|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
“Cantankerous Old Guys” are Getting it Done for the Kids
We continue our theme of paying tribute to all public commenters with three stories about watchdogs calling out School Segregation, Parcel Taxes and Empty Buses:
- Story 1: Mountain View Whisman School District (MVWSD)
- Story 2: Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD)
- Story 3: SamTrans
Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD)
A former school board Trustee reminds PAUSD board member why this ultra-rich school district has been doing a very expensive parcel tax in the first place. He explains:
“Ten years ago, the district’s total funding was about $16,000 a student. This year, that number is more than double – $35,000 per student. If current trends continue, in three years it will be $43,000, and in five years it will reach almost $50,000.” [Todd Collins]
This increased funding comes from two trends: property tax revenue is increasing while enrollment is declining. The district has fewer kids to educate now than 10 years ago. Long story short, he wants the district to rescind the parcel tax now and bring some relieve to the cost of living.
Is The Public Commenter Correct?
From contract negotiations with Stanford University and an expansion project, we know that PAUSD spends about $ 5,900 per student. Let’s round that to $6,000–$8,000 to be generous. PAUSD was already doing fine 10 years ago with $16,000 per‑student funding.
So let’s repeat that: over the last 10 years, per‑student spending has stayed roughly flat at $6,000–$8,000, but per‑student funding is skyrocketing from $16,000 toward $50,000 in a very short time. The $941‑per‑year parcel tax was never truly needed in the first place. With these kinds of numbers, it is definitely no longer needed going forward.
PASUD is what is called a “community-funded” school district – the richest type of district in California. The community has been very generous with PAUSD. The commenter is asking the district to be fair and return the favor. These kinds of bond measures and parcel taxes are a significant reason housing costs are so high in the Bay Area.
Education Revenue Augmentation Funds (ERAF)
Your school districts don’t want you to know about ERAF and that is for a good reason. States and counties calculate a specific target amount for the funding a district needs per student using a formula. Currently, that amount of per-student financing seems to range from $13,000 to $17,000. Most local districts hardly exceed $6,000-$8,000 in per-student classroom spending. If local property taxes are not enough, money from the county’s Education Revenue Augmentation Funds (ERAF) is used to make up the difference. San Mateo’s Board of Supervisors and Board of Education have decided that our local school districts are overfunded and have tried to keep as much ERAF money as possible for themselves.
Here is what’s going on. There are basically three types of school districts in California:
A) LCFF districts: districts with per-student funding below the LCFF formula still get money from the state and county (LCFF < property tax + ERAF). These are often poorer, rural districts.
B) Excess ERAF: affluent districts whose Property Taxes + ERAF exceed the LCFF formula (Property Tax + ERAF > LCFF) – these districts are giving Excess ERAF back to the county.
C) Excess Tax: very rich districts whose Property Taxes are enough so they don’t even need ERAF (Property Tax > LCFF) – these districts are called “Basic Aid” or “Community Funded” and can keep all their funding.
All school districts in San Mateo County are already too wealthy for their own good. None is in need of more money. They are getting so much money from property taxes that category B has to pay the county back. School districts in category C are the richest since they – for whatever reason – can keep way more money than they need.
Why does this Matter for Redwood City?
This is also very relevant for RCSD – also a community-funded, aka rich, district. ExcessTax districts like PAUSD and RCSD share a little secret: by pushing students out, they can make sure per-student funding shoots through the roof. Customer Service in these districts might not always be the best.
RCSD has the budget to do right by all students, but RCSD Superintendent. John Baker and his Trustees still choose not to. Currently, they only spend $4,000-$6,000 per child, even less than PAUSD. Within just a few years, RCSD was catapulted from $9,000 per-student-funding to $21,000 and will reach $30,000 within the next 2 years and easily some $40,000 by 2030.
While the per-student-funding is skyrocketing, educational outcomes are moving in the opposite direction. Despite growing funding, per-student spending is now at 26% – less than half of the 50-60% threshold required by Education Code §41372. RCSD is spending more money on interest, debt and school segregation than on students in their care. Voters are to blame for this.
Post.Scriptum.
We will have to dig into the ERAF story more deeply in a future article, as this is just a simplified version. Several local politicians are on record saying our school districts already have enough funding through property taxes and ERAF. Now, they argue, the cities need to get richer as well. They liked it when more districts were Excess ERAF districts, which returned money to the county. They don’t want the Excess Tax districts can keep all their property tax funding. All 20 cities in the county joined a lawsuit to keep VLF/ERAF funding the State is claiming for itself. These cities want more of that VLF/ERAF funding back into their pockets. But neither Sacramento nor these 20 cities argue that schools need or deserve more of that funding. Not one school district is making a sound right now.
More Information
- PAUSD doesn’t need Parcel Tax
- PAUSD Youtube: Former Board member admits school district has too much money
- ERAF: A conflict 42 years in the making
- 2013: ExcessTax School Districts
- 20 cities want to get their hands on ERAF money
- RWCPulse: Thanksgiving Post – Part 1
Editor’s Note: The views and opinions expressed in all blog posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Redwood City Pulse or its staff.
