October 20, 2004

Back to the table of Contents Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

Overindulgence, or a fight for survival?

by Alexandria Rocha

To Annie McQueen, the library is "the heart of a school."

They are extensions of the classroom. Librarians do more than just check books in and out. They host summer reading programs, schedule author visits, provide homework support for at-risk students and give lessons on a variety of subjects.

But the libraries could lose their vitality if voters reject a parcel-tax measure on the Nov. 2 ballot. McQueen, who is Jordan Middle School's librarian, could lose her job if Measure I is defeated. District officials warn that the parcel tax's failure could cause layoffs of 60 to 100 teachers and staff, including the two other fully-credentialed librarians at JLS and Terman middle schools.

"You have to put something on the chopping block," said Steve Sabbag, president of the local teachers' union, a strong backer of Measure I. "I don't think (the district is) crying wolf. How else would you convince people how serious this is? Teachers would lose their jobs."

Measure I, which needs support from two-thirds of the voters to pass, is the Palo Alto Unified School District's answer to what some term an overwhelming financial crisis.

If passed, Measure I would extend the current parcel tax, which voters approved in 2001, and generate nearly $10 million in annual revenue. The amount property owners pay would jump from $293 to $521 per year per parcel. It would expire in 2013. If Measure I fails, the $293 tax would expire in June 2006 unless another ballot measure succeeds beforehand.

Without Measure I, district officials said class sizes would grow from 20 students per teacher to 28 in elementary schools and from 24 students per teacher to 29 in middle and high schools. The high school counseling ratio would also increase to 700 students per counselor.

The district has already cut about $6.5 million from the 2003-2004 and current year budgets due to sliding property-tax revenues, increased enrollment and an uncertain state budget. In those two years, administration was cut by 13 percent, classified staff by 7 percent and teaching staff by 2 percent.

"We have already done all of the little (cuts) that were suggested," said Kroymann said. "We feel like there is no place else to go except to the program."

But opponents of the measure -- led by computer programmer Wayne Martin and Midtown neighborhood leader Tom Ashton -- contend the tax isn't needed because property-tax revenue has started to rebound after the dot-com bust, and district salaries are already too high.

To those in the educational community, cutting programs means losing teachers, said Sabbag.

The school board would start looking at cutbacks in the 2005-06 school year, meaning teachers would be out of jobs by 2006-07, Kroymann said.

The current situation is a far cry from where the district stood three years ago.

In 2001-02, property-tax growth hit an all-time high of nearly 13 percent. That same year, the district passed its first parcel tax, which more than 70 percent of voters approved.

That tax has generated about $5.5 million annually. It paid for the district's current class-size reduction program and helped fund an 8.5 percent raise for teachers in 2001 and a 2 percent raise in 2002.

With property tax growth and revenue soaring, district officials spent their time doing what every educator desires -- beefing up the curricula, hiring specialized teachers, and adding advanced and remedial courses.

It created "world-class public education" in Palo Alto, according to the district.

But in 2003-04 property taxes plummeted to less than 1 percent growth, and the district's $120-per student basic-aid funding was slashed because of the state budget crisis.

Since then, the district's teachers and support staff received no raises. As a basic-aid district, Palo Alto schools don't receive any extra money for increased enrollment.

School board President Cathy Kroymann said the extra $228 in the proposed parcel tax is needed because the earlier $293 "is already spent, for teacher salaries and class-size reduction."

"The additional money is needed to fill whatever deficit we will face next year," even if the deficit is smaller than feared a few months ago, she said. "After that, we would begin to restore programs" cut in the past two years, starting with teacher periods at secondary schools, reading specialists at elementary schools and high-school counselors to drop the student-to-counselor ratio from the present 400 to 360 students per counselor.

Additional tax revenue later would mean restoring cuts to the art program, library program and per-student funding, she said.

Class sizes have so far remained low, and the high school counseling ratio has been stable, but district officials said that will change if Measure I fails.

But board members and district officials admit they have no idea what the property-tax picture will look like in 2006, when home and business owners would begin paying for Measure I, if it passes. No one else knows, either, they note.

Tax-revenue news has so far been good. Last June the district projected a 1 percent increase in property-tax revenue this school year. In September, the district learned it would instead receive about 5 percent in property tax growth -- an additional $3 million.

"For a basic-aid district, property taxes are everything. We've just come out of the most negative world," said Bob Golton, the district's recently retired business manager who is doing some wrap-up work for the district. "At the same time that one is happy, you have the great sense that a bullet has passed you by."

This kind of uncertainty in the district's property tax growth is why Wayne Martin, one of the few outspoken opponents of Measure I, has issues with the district and Measure I.

"The mandate should be live within your means just like everybody else does in their homes," Martin said. "If this passes, you're seeing a precedent for a parcel tax to be passed every two years." He said the district should make do with the extra revenue coming in from taxes. He is also disgruntled that local residents pay for Tinsley case students who do not live in Palo Alto yet attend its public schools.

Martin has prepared computer spreadsheets on district finances and "white papers" on district policies. Based on his spreadsheet analysis, he concludes that Palo Alto teachers are overpaid, even though several other districts in Santa Clara County pay more. He said the district should take the 1976 Tinsley school-desegregation case back to court to save part or all of the more than $700,000 a year the program costs.

Martin, admitted that his stand against Measure I equates to fighting motherhood and apple pie. His tactics reflect those he used when he opposed the $48.7 million library bond measure two years ago, which failed with just 61 percent of the voters favoring it -- short of the two-thirds approval needed.

From the local PTA council to the teachers' union to the Palo Alto District of the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors, Measure I has drawn an onslaught of supporters from the outset.

When the board voted in June to float the measure, scores of residents stepped up to donate $365 (a dollar a day) to the Quality Schools Committee, the citizens' Yes on I campaign.

The committee has run a quiet and confident campaign. Several hundred volunteers are walking precincts, running phone banks and putting together mailers.

The committee has so far raised about $80,000, which has mostly paid for three mailers and the graphic for the lawn signs, co-chairwoman Julie Jerome said.

Voters can likely expect one last phone call during election week to encourage them to vote, she said.
Staff Writer Alexandria Rocha can be e-mailed at arocha@paweekly.com.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.