After reviewing the text of Proposition E several times, I have the following questions, concerns, and opinions for the School Board and the voters of Coronado. In the interest of full disclosure, my family and I are property owners in Coronado, subject to paying increased taxes should Prop E pass. We are, however, no longer residents of Coronado, so may not vote on this issue. I am also a retired teacher who taught elementary school children at both Silver Strand and Village Elementary schools for many years.
1.The text of the Proposition states that Proposition E “…shall permit smaller class sizes.”. However, under the section for Arguments in Favor of the proposition, it states that money from the General Fund could be provided for “manageable class sizes.” Further, in the full text, the Governing Board states that the district MUST “maintain manageable class sizes.” It appears as though three ideas on class size are being disseminated. It is my professional opinion that “smaller class sizes” and “manageable class size” are distinctly different classroom scenarios.
A class of 30 kindergarten children can be manageable if these 5 year olds spend part of their school day in front of computers or on lap tops. This doesn’t mean that the quality of their education is improved. If the district is committed to guaranteeing smaller class sizes (which is a more pedagogically sound practice), then why isn’t it clearly stated in the Proposition text instead of the more ambiguous wording presented? How does the District define “small class sizes?” Exactly how will Prop E address large class sizes?
2. The text of the proposition states that the new tax may not be used for administrators’ salaries with the fine print saying it may also not be used for teacher salaries as well. However, the text states a few paragraphs up, “Proceeds of the bonds may be used to pay or reimburse the District for the cost of District staff when performing work on or necessary or incidental to the bond project.”
If the bond projects are part of the job requirements of District staff, why is this stipulation needed in the bond proposal, especially if administrator salaries are clearly not to be paid by Prop E? Will all staff (including certificated and classified) be receiving pay raises, if Prop E passes? Which staff will be doing work on bond projects that would allow for the compensation for their salary or extra compensation for work beyond the scope of the job description? Or does the District intent to create a new additional position with subsequent salary and benefits costs to perform work on the bond projects?
3. Since the passage of Prop KK (which I voted for), all Coronado facilities have be completely renovated or rebuilt from scratch. There are new and impressive sports complexes, a new Middle School, and district office as well as other completed projects. The transformation at Silver Strand from when I started back in the early 90’s to the present has been astounding.
So, when reading the scope what Prop E covers, I question what the district exactly has in mind for this money. It lacks the specificity that a bond measure needs to have to be fiscally responsible. As written it seems to me to allow for the creation of need rather than addressing actual need. For example, which site needs new kitchen equipment? Where is new lighting required? What kind of upgrades and expansions are needed? The list goes on and on.
How is spending all this money on technology via a tax on property owners directly addressing the current budget deficit? Was it the district’s future plan to use General Fund money all along on technology but the new State funding formula is now preventing this? If the scope of technology plans were decreased from the current budget, how would this impact the budget deficit?
I feel these issues need to be clearly addressed prior to voters making their decision on Election Day.
Sincerely,
Yolanda Halloran
—
