Times misleads readers on Acalanes school tax proposal

The Contra Times editorial of March 10 supported a new parcel tax by the Acalanes Union High School District (AUHSD). The AUHSD Board voted on February 2 to place a $112 tax on a May 4 mail-in ballot, giving a mere 24 hours notice to the public that they were going to do that.

AUHSD got voters to approve a $189 permanent parcel tax just three months before making this new proposal. In that campaign they promised voters that, if they approved it, that measure would bring financial stability to the District. Obviously they weren’t telling the truth since they are already back for more money.

Unfortunately the Times’ editorial had several incorrect “facts” in it and omitted others.

The Times claim of “Usually, we would shout ‘enough’ and oppose the rapid-fire requests for extra taxes” rings false. The Times almost always supports any tax proposal and has recently taken the editorial stance that the state should impose new taxes on us.

The Times seems to think that if you throw more money at education you will get a better educated student. This is simply not true.

AUHSD is a claimant to high quality education. While that is true in some ways, there are glitches in this claim. In Not as Good as You Think (Pacific Research Institute), AUHSD performs poorly in State testing of college readiness — averaging only 36% proficiency in English, for example — despite having averaged only 18 students per English classroom! Compared with similar schools, Las Lomas High School’s 2008 Academic Performance Index rating (last available) was only 4 out of 10.

I don’t know where the Times got its class size numbers but they are wrong. It said, “Maximum class sizes have been significantly increased and by next year will reach 31-33 in English, world history, math and science”. This just isn’t true. Check out the state web site www.ed-data.org for the truth. In the 2008-09 school year there was a District average class size of 22 students with English at 18, Math 24, Social Science 22 and Science 25.

Do you know that class size is dictated by the union contract? Shouldn’t that be the province of the administration? Anyway, per John Stockton, AUHSD Superintendent, the newly approved union contract permits “An increase of two students per class during the next two years.” So how do we get to the Times assertion of 31-33 students per class? Who told them that? This two student increase will result in 22-24 students per class not 31-33.

There is no rationale for an average class size of 22-24 at the high school level. Some modest increases in class size (more than the two permitted by the union) could result in filling any revenue gap that may exist.

According to the Times, “teachers have agreed to five furlough days a year, effectively cutting their salaries by 2.5 percent.” What the Times doesn’t say, is that the District’s salary schedule tops out at $91,801 for a 186 day work year. While 2.5% may seem like a real sacrifice, this District’s teachers already enjoy 13% higher salaries than comparable districts.

The Times ignores the fact that District enrollment is falling and, according to AUHSD itself, enrollment will continue to decline. Doesn’t it make sense that with fewer students the District should need less money, not more?

Another fact ignored by the Times is that AUHSD already receives the highest revenue per student in the County. But they aren’t satisfied with that.

Apparently there is no shortage of money for a special election. The May 4 mail-in ballot election costs the District about twice what the cost would be if placed on the Primary Election ballot one month later.

If the Times really wanted to serve the public and encourage Measure A parcel-tax voters “to go to the polls with full notice,” the paper wouldn’t have omitted so much critical information. Sensible voters should read their ballot pamphlets carefully, and reject Measure A.