Let's all hope that it doesn't come to this! The district and community have been working tirelessly to make sure the community is well informed of why Measure X is so important to our schools. If you are undecided or leaning toward a no vote, please take th time to become informed before you vote! Read Barbara Wood's excellent articles dating back to last September. Review the District's FAQs on why Measure X is so critical. And remember that the passage of X amounts to a modest $153 increase in your property tax bill.

Web Link

Easy Solution: Let's start by laying off one-third of the administrators. That's where the BLOAT is.

Jane Gill, on what facts do you base your accusation of administrator bloat? In recent months, most in this forum have done a nice job of providing evidence/analysis to support their statements so that readers can use the comments to think critically and become informed.

In case other readers actually care about the facts, our district's administrative spending is actually less than many of our neighbors (based on 2014-15 data publicly available on EdData, when all administrators are included). Web Link

District Administration Costs Per Student

MPCSD
$2,169

Palo Alto Unified
$2,177

Hillsborough
$2,396

Las Lomitas
$2,406

Portola Valley
$3,915

Woodside
$3,937

Passage of Measure X will result in a total parcel tax of $1,047 per year with a built-in COLA.
If the NO votes prevail, MPCSD will still collect parcel taxes of more than $675 per year, forever, with a built in COLA.
Unlike traditional ad-valorem taxes which tax properties on the basis of their assessed value, parcel taxes treat little houses the same as BIG houses.

One of the many wonderful things about our school district is the quality of our teachers. In this competitive world, our kids need all the support they can get to get ahead in life. Even if you don't have children, please try to think of the greater good and vote Yes.

@Karen Dearing:

Why compare MPCSD with Hillsborough, Las Lomitas, Portola Valley, and Woodside? How does it compare with the A.D.A. weighted average of all elementary districts in San Mateo County, including the 4 aforementioned districts?

MPCSD spent $6,180 per A.D.A. in 1999 and $14,007 in 2015. The $6,180 figure, adjusted for inflation, would be $8,792 in 2015. Is that fiscally responsible?
(Adjusted for bay area CPI, $6180 in 1999 is equivalent to $9321 in 2015 dollars. Courtesy of homeowner in Web Link

Jack got his, and now lifts the ladder up behind him. Community!!

Know the speaker....

Again, with respect to Jack Hickey, others have noted, and it warrants repeating that:

— Mr. Hickey does not live in our district — he is Redwood City homeowner

— Mr. Hickey consistently opposes parcel taxes proposed by school districts throughout the Bay Area

and

— perhaps most importantly, Mr. Hickey has made it clear that he opposes even the notion that we should have quality public schools, claiming that "government schools should be schools of last resort," and that they should at most provide only a “basic” education.

So, when deciding whether to support Measure X, it is probably worth remembering that Mr. Hickey has made it clear that he is not really interested in whether or not our kids are getting a quality education, and he is also not really interested in whether or not our district is being fiscally responsible in providing our kids with a quality education.

Also, I'll take ACTUAL CURRENT comps on admin costs per student over jack and homeowner's PROGNOSTICATING about how per student (ADA) spending should have moved lock-step with CPI.
And yes, spending $14,000/student to provide the quality education our kids get is fiscally responsible. Take a look at this thoughtful article Web Link

Jacks facts are usually off base. He objected the then Burlingame School Dist. discussing the selling of the district offices. The owdn the building. They were not selling a school as he stated.

Thanks everyone for your thorough comments and responses about this topic! I've learned more about the issues and the people involved (including anti-public school outsiders) this time around. And I'm voting for the parcel tax this time around.

A strong school district is important to our community.

Steve, where did you dig that up?

I thought that that MPAEF was paying for the art program in the Elementary Schools. Since they are on the list of lay-offs, it seems my impression was incorrect. If Measure X fails, and if donations to MPAEF don't grow to fill some of the gaps, things look pretty grim for our local schools. But at least housing will become more affordable as the property values plummet.

" But at least housing will become more affordable as the property values plummet."

This will have zero impact on property values no matter what the vote.

Jennifer Bestor made the following comment in another topic: Web Link

"Currently, there are 3000 students who attend our district schools. A similar number attend private schools." She has not answered my question as to where she got this factoid. If it is true, then maybe the quality of the private schools has more to do with inflated property values.

"maybe the quality of the private schools has more to do with inflated property values."

Far more Atherton students attend private schools than public schools.

I am not aware of a single Atherton child that attends Selby Lane elementary school.

San Mateo County weighted expenditure per A.D.A. for FY 2014/15 was $10,124.
MPCSD was $14,007.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?