One thing that has always been a focus of this community; we want excellent schools for our children to give them the best opportunities to succeed. This means making sure adequate funding is available to ensure this. But this time, we need to take a closer look at what is being asked. After all, we’ve voted to tax ourselves numerous times. What makes the Measure T election different?
First, the timing. An election that doesn’t coincide with the regular election cycle is estimated to cost the district $1,000,000. That’s money that could otherwise fund the schools. What is the urgency to have the election so soon, basically wasting all that money?
Second, whenever a government agency wants more money, we need to ask “Have you carefully audited your budget to ensure that each dollar is spent wisely?” In the case of Acalanes, there is doubt that they have done the due diligence required. Many schools at all levels have significantly increased their administrative staff with little consideration of the value to the stated educational values.
Third, the way the parcel tax measure was worded leaves voters with the wrong impression. As noted by the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association (CoCoTax), a local group focused on prudent spending of our tax dollars, “As written, the ballot materials were highly deceptive,” said Joffe. “The impartial analysis gave the false impression that Measure T would raise district parcel taxes from $112 to $130, when, in fact, they will increase from a current total of $301 to $431, followed by annual inflation increases. The ballot question tried to confuse voters by calling these inflationary increases ‘adjustments’.”
To quote from the measure proposed, “To protect high quality education in local high schools by continuing advanced academic programs in math, science, engineering and arts; attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers; preparing students for college and in-demand careers; and maintaining manageable class sizes.” Nothing else should be funded when you are trying to maintain excellence while considering carefully what can be afforded.
As an example of waste, we find $133.250.00 spent to have teachers on special assignment “foster schoolwide initiatives related to diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging. The Campus Climate and Culture TOSA at each site will collaborate with educational partners to foster schoolwide initiatives related to diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging.” Some breakdown of the money the district is already planning to spend to promote DEI initiatives include $1,106,013 for Wellness Centers.
While it is nice to support wellbeing, this initiative focuses on creating an “inclusive and supportive environment,” which usually means differentiating between students based on their purported privilege. With the thought that Black, Hispanic and low-income students don’t get to do enough extracurricular activities, the district has budgeted $4,212,083 to create programs for this. Perhaps more awareness could be envisioned at a much lower cost such as announcements and flyers. Many other DEI-adjacent goals are folded into other budget items, presumably taking away money from simply educating students.
While it is sometimes difficult to find enough qualified teachers, the district will spend $160,000 to make sure they have enough “diversity certificated staff.” What does that mean? DEI summits are budgeted at $42,000. And only $6,000 to try to help improve student behavior, something teachers badly need to get help with.
In evaluating a budget for education, focus should be on making sure that every student has an opportunity to learn the critical skills needed to survive and thrive in an increasingly technological world. All budget decisions have to look at whether enough funding is available so that graduating seniors can read, write and do math. Sadly, too many schools aren’t successful at that, because of having too much focus on DEI and climate change.
Just 37% of 12th-graders reached or exceeded the academic preparedness benchmarks for both math and reading that would qualify them for entry-level college courses. (Ed. note: They are being overly generous. While 37% is the correct number for high-school seniors proficient in reading, the number for those proficient in math is closer to 25%.)
CoCoTax has taken a “NO” position on the measure, and Joffe has written opposition ballot arguments which voters will see next month. CoCoTax is especially concerned with AUHSD’s decision to call a costly special election to decide the tax measure.
Before you vote yourself a total parcel tax of $431, shouldn’t we all take a look at how the money is being spent and why they are taxing us while wasting $1,000,000 on this special election. We recommend you vote “NO” and push this decision out to the next election when we can again ask—are you spending our tax dollars prudently? We all need to stand together to do the right thing.
