I want to start off the comments by saying that I'll gladly support a parcel tax increase for the sake of our students, despite what I see as a bungling, unprofessional school board.

I would be even more motivated to support the parcel tax and help advocate for it if Steve Nelson would step down. But I'm not going to let our students be penalized by his behavior even more than they already have been... so tax away.

As someone who is currently cash flow negative due to the crazy cost of housing here, I will be voting no. It's easy to say "so tax away" if you've got the money to spare without figuring out where to cut expenses to pay it.

"As someone who is currently cash flow negative due to the crazy cost of housing here..."

Well, I guess that's your fault, isn't it? If you worked harder, you wouldn't have that problem...

I was one of those 401 polled. The poll was not a simple up or down voter poll like you would expect from Gallup but was a political "AB" test for political messaging.

The questions where in the form of -- if the parcel tax was $X, would you vote for it? What if it was $Y? What if is was $Z?

Then, there was a series of "fact statements". If I told you ABC would you be more likely to vote for it? If I told you DEF? GHI?

In short, the questions were to find the best message to sell this tax increase. Clearly, the district is spending money to see how it can win an election. It is not legal for a government agency to spend tax payer money to influence elections.

It would be illegal for the MVWSD to campaign for a ballot measure its Board of Trustees had placed on the ballot. They are trying to figure out how to proceed, not being an attorney, I'll stick to innocent until proven guilty.

"The poll also suggests that people would be most likely to oppose the measure because large commercial property owners would pay significantly less under the new flat tax rate, and that property owners are hesitant to double or even triple what they are currently paying to increase the district's revenue. Residents polled also cited trouble on the school board as an issue, saying that board members do a bad job managing bond money and are not effectively managing the school district."



Huge problem: increasing taxes for individual property owners while large commercial property owners pay significantly less.

Yeah, that's not going to fly.

Are you listening?

I'm with @Monte Loma mom. Additional funding for this nut house of a board is an utter waste. If and only if Nelson steps down, I'll support this.

Is Greg Caldonato still on the board of the libertarian Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association-a group that routinely opposes such parcel taxes?

Too bad they didn't call me. I would have said no.

"We should take advantage of the sentiment that we have now in the community, which is, 'We're not happy with the current test results (and) we need to improve,'" Gutierrez said."

A better approach, Mr. Gutierrez, would be to lay out for the community your plans for accomplishing that goal first. Otherwise it's just throwing money into a black hole, especially since district management is clearly struggling.

Also, if you actually are able to do that you will likely attract more higher-income families to the school district who would happily donate the money they are currently paying in private school tuition.

I'd advise you to think creatively about how you can attract a broader range of families to your schools and include that as part of a plan to help improve the test scores of lower achieving kids. I don't believe doing more of the same will help anyone.

Higher income families donate money and time, both of which the district needs now. Take the lesson from Huff, the one MVWSD school that manages to do well with all students.

Hey Bingo,

Recent Court decisions have invalidated the current approach of a graduated Parcel Tax. It will be a flat rate or it will not be.

@No blank,
Huff's school community is a little bit different than the others. Other than forced busing of Huff kids to other schools, how would you suggest making the other schools more like Huff?

@Old Steve,

I think my original post answers your question, but I can elaborate. I'm not talking about busing, I'm talking about making the schools more desirable to a larger group of high-earning parents who currently opt out of our schools in larger numbers than we would like. This can be accomplished many ways, but for starters the old demographers said that it seems clear that Stevenson brought many families to the district that otherwise would have gone private.

So, for starters, maybe something along those lines. I bet a STEM school or program within a current school would be of huge interest to the community traditionally opting out of our schools. Language seems to be a popular option as well. We have Spanish, how about Chinese? This doesn't have to be full immersion like the DI program, I bet even offering a Chinese class a couple times a week from K-8 grade at even one of the schools, then allowing for open transfer from the other neighborhood schools for parents who are interested in this option would bring families back into the fold.

I'm ask for some innovation, looking for solutions in many different places, tackling the problem from different angles. I can tell you right now that beating the kids over the head with more practice tests isn't going to produce the results we are looking for.

"Huff, the one MVWSD school that manages to do well with all students"

Except that they do not get "all" students.

No Blank,

All perhaps great ideas. Too bad the states LCFF funding formula is unlikely to be able to support piloting any of them. Parcel Tax is controlled locally, oversight is local, and the State cannot "reallocate" it. If we want to be able to try things, parcel tax is the way. BUT if the Parcel Tax language is too specific, and the specific ideas don't work, then you can't use the money to try anything else. Thus, MVWSD is doing research as to how to proceed. Others have suggested voting no unless a trustee resigns. We elect the trustees, why punish the kids because one of those we elected sometimes has trouble acting like an adult in a modern world.

Why don't they beg Gov. Jerry Brown for some of the 7 Billion dollars that came in thanks to his income tax increase? Oh I know Brown whats to waste it on a train to nowhere.

If property taxes go up, so does rent. So if you rent, don't think you are not in the middle of this.

@Me

Well they have like 10% and they seem to be able to help them better than the other schools if we can trust the new test scores. I'm not looking at school averages, I'm looking at the scores for low-income kids only across all schools.

What if the other schools were closer in make up to Huff? What if instead of Theuerkauf having 75% low-income kids the percentage was 30-40%? What if Monta Loma and Landels were below 20%? I'm not talking about removing kids, I'm talking about adding new ones. Those who live in the neighborhood but who currently opt out. Just a different way at trying to solve the same problem.

I've heard it said that if all the kids living in Mountain View actually attended Mountain View schools, the schools would be great. Well, give them a reason to attend!

This would not be the only fix needed to help low-income kids, other programs will be needed as well, but if I'm being asked to pay more taxes to a struggling school district, these are the types of things I'm looking for, not more of the same which hasn't worked in the past.

Great that Huff has done so well in the current testing. If the hypothesis is teachers and admins at Huff is the main reason behind the good scores, how about rotating those teachers/admins into the other, lower-performing schools? It'd be obvious in a year or two if the hypothesis is correct, no?

@blank,

Some of your ideas were very interesting. The problem with attracting some of the 2000+ students to our schools that currently go to private schools are the reasons those kids go to private schools. Some of them go to religious schools. Not going to get them. Many of them attend schools simply because their parents can afford a different choice. Probably not going to get them either. A good number are looking for interesting or different learning innovations....those would be the types of families attracted to the Stephenson program. Whether or not it's possible to create other similar or different, yet innovative learning environments is likely what the district will consider over the coming years. But that's not likely to happen overnight. So the issue of getting some of those students back is complicated. While I don't think we should write them off, I do agree that we should be doing things that can at least make those families think twice because that will surely make other newer families to the area jump into our schools.

The bottom line is that we NEED THE PARCEL TAX to be renewed. And we need more money. The district is already somewhat behind neighboring districts on ability to spend per student. The Parcel tax helps us to get closer to an even playing field for our kids regardless of their abilities. Without it, we can just slash the school budget by a few million dollars. That makes very little sense.

So, I applaud the district for working to figure out what the public wants for it's schools and figuring out how to attain those goals so that everyone will be willing participants in this process.

@ Cfrink,

You have done it again. I cannot remember what we did for eloquent before you moved here and joined these discussions! Please keep it up!

Yeah, everyone needs my money to line their pockets. All in the name of the children. We hear that line every year and things still keep on getting worse. How about this superb idea, why not look where all that money is going and find where the waste is.

Nice Canard!

Most of us that spend any time volunteering for the district also contribute to the MVEF. Personally I would not do that if I thought the district was wasting resources. I think most teachers volunteer their own resources in their classrooms. I know that by any measure district administrators work as hard as anybody else with an advanced degree. Where else would you like us to look for supposed waste?

Treading water with a parcel tax increase that merely preserves current funding levels (but in a less lawsuit-prone way) isn't going to be good enough... the poll results show that in order to get 2/3rds support, there's work to be done to make the case for more. I don't see how we get to reasonably-sized neighborhood elementary schools in all neighborhoods, and 2 choice programs, without it. And who knows what will happen in terms of teacher turnover...

Voters should remember that they will have a say in the composition of the MVWSD Board of Trustees in November 2016, not long after the parcel tax vote, as three Board seats will be up for a vote... so, plenty of opportunity to put in place the people they want to be responsible for spending this money.

@cfrink

Just happened to have read an article stating basically exactly what I've stated above. Good read for all parents in Mountain View.

Web Link

From the article:

The exceptions—the public schools in gentrifying neighborhoods that happen to be doing well according to official rankings—seem to be those that compete with charter and private schools by becoming magnet schools or starting gifted-and-talented programs. Brooklyn’s PS 8, for instance, was “failing” only 10 years ago, but after remaking itself as a magnet school has become one of the borough’s most sought-after elementary schools.

....

Is that feasible? A recent episode of This American Life documented that it can be. The show focused on how Hartford, Connecticut, which remains mostly ungentrified, has focused successfully on exactly that kind of coherent policy effort, creating dozens of urban magnet schools that are so strong they manage to attract students who live outside the city. Nearly half of Hartford’s students now benefit from integrated K-12 education. Though not a panacea, it is a significant step forward.

How exactly did Hartford do it? The city persuaded patrons to buy in. It wooed children of diverse backgrounds. And instead of having students learn science through worksheets, the city gave students access to a planetarium, an outdoor garden, a butterfly vivarium, a trout pond, and a LEGO lab.

Once newcomers have what they consider to be viable local alternatives, such as high-quality gifted-and-talented programs and foreign language instruction in Prospect Heights and LEGO labs and butterfly gardens in Hartford, they seem to be more likely to choose public schools over charters. A planetarium is not a cheap solution, but if you build it, they will come—and they might well stay.

You realize of course that on average those states spend Thousands of dollars more PER student than we do. More even than our "wealthy" neighbors in MVLA & PAUSD.

@Patrick Neschleba nope. The problems must excuse themselves first. The community has zero respect for or trust in the current Board of Trustees. If the current Board is running the show on election day, I vote no.

Caldonato will presumably be against the parcel tax based on his involvement with libertarian groups that oppose all such measures. His ally Nelson has shown that he cant govern. This district is a mess

Used to vote yes for the parcel tax. Seeing how previous parcel taxes have been spent, this time I'm voting no. Children will see more direct benefit from my dollars if I give them as a donation straight to the school.

All the PTAs and the MVEF have never raised $1Million in a year. The current Parcel Tax raises almost $3Million per year. Please get ready to explain to our dysfunctional board which programs and teachers you would like to see cut out. Can't cheat by saying P.E, it is now required by State Law again. Science Camp? Enrichment Programs? Class Sizes? I'm sure the board will want suggestions from all of us.

@parent,

Ditto. I'd rather give directly to my school PTA, or classroom teachers. A case of copy paper, a gift certificate to a teacher supply store (Morrison in Sunnyvale, Lakeshore in San Jose), consumable office products such as white board markers, or just ask them for a wish list! Our teachers do receive some money for classroom supplies but it's extremely likely they spend much more out of pocket.

"Where else would you like us to look for supposed waste?"

Just look at all the people taking advantaged of the Govt pension system, not to mention the Double dippers who retire on a pension then return to another job getting their pension plus there salaries. Simple solution, if you they decide to unretire, then their pension stops.

Read more at:

Web Link


The top three 2014 CalPERS pension payouts went to:
Michael D Johnson, former Solano County administrator: $375,990,
Joaquin Fuster, UCLA retiree: $325,278, and
Donald Gerth, former Cal State at Sacramento president: $305,002.

There should be a flat pension for all employees, not outrageous amounts as seen above.

I am quite familiar with both PERS as quoted above and the parallel STRS system for credentialed educators. So? How would you propose modifying legal contracts unilaterally to steal from highly educated citizens what they signed up to earn? Are they a better deal than currently available to most of us? Absolutely they are! San Jose is trying this approach with the SJPD. They have been in lawsuits, and now they can't get enough officers. If that is what we want in our schools, are property values will quickly go the wrong way. Do some educators fall below the standard of earning their money? Absolutely! So let's work on accountability and negotiable employment practices and not waste time on moral draining litigation and legislation guaranteed to fail.

The solution lies in internet teaching, like the Khan academy. All the bloated school budgets could be cut in half.

Internet teaching? That *may* work for you -- but it's not realistic as a general strategy.

There is no way I will support a parcel tax.

Poor leadership and mismanagement, from the board on down.

They have no fiscal stewardship, and they repeatedly waste our tax dollars.

No on any parcel tax for MVWSD.