Guest Opinion: Tax renewal would protect Palo Alto school programs

Good morning Tabitha. I think you should be fired.

Nothing personal. I’d rather spend the money on students.

Have a nice day.

I just don’t get the resistance to Measure A. I don’t have any children in Palo Alto schools. My son went to school in Sunnyvale and graduated high school there. But I am a resident of this city and wish the children who live here to have every advantage possible. I am more than willing to pay the parcel tax. It’s the right thing to do.

Dear Dr. McGee,

What is you plan to remove problem teachers, the Principals who support them and District staff who work against the best interest of students?

How do you intend to regain the trust of a community that has seen teacher “inconsistency”, pressure, intimidation and retaliation in the classroom?

What is your plan to separate the 15% trouble teachers from the outstanding teachers? How can the public be assured of a quality teacher and a safe school for our kids?

Will you remove the principal at Jordan? Young?

Thank you sincerely for your answer,
Frustrated Parent

No on “A” or any other school tax boondoggles until there is accountability from the school district. Member has it right. This is a tax to protect income and benefits for adults.

I am voting no on Measure A. My kids went to Gunn. I was active in PTA and went to site council meetings. Parents tried to establish consistent homework grading practices (so that kids were treated equally no matter who the teacher was) within departments with only pushback from teachers (they felt it was giving up to much flexibility). Parents and students cannot file negative reviews about teachers because the kid is then labeled as a problem and it only gets worse–believe me–it happened to my kid!

Every time there is a little bit of wiggle room in the budget, teachers get a raise and EVERY teachers gets the same raise–no merit or evidence of performance is required–just behave, get tenure, and show up for work. Even the worst teachers get the same raise as the best teachers. Only profession I know where you can negatively affect kids lives, stay employed, and even get a raise for doing it.

Until the time comes where teachers are held accountable for their performance, I will not vote for any more taxes to support a broken system.

The reason I will vote no:

1. All parcel taxes are regressive in nature. Those who own very small homes or condos pay the same amount as HP or other companies with large parcels and the same as homeowners with much larger and/or more valuable properties.

2. The salaries for most teachers in the PAUSD are higher than mine and many receive automatic step increases (raises) every year — why should I be required to subsidize the income of those with greater resources than my own?

3. To say that none of the income from the parcel tax will be used to pay administrative salaries is misleading. If you have a pot of income that covers one area, it frees up money for another. Administrative wages in the PAUSD are insane.

4. The superintendent’s statement “$10/mo” is intentionally misleading. Yes, that is the increase, but the true cost is 6 times that. Statements like these, partial truths, do not engender trust. ~$750 is a significant sum for many in Palo Alto; not everyone is wealthy.

4. As a (working) senior eligible for a waiver, it seems unfair to vote for a tax that others will have to pay but from which I am exempt.

Of course I am for smaller class sizes and all sorts of benefits to our children.

I have been a PAUSD parent for a long time. I see so much good that directly affects our children, but I see so much money squandered that I can’t justify that this is for the children.

McGee has just been to Singapore with several lucky students all paid by me. We keep getting more and more administrators at Churchill to do things I am not too sure about, and it is paid for by me.

When McGee was interviewed out of state, it involved a plethora of PAUSD people flying out there, staying in hotels, probably eating and claiming expenses, all paid for by me.

I see legal battles, lawyers fees, PR coverups, etc. etc. all paid for by me.

If I saw some financial caution at the top, I might feel differently. If I saw the District cutting expenses at Churchill, I might feel differently. If I even saw an extra administrator at our ever growing elementary schools (do they still have only one principal and two clerical positions as they did when they were half the size?), I might feel differently. If I saw a few school nurses traveling between the clusters of elementary schools, I might feel differently. If I entered the office of one of the secondary schools and managed found a busy staff instead of staff members standing around chatting or looking bored, I might feel differently.

But no, I see that any possible cuts have to be teachers, not administrators. I see the possibility of cuts in programs, not administrative expenses. I see threats of increased class sizes, not cuts of District spending at any level.

Where is the belt tightening really happening? We will still have an ever increasing enrollment with higher property taxes producing more income for PAUSD. I just would like them to be more prudent with the money I already give them.

@ above poster: Measure A does not “renew early”…if you’re saying that the increase is implemented immediately. If approved, the new parcel tax would not start until after the current parcel tax expires.

The PAUSD BoE is just trying to get the new/replacement parcel tax approved ASAP. They have created a buffer of time so that if it fails in this election, they still will have time to send up another parcel tax request before the current parcel tax expires.

to cresent park dad – as per paonline Jan. 28/29 and editor’s note

“If approved, the new parcel tax will go into effect immediately and replace the current tax, which is set to expire in June 2016.”

So yes its an early renewal.

And to clarify what I meant by deceptive explanations regarding amount of increase;

The parcel tax was passed at the amount of $589. The ongoing description says the renewed tax would be $120. above the CURRENT rate, which is $638. ( as there is a annual 2% increase).

So what started as a tax of $589. will end up at around $836. (or close to it).
Unless they choose to renew early.

Like I said this is an important part of our school funding but the process lacks integrity and requires a bit more show and little less tell.

I’ve been in Palo Alto for 20+ years now. Its always the same tactic- empty promises because voters have short memories! We are one of the highest $/student district. Lets ask them to justify all the district overheads, multiple assistant principals, district coordinators , etc.

Recently, March 31, there was a board meeting to approve additional hires with the extra property tax budgeted:

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/03/31/palo-alto-school-board-to-discuss-breakdown-of-2-million-in-staff-program-additions

This is post from another reader:
Posted by Jim H.
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 31, 2015 at 11:16 am
Nearly all of this is admin support. Very little goes to helping students. Yes, they try to say that adding admin gives others more time for students. Bunch of BS.

The article says, “the largest chunk, $600,000, to fund an additional full-time Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA) who would provide math and literacy support for all of Palo Alto’s 13 elementary schools.” Makes it sound like a lot is going to support the students. Buth, they then go on to say, “In addition, each elementary site would receive a part-time staff member to “to support their schools as determined by site needs,” a staff report reads.” So, another 13 administrators to support the schools is included in that $600K figure.

Also included:
– $358,864 to pay for three additional TOSAs to support staff during the transition to new state standards’
– $363,156 would fund additional middle school administrative support
– $157,905, ,,, assistant principal who would “perform administrative support duties
– $133,253 two additional classified staff members at the high schools to perform clerical and secretarial duties
– $142,862 for new student research coordinator who would “design, develop, deliver, and evaluate electives for high school students
– $100,000 to bring the three middle schools’ health technicians on full time

They’re also approving $2.9M in additional pay. Just today, I saw an update where McGee is proposing to add $250,000 in mental health support. Parents, lets continue to force our district to be accountable. NO MORE MONEY till Mcgee clean up the district office.

NO on Measure A! Let them be accountable with the extra property tax!

GOOD LUCK WITH PUBLIC ANSWERS QUESTION…

“I look forward to sharing the details of my vision and our plan with our community. If you have any questions or comments about this measure, please contact me at mmcgee@pausd.org or by calling 650-329-3737.”

The district’s campaign for this tax has been built on some systematic efforts to misrepresent the situation.

1. The superintendent refers to the “impending expiration of our local school parcel-tax funding”. The word “impending” gives the impression that this tax is just about to expire, and this is false. The current tax has another year. In fact, this election is a year early!

2. The superintendent also tells us that this will “increase the rate by $120 — $10 per month” But that is just the INCREASE. The current tax is $638 per parcel already. So the $120 will push us up to $758. But when has the district mentioned this total of $758 in its advertising?

The fact is that this entire campaign has been organized to win the election by some manipulative practices including the following:

1. “Messaging” including things that give the wrong impression such as the above. Talk about the small increase, not the huge overall size.
2. A mail-only election with nothing else on the ballot. The district’s consultants have told them that this is the best way to focus their supporters and gain victory, rather than risking a general election with many more voters.
3. Asking for a new tax a year early allows the district to ask for a whopping increase this year and still have a chance for renewal next year. They get two shots at this thing.
4. Only last week, letters went out to senior citizens giving them the opportunity to exempt themselves from the tax. The letters also contained a pitch to vote for the new tax. Real nice, get the seniors’ votes while letting them off of the hook for paying! Yes, this is legal, but look how blatant the district is being about this.

Voted NO on this because of the teachers union’s horrible resistance to Schoology.

Thank you to the “Dad in support of A” for your refreshing voice of reason on here. It’s hugely concerning that our heartbroken community has turned into a revenge-seeking angry mob who is willing to sacrifice support of our students/schools to somehow send a message. I am a psychologist (& parent) and understand that it’s easier to be angry than sad, but this madness is counterproductive & has to stop now. Of course we should all vote yes on A. Of course taking away resources is not the answer. Investing additional resources for our students who are struggling while continuing to communicate with our education leaders about policy changes needed to reduce student stress is the only way to move forward & resolve this crisis.

If you care about the quality of Palo Alto’s public schools, you should vote yes on Measure A. After adjusting for the high cost of living in the Bay Area, Palo Alto spends less per student than the average school district around the US – and much less than some comparable high-performing school districts. Measure A dollars are critically important and allow PAUSD to reduce class sizes, offer more electives, and provide additional assistance to struggling and at-risk students. That, in turn, is key to the fact that Palo Alto is one of the best public school districts in California and the nation.

If there is something about our public schools you don’t find satisfactory, voting no on Measure A is not a solution. Talking to the school board members and the superintendent is the solution, not voting no on a measure that benefits every single student who attends our public schools. If Measure A becomes a hostage to every person and every group advocating for one cause or another, we’ll never be able to pass a parcel tax in Palo Alto, and all the students will suffer as a result. So vote yes on Measure A – it’s the right thing to do for the students and the community as a whole.

Whoa! Let’s look at the big picture here. The schools deserve support and that is sometimes financial as well as in participation. Please don’t get caught up in negative comments and postings against Measure A. One way or another, we ALL benefit from the excellence of our schools being a big part of why people choose to live here. I urge you to support Measure A! I raised 4 children here who have all graduated from the Palo Alto schools and I support the continued funding and improvement of our excellent school district. Please join me in voting YES on Measure A.
Many thanks, neighbors!
Suzie Provo

Suzie,

The big picture is that resource allocation (where our money goes) will either help or hurt to make student lives better.

Piling on more money to STEM is random. I have not heard any doctors asking for money for STEM – which in Silicon Valley is the equivalent of fretting in Hollywood about kids understanding the movie business.

I don’t trust the way priorities are set, and worst I don’t trust what the district says it will do, but then does something else. Some numbers could help – at least some percentages when they throw out the “program” term. What percentage to reduce class size, what percentage for Libraries, what percentage for “STEAM” and what percentage to counseling?

For an election like this, endorsements are really pretty meaningless. Like who is going to commit political suicide by coming out publicly against a school bond measure in this town? If it is voted down, it will have been for a reason, and those who endorsed it aren’t going to look bad for having endorsed it. But if it is voted through, only bad publicity will result for that politician. They are all asked – how could any of them say no?

It does seem to me that people’s stance on this election is a rough measure of how much they trust the district. It sure seems like the amount of trust is generally inversely proportional to how well people (non-insiders) are acquainted with today’s district.

Okay, so I’ve said I have two conditions for voting for A–one should be met–elimination of the academic zero period. So what about no. 2?

No. 2 is all about getting the homework load at the high schools under control and in line with previously established district policy. The easiest way to monitor this would be by getting all high-school teachers on Schoology. But the teachers’ union is getting in the way of that.

So, let’s make this easy–according to an article in another publication, current compliance at Gunn with Schoology is 50 percent. Not good enough.

You want my money teachers? Get Schoology compliance up to 80 percent–you don’t need your union’s permission to do that–though the very least the union could do is drop the damn grievance–for its own sake–it’s terrible PR.

I’m a mellow parent–a B really is okay with me–so 80 percent compliance and you’ll get my “yes” vote. Because right now, you’re flunking out and are looking at retaking the class and trying again next year.

Oh, and yes, the lack of compliance with Schoology and Hermann’s request makes me wonder just what you’re hiding.

I really don’t understand the yes arguments for Measure A. If you lIve in PA and decide not to support The well being, safety and mental health of students, that is just wrong!

@mbcaswell writes:
“If there is something about our public schools you don’t find satisfactory, voting no on Measure A is not a solution. Talking to the school board members and the superintendent is the solution…”

No it’s not. You, Ms. Caswell did nothing about Schoology for 8 years despite an outpouring if support for it. You kept wanting the teachers to want to change.

Withholding the funds seems to have got your attention. Now let’s see you deliver. Else it’s going down in FLAMES.

Child Advocate,

I do care about the kids–but I was around for the last suicide cluster and I hate seeing it happen again while nothing changes. I’d prefer to vote “yes” on a school bond, but there needs to be a good faith effort on the part of the district to address the destructive environment in our high schools. McGee’s promised to move ahead on one thing, now I need the teachers to step up to the plate on Schoology so we can get real data on the homework loads at the high school.

Unfortunately, money talks when other things don’t. I want an end to kids killing themselves; to 200-plus kids being considered high-risk for suicide attempts; to a large minority of high-school kids showing indications of serious depression. I want more than cursory lip service given to changing the school environment.

In some ways, I’m not sure what terrible thing you think will happen if the bond doesn’t happen. Terrible things have already happened–when kids are killing themselves on the train tracks, intimations of gloom and doom ring pretty hollow.

@Rex,
That’s very interesting, since I recall the difference in cost between a special election and coinciding with the general was on the order of $500,000. Who approved that? Was there a cost comparison provided to the public?

@ Rex Alaska: “PAUSD didn’t need to put this on the ballot now as the existing parcel tax doesn’t expire for a few more years. Why now?”

Easy – they thought they could leverage the current crisis, add some mental health language and use this tragedy to drum up money for the union & teachers.

It backfired because they lack political acumen and a sense of accountability. They didn’t realize the depth of mistrust they have accumulated.

Vote No on Measure A

“Talking to the school board members and the superintendent is the solution”

Tried that. Doesn’t work. You don’t DO anything, and continue to allow retaliation in the schools. So approaching the schools to change has become actually dangerous. Life threateningly dangerous if the retaliation pushes your kid over the edge.

Much better to vote No on Measure A.

Maybe you’ll figure out how to serve your constituents, and maybe the teachers union will learn that students and parents are THE CUSTOMER.

But I doubt it.

I sincerely hope that if and when (hopefully) this doesn’t pass, Churchill and the Board will start making changes to their spendthrift ways at the top and not pass it down to the children.

I am tired of my money being spent on frill and not my kids.

I would like to know how much of each $1 of property tax goes to educating the kids and how much gets spent on frills, trips abroad, lawyers fees, administrators at Churchill, trips to other parts of the country, etc. etc. etc.

No on measure A as long as Phil Winston draws a paycheck. No tax dollars for sexual harassers!

Why do parents raise their children in Palo Alto if they feel it is determinal to their child’s well being to attend Palo Alto achools? is it all about being able to say your child went to Palo Akro schools and you are pushing them to attend Ivy League schools. If it’s so bad you should move. Stop blaming everyone around you and look at yourself . Is it more important to have a child who is happy and mentally stable ir is it all about the ability of a parent bragging that they live in the community of 1%.

Your friends and jobs are more important than your child.? It is the responsibility of parents to remove them from a situation that is detrimental to their child’s well being.

“Vote No on Measure A”

If you vote NO, as soon as you close your ballot, please take a moment to write a short sentence or two explaining why and send it to the district office. Send another copy to the Weekly. It doesn’t have to be long and you can even make it anonymous. But if you do, please explain why.

PAUSD
c/o Why I voted No
25 Churchill Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306

Palo Alto Weekly
c/o Why I voted No
450 Cambridge Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306

If you are trying to send a message, then please also send the message. You can do so by email, but a real letter is more powerful. That way, regardless of which way the vote goes, and especially if it goes NO, then at least the post-election analysis will be accurate. If the vote goes yes, then at least the Weekly will have hundreds of letters that will keep the district from claiming the result is a sign that everything is really fine and go on like nothing happened. In fact, anyone even voting yes with reservations should send such a letter to outline the reservations.

Everyone should do it, each person should make at least that much of a commitment for our kids, so that at least the Weekly, and maybe the district office, will understand that we care. (Please share this with others.)

@Alphanso
Los Altos High uses a tool similar to schoology (same idea, different name). Here is a quote from their handbook “This system allows parents and students to monitor attendance, assignments and grades on-line.” Pretty much every high school and college now has an online communication tool where assignments and information are posted.

@Bill has a strangely sadistic view of school: “It is the responsibility of parents to remove them from a situation that is detrimental to their child’s well being.”.

Ummm, is it not our right to an education ? Is it not our civic responsibility to stand up for injustice , and fix broken institutions?

By your logic the schools could resort to all manner of barbarism in attempting to teach, and the parents should leave if they don’t like it. This line of reasoning is what supported corporal punishment in the classroom. Should we poke them with hot sticks? Negative feedback does make some kids learn. Or shall we join Mr Filtch and get out the thumb screws ?

After all, if we don’t like it, we can leave ! But aghast should anyone breathe of withholding money!

Your viewpoint is both medieval and apologist for the worst behaviors of schools . What is terrifying is that you have 3 followers who agree.

Vote No on Measure A

Frustrated Parent,
When Bill wrote “It is the responsibility of parents to remove them from a situation that is detrimental to their child’s well being”

That may be so, but it is also legally the responsibility of the schools to ensure every child has a free and equitable public education, as well as to ensure children are safe in school. Education is a Constitutional right in California, and both federal and state laws apply to fairness in public education.

So, while a parent may feel they can remove a child from school when the situation isn’t safe, the law still requires the parent to send the child to school, and legally requires the school to ensure the child has a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment (meaning, you can’t tell some people to go away because you don’t like them or educating them fairly is harder).

The law is more on the side of the parents in ensuring things get fixed, and absolutely runs counter to the schools expecting people to remove children when the circumstance is unsafe, in fact that would leave children with fewer means on a sinking ship with everyone else taking the life boats.

I’d like to expand my suggestion about people responding over the why they vote. I hope EVERYONE, whether yes, no, yes with reservations, no with reservation — I hope everyone will write to the Weekly and to the Board and tell them why they voted as they did:

PAUSD
c/o Why I voted No/Yes
25 Churchill Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306

Palo Alto Weekly
c/o Why I voted No/Yes
450 Cambridge Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306

Bill,

Sorry, the PAUSD belongs to us, the residents. They’re public, not private, so I’ve no reason to ignore how they’re run.

And some of us have resilient kids who can manage the district crazy. Doesn’t mean, however, that the dysfunctional aspects of the district aren’t a problem.

The schools are supposed to act in loco parentis to our kids–so, yes, they have a legal, as well as moral, duty to create a healthy learning environment. Which is why the district got slapped by the OCR.

The PAUSD 2010 – 2011 budget was $154 million.

The PAUSL 2014 – 2015 budget is $184 million, and increase of 30%.

Enrollment went from 12,000 kids to 12,532, roughly a 5% increase.

Spending per pupil went from $12,800 to $14,682 (budget divided by number of students).

Any idea where all the spending increases went?

@common sense

A chunk of the spending increase went for legal fees. Another chunk went to pay for Tabitha, the PR lady. Then there’s the bloated district staff. But the vast majority of the property tax increases have gone to raises for the teachers, because the school board makes unrealistically low budget projections, builds up a huge surplus, and then sweeps it all in to the union’s pocketbook every year or two.

And the thanks you get is the grievance about not wanting to do their jobs for the money.

Jokes on the taxpayer!

I’m for measure A because they have us by the balls. They have our kids hostage.

“I’m for measure A because they have us by the balls. They have our kids hostage.”

“PAUSD is mobilizing parent-minions to advocate for a ‘yes’ vote on Measure A. They know not what they are campaigning for.

Please educate anyone and everyone you can on why we need to tell the PAUSD that they are responsible to the students! Tell them to vote ‘NO’ on Measure A!”

TO BOTH YES AND NO VOTERS who posted the above: Please see my message above and copy your posts and mail to both the Weekly and PAUSD with the reasoning for your vote. Everyone should send their reasoning, especially if they vote NO. The district (and the 4th estate, the Weekly) need to hear it. A letter, to the addresses above, is more effective, even if you just cut, paste, and print. But if you have to send an email:

board@pausd.org

and

editor@paweekly.com
ekadvany@paweekly.com

(If I’ve gotten any of those emails wrong, please let me know!)

FWIW, “can’t remember” I agree, they have us by the balls, but voting NO on something like this is how you turn the tables. It’s one of the only ways we can send a msg they can’t ignore. And it’s absolutely possible to put through another, better bond before the current one expires. (If someone has you by the balls, the last thing you want to do is tell someone you love what they do to you.)

@musical,

Thanks for the reminder. You are right, it’s a parcel tax, not a bond.

(

Adam Strassberg, a psychiatrist and the father of two Palo Alto teenagers, wrote that while many Palo Alto parents are “wealthy and secure beyond imagining,” they’re consumed by fear of losing that perch or failing to bequeath it to their kids. “Maintaining and advancing insidiously high educational standards in our children is a way to soothe this anxiety,” he said.

This is the reputation of Palo Alto schools. There are excellent Bay Area school districts where children receive good educations are happy and productive and not “abused “ as parents say by the Palo Alto schools.

Bill,

The guy is a psychiatrist! He sees patients every day. That’s a side of the spectrum that may explain some of your theories, but it’s not reality.

I wonder what the Dr. would say about the obsession with STEM and now STEAM which in the old days was just Math, Science, English, Art, and so forth. Could our schools be “consumed by fear of losing that perch”?

What’s healthy? And how are we collectively putting money into what makes kids lives better in school every day. They spend a lot of time there, and it matters what “consumes” our schools.

I will vote yes, but only if money goes to tutoring to replace lack of instruction in the high schools. also if it could go to getting teachers off their computers during class and engaged with their students, it would be well spent. OR, maybe the high school teachers could just, for free, teach to the standards, check for understanding and give all the kids, not just the ones with money for tutors, the same education.

I need that money to pay for tutors and classes so my kid can keep up with kids in other districts. sorry. figure it out. New parents that think your kid is smarter and stronger and can go to school form 8-3 and then go to school again to get instruction. think again…. Kid’s brains need downtime to be working properly, and rest to absorb new material and also unstructured time to make their own decisions. Keep your money and go to a private school. No amt of money can fix this.

moving forward does not always require money. In this case, meeting and enforcing standards is absolutely free and will reduce stress for all students. All that is needed is administrators who can perform their job professionally. Money can not always buy what is needed.

easy NO….

they always say they are ‘helping’ the kids, but all we get is more and more expensive city manager staff, and way way too many cops and cops palaces

…oh, and guards to sit by the train all day pretending to do something about the suicide problem

@Voting Y,

Yes to all your questions except for lately, too busy helping my stressed out kid, and the things you mentioned haven’t helped one iota. PTA is usually the last place to get courageous action to solve school problems.

Replacing Skelly would have been great except someone forgot that when something is rotten, you have to remove all of it or it just comes back. We think McGee is great, too but he is quickly being lost to Young and Carrillo’s influence. All three needed replacing together, and maybe Linda Lenoir and Holly Wade, too, and anyone else involved in that whole coverup culture. All things considered, thing are actually worse than they were just before Skelly left.

I’m not voting for a bond until Carrillo and Young are replaced with people who care about kids’ lives more than CYA. That’s what I’m going to say in my “Why I voted NO” letter.

The district did not get rid of principal Katya Villalobos, PAEA got rid of her. The leaders of Gunn PAEA were emboldened by this, which was a factor in their action against new principal Denise Herrmann. It wasn’t just the PAEA executive board. Parcel tax money will primarily feed into PAEA membership, not children’s needs. Voting no.

@Voting Yes:

You’re where I was a few years ago. I’ve always voted “YES” in the past 20+ years. We’ve had the same conversation, same meetings, same proposals, same committees…etc. Unfortunately the end result is always no change from the students’ point of views, but bigger and more resources.

For example:

“The school district got rid of Katya and brought in Denise Hermann. Students and teachers I’ve talked to love her and said the environment is much improved.”
Yes. I concur. D. Hermann is appreciated and liked by many parents and students. As shown by the latest contention re Schoology, she needs support from the parent community to stand firm and demand action from the teachers’ union. If you vote “Yes” for Measure A, you will be sending the message that parents support the union and are not interested in holding teachers’ accountable.

“The school district got rid of Kevin Skelley and brought in Max McGee. I’ve talked to him and heard him speak, much improved! “
McGee is new to the district. His success is measured by status quo for at least the beginning few years. He relies on the existing structure (good and bad) to be successful. I talked to him as well in several meetings. His achievements are still too early to tell.

“The Gunn counseling department is much expanded and improved. I’ve talked to ACS and Gunn and their programs are expanded.”
I’ve had personal experience on this topic. Yes, Gunn’s counseling department is much expanded but NOT improved.
Students are still waiting to make appointments- sometimes up to 1 month. Gunn added several counselors but in my opinion, incorrectly. When their new counseling system started two years ago, over 30 percent of the seniors had new counselors during their most stressful time of college applications. Juniors were assigned to a new counselor for one year.

I’ve been part of the PTA for over 20+ years. I’ve volunteered and served on the site counsel and PTA board for over 15+ years. Believe me, we need change. For those younger students’ parents, please do some research. Talk to older students and parents. Be an advocate for your students! I made the mistake of believing and following blindly for years. Please help our students!

Thanks for listening and I am voting “NO” on measure A.

paloaltoparent,

This does come back to the trust issue. If the tax is going to pay for those things, and is necessary to pay for those things, why aren’t they specifically enumerated? In my experience, even when things are enumerated, they’re couched in vague terms to allow districts to weasel out and they do. The only thing any of us have to go on when it comes to how the money WILL be spent is trust.

Dr. Magee took nearly one month to make a decision on zero period – though aided by the best medical science at his finger tips and solid local, medical support for abolishing a structure that puts our children at unacceptable risk. Instead our community has been drawn through another contentious and ridiculous “discussion” of pro and con, creating further (and completely unnecessary) damage to a hurting community.

I am disappointed and discouraged by his delay. It hurt us when we needed to heal. I’m worried for what it may suggest about his decision-making and who or what finally inspires him to act.

What ultimately helped Dr. Magee decide to abolish academic classes in a zero period? I really can’t say since we know the medical evidence has been mountainous and in his hands for weeks. But I received my parcel tax ballot on Thursday afternoon. Friday morning came the news – Max has decided.

What am I to think of that? That political science trumps medical science?

So disheartened – by what could appear to matter more or be more urgent – enough to finally get him to ACT.

No on A. Because it’s the only way our voices are being heard, apparently. Wish it weren’t so.

@Kerry asks a relevant question: “what can be done to remove the weak staff?…many are past their prime and need to be shuffled around or out!”

A few comments on this – I don’t agree that ageism is part of this. Some of our best teachers were more experienced . So were some of our worst – they come in all age brackets, do we need to be careful to focus on the three factors that matter: 1) are they engaging their students or disengaging students. 2) are the teaching the curriculum in a quality manner. 3) are they following policy – homework, professional standards.

All of hese three need to be evaluated by students directly. Goal should be 100% approval rating – like any service business. Measured in individual classrooms on individual teachers.

Regarding actionable data, pending Vergara decisions aside for a moment, it is nearly impossible to fire a teacher . That action should be reserved for cases needed to restore public trust in teaching staff – I.e egregious cases only: like sexual harrassment and gross negligence. If it remains costly, we have to deal with this sparingly.

Negotiated exits should be more common. And I don’t mean shuffling from one school to another – if someone is not performing – out of the district. They should consider negotiating a fixed price buyout in advance with the union if they have not done so already. Trying to do this on-the-cheap is where people get sidetracked.

Some teachers are subject matter experts , but for whatever reason are not engaging their students – these can be good employees in a different role. Something like 40% of our money is for non teaching staff . Let’s find roles where people can use their expertise. But may not be in front of students everyday.

There is always attrition. That can be leveraged if we view it as an opportunity to better ourselves . Staff attrition? May be time to move a disengaging teacher out of a class. District attrition – or growth of admin jobs? Move an expert.

Some districts maintain a rubber room to those who have no redeeming qualities to offer in a classroom or in other jobs. When firing teachers cost more tha keeping them, you only pursue firing to maintain public trust in the system. The rest you warehouse.

Some teachers are good, but lack the organization and classroom management skills to run a full schedule. There should be room for newer learning teachers to teach with a extra prep time and lighter class load at lower salary with the understanding that time is spent under the tuteledge of a more organized peer learning to manage classrooms.

Finally, the problem needs to ultimately be solved at the source: we hire WAY TOO EASILY. Fremont for example issues pink slips every year for the first few years until a teacher has proven themselves. Tenure comes after that.
We Must include student engagement and parent satisfaction along with quality assessments in our evaluations of teachers. It is time consuming, but I would pay for admin support needed to manage the new hire teachers specifically – their evaluation, dismissal ( aggressively) and training for the first five years is a critical phase. It appears to be left up to the IS who are too buddy-buddy with their staff, and don’t have time or inclination to let go of someone. Maybe because they find recruiting odious and settle for what they have got. Maybe because some of the IS aren’t very gods either.

We need a massive HR overhaul of the systems and organization around how people are managed. Flexibility is available, but unused, and more flexibility can be bought. A focus on quality, engagement, student and parent input, and finally training. Were a school right? We can train those with raw talent and willingness…

I am voting no on Measure A. I am offended and disgusted by the attempt at emotional blackmail by bureaucrats and politicians who think the answer to every problem is to throw money at it.

What happened to being creative, and living within your budget? An early renewal is tantamount to saying “we really didn’t make the best use of previous parcel tax revenues and need more money.” This is a naked attempt to exploit the very real emotional fear that children will begin harming themselves in greater numbers. Shame on you!

If McGee, his bloated bureaucrats, and the board can’t be more judicious, creative, and imaginative in using the funds our very expensive property taxes provide, do we really want them in office?

NO on Measure A!

Giving more money to this district is like giving alcohol to a drunk, hoping it will “cure” them.

More money is exactly what this district does *not* need. What they need is a wake-up call. They are clearly still in deep denial.

@another dad,

I agree. I would challenge you to come up with a public records request to unearth the district’s payment for this type of effort, especially since the PR person’s salary was justified to the public in order to (blaming the public) comply with all the records requests (which they don’t comply with AT ALL now).

Maybe even ask Dauber to shed light on that….

@Slow Down

A lot of kids have committed suicide in this district. Local medical experts have clearly stated that stress and school issues are some of the biggest issues. Many, many parents are concerned.

In that context, you comment about “disgruntled parents who post non-stop crapping the district because it is less painful than dealing with their own troubled kids” is incredibly offensive. And 100% wrong.

Those of you not in the education business might already know that dozens of teachers do not have to be laid off if and when the parcel tax does not pass. You probably know that non-essential positions like the public relations can save a quick $150,000. The teachers on special assignment can stop delivering pseudo coaching to a few teachers here and there and return to the classroom or compete for administration positions. Administration positions, yep, a few of those can go away at 25 Churchill and we don’t need to add any. The board can direct FFF and Lozano and Smith to not spend a single dime, or in reality tens of thousands of dollars annually in fighting the OCR. A real hit would be not renewing the 2014-2015 first-year hires. Reduce the per pupil supplies budget, that was done during the last scare. PAUSD is indeed flush with funding and cash. Every other Bay Area district knows this. Whomever is suggesting that we need to lay off almost 100 teachers is being dishonest.

If it passes it won’t be validating the current system. If it passes it will do it just barely, and will be a vote for fear rather than affirmation. When a parent pays the ransom demanded by the kidnapper who is holding their child hostage, payment does not constitute a vote of confidence in the kidnapper.

Has anyone gotten an answer to this? Anyone want to ask McGee directly and post the answer? My name isn’t Page or Ellison so I don’t rate a tour or an answer to questions, apparently.

Dear Dr. McGee,

How much money does 25 Churchill cost us? Please break down totals for administrative salaries and overhead (and how many administrators that buys us), as well as all other costs of administration.

And while you are at it, please give us an idea of what you think could be done to streamline administrative costs, so we can assess your managerial skills. (We already know your honesty radar is broken.)

Thank you.

This community needs to take a hard look at itself. How are we expected to raise educated , thoughtful, compassionate children when a segment of the community feels it is right to hide behind fake names and allow this newspaper to use them to take down good people like Ms Hermann and Terri. Do you also encourage your children to participle in cyber bullying? Look at us. We are also the district who procrastinated in developing and implementing a bully policy. Palo Alto School district does not have the positive reputation it once had. And the people of this community are to blame for that.

How sad that you recognize as many do that this community is a toxic place to raise children because we have to fear retaltion against our children and families for having a difference of opinion .

My husband and I enjoyed a morning coffee and then strolled to the mailbox and mailed our “no” votes. This was right after we dropped our kids at private school (our turn to drive the neighborhood carpool).

PAUSD gets our kids’ spots to help mitigate overcrowding – that’s more than enough.

Looking forward to that story, Elena. (I haven’t voted yet.)

I think anyone in a high position in such a high profile school district who makes, prorated, more than the governor of california or the attorney general, and who has headed high profile efforts that spectacularly failed to affect this crisis and was only too happy to represent the district in the papers —

Especially when that person appears regularly on district broadcasts — I think that person counts as a public figure as far as public discussion is concerned. I think if you look at legal precedent around education administrators, you will see the same standard.

@morning walk: “My husband and I enjoyed a morning coffee and then strolled to the mailbox and mailed our “no” votes. This was right after we dropped our kids at private school (our turn to drive the neighborhood carpool).

PAUSD gets our kids’ spots to help mitigate overcrowding – that’s more than enough.”

That smug self-congratulatory condescension says a lot. So I take it you are perfectly happy to enjoy the high property values engendered in part by Palo Alto’s excellent schools without being willing to add anything to the community other than the “spots” your privileged children would otherwise occupy? Wow, I guess the REST of us are privileged to be living here with YOU! I feel so fortunate!

To clarify that further:

This tax is just whether to extend a supplemental, temporary tax from the recession. It’s just not necessary now, and all the hyperbole only makes the yes side seem as untrustworthy as the district administration.

I would like to see clear numbers about administrative costs and where they go in this district, and how they compare to costs that go directly to educate our kids. If we need more money, our kids and our schools would benefit from looking at making our district work better first. Restoring trust doesn’t have to cost money, it can save money.

@Healthy:

“they are paying private school tuition for SOMEONE ELSE to attend PAUSD, while they have to also pay for their kids to attend good schools elsewhere.”

That is the most convoluted piece of reasoning I have seen in ages. No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head and forcing them to pay private school tuition. That is completely and totally a choice, not something anyone HAS to do in addition to paying their taxes.

There are seniors in our community who qualify for an exemption from this tax – and that is for a non-convoluted, GOOD reason. Yet many of them continue to gladly pay the extra tax because they recognize the over-call social good that comes from being a part of that larger community.

“So many other parents” – I guess we’ll find out how many that is when the parcel tax ballots get counted.

My point was more about attitude and privilege, and I will repeat what I said before: a lot of people on this forum remind me of “a well-dressed man with a spoon in his hand asking who ate all the apple pie.” We are living at the pinnacle of comfort and modern privilege in this community but to hear it here on this forum you’d think it was the middle ages and the poor beset parents of Palo Alto are like common serfs suffering under the lash of the brutal Lord McGee, recently ascended to the throne after beheading Lord Skelly in a palace coup. Like I said before, it would be funnier if it weren’t so sad and toxic.

@bait,

How about putting your money where your mouth is? If you refund me the goodly six-figures I’ve have put into this district for k-12 with my property taxes, I’ll be happy to quietly get the education someplace that supports things like creativity and honestly.

You know what? Parents trying to fix our schools and stop students from killing themselves is what PARENTS consider the greater good.

I didn’t have an opinion about whether the supplemental tax should be renewed or not, but you are talking me right into wanting to actively campaign against Measure A. Fix the schools, don’t throw more money at them when it’s not needed, the community will be tapped out when it is.

Unfortunately when they hold our children hostage sometimes they end up with Stockholm Syndrome, and they can also end up lacking in appropriate empathy. For example, here’s one of our student board representatives defending the culture of competition against Frank Bruni in the NYT letters today:

“Frank Bruni’s April 12 column, “The Best, Brightest — and Saddest?,” featured my community’s struggle to come to terms with another suicide cluster. He painted a dismal picture of students crushed under academic pressure and a community with unrealistic expectations for its youth. But I think it is important to acknowledge that another side of Palo Alto exists. . .

“We dream big. We reach high. And sometimes we fall hard. But for some of us, it’s better than striving for and achieving mediocrity.”

Rose. For those students who “fall hard” and their parents and friends it is not better than “striving for and achieving mediocrity in a context in which “falling hard” is dead, dead, dead, ground up into meat under the wheels of a train or spattered all over the sidewalk on Arastradero. That is the context you are writing about, that is the argument you are rebutting by Bruni and you are astoundingly taking the other side, defending Icarus.

Listen Tracey Flick, get a clue. That any of our children, let alone the child of a teacher would say that in the NYT is a wake up call for the community. This is what reaping the whirlwind looks like. This is the sad harvest of the academic arms race in Palo Alto. God help us all.

@Defending Icarus:

That’s great. Jump on a teenager because she got a letter voicing a different point of view published in one of the country’s most prominent newspapers. Imply that she is mentally incompetent and dismiss her very articulate point of view because anyone who disagrees with you must hate the children. While you’re at it, call her names (that’s the portion that was removed). That’s a winning strategy for sure, at least among the 9 people (and counting) who liked your comment. I’m sure being belittled like that is not at all stressful for her.

Stay classy, Palo Alto.

Interesting that the Weekly would censor (they call it “moderating”) my perfectly valid criticism of a previous poster who belittled a Paly high school student, called her names, and questioned her mental competence because she dared to write a letter to the NY Times and got it published, and it just happened to offer a point of view different from that of the commenter. My words were civil, if blunt, but censoring them is just ridiculous.

Stay classy, Palo Alto Weekly.

And that “mediocrity?” You BET that’s code for GASP- a community or state college. And the “kind” of people who go there. That’s the Gunn way. Always has and always will be.

@watcher,

“I teach these kids. Their focus is narrow, their bubble has 9 layers, their parents have been telling their kids how awesome they are for years, they don’t notice any students who lay beyond their socio-economic group, and their worldly views do not extend beyond San Antonio Avenue. It’s sad, sad, sad, and more sad.”

Speaking of bubbles — don’t you think the school, where the kids spend the majority of the day and are taught from k-12 about the world, about other people, and where they spend the majority of their time socializing, and where they get so much homework that surveys show they do little else but stay at home doing homework, has anything at all to do with the fact that “their focus is narrow”? As a parent who has had to fight that, WHY HAVE I HAD TO FIGHT THAT?! Why can I not expect the school to respect that healthy development NEEDS, requires the ability to have autonomy and different experiences?

I do wish these discussions would get out of the old rut of thinking that challenging oneself is somehow a road to depression and mental illness (BTW: happiness turns out to be a side effect of applying oneself creatively to challenges), or of thinking that the only or even the best way to challenge oneself to excellence is through a traditional intense academic path. We are at a turning point, and if we are going to even pretend our schools are great, the one thing we MUST NOT DO is get through this unchanged.

watcher, as a teacher, you can be a part of positive change. Do you look for opportunities to do that, or when a parent comes to you with a complaint about homework or even an effort to improve the schools, when you see a child has gotten the short end of the stick because of bad administrative practices, do you get involved, or do you figure even if you support whatever it is that you’re too busy, and you don’t want to rock the boat?

naive question here:

if parcel tax has to be increased and extended to protect PA school programs in booming economic times such as now, what should we expect to happen when the economy turns south?

will there be a need to increase yet again?
why does not this district, or any other entity using the public’s money, try to save during the abundant years to make up for the skinny years?

will you vote to increase the tax or extend it in 5 years, when things have turned south??

seriously….

Both JLS and Jordan already have 2 assistant principals to support the principal. (Terman only has 1, probably since it has a smaller student body.) The new PAUSD budget addition approved last month includes 2.8FTE for Middle School Deans but, unlike the other less expensive additions, never explains WHY these new positions have been created or why they are needed? The job posting lists responsibilities that would seem to be covered by an assistant principal (i.e. a lot of “assisting” duties). I have never heard of Deans for middle schools (only for colleges at universities)! An article mentions this role has been questioned at another middle school in the U.S. and that the justification given was a lower salary (due to teacher versus admin prereqs) but the PAUSD job listing requests both….

I have to echo other posts questioning the ballooning of the administration (PR, data guru, student research coordinator) and now this….To all who voted in favor of Measure A, it really seems like a lot of the money is going to increased bureaucracy and administration, not directly to student instruction! …not to mention the $300,000 addition in legal fees for OCR and “difficult personnel” on top of all this