|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In a preview of what could be ahead for the Menlo Park City School District if its March 7 parcel tax measure fails, the district’s governing board on Feb. 15 unanimously approved starting the layoff process for the equivalent of 30 teachers.
The board will consider additional layoff notices for non-teaching employees in March or April, Assistant Superintendent Erik Burmeister told the board.
Mr. Burmeister called the process “one of the hardest parts” of his job as head of human resources for the district.
The process for laying off employees in the teachers’ union, which includes credentialed administrators and specialists, requires that notices be given by March 15, a week after the parcel tax election. The district has more flexibility in laying off non-teaching employees.
The board had asked district staff to plan for the maximum number of layoffs that might be needed to give it flexibility in deciding what positions or programs to eliminate. The list that was approved allows the board to follow through with any, or all, of the reductions on a list of cuts it had earlier considered.
Among the positions the board approved for layoff notices are the full-time equivalents of one director of curriculum and instruction, six kindergarten to fifth-grade classroom teachers, three middle school English teachers, two middle school humanities teachers, one middle school math teacher, one middle school social science teacher, two middle school science teachers, four kindergarten to eighth-grade librarians, three kindergarten to fifth-grade art teachers, two teachers on special assignment, 1.5 technology coaches, 0.33 each of middle school drama and physical education teachers, 0.5 of a Spanish teacher, 0.17 each of middle school teachers of music, art and industrial arts, and 1.5 world language teachers.
If all the layoffs were to go into effect, the district’s teaching staff would be reduced by 15 percent, Mr. Burmeister said.
He said that if the parcel tax does not pass, the board will need to hold at least three special board meetings before spring break to decide what cuts to make.
Layoffs will be made by order of seniority, with the last hired being the first to be laid off.
—
Redwood City attorney sues ‘First Amendment auditors’ after Menlo Park disputeApril 2, 2026 11:31 am
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.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K2eB7ooMbFkzKjmI7sFHP0J2wqBqpc69eQ_p-PbwS80/mobilebasic
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). https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K2eB7ooMbFkzKjmI7sFHP0J2wqBqpc69eQ_p-PbwS80/edit#bookmark=id.ood39jxbzrr7
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 http://www.almanacnews.com/print/story/2017/02/15/guest-opinion-continue-the-legacy-of-supporting-our-local-schools-by-supporting-parcel-tax)
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 http://www.almanacnews.com/news/2017/02/08/guest-opinion-platinum-education-a-look-at-school–spending-from-national-perspective
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: http://www.almanacnews.com/square/2016/12/01/parcel-tax-measure-in-menlo-park-city-school-district-moves-toward-board-approval
“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.
dating foreign girls headers That get noticed
for this reason, you know that being an incredible lovely lady to spread out you’re mail messages may well be the first important procedure to internet dating great.
attractive wives get bulging which has cover anything from 50 to 100 electronic mail evening far from needy suitors [url=https://www.facebook.com/pages/Qpid-Network/285744041497098]qpid network[/url] hoping to get their practices.
likewise you are aware that your thought line [url=https://www.aptoide.com/app/com.qpidnetwork.dating/qpid-network-dating?lang=en]qpid network[/url] is important when entering into getting his or her to open whereas read [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0upJfcM8LY]qpid network[/url] your e mail. distinctive niche brands choose, “seriously baby” really isn’t preparing to cut it merely because that must be alot of players are going to do.
this point, i had doing more intellect storming yesterday along with immediately I came across another beneficial method of getting a woman to spread out the best postings. the email study channel I developed appeared to be,
that’s all! it simply look at, “not again,
at the moment, just what is a woman planning do when your ex spots a contact one of the keys issue matter type in their own email?
she is going to see clearly FIRST! can you explain that?
seeing as she has to see some tips i ensured that simply by “not again, conducted something serious choose? are there some form of harmful thing your mom has not perceived up to this point? offered goodness, how it happened?
all right, it looks you will to where I’m picking this.
gents, it was a new issue matter product line for our collection!
for that reason, just how can we put it to our internet dating all emails? let’s brainstorm. below are a few ways to followup involving thought array:
not again! you’re going to make a huge oversight!
oh no! the reason for throwing away so long these types of motivated adult males?
oh no! these types of mundane writing emails via many men just looking for a one anti aging night hang out! what’s the subject matter deal?
inside absolutely! each of our fighter throughout users is normally hitched and looking for the net affair!
the case, We have numerous manuals we can go with his content line.
subscriber: have a look at have a stylish tuesday a. m,evening and you’re placed wading via a ocean for obnoxiously boring mail messages with fellas which will just simply aren’t your actual model! air cleaner will add, i recognize a working man with an account head line that do reads; “Single interesting girl in support of significant butt maid” quite will see personal fruit drinks flowing but you’re ready to discontinue! your worktime is getting ready to get very much more effective. anyways.
there you go! Just a difficult draw up nonetheless i guarantee it will complete the job! You take subject of channel, “not again” that you offer it in part one particular mail mobile great and comic. i love to breast people available on internet dating sites, incredibly ones that create ugly profile headers choose to one preceding. in this case really continue on alongside mailing.
in the instance about, you want to send it to them during a on the breakfast and of course you can adjust it to fit your circumstance any way will need. truth be told, i hope to provide good suggestion.
take part in any sort of free online dating service in addition to sort through the “Men looking to hire girl” single members. Find a profile with an exceptionally pointless head line not to mention mean it as mailbox to a woman over this website. the chances are jane is found this tool and as well as she’s going to express joy the lady ass from whilst she views your ultimate internet mail.