From KCBS:

A four year parcel tax measure in the city of Alameda has passed, according to the county Registrar of Voters.

...

The registrar says there are still a few ballots that need to be counted,but it won't affected the outcome...

KTVU:

...Alameda County Registrar of Voters David Macdonald said election officials tried to count all of the provisional ballots from the city of Alameda today, so he doesn't believe that many, if any, of the several thousand remaining provisional ballots in the county are from Alameda.

 

However, Macdonald said the results are still unofficial and will remain so until he certifies them at the end of the month, around June 27...

Alameda Journal:

..."We have climbed from behind the whole way up," said Bill Schaff, a member of the Board of Education. "It's been quite exhausting for all those who have fought so hard for this campaign."...

Alameda Sun:

"Alameda has stepped up," said Ron Mooney, treasurer for the Yes on H campaign. "A little higher than I expected, but I'm not going to complain," said Mike McMahon, who chalked up the victory to the campaign's get out the vote work on Election Day, which he termed "phenomenal...

Eve Pearlman's Blog:

As of a few moments ago, for the first time, Alameda’s Measure H, the school parcel tax, officially has more than the two-thirds of the vote. Go check it out! There are now 11,397 ‘yes’ votes—for 66.87 percent...

The Island aka Michele Ellson's blog:

...With an additional 540 votes from Alameda counted today, the measure has 66.87 percent, or 11,397 votes for, to 33.13 percent, or 5,646 votes against...

And a special shot goes out to School 94501/94502 aka Rob Siltanen's blog who has the most interesting commentary on the subject:

...Today’s batch appears to have been 73.33% yes on H (with 396 votes) and 26.67% no (with 144 votes) on H. My initial hypothesis is that these provisionals included a disproportionate number of 18-year old student first-time voters (many students who registered to vote did so just before the registration deadline but not early enough to receive their voter materials) who had to vote with provisional ballots. So, my presumption is that this provisional pool was skewed young and that the young were skewed yes.

There were 540 vote results posted today, which is 8.31% of all 6500 provisionals that were reported to be left for the ROV to vote. Since Alameda’s percentage of the total County vote is about 8%, it appears that the batch released today is all or very close to all of the provisionals...

If Rob S.'s hypothesis is correct that the provisionals swayed toward the first-time young voter, then perhaps we are seeing locally a trend that was evident in our national Democratic primary of young people really stepping up and making a difference at the polling booth.    While the previously it was always the older residents that made the time to get out and vote and therefore were able to guide government to the beat of their drum, it would appear that this next generation has determined that they want their voices heard as well.  Witness the latest polling regaring same-sex marriage, as Mark Morford opined:

...This, I think, was perhaps the most fascinating tidbit of insight to emerge from the most recent poll of Californians where, for the first time in state history, a majority of those polled said they support the idea of gay marriage and/or oppose a new and vile push for a state constitutional amendment to ban it outright. And that majority consists, by and large, of the young...

And while I was going to talk about the highly disturbing posts left in the comments section of the SF Chronicle article, I am now just happy to say that thank goodness those angry angry folks were in the minority of voting Alamedans.   Although clicking on the profile of some of the more puzzling comments turned up a host of other comments in which to reference, which then made it clear why these folks were saying what they were saying. 

Although there is one outstanding question though, will there be a recount?  Is anyone coughTomPavelticcough really, honestly considering gambling with his/her own money to have a recount done?   After all, according to the Elections Code (link provided by Michele E.):

15624.  The voter filing the request seeking the recount shall, before the recount is commenced and at the beginning of each day following, deposit with the elections official a sum as required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day.   The money deposited shall be returned to the depositor if, upon completion of the recount, ...the position on the measure (affirmative or negative) for which the declaration is filed is found to have received the plurality of votes cast which it had not received according to the official canvass... The depositor shall be entitled to the return of any money deposited in excess of the cost of the recount if the ... position on the measure has not received the plurality of the votes cast... Money not required to be refunded shall be deposited in the appropriate public treasury.

And with rates around $3,000 for the first day of counting and $2,000 for each subsequent day (2004 rates), who knows how long (and how much) it would end up costing to do a recount and whether it would turn out in favor of the No on Measure H position.

WOW!

Speaking of the rounding up, looks like Andy Currid is the most recent victim of the Alameda Daily News "sic"  monster*.   After gently correcting ADN that the math reported in the latest headline may be incorrect, there was the even gentler reminder from ADN that Andy C., while mathematically may be correct, did not meet ADN's grammatical requirements.   Even though, according to The English Language: A User's Guide, both could be considered technically correct: "than I" and "than me," it is up to the writer to determine his or her audience and determine whether the traditional (than I) or familiar (than me) would be more acceptable.   But I digress.  Oh yeah and "sic" is generally bracketed not placed in parentheses, but I digress again.

To move back on the subject of schools, last week I was invited to a meeting to learn about the change in curriculum at Chipman Middle School and the desire to integrate a "green" aspect to learning, styled as "Chipman Green Commons." Now, before you assume that this means that the kids are going to start spouting off about recycling and climate change, it was so much more than that.   From what I understood, this was about teaching kids as early as middle school, how to become stewards of the environment and community in which they lived.    The program was really exciting and is based mostly around looking at the standard, State mandated cirriculum through a "green lens." Teaching kids to be much more hands on in their learning experience rather than tied to a desk or a text book.  

For example, today around 10 am, Chipman students will be launching "rockets" they have made as part of their finals.   So, do not fear denizens of the West End if you find pieces of two liter soda bottles in your yard, that simply means that a few of the students were able to customize their rockets in such a way to give it optimal flight.   But the lesson is so much more than just fun and games, it will teach the kids how to measure how high their rocket flew, using middle school geometry.    It taught them critical thinking skills while determining how best to design their rocket: the nose, the fins, whether to add weight, whether to add a parachute for a safe landing, etc...  

Each grade level would have a focus of learning, for example the sixth graders would learn about the legacy, seventh graders would learn about change, and the eighth graders would learn about social justice and social responsibility.   After all, is it ever too early to learn about one's own impact on the world and how one person can make a difference?

And this is what our teachers and administrators are doing at AUSD, trying to find a way to reframe the same old, same old cirriculum and make it relevant for our youth today.    To this day, I still remember cutting mitochondria out of cheese to make my 3-D model of a cell for a science class.  (Thanks Mr. O'Shea)   I was touched by the story of one of the science teachers who mentioned that it was only due to a small grant that he was able to purchase loupes for his students to help them focus and magnify and why it was more important for students to use these loupes as opposed to a microscope.  I walked away so very impressed with the teachers at Chipman who presented their coursework to us, and could only hope that these quality professionals would still be around when it was time for my child to go to Middle School. 

____________________________________________

* Rounding Up Not Allowed

Don,

You are incorrect in stating that Measure H requires 66.67% in order to pass. It requires two-thirds or more of the vote in order to pass. As smarter people than me (sic) [sic] have pointed out, that means the number of Yes votes must be at least double the number of No votes. Running the math on the current number of votes cast in this election, Measure H would pass by achieving 66.667% of the vote (to 3 decimal places), which is less than the 66.7% you're claiming.

Regards,

Andy Currid

The children of immigrants surrounds us everywhere whether they be black, yellow, brown, or even white and yes, everyone is a child of an immigrant to this country.  But yet we have comments about not wanting to spend money paying for basic human services that separate this country from a developing one.  It makes me sad to read these comments from my neighbors and community members and leads me to wonder what people are thinking when they look at me askance, if it's my politics they disagree with or the slant of my eyes.

Regarding "unnecessary classes" such as sheltered courses for limited english speakers or elective courses such as Film and Literature or what appears to be modified Home Economic classes in the form of "Career Living."  It would appear that the determination that these classes are unnecessary is simply a subjective one.   To assume that every child that makes his/her way through Alameda schools have a mommy and/or a daddy to teach them, or has the ability to teach them, how to do what some of us consider basic life skills such as renting an apartment, finding a job, how to apply to college, how to open a checking account is a naive assumption.   Fortunately or unfortunately, schools have become a safety net for many children who do not have the benefit of a nuclear family a la 1950's sitcoms like Leave it to Beaver.   That means that the public school system -- our public school system -- has the weighty responsibility of ensuring that all kids, regardless of the background or how many generations of their forefathers have been birthed in the United States receives an education that is worthy of all kids -- not simply the ones with money to afford them.

So by all means, criticize and critique the school district, after all, we all believe that we know what is best for others.   That's the American way.   But in the end, if you are not going to get actively involved to try to figure out what to do to make up this funding shortfall, then you are just blowing a lot of hot air.   Getting actively involved means that you begin to understand what the different funding mechanisms are out there, how our district is actually staffed, how much special education courses actually cost, what it is that school districts are legally required to provide, etc... and so forth.   Unfortunately it's not so simple as our own personal budgets  where we can just snip snip snip away at our luxury expenditures in case of an emergency.   School district finances, as others have explained, is not akin to our own household finances or even that of a small nonprofit agency.   School district finances are as complex as any City government or any large corporation because of the number of moving parts and funding mechanisms associated with public education these days.   So while the more voices offering possible solutions are best, let's not make suggestions like telling our school district to start clipping coupons to save on every box of cereal, because 50 cents per box isn't going to make a dent in a $4 million hole we are looking at.

On the brighter side of things, this weekend is a chance for Alameda as a community to get together and heal some of the bad juju from this election.   The 41st Annual Sand Castle and Sand Sculpture Contest will be happening on Saturday at Crown Memorial Beach and is, of course, free to watch.   So hang out with your neighbors and remember that we are all a community here in Alameda, regardless of where we might stand on certain hot topics.

Also notable, Zeytini in Alameda Towne Centre is open according to these Yelp reviews, no website as of yet, but yet another place for Alamedans to gather.   

I almost forgot, the Kids' Chalk Art Project is due to be completed this weekend, so check it out as well, the photos are impressive of the work that has already been completed.

Here's the major inequity of our voting system.   When the Constitutional Amendment to limit marriage as only between a man and woman comes up for a vote come November, it only requires a simply majority (50% +1) to wrest away basic civil rights from a significant portion of our population.   But try and get funding for basic necessities in our town, our own city, that takes a super majority of a 2/3 vote, yet another reason to thank Prop 13 for.

But as Tom Pavletic opined on the Don Roberts show when asked about his efforts to bring down Measure H as opposed to simply running for yet another office, broadly summarizing here since I don't have a photographic memory, he stated that since his message simply doesn't resonate with people, as evident from his showing in the last few election, bringing down parcel taxes like this was so much easier because you only needed to get 1/3 of the vote rather than even a majority.  Ahh...nothing says "democracy in action" like doing the very least you need to just get by.

In the end, the amazing efforts of all those involved in the KASE campaign was simply not enough to reach the threshold required.   However, there are provisonal ballots left to be counted (as reported by Michele Ellson courtsey of Mike McMahon's site), and as supporters all pray for a miracle that the provional ballots will turn out enough votes to make the difference.   

What makes this too close to count finish even more depressing is the number of other cities that have resoundingly said, "yes! Schools are important in my community, I want to help" in the form of parcel taxes passing all over the Bay Area, including "kid and family unfriendly" San Francisco, which was passing at a rate of 70%.   Mountain View's parcel tax passed at a staggering 83% rate   Los Gatos's passed at an 82% rate for a much higher parcel tax at $290 per parcel.

Yet in our Island Mayberry, so touted for being "family friendly" with its small town feel, couldn't find enough community spirit to pass a pittance of a tax to support the education of its most valuable residents.  Here's the bright side though, there were lots of people writing into the Sun and Journal and to this blog and others to tell us exactly what the school district was doing wrong and what they should do to change it.   So, hopefully after this is all over, those opinionated folks who know how a school district should really be run should be invited to a meeting with the Superintendent and CFO to share their ideas of cost cutting measures for the school district.   They can start at the top trying to eliminate all the perceived excess postions, and run their way down the chain of command and demand that teachers be compensated less to do more work.   That's the spirit of community, how can we as a community make our education system do more with less and less every year!   What can we just "get by" with?  After all, it's just the education of our kids, our future leaders and caretakers of our futures.    

I think we'll all enjoy having these discussions as well when we need to talk about adjustments in fire and police services too.

Oh yeah, and Loni Hancock won.

The big one, at least for Alamedans, and at least for me is Measure H.   By now, I am assuming folks know where I stand on the issue, but here's a final push for it Measure.   Vote YES on H!   Do it for the children. And considering how doing things for the betterment of the children is usually evoked for every issue that comes up in Alameda regardless of how tenuous the connection, this one actually has something to do with the children.   Check out Michele Ellson's moving post about why you should vote "yes".  Rob Siltanen's heartfelt Thank You and brief recap of all he has done to bring attention to this issue.   And Eve Pearlman's reminder that the important questions we should be asking is "How good can our schools be?" as opposed to "What can they just get by with?"   Special mention goes out to the comment on Eve P.'s site by Mike Schmitz which encapsulates the sentiments of the supporters of Measure H.

The other big ballot issue, for those of us that vote on the Democratic ticket, is the race between Loni Hancock and Wilma Chan and there is more in the continuing saga of the Perata endorsement.   Josh Richman of the blog Political Blotter has reported that now Perata is supporting Wilma Chan, again.    At this point, an endorsement from Don Perata really amounts to bupkis, at least for Wilma Chan considering it is too little too late for her to really capitalize on it.   And Don Perata is still sending out robocalls in Oakland for Loni Hancock anyway, according to my favorite Oakland-issues blog, A Better Oakland.

Wilma Chan has scooped up a very ho-hum endorsement from the East Bay Express which pretty much says we support her because we don't like Don Perata that much and his revoking his endorsement for her was pretty cool in our eyes.  Because even while they say they endorse Wilma Chan, they resigningly state that Loni Hancock is probably pretty much going to win.   But regardless of the drama around Don Perata's endorsement, I've already voted for Wilma Chan.    I'm still a little perplexed by the lack of support for Wilma Chan, Alameda resident, from our own mayor, but if this comment by "Ed" is prescient, then it would definitely explain the why.

Then of course there is the Prop 98 vs Prop 99 battle, I found a very interesting article about who is actively working against Prop 98 which I think would put a few of our most ardent Redevelopment reform folks into a tailspin, after all the decision between modifying eniment domain and perserving rent control is a big one.  That article is part of another post I am working on about Redevelopment, so I won't be posting it until then.  

So regardless of how you vote, just get out and vote, if you have not done so already.

I'm really puzzled by the contention made by Frank George in the Sun article that said:

George meanwhile said his fellow merchants have been intimidated into placing signs in their windows supporting Measure H.

This statement, I think requires a lot more clarification and a lot more supporting information.   After all, who are the intimidators that are pressuring independent business owners to post a sign that they may not want to?   I am imagining a roving band of parents and students storming into each establishment, taking a business owner (or manager) into the backroom, shaking their fists and saying, "put this up or else!"   Of course, when someone needs more "convincing," they bring in their "secret weapon" an extraordinarily cute seven year old girl in pigtails that breaks down the will of the victim with her undeniable cuteness.  

I did notice last week when I was on Park Street, that Pillow Park Plaza did not succumb to these intimidation tactics and was sign-free.   I only noticed a few Pro-Measure H signs scattered on Park Street.  One I noticed in a second floor window above the Hob Nob,  one at Shear Delights, and one in the Theatre Construction office across the street from the Theatre.   There may be more, but I wasn't really performing a thorough audit. 

I also enjoyed the barrage of letters that rolled into the Sun offices in anticipation of this final push toward Tuesday.    One of the more noteworthy ones was from Mike Robles-Wong who stated that the Community of Harbor Bay Isle Owners Association Board of Directors support a yes vote on H.  But even more interesting is Mike RW's anecdote about his experience with the way real "fatty" school districts are run as opposed to AUSD, highlights:

...Nearly 20 years ago, I was hired to join the management team of another school district in our county that had fallen under state control. That district had failed to live within its means, and one of the more prominent tactics the state-appointed administrator used to correct the situation was to restructure some staff in ways that emulated more financially successful districts elsewhere. For example, employing a single personnel director, rather than the common practice of having one for teachers and another for non-teachers, was copied from the Alameda Unified School District. Being a smaller district, AUSD generally staffed functions in a more efficient manner, and low turnover meant that employees were very knowledgeable and were adept at multi-tasking.

If you walk into the administrative offices of the AUSD, you'll see a lot of empty desks and very few staff. AUSD has cut positions in the past to stay viable. Some of those cuts are clearly hurting our children. One of the trustees of the Peralta Community College District recently told me that they are dealing with growing numbers of Alameda students who are adversely impacted by our local schools having too few high school counselors and other specialists. Cut the pay and benefits of the teachers, you say? AUSD teachers and administrators were and still are consistently among the lowest paid not only in Alameda County, but within a 25-mile radius. It seems apparent that the question of whether there is fat or not is a non-issue...

And of course there is the Tom Pavletic response, insisting on splitting hairs about what other writers have summarized about his statement as opposed to directly quoting him, as is his preference.   I'm not sure if direct quote ("Did you read the news story about how much AUSD employee unions, the Alameda Education Foundation and the political action committee supporting this tax [KASE] are spending?") as opposed to the distillation by the writers ("In a similar vein, Mr. Pavletic asks why we've seen no story on how much money AUSD, the district's unions, and the Alameda Education Foundation have spent on the parcel tax campaign. Again, there's no story here.") would have provided a response any different to the "question"...I assume it was rhetorical since Tom P. seemed to not want it necessarily answered, but rather to just throw it out into the ether to insinuate rather than to actually try to get an answer.  

The answer, is as the letter writers said, there is no story there, much like the Franklin Conspiracy Theory. The answer is, there is no story about it because no money has been given to the campaign from AUSD or AEF.   Unions are allowed to give money, writing a story about it would be akin to writing a story every single time a person sends a check to a candidate for public office that they support, a non-issue.

Looks like the Elks have received official word that they aren’t required to pay if Measure H passes on Tuesday. Several H backers and local blogs noted Tuesday that nonprofits that are exempt from paying property taxes would also be exempt from paying this tax; Lodge Secretary Jan Curtis said the group was contacted this past weekend by school board President Bill Schaff and Ron Mooney from the Alameda Education Foundation, who gave them the news...  

A brief digression, I wasn't really sure what the Elks actually did, so I had to look them up on Wikipedia.   For those of you, like me, who didn't necessarily grow up around groups like the Elks, according to Wikipedia it is a fraternal order and a social club.  And someonce once referenced the BPOE to me, which went way over my head, turns out it is a backcronym for Benvolent and Protective Order of the Elks to "Best People on Earth."   You learn something new every day.   If you want to become an Elk, apparently you need to be over 21, a US Citizen, and believe in God.   Wikipedia doesn't specify if you must be of a certain religious background, just that you can't be an atheist.  Digression over.

Hopefully, as suggested on other blogs, most notably Rob Siltanen's School 94501/94502, the Alameda Journal will run a similarly prominent article correcting the information about non profit groups and whether or not they would be obligated to pay the parcel tax.  And hopefully the Alameda Sun has plans to cover this as well, considering that EJK has been reminding us to read our Sun this week, I think that there must be some extensive coverage on this issue.  

And as, also reported by Michele E. the new budget numbers are available based on the May Revise and they do not look good:

...For starters, the district would essentially lose about $3.2 million in anticipated per-student funding (the funding would be about the same as last year, but wouldn’t include increases to cover rising costs), plus another $445,000 in state facilities revenue, according to this rundown on school board Trustee Mike McMahon’s fabulous website (it’s item #9). Toss in cuts to adult and career technical ed, class size reduction for kindergarten through grade three and other programs, and I’d say the number is probably pretty close to the $4 million in cuts the district has already planned to make over the next two years...

The only upside to the May Revise is that the Governor is allowing school districts to dip into their reserves and do more "creative" money shifting from different pots.

Wow.  How generous of him.

I hope that the reality of this May Revise is sinking in for some of the opponents of Measure H who insisted that we "wait and see" what would happen.   While indeed the Governor can go around beating his chest and saying, "I have fully funded education by fully funding Prop 98," truth is, it is nothing but a shell game.   He is asking us to all essentially look over there, while he shifts the glasses around on us, snickering all the while about land wars in Asia and going up against Sicilians when death is on the line.

And since I'm on the subject of Measure H, check out this video produced by local community members reminding us why it is important to pass this parcel tax:

It is odd that Mr. Smith has pinpointed certain things as being redundant and unnecessary simply because they are already mandated from the state.   The logic, I suppose, is that we don't need no stinkin' administration to act as a middle man between delivery to our classroom doors and then from our classroom directly to the state.   He uses the example of standardized testing and curriculum development as two departments within AUSD that are unnecessarily replicated by the school district.   Here's the thing, while Mr. Smith would be perfectly happy getting a fat FedEx packet in the mail every time he needs to administer a standardized test, complete with return postage back to the state, I wonder who he thinks compiles and combined the information from hundreds of other teachers and classrooms like his own in the Alameda School District.   Does he suppose that the assessment office simply dumps thousands of those bubbled-in forms on the state assessment office and says, "Have at it!"    If staff at the local level isn't available to do that sort of job, then there will need to be staff at the state level to do that sort of job, to sort through the piles and piles of returned FedEx packages from the different schools around the state from each individual teacher.   Doesn't sound very efficient to me.

Some other questions that I had after reading Mr. Smith's editorial:

• Who provides the discipline?  While Mr. Smith wants to be a granted a "strong-arm poised to extricate troublemakers" would that be within the classroom itself, doled out by each individual teacher, or would it be done by an administrator?  While clearly, as we have seen from the recent suspension reports, there is a differing level of discipline methods from school to school, would we be better served by having those discipline methods differ from classroom to classroom?
• What about all the other services provided to students?   Unfortunately school is a lot more than what happens in the classroom itself.   It often acts as a safety net for students in less fortunate circumstances.   Kids that come to school hungry and need subsidized lunches.   Kids that come from abusive homes.  Kids that may need help just getting to school every morning because they don't have a stable home.  Is Mr. Smith proposing that each individual teacher, each classroom will be responsible for that as well?
• What about the kids who need help to reach their full potential, using career and college counselors to help guide them through the college admissions process that their parents simply can't help out with.   Is Mr. Smith and his already overworked teacher colleagues willing to take that on as well in order to cut out more bureaucracy and administration services that exist outside the classroom?

It appears that Mr. Smith has a lot of critiques and criticisms without providing a whole lot of globally applicable alternatives.   Other than proposing that money be funnelled directly to the individual classrooms and to let each teacher decide what they want to do with the money.  But as Mr. Smith well knows, or I would hope that he would know, is that schools provide a whole heck of a lot more than what goes on in the four walls of a classroom.   Beyond simply pontificating in an op-ed, I would challenge Mr. Smith to come up with a solid plan for implementing his vision. 

The next notable commentary was from Ian Merrifield who wrote very eloquently about his reflections on why passing this parcel tax is important.  And will, more notably, be voting for the very first time!   If you have not read Ian M.'s commentary, it is a direct valdidation of why funding our schools is worth it.   If AUSD can churn out even one more future leaders like young Ian, then it is well worth your $120 per year.

...The district expects to be $10 million in the hole despite Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's boost to education funding proposed in his revised budget released May 14 and help from city reserves.

San Francisco schools will still qualify for about $15.5 million out of the city's rainy day fund - less than the $19 million they were eligible to receive under the governor's previous budget...

The governor's proposal would also give districts flexibility to temporarily suspend certain rules, allowing school officials to take money from one pot of money to pay for other services.

For example, the district could take money normally required for building maintenance to use elsewhere.

But those options are not attractive, district officials said.

"It's like taking your gas budget and putting it into your food budget," he said.

In short, you still have to pay for gas...

Despite the the rainy day funding and May revise, San Francisco is still facing a massive budget shortfall and is also proposing its own parcel tax to help pay for teacher's salaries and technology in the form of Proposition A, their parcel tax would be a 20 year, that's right, 20 year tax at $198 per parcel (to rise with inflation).   However, unlike Alameda it would appear that San Francisco's parcel tax has a good amount of support from the business community.  The biggie, the Chamber of Commerce in San Francisco is supporting the parcel tax.  But in Alameda,  from what I understand, one of Alameda's business districts is going to come out strongly against Measure H and last night there was a forum hosted by one of the business districts to explain to the business community the who, what, why and where of Measure H and how it would affect businesses in Alameda.   I don't have a solid confirmation, so not naming any names, but I imagine that if the membership of the business association(s) eventually vote to not support Measure H and actively campaign against it, it won't stay quiet for long.   

Another part of that last article was a listing of other parcel taxes* that are coming up for a vote as well in response to the cuts to education.  Because while some would like to characterize the parcel tax as throwing additional money at the schools, in fact, this is to make up for the shortfall in funding for the state, not to provide the icing and fancy dragees on the proverbial cake, but rather to just purchase the eggs to make the cake.

----------------

*

Alameda County

-- Measure H: A four-year, $120 parcel tax for Alameda Unified, to help offset the expected loss of millions of dollars in state funding. Businesses would pay 15 cents per square foot. The tax would begin on July 1 and would raise about $4.2 million per year for such projects as keeping elementary class sizes small and retaining music and athletics.

-- Measure I: A $205 million facilities bond for Hayward Unified to build permanent classrooms, install wireless technology and security systems, and provide access for the disabled at every school, among other projects.

Contra Costa County

-- Measure C: A $61.6 million facilities bond for Antioch Unified to replace roofs and improve plumbing, bathrooms, electrical systems, school libraries and more.

-- Measure D: This seven-year, $166 parcel tax for San Ramon Valley Unified would replace an existing $90 parcel tax expiring next year. The district would use the money to keep school libraries open, reduce the size of math and science classes, and keep school counselors.

Marin County

-- Measure A: A facilities bond in the Ross School District would raise $6.75 million. Property owners would pay an additional $30 per $100,000 assessed value to pay off the bonds over 25 years.

-- Measure B: An eight-year, $375 parcel tax in the Nicasio School District would be used for teacher raises, lowering class size and other programs.

San Mateo County

-- Measure N: A five-year, $96 parcel tax for the Pacifica School District would be used to keep classes small and attract experienced teachers.

-- Measure P: A five-year, $78 parcel tax for the Millbrae School District would protect teachers from layoffs and reinstate laid-off music and library teachers, classroom aides and custodians.

Santa Clara County

-- Measure A: A $378 million facilities bond for Palo Alto Unified to replace portables with permanent classrooms, upgrade aging classrooms and libraries, and ensure that buildings meet safety standards.

-- Measure B: A $198 million facilities bond to benefit Fremont Union High School District's five schools would be used to upgrade electrical systems, to create a technology fund for computers, science labs and solar power, and to build new classrooms to relieve overcrowding.

-- Measure C: This eight-year parcel tax for the Mountain View-Whisman School District would be used to keep class sizes small and let the district continue offering music, art and library programs.

-- Measure E: Would extend for six years an expiring $290 parcel tax for the Los Gatos Union School District. The money would keep class sizes small and let the district continue offering music, art and library programs.

-- Measure G: A $179 million facilities bond for the Alum Rock Union Elementary School District to fix old roofs, classrooms, bathrooms, and safety and electrical systems, and improve computer technology.

Sonoma County

-- Measure H: A seven-year, $88 parcel tax would raise $500,000 annually for three unified districts - Healdsburg, West Side and Alexander - to be used for smaller class sizes and other programs.

-- Measure I: Beginning July 1, 2009, an existing $9 parcel tax benefiting the Gravenstein Union School District would grow to $45 for eight years. Expected to raise up to $90,000 annually, it would pay for art, music and technology instruction.

Do these numbers make me feel uncomfortable that the school may be violent and not safe?  Not really.   For me, seeing these numbers completely out of context makes me uncomfortable with the way the Chronicle presented the information in order to shock the populace.    The best way to know if a school is safe or not is to visit it and talk to the administrators there to understand what their discipline strategies are.   Numbers presented in the way that the Chronicle did are meaningless, it could be one kid that had artificially bumped up the numbers  who is having some major discipline issues, or it could be that every incident is one individual kid.   Also, there are levels of violence such as threatening to bring an AK-45 to school is a lot different that saying, "I'm going to kick your ass."  However, I imagine that depending on the administrator they might both get shuffled under a larger category of "terroristic threats."

The bottom line is, kids are kids.  Kids get into fights.  That is why the phrase "I'll see you at the flagpole" has made it into our common venacular.   Even at the best schools you can't stop a speeding homoronal train when it gets a full head of steam.   Heck, considering the preponderance of alpha dog personalities, probably half the commenters on this site probably got into at least one fight when they were growing up.

I bristle at the notion brought up by Michael Rich that because of these numbers somehow the schools in Alameda are not excellent or that it validates the reasoning why parents might want to send their kids to Charter Schools.   If you use only numbers to decide where you are going to send you kid to school without visiting the school and doing your own personal due diligence about it, you are shortchanging your child's education experience.   And if these numbers are so frightening, then I suppose the best way to protect your kid is to home school them to make sure they are completely safe and unexposed to the grittiness of public education.   

Despite the scariness of AUSD schools, somehow it has still managed to produce a number of excellent students doing great things, like these Alameda and Encinal High students who qualified to compete at the DECA International Career Development Conference.   Or recent Encinal High graduate Sara Heaps who was selected to be a part of the Goldman Sachs Foundation Global Leader Program and is in her second year at Stanford.   Aren't these the sort of students that we want to keep schools excellent for?   And don't we want to be able to have the opportunity to cultivate more excellent students, regardless of their backgrounds, regardless of the high suspension rates at their schools, regardless of their API scores with excellent schools, teachers, support staff, and yes, administrators?

With that here are the numbers for AUSD, take it with a huge grain of salt. 

[Edited to add] Follow this link to Mike McMahon's site to see a five year report of the number of suspensions and explusions broken down by school type (high, middle, elementary). 

Community members are stepping up all over the city to do their small part to help out during these difficult times.  It's time for us all to step up and support our schools.   Let's not give lip service to phrases like doing things "for the children" when we talk about issues like bus stop placement, development efforts in the city, traffic, etc... if we really aren't going to think of the children when we have a chance to do something "for the children" and ensure that they have the best educational opportunity that we as a community can afford to provide to them.

When we talk about telling other folks, like teachers and other school employees, to take a hit financially for the good of the students, the ironic thing is that these are the same people who are complaining about paying a $120 parcel tax, as opposed to taking how much more from the pockets of professionals who rely on their salaries to support themselves and their families.   A teacher/blogger from the San Jose Unified School District -- really great blog by the way -- put it like this when interviewed for a tv newscast regarding the school district holding back their cost of living adjustment:

...I need new stuff, more books, more supplies, better facilities, and so on, but my kids don't need that stuff. They need me. If you want to close the achievement gap, you want me in that classroom, me and all my talented friends and colleagues. We are the single most powerful factor in determining the success or failure of the individual student, and you need to keep us around.

...

You can't keep us when you invest in programs over people. So yes, the Governor should understand that you get what you pay for, but budget cuts or no budget cuts, you protect your investment in the teachers whose energy and talent make the difference between advancement and stagnation.

I don't think anyone could have phrased it any better.

And when we hear stories about this year's valedictorian at Encinal High School, the school's first Black valdedictorian in its history, how can we deny the power of what a good education can do for one person, one student, one kid.   One kid whose life could have turned out so differently if it wasn't for the power of his personal convictions as well as the power of good schools with teachers and staff that truly care for the success of all students.  

Digging our heels and repeating a tired mantra about waiting to see or the school district should do better or persons x, y, and z should take a pay cut isn't what made students like Anthony Chibueze Anekwe Jr. a success: heading off to college with a full scholarship and seeking to become a neurosurgeon.   It is the efforts of the school district that should do better and persons x, y, and z that supposedly should sacrifice their means of living.

As Anthony A. said:

"I have always believed in education," ... "And I knew that getting an education would give me a better life." 

_____________________________________________

(1) Tom Pavletic Will Vote No on School Parcel Tax Measure H
Editor,
When does a person say about their own personal finances that they have a “budget shortfall?” Most people would say that only in jest … instead they simply acknowledge the fact that they spend more than they earn. If a person’s income goes down, they cut expenditures and draw down their savings account. I view the School District’s problem the same way (disclosure: I analyze City government enterprise funds for a living). The School District does not have a budget crisis. They have a management crisis. Why is it so hard to cut expenditures by 2.5% per year for two years without cutting to the bone?
If a person thinks that the salaries and benefits of top administrators can be adjusted to yield $4 million in savings they should ask the School Board to sketch out the proposal – list the positions and cost out each one. Administrator salaries and benefits are probably only 10-15% of total salaries and benefits. The Superintendent’s salary on July 1, 2008 will increase from about $167,000 to $173,000 (a $6,000 or 3% increase). I maintain that a temporary decrease in the salaries and benefits of top administrators and the Superintendent are only part of the composite approach needed to reduce expenditures.
School District management (the elected members of the School Board and the Superintendent) have many options for decreasing expenditures. They put forth a proposed set of cuts that does not include their biggest expenditure categories – salaries and benefits. Salaries and benefits are over 80% of the District’s General Fund expenditures. School District management needs to justify why employee salaries and benefits should continue to increase over the next few years while the taxpayers, in effect, transfer their salaries to School District employees.
If the School District had maintained a reasonable General Fund balance, like their financial auditors suggested they should, the School District would not need this tax increase.
If their 600+ employees, whose salaries and benefits total almost $70 million per year, temporarily give up their planned 1-3% salary and benefit increases, the School District would not need this tax.
In FY 2006-07, employee salaries and benefits averaged about $108,000 per employee. Why doesn’t one of the School District teachers who is near retirement write in and describe their salary and benefit package? Why doesn’t the School Board tell us what their teachers cost in terms of salaries and benefits in dollars per year. Then we can decide whether School District teachers should get increases to their salaries and benefits. Many employees work only 7 hours per day and most work only part of the year. What is your salary for your full time job? What are your benefits? Will you get a lifetime defined-benefit pension when you retire?
Patricia Sanders, President of the Alameda Education Association, AUSD's teacher union, stated that the union met and voted "overwhelmingly to endorse the parcel tax." The unions take 1.5% of employee salaries. I estimate that the unions may contribute over $50,000 to the pro-tax campaign. I estimate that the pro-tax campaign and the school foundation may spend over $150,000 to get this tax approved. When you begin receiving expensive pro-tax advertisements in the mail next week, ask yourself how much they cost.
The unions could have voted to reopen their contracts. They did not. The School District’s management could have requested that the unions reopen their contracts. They did not. The Superintendent could have rejected her $6,000 planned salary increase. She did not. The unions and School District management now want more of my salary. Businesses will pass on this parcel tax to me in the form of price increases. I will vote no on Measure H.
Tom Pavletic

Hopefully next year's event will occur somewhere mid-Island so that it is equidistance for all residences.   Anyway, for those that did go, how was it? 

So all that was a lead up to the Alameda Sun's article about the School Board Meeting on Tuesday, where the School Board members would be voting on what programs to prioritize if Measure H gets passed.  I haven't watched the meeting yet, but from all accounts it sounds actually very interesting.   It's always vastly entertaining to see people sitting on the dias get snippy with one another.  

According to the article the School Board was at loggerheads over two issues, one was brought up by Tracy Jensen that she didn't feel as if that it was appropriate to prioritize what they would restore without first receiving a bugdet.   The second issue was brought up by Janet Gibson who felt as though the piddly School Board stipends should be on the list of items to restore.  

I have to disagree with both of them.  Personally, it's important that the School Board reassures the voting public that if they vote for Measure H, these are the programs and services that will get restored.  And reagrding the stipends, while I respect the work and the time that is put in by our volunteer School Board, it is as mentioned by Bill Schaff, a statement that the Board itself is sacrificing their small stipend in order to put the business of the School District first.

According to the Alameda Sun article and Mike McMahon's website these are the items that were recommended, and the majority of the board voted to restore, in the case of Measure H's passage:

• Elementary music grades 1-3
• Reduction of high school atheltics and closure of swim centers
• 9th grade class size reduction
• Reduction of high school advanced placement sections
• Reduction of middle school counselors
• Reduction of clerical support at Encinal High School

And completely off topic, this Saturday marks the second Alameda Civic Light Opera Trivia Challenge, so if you think that you are smarter than the average bear, find two others, pony up the $330 to enter and kick some Alamedan ass!   Or for $35 you can have dinner and watch from the audience all the while muttering the answers under your breath and then feeling superior when you get the answer right and the teams on stage do not.   It's a win - win either way.

For those of you that don't keep an eye either on Alamedans or on Rob Siltanen's blog School 94501/94502 you are missing out on a great post by Rob S. delievered this weekend.   This addresses some of the commentary that has been cropping up in op-eds and letters to the editors in both our newspapers that has argued against the Parcel Tax.   That, of course, being that we should be putting our efforts into lobbying at the state level for our fair share rather than wasting our time trying to pass a parcel tax and further penalizing Alameda residents.    Rob S. tells us that it is necessary to do both and that there are folks out there that have been working hard to figure out an appropriate strategy to secure equalized funding for Alameda schools.   Highlights, but reading the entire post is highly recommended, particularly for those who have limited understanding on how school financing works:

As more and more Alamedans are now coming to understand, California’s school finance system is broken. But based on the complaints of Measure H opponents, I am concerned that not as many Alamedans also understand that many of us already have been working hard for years to fix that broken system and will continue to do so (probably also for years), regardless of what happens with the Measure H vote on June 3.

...We can and must both play “defense” locally with the parcel tax as well as continue to play “offense” in Sacramento. If we vote down Measure H and gamble everything on a reckless Sacramento-only strategy, we risk destroying public education as we know it in Alameda. It really is too valuable to throw away.

...If one looks at the past few decades of California school finance policy, the best analogy may be the movement of tectonic plates: Change comes slowly in tiny increments (e.g., a few equalization dollars here or there), though every once in awhile there is an earthquake (e.g., Serrano v. Priest, Proposition 13, Proposition 98, the recession of 2008). I do think the time is right for a earthquake of positive reform of this broken system in the coming years, but there are too far many variables in play for anyone to be able to predict with confidence whether that will happen in two, four or eight years...

Thorough and positively enlightening post.  Should be required reading for everyone along with the Great Gatsby and Of Mice and Men.  

On another school related topic, I have to say that I am thoroughly tired of folks speaking out for a substantial group of Alamedans without even having spoken to a subtantial majority of that group.   The first is the now second in a series of articles on Alameda Daily News which claim to "represent" West End parents and saying that AEF/KASE/Illuminati of Alameda is not looking out for the interests of West End schools and kids.   Evidently speaking to a "bunch" of parents and then being told that their sentiments were "widespread" was clearly enough to then say definitively that the there might be some "bias" to use Don Roberts's headline against West End schools.   I'm not sure why Franklin school is being used as the most recent whipping boy in furthering the East vs West End divide, considering Franklin is sort of mid Island than anything else.   I assume Franklin is being used as the key "what is wrong with Alameda schools" because some of the most vocal supporters of the tax, the Mooneys, live in the Franklin school district.   If the representative for all that is West End Alameda did slightly more research he would probably have learned that the Mooneys sent some of their kids to West End schools like Chipman and Encinal.    Rob S. of School 94501/94502 is also a West End parent.  Simply because these folks have not gone running up to the letter writer to bonk him over the head with their opinions on AEF/KASE or the subject of equity in Alameda schools in general doesn't mean that they don't exist, just that their efforts are better placed being proactive rather than complaining about the perceived status quo.  

The second in the "please don't speak for me" rant is the recent guest editorial on Michele Ellson's The Island by Tom Pavletic, who signed off his anti-Parcel tax side as: "Board Member, 400+ Unit Alameda Homeowners Association" as a member of that 400+ Unit Alameda Homeowners Association he damned well didn't speak for me and a number of other families that I have spoken to about the Parcel Tax and have prominent signs in the lawns announcing their support for the efforts of AEF.   Thankfully Michele E. has placed a disclaimer after his sign off letting future readers know that Tom P. only speaks for himself.

Last September, Peter Schrag wrote an article for Harper's Magazine about how we as a society have pointed a collective finger of blame at our schools for the past 50 years.   The only problem was, I couldn't access the Harper's site (I'm cheap, I didn't want to pay for it), but thanks to SFSchools, I was able to access the shortened version from the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette.  Hey, you get your articles wherever you can, even an Indiana newspaper.  Before I move on to highlighting passages from the article --chock full of great stuff, the scariest part is the listing of the various "reforms" that have taken place in the past 50 years, often conflicting, but all have been applied at one point or the other to our public schools -- I want to give you more information about the event today in case you will be around to catch it.

Today, from 3:00 - 6:00 p.m. teachers, other school officials, and students will be placed in trash cans all around Alameda, most notably lining Park and Webster Streets and at Alameda Towne Centre (corner of Park and Otis).  This will kick off the campaign declaring that "Public Education is to valuable to throw away" and will also launch AEF's STEP UP awareness campaign.   For the amateur (or not so amateur) photographers out there who might be snapping photos of the event, you can send your photos to TeacherPhotos@Alamedans.com to be included as part of a larger slideshow memorializing the event and this will find a place of prominence at alamedans.com.

Anyway, back to the article, if you have time to read the entire article, it's worth it, but for now, highlights:

In 1951, when historian Henry Steele Commager first observed that “no other people ever demanded so much of schools and of education as have the Americans,” he couldn’t have dreamed how much more would be demanded.

Win the Cold War; beat the Germans and the Japanese in the battle for economic supremacy; out-duel the Chinese and Indians in the training of scientists and engineers; Americanize millions of children not just from Southern and Eastern Europe...but from 100 Third World cultures...; make every child “proficient” in English and math; educate the blind, the mentally handicapped and the emotionally disturbed to the same levels as all others; teach the evils of alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs and premarital sex; prepare all for college; teach immigrants in their native languages; teach driver’s ed; feed lunch to poor children; entertain the community with Friday-night football and midwinter basketball; sponsor dances and fairs for the kids; and serve as the prime (and often the only) social-welfare agency for both children and parents.

...Given the mandates, is it any wonder that so many Americans think the schools are lousy?

...there have been countless declarations from politicians, official commissions, business organizations, foundations, editorialists and academics – what John Mockler, a leading California education consultant, has called “the schools suck industry” – that our schools are failing us.

...

A lot of the touted reforms of the past half-century have been discredited, abandoned and forgotten; according to Chester Finn, who was himself an assistant secretary of education during the Reagan administration, many were “irrelevant and probably harmful.”

Others are currently in their third or fourth incarnation.

...

Despite steps to increase per pupil spending, decrease student-teacher ratios, strengthen standards and recruit a better-prepared teaching force, student test scores have remained stubbornly flat over the past 35 years. By international standards, the U.S. spends far more than other nations on education – and has smaller class sizes – yet receives far less value in terms of educational outcomes.

In fact, a lot of such international comparisons lack context and are therefore debatable. Because of the relative paucity of social services in this country – as opposed to the universal preschool, health care and similar generous children’s services provided in other developed nations – our schools are forced to serve as a fallback social-service system for millions of American children. In addition to teaching a far greater diversity of children than is the case in other nations, our educational workers must address countless medical, social and family problems before they can even begin to think about teaching math, reading or history.

...

More so than other modern societies – and after a generation of conservative attacks on our social-welfare programs – the United States tends to act as if the schools can do it all. Yet children who come to school hungry, or with vision problems, or with toothaches, and who pass through mean streets to get there, can’t possibly be expected to learn as well as healthy kids. Kids without engaged parents, or with only one functional parent (if that), are almost certain to be less engaged in the classroom.

...

It is the fashion among ed-policy wonks to complain that American parents are too satisfied with their children’s schools, and the work their children do, even as these kids lag far behind students abroad...But is it just possible that...American parents might understand something that the politicians and businesspeople seemingly do not: that academic achievement is only one element in the future success of their children, that the good life depends on much more than high grades?

...

Americans are far too hung up on the notion that in some past golden age the schools were better. When was there ever such an age? The people who blame the schools for today’s ills are themselves products of schools that were under attack for similar failings a couple of generations ago. Are the schools good enough? Of course not. But then, they never were. And as long as we expect schools to solve every cultural and economic challenge the United States faces in an ever-evolving world, as long as we continue to tinker with them as if they were training facilities for warriors in cold wars still to come, they never will be. Perhaps it is time we thought of schools as places where our children might simply learn something – not just for our benefit, not just for the nation’s, but for their own.

So have our schools failed us or are we failing our schools by expecting too much from them, but not giving it enough support?   And if we haven't given it the support its needed througout the years, it's not too late to start now, with this generation, in this community.  

And so I offer to you all a chance to hear them speak themselves, we already have a taste from Ian Merrifield from Encinal High School who I think holds to record as the first poster to this blog under 19.  Hurray!   While some will argue that our youth are young and impressionable and may have been "sold" a line of thinking, I would say that young people these days are a lot savvier than us old folks would believe them to be.   Simply because we may have been naive at 17 or 18, doesn't mean these young people don't get it, nor should we doubt their abilities to think critically simply because they disagree with our own personal positions. 

From Light Generation who filmed the Board Meeting at Chipman, the Protest Rally, and the meeting with Jack O'Connell, three videos with the words of our kids about the impact of the state budget on their futures. 

AUSD Board Meeting at Chipman on March 4, 2008

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5762334917074718574]

Student Protest Rally on March 5, 2008

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-574766424329360084]

Student Meeting with Jack O'Connell on March 7, 2008

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7189270849832697625]

As reported by Eve Pearlman (video!), on Friday the State Superintendent, Jack O'Connell, came for a visit to Alameda to meet with student leaders regarding the issue of budget cuts.   The student leaders from Encinal and Alameda High Schools were articulate and well spoken as usual, even putting Jack O'Connell is a position of endorsing the Parcel Tax right there and then.  But of course, since he won't be paying for it, it was probably easy for him to say that he would, but I digress. 

Too bad the kids didn't ask him for a pledge to deny any appeal to his office for the ACLC/NCLC/Nea Charter School, which has the potential to funnel away more than a million dollars away from the very kids that he promised to support at his meeting on Friday, making any cuts that have currently been made by the school district worthless and the school district needing to go back to the drawing board to play another round of what do we cut next.

And today, as promised by the leaders of ACLC/NCLC/Nea, they will come before the Alameda County Board of Education to appeal the decision made by our own School Board.   The final vote will not be taken until April, but the public hearing will be held today.  While some will decry the decision made by our School Board as being nitpicky and having concentrated on small problems, those folks clearly were not listening to the presentation (or read the application itself) which did not provide a comprehensive outline  for the K-5 program as required by the model charter school application.   But we should overlook that as them simply forgetting to cross a t or dot an i? 

ACLC/NCLC/Nea leaders have time and time again insisted that they are a part of AUSD, but rather than striving to cultivate a positive relationship, with this decision to seek approval for their charter no matter what the cost during this difficult financial time, it would seem that they would rather the relationship be adversarial and competitive.   ACLC supposedly contains the best and the brightest that Alameda has to offer, but the student leaders who stood tall during the walkout and protest, in front of countless media, and before the state superintendent were kids from Alameda and Encinal High Schools, the kids who will bear the brunt of an additional million plus dollars cut from the budget if this deficient charter application is approved.  

If you want to weigh in on this application, a handy gmail address has been created that sends fowards directly to all members of the Alameda County Board of Education and the County Superintendent: AlamedaCtySchools@gmail.com  That way you don't have to individually cut and paste everyone's email like I had to do.

Suprisingly, only one of the seven member County Board of Education got back to me, even if it was just a form letter basically saying: "Thanks for your email."   And that was Yvonne Cerato, the Trustee from the Tri Valley.

In other news, it would appear that ACLC has gone on the defensive, putting out a handy "cheat sheet" in order to support their application.

It interesting that ACLC claims that:

...We are urging the ACLC and NCLC communities to support AUSD’s parcel tax, even though the benefits to ACLC and NCLC are likely to be zero to very small...

Really?   So ACLC students don't take advantage of the sports programs through the school district?   If an ACLC student wants to play baseball, basketball, water polo, track and field, football, swim...ACLC creates from scratch a whole team for those few students?   Pays for facility maintenance, lights when there are games or practices that go into the night, coaching stipends, etc...?

If an ACLC student wants to participate in drama or band, whole productions are formed around that student at ACLC?  Including hiring a drama teacher, costumes, facility rental, buying scripts, coordinating music and sets, etc....?

If there is a special needs student, then all the paraprofessionals needed to assist that student are hired by ACLC, covering all the costs that accompany those paraprofessionals, like salary, benefits (medical and retirement)?

If an ACLC student wants to participate in a club, does ACLC build a club around that student?  Including finding a sponsor willing to stay after school hours, help with fundraisers, provide a location for the kids to meet?

If an ACLC student wants to take any number of electives like foreign language and AP Classes, are those classes built around that ACLC student as well?  Taking time to hire a Spanish teacher (and all relative costs), French teacher (and all  relative costs), or a Social Sciences, English, History, etc... teacher with the ability to teach an AP class (and all realtive costs)?

Or do they simply outsource all the most costly expenses to the School District, paying (and sometimes not paying -- they only recently gave a token amount of money to the boosters club apparently) a fraction of the cost of what it takes to actually provide the services.  Is the expense justified by saying, ah well this portion goes to help light the classroom, this portion to the teacher's services to teach/grade/advise/mentor the student, this portion to help heat/cool the classroom, this portion to pay for the electricity costs for the computer/overhead projector, this portion goes to chalk/white board pens, this portion goes to making copies of assignments, this portion goes to janitorial services to clean the classroom, etc...  I imagine that often the portions tend to exceed whatever payment comes from ACLC to the school district to "buy" these services from them.

And I have to say I am really offended by this statement made by ACLC:

...We will seek a west end location to make attending NCLC easiest for west end parents, many of whom cannot place their children in the higher scoring elementary schools in Alameda...

The implication is that there is something inherently wrong with West End school like Paden, Ruby Bridges, and Washington.  As though having a kid in a "higher scoring elementary" is the end goal of all parents, or rather, should be the end goal of all parents.   That it's not that the West End schools (or any school for that matter) may not provide the right "fit" for the student, and the ACLC/NCLC/Nea will offer the "choice" of a different model, but rather that they will assure the student or rather, the student's parents, that they will offer a "higher scoring" alternative rather than a different kind of education.   As if a higher scoring elementary is indicative of the success of that school and not the program and teachers that are a part of that school.

Nothing in the cheat sheet addresses the direct criticism of the charter school application itself.   While they may believe that they have a terrific education model for the K-5 program, what they failed to do is show it.  No amount of "debunking" claims with general point by point feel good blanket statements can correct that deficiency in their application.

It's not that ACLC has built a better educational mouse trap, it's simply that they have found mice with a propensity to run it with with more skill than some of the other mice.

And so I leave you with this letter written by Vice Mayor Lena Tam.  While the Council has no real say in issues for the School District it is refreshing to see a Councilperson take a principled stand on an issue that will make huge impacts on our school district, this was written to Gay Plair Cobb who is our representative on the County Board of Education:

Dear Gay --

Thank you for your service on the Alameda County Board of Education in representing the City of Alameda.  I am writing to ask for your help in upholding the denial of the NCLC charter school application that is being appealed at your March 11 board meeting.  This charter school application was denied by the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) Board of Trustees on January 9, 2008.

The NCLC charter school proposal presents an unsound educational program alternative for the K-6 pupils to be enrolled in the charter school. Alameda's elementary and high schools are outstanding from a performance perspective and offer 'tried and tested' programs for our students. Unlike the BASE charter school in Alameda, which offers programs that meet special needs, NCLC's proposal does not provide an alternative that has been tried in the elementary school level.   In addition, the NCLC Charter Proposal includes a plan to deny promotion of K-5 students, who do not meet promotion expectations, to the high school level (6-12 program). This aspect of the proposal further diminishes the likelihood of achieving a racial and ethnic balance which would reflect that of the District. This balance is important in Alameda and one of the criteria in the evaluation of charter schools.

While financial considerations may not be paramount in the consideration of a charter school application, the NCLC charter school program would further exacerbate an untenable financial crisis facing AUSD.  The Governor's proposed budget cuts and the suspension of Proposition 98 would force AUSD to cut educational programs, increase class sizes, lose teachers and close schools.  This is clearly unacceptable to the residents of Alameda.

Please vote to deny the NCLC (and later the Renaissance Leadership Academy) charter school petition and uphold the findings of the AUSD.

Lena Tam | Vice-Mayor, City of Alameda

Last night's meeting of Alameda's School Board lasted until 1:15 a.m. At the meeting, the Board approved moving forward on an election for a $120.00 parcel tax and approved spending reductions of over $1,500,000 for 2008-2009. Among the cuts approved were closing swim centers, increasing class size and reductions for high school athletics and middle school counselors.

Alameda students left classes to attend a protest inside Kofman Auditorium which was completely packed requiring the overflow crowd to stand in the lobby and outside in front of the auditorium. Superintendent of Schools Ardella Dailey tried to speak to the students from a mike on the stage, but she was booed down by the crowd. It took the efforts of a student to calm the crowd and to allow the superintendent to complete her remarks. Student speakers and teachers got standing ovations when they spoke against the cuts...

I have to admit I was shocked by the report that Ardella Dailey was "booed by the crowd" after all it seemed to run contrary to all reports that I had heard previously that said that the anger was directed not at the school board or administration, but rather at the Governor and state level.   So I reached out to some folks that I either knew had been at the rally or that I thought would have been at the rally for confirmation whether or not this retelling of what had went down was true.

Turns out it wasn't.

I received three separate confirmations that it was not Superintendent Dailey the kids were booing, but that they booed almost every time mention of the cuts were made.  In fact, you can hear the kids booing on the video posted by Eve Pearlman whenever the subject of the cuts are made.   What is most impressive about these students who felt angry enough over the cuts to march all the way to the school headquarters to make a statement was they they understood -- better than some adults -- where to place the blame of these cuts, not on the school administration, Superintendent, or Board, but squarely on the shoulders of the Governor.

In fact, new blog, The Island, posted a great analysis of the school budget issues and included this tidbit:

...As to the contention that the district needs to cut its bloated administration to balance the budget? Alameda spends less money on administration per student than 10 of 11 similar districts in the state, and less than most districts in the county, according to 2005-06 numbers from the Education Data Partnership, an online group helmed by the state education department. The tax ballot language specifically prohibits funds from paying administrators’ salaries...

Don't believe The Island, I checked the numbers myself at Education Data Partnership and you can too.  It's a bit tricky at first to know what you are looking for, but after you get the hang of it you can run any number of different options.    Additionally compared to the other school districts in Alameda County, Alameda is the second lowest of percentages of their budgets spent on Administration services.  

So as mentioned time and time again, the Administration is running lean and even leaner now that the budget is cutting the Public Information Officer, which will just make it even harder for parents and community members to get information in a timely fashion from the school district.

Even the School Board members gave up what little pittance of a stipend that they get for serving on the Board.

For the most comprehensive news report on the school budget issue is the one from the Alameda Sun which did an excellent job covering the issue from a very local point of view.

Remember folks, this is only year one of a two-year plan to make cuts, every single report on the budgettalks about the 09-10 budget as part and parcel and what is looming in 09-10 barring a miracle are school closures, consolidation and the elimination of elementary class size reductions.   So chances are we will be seeing Wood Middle School closed and consolidated with Lincoln and Chipman.   Who knows what the elementary school closures will look like, we'll probably see yet another West End school closed, probably the one with the least capacity.   We're in for the long haul folks.

A sampling of the coverage:

• KGO, ABC 7
• Alameda Sun (2 articles, click the separate links)
• Oakland Tribune video (courtesy of Eve P's blog) <-- a must watch!!
• SF Gate/Chronicle
• KPIX, CBS 5 (includes video!)
• SJ Mercury (looks like a AP wire)
• KTVU, Fox2
• NBC 11 and video
• KCBS
• Alameda Journal

The Board also approved placing the Parcel Tax on the June ballot.

If any of you have been following Eve Pearlman's new blog -- she's blogging under the Alameda Journal masthead -- you would have seen the update about a small contingent of parents and possibly community members upset about the cuts to the school athetics program.  They have proposed through emails that I have seen that if any of the Board Members approve any cuts to sports that they will begin a recall effort to have those School Board Members removed in June.   The logic is then to put up a slate of "sports supporters" to then reinstate the athletics program as soon as they are seated as board members.

While I could go on a long diatribe about this issue, rather I will share an email from Rob Siltanen that crystalizes the problem with the recall perfectly:

I learned today that a group of parents is threatening to attempt to “recall” any school board member who votes to cut sports as part of the 4.5 to 5 million dollars in cuts the board will be voting on tonight.  I strongly oppose the recall effort.

I agree that eliminating high school athletics is unacceptable.  The problem for all of us who want the best for Alameda’s kids is that it is also unacceptable to end the class size reduction program in grades K-3 by 09-10; to cut positions and programs at Encinal High School in 08-09; to close two or three elementary schools, a middle school and perhaps even EHS itself in 09-10; to end music education for K-3; to cut back even further on counseling and career services; and to lay off scores of teachers and staff.

I have been quite involved in a range of AUSD financial issues in recent years and I am certain that AUSD “district office cuts” cannot save anything even remotely close to the hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to save athletics or any other of the items I’ve just listed, let alone all of them.  The Governor and the legislature bear the moral responsibility for these devastating cuts, not the AUSD board or staff.

So, while I think every constituency and “interest group” on the chopping block should advocate tonight for whatever changes to the "cut list" they believe should be made, starting Wednesday, we have to band together and work to pass the parcel tax to prevent ALL the cuts. 

Passing the parcel tax would raise nearly 4 million dollars for AUSD and would reverse the proposed cuts.  In contrast, a “throw the bums out” recall campaign by the athletes or the elementary parents or the EHS supporters or the teachers or the classified staff or any other group doesn’t “get its way” tonight will in the end make it impossible for any of those deserving groups to survive this state budget crisis.  In the context of a recall campaign, we will never be able to convince the Alameda community at large to trust and invest more in the schools by approving the parcel tax.  A recall won’t stop the 4.5 million in cuts from the state.  What would the “new board” then cut to close the $4.5 million gap?

Whatever budget cuts the board approves tonight will be terrible. But the most important point to keep in mind is that we have exactly one chance to stop ALL these cuts and it isn't tonight:  Beginning Wednesday morning, grown-ups in Alameda must work together to stop all the two-year planned cuts by doing everything we can to pass the parcel tax June 3.

So, please advocate passionately tonight for the changes you want to the budget cut list.  But on Wednesday morning, we've got to wake up and move on together. As Ben Franklin put it in 1776: "We must hang together,...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." 

Please oppose the recall campaign.  Thank you for your consideration...

I can only hope that the parents and community members considering this recall as the way to save the program they most value will instead put their efforts, energy, and most importantly money,  toward a positive goal that will benefit not only their kids, but all kids in Alameda.   No one likes what has to be done to save our schools, but a recall effort, would do more harm than good.

Here is a chart put together by Mike McMahon to illustrate the differences from the first round to the second round:

The biggest difference, as you may notice is that JROTC is again off the chopping block, but this time the elimination of class size reductions for Third Grade is helping to bridge a considerable gap.   The Vice Principal that was proposed to be completely eliminated from Encinal High School looks to be a part time position now.  It also appears that AP classes will be "realigned" with enrollment, I'm not really sure what that means, but it sounds like there will probably be less not more AP classes for students to choose from which really is a detriment to students.

I can understand the lack of enthusiasm that a lot of people have for paying more taxes.   Personally, I like to keep my own money in my pockets as well.   I don't have the benefit of a cushy Prop 13 property tax bill.   I even pay an additional assessment (a Mello Roos type tax) to pay for city services everyone else in Alameda (with the exception of some homes on Bay Farm) get for free for the price of their property tax.   I'm not rolling in money and I don't live extravagantly, I would rather have the extra $120 a year to pay for groceries, etc...   But I also realize that my $120 if combined with my neighbor's $120, and my neighbor's neighbor's $120 can start adding up and doing some real good in this fiscal crisis that ALL school districts throughout California are facing.   Of course, except school districts like Piedmont whose populace is willing and able to shell out REAL money for their schools and see a marked benefit from it.  Piedmont realizes that it's not just their fancy houses and nice landscaping that brings value to their homes, but their exceptional schools that add a premium to their homes that you can't find in Antioch or Pittsburg.

Here's how I see it, to save Class Size Reductions for third graders only the proceeds from only 834 homes could fund it.

To keep the counselors in Middle School: 750 homes

To maintain the current level of AP classes: 542 homes

Of course this doesn't even take it the amount of money that could come from businesses around Alameda.  A chunk of $7500 from Wind River here, another $7500 from Peet's there, another $7500 from Perforce and we are halfway ($22,500) to keeping the Independent Study teacher fully funded for our exceptional students like dancers and athletes who may need flexibility for their schedules.

So while we can all dig in our heels and blame the budget problems on the lack of AUSD to plan ahead or administrative staff unwilling to take a paycut -- as though that will magically create a $4 million surplus.   After all, how many of you out there would be willing to take a paycut because your sole funding source decided that it wasn't going to give you the money it had promised and instead is only giving you a portion of that.   Anyone?  No, you'd just quit and find another job if faced with that decision.   How much do you think a Superintendent of an entire school district should get paid?   How about a CFO of a school district who must understand complicated funding formulas and obscure government codes and regulations?    

$10 a month, that's all they are asking for and that $10 will go a long way to providing for the future of Alameda.

...Perhaps we need leaders, not politicians or administrators, who can live within their means.

While certainly the writer did preface the statement by saying that he had no kids in school, this then tells me that his information about the school district and its operations is probably pretty minimal.  Although honestly, not having children yet in school is really no excuse for not following school district issue, particularly if you are going to critique and criticize as though you come from a place of knowledge.

So I present you this as some "food for thought," the blog San Francisco Schools has posted a list of headlines compiled throughout the state of California about the state of education.  There are about 13 headlines alone that talk about cuts and layoffs from local state school districts statewide, and that was only a one day compliation.   If you go to FCMAT's website, where the information was initally aggregated, more and more headlines about layoffs and cuts appear.   Is this a case of serial mismanagment throughout the state from school district to school district?   Or is this indicative of a larger statewide financial problem that is landing on the backs of our children?   Our reaction locally should be one of trying to solve the problem, whether or not you have a child in school or not.    Not arguing about whether or not seniors should be exempted or whether people on state disability (with single family homes) should be exempted as well.  

When I first heard about the parcel tax, I have to admit that my first reaction was: "I'm not going to support it if it exempts seniors!"   But I quickly realized that there is no other option.   There is no silver bullet as other folks have been saying.   Suspending redevelopment in Alameda is not going to magically bring more money in for the school district.   Bitching about Prop 13 isn't going to help fund JROTC, or music programs, or sports programs before they get cut.

Remember that this parcel tax also contains a strong commercial and industrial portion which makes our corporate citizens support our schools.   There are no exemptions for them.   Are we willing to lose that possible source of funding for our schools because you're pissed off that Granny down the street on a fixed income might not have to pay?   Rather than get mad at Granny down the street on a fixed income, instead maybe we should be wagging a finger at those over 65 seniors that can afford to pay and opt not to.   For example, hypothetically if one can fund a campaign to the tune of almost $100K of one's own money, one probably shouldn't be allowed to opt out of a $120 a year parcel tax. 

What the bottom line is, everyone one is going to say they simply cannot afford to pay this parcel tax, but on the other hand, can we afford not to?