Tell us, Sylvia, why we need assistant principals. What EXACTLY do they do?
Phuong Le was mentioned, an assistant superintendent for the Milpitas School District. How many assistant superintendents are there, and why do we need any of them.
School districts are top heavy with virtually useless assistants, deputies, etc. The entire school buraucracy is top heavy. The personnel costs would break any business.
It’s time to identify what every non-teacher in the buraucracy does…before we fire 75% of them as unnecessary bulk in a lean world.