** Property Tax Revenue: Opponents claim in their ballot rebuttal that PAUSD receives “$17 million in excess property tax revenue in response to growing enrollment.” This is simply false. PAUSD receives absolutely no increased revenue as enrollment increases. In fact, new PAUSD enrollments in the past three years have added $3 million to district costs and PAUSD has lost $4.4 million in annual state funding over the last three year.

(... back to top)

** Increase in parcel tax: Opponents suggest that the district should not ask for a new parcel tax that is any more than the expiring parcel tax plus inflation.  But this argument ignores the fact that the district has lost $4.4M in state funding over the last several years and added $3M in costs from new enrollment.  The proposed increase in the parcel tax isn't even enough to make up for the lost state funds -- not to mention increased enrollment or increased costs!

 (... back to top)

** Revenue growth: Opponents claim Measure A is not needed because of PAUSD’s revenue growth in the past seven years. The opponents fail to mention that PAUSD revenue has not grown fast enough to keep up with enrollment growth and increased costs. Last year's property tax revenue growth was the lowest since 1993. This is because 36% of PAUSD's property tax revenue comes from commercial property, where values have dropped sharply due to low growth, high vacancies, reduced rents and property reassessments. Palo Altans for Government Efficiency (PAGE) recently evaluated PAUSD finances and concluded that, without Measure A, substantial cuts will be required over the next five years.

(... back to top)

** Teacher pay: Opponents claim our teachers are overpaid because they earn more than the state average. The relevant comparison is to high-achieving school districts in our area and PAUSD salaries are mid-range on that scale. Read the Campaign position paper comparing our teacher pay to similar districts in our area.  PAUSD pays salaries in line with other districts in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. A PAUSD starting teacher earns $44,268, while peers earn $42,956 in Menlo Park Elementary District; $46,704 in Los  Gatos-Saratoga High School District, and $49,518 in Mt. View-Los Altos High School District.  No Measure A funds will be used for a pay raise for teachers or any district employees.

(... back to top)

** Maintaining the Status Quo: Opponents also claim that Measure A is not simply maintaining the status quo but that Measure A funds will be used to increase the number of teachers.  In fact, however, no Measure A funds will be used for new programs. Three-quarters of Measure A funds will be used to maintain the education programs currently in place; one-quarter will be used to restore a small portion of recent educational program cuts.  The only increase in teachers will be to accommodate increased district enrollment or to restore some courses that have been cut in recent years.

(... back to top)

** Transfer students and non-resident students: Opponents are circulating a flyer that suggests PAUSD could save millions of dollars through actions like charging for children who live in Stanford student housing or excluding children in the Tinsley program. In fact, the Stanford campus is part of our school district and children living there are entitled to attend our schools like all other residents. The 550 children in the Tinsley program are entitled to attend our schools under a court mandated desegregation order and the district cannot terminate the education of Tinsley students. The opposition’s suggestion that the school district is misspending millions of taxpayer dollars on non-resident students completely without merit.  What’s more, the Palo Alto Weekly says the opposition comes “dangerously close to playing the race card” regarding the Tinsley students, and calls their allegations about students of Stanford families unfair.

Opponents claim that many other non-district children attend Palo Alto schools.  The only non-district children who attend Palo Alto schools , other than those participating in the Tinsley program, are slightly over 100 children of school district employees qho live outside the district.  The attendance of children of school employees is a benefit offered by many school districts and is viewed as a key factor in minimizing teacher turnover, particularly as it becomes more and more difficult for PAUSD teachers to be able to afford to live in Palo Alto. 

The opposition has also suggested that the district should not permit children who live in non-traditional households (i.e., with grandparents or in foster care) to attend PAUSD schools.  It would be illegal for PAUSD to exclude these children.  The fact that a child lives with his or her grandparents or in foster care or in some other non-traditional arrangement has no bearing on whether he or she can attend PAUSD schools.

(... back to top)

** Superintendent’s salary: Opponents urge a “no” vote on Measure A because we pay our school superintendent above the state average.  In fact, the PAUSD superintendent’s salary is comparable to superintendent compensation in other high-performing districts.  Read the Campaign position paper comparing our district to other nationally recognized schools.  More important, this issue is a red herring — Measure A has nothing to do with superintendent compensation.  No funds from Measure A can be used for central administration or for salary increases. Defeating Measure A will have no impact on the superintendent’s salary.

(... back to top)

** Senior citizens’ civic duty to vote as they wish: Contrary to what the opposition has suggested, all senior citizens have every right to vote “yes” on Measure A even if they elect to take the exemption or live in housing where they will not be subject to the parcel tax. We are all frequently asked to vote on matters that do not affect us directly. We are entitled to vote as we choose and can certainly choose to vote in a way that we know is best for our community as a whole and the youngest generation in particular. (Read our web page especially for Seniors).

(... back to top)

** Stewardship of funds: Opponents question PAUSD’s stewardship of funds, apparently because the district makes every effort to avoid cutbacks that will reduce the quality of education.  In fact, the district is a good steward of taxpayer dollars and has won the Meritorious Budget Award from the Assoc. of School Business Officials for the past 7 years. Even more important, our school district produces students with top level test scores despite lower per pupil spending than many leading school districts across the country. Given how California funds its schools, few high-performing districts can function without a parcel tax. Voters who want to change how the school district is run can elect new school board members this November. But don’t harm 10,500 PAUSD students by voting no on Measure A.

(... back to top)

** Deductibility of Parcel Taxes:  The opposition to Measure A claims that parcel taxes are not deductible on individual income tax returns. The Palo Alto Daily News reported that, "An informal survey of several tax preparers .... suggested that the entire property tax bill is often deducted on income tax filings with few questioning it".  In a follow-up story, the Daily News quoted several authorities who either supported the idea that the parcel tax was deductible or said that they weren't able to provide definitive guidance.  The opposition has not presented any evidence that the IRS has ever challenged the deduction of a school district parcel tax. The personal tax deductibility of a parcel tax has nothing to do with community commitment to quality public school education in Palo Alto, the inadequate state funding of public education in California, or the need for a stable source of income to preserve excellence in classrooms throughout the Palo Alto school district.

[ Home ] [ Next ]

Send mail to webmaster@campaignforexcellence.org with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: 06/06/05