Simple Solution wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:41 PM:THe biggest reason yet to round up illegal aliens and their families and DEPORT!

And Yet... wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:44 PM:And Yet...The district continues to allow more students into the classrooms. And now they want the taxpayers to pick up the slack.

Forget it!!!

No on Prop T. No more money!!!

Local wrote on Aug 27, 2008 3:29 AM:And they will no doubt remain so (overcrowded) unless and until the feds get real about immigration reform. This needs to be settled before a rational discussion of facility needs is on the agenda. Just stating the obvious truth.

Easy Solution wrote on Aug 27, 2008 4:34 AM:Control the borders - Problem solved. This is another of the big costs that the open borders people fail to see. Next comes free meals and free healthcare. Of course, the workers are paid in cash so they don't pay taxes or contribute toward any of the infrastructure costs. Every year, the chidren of illegal immigrants show up to go to kindergarten (of course they don't preregister) causing overcrowding and disruption for the children of citizens who did register earlier. We simply can't afford this.

Blah Blah Blah wrote on Aug 27, 2008 6:23 AM:Still voting NO on Prop T! How much did the district pay this consultant? Interesting the timing of this study, right before the bond vote. Too much waste... bond mailings, bond consultants, architects for buildings that haven't even been approved by the voters.... Stop the pain, Vote NO on Prop T!

Bill in Escondido wrote on Aug 27, 2008 6:25 AM:The conclusion overlooks one item deliberately omitted by the district’s paid consultant. Portable classrooms in most other districts house 30 to 40 percent of the student population according to Mr. Hall. Escondido has one of the lowest number of portables at 23.7%. However, because state construction standards specify no more than 20%, he omitted 3.7% of the students, 274 pupils, from the totals. A clever way to show that more space is needed. Additionally, his study uses the CBEDS figure of 8141 students as the official population.
Phase IIA of the districts master plan calls for construction of 20 classrooms at the three main sites. With that added capacity, and adding in the ‘overlooked’ students from the portables, the district is only 87 students above the state standard of 100% utilization.
More than 87 students are absent every day. School enrollment is declining (check with the elementary district – down 1,000 students over the past 4 years). People are moving out of Escondido – just look at all the “For Sale” signs. Does this justify a new school? Does this require a 98 million dollar bond, stretching payments out until 2054? Do you really need to pay more taxes? Vote NO on Proposition T in November.

Greg in Oceanside wrote on Aug 27, 2008 6:45 AM:This overcrowding is directly related to the hordes of illegal immigrants who have flooded Escondido. Immigration status aside, if they remain overcrowded maybe it's a sign Latinos are staying in school and not dropping out.

CAUTION wrote on Aug 27, 2008 7:40 AM:The Prop T bond measure’s Financing Plan is worse than subprime. The Escondido Union High School District claims that no taxes will be collected for 11 years. Then property taxes will be collected for at least 33 years.

No tax payments while interest accumulates for 11 years. The public’s future tax liability will greatly increase under this irresponsible Financing Plan.

Worse Than Subprime wrote on Aug 27, 2008 7:43 AM:The worse-than-subprime Financing Plan for Prop T ignores now FALLING REAL ESTATE VALUES! The Plan hopes for growth in assessed values at a rate of 5.05% per year for 44 years. The “best estimate” of the tax liability given in the TAX RATE STATEMENT is based on predictions of economic conditions over the next 44 years, which predictions are already wrong before the bond even passes! The Plan lacks accountability for wrong economic predictions.

Vote For Accountability Vote NO wrote on Aug 27, 2008 7:50 AM:Vote “NO” on Proposition T. Do not approve bond debt before the funds are actually needed. An immediate need for $98 million is lacking. The Financing Plan calls for issuing bonds of $20 million in 2009, $50 million 2013, and $28 million in 2016. Thus, $78 million of this bond measure is not needed for many years. This bond measure should have been for only $20 million to fund the immediate needs of the District. After prudently using that financing, the District can return to voters in 2012 in time for financing the remaining $78 million when it is actually needed. Vote to require District accountability by requiring the District to request voter approval as the funds are actually needed. Vote “NO” on Proposition T.

Gee no wonder wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:00 AM:the childrens grade average is down, look who they have teaching them,these officals wonder why it is overcrowded. ILLEGAL ALIENS! Teachers and Unions write your law makers and demand the government deports all Illegal Aliens.

Bad Year For Bond Debt wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:08 AM:In the last year, the value of my Escondido home has dropped from about $500,000 to about $280,000. Tina Pope is nuts if she think I'm going to sign up for a tax given my current financial straits!

Another article shows Prop A (Tri-City Hospital) went down in flames. The same thing should happen to this bond measure!

Diane wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:10 AM:Yup, I agree and while my legal, white son struggles to get a good education because the teachers don't have time to help him...the illegals get interpreters in class, extra instruction because they don't understand English and free lunches on top of it.
GET THE ILLEGALS OUT - don't care if the kids are American Citizens (born here after Mom crossed the border illegally) in my eyes, makes them just as illegal!

NO MORE BIG DEBT wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:11 AM:The $500 million big hospital is mired in hopeless cost overruns. The $700 million new community college campus in mired in litigation with the county. Taxpayers need a break! No more big debt measures! No more taxes with no results and no accountability!

Million In New Taxes wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:19 AM:This $98 million bond will cost taxpayers somewhere between $400 million and $500 million in new taxes. Most of these new taxes will not be used for classroom improvements. Instead, a significant portion of these new taxes will be paid to investors so that the District can claim that the bond maintains our schools 'WITHOUT raising tax rates.'

Worse Than Subprime wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:24 AM:Escondido taxpayers still have about 12 years to finish paying off Proposition A which financed the construction of Valley Center High School. Because the District has decided to wait until Proposition A is paid off (about the year 2021) before starting to collect to start paying on this $98 million bond, the financing cost for Proposition T will be about $80 million more than without the 11 year delay.

Vote NO on Proposition T. Do Do not approve an unusual Financing Plan that is worse than subprime.

Easy answer wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:47 AM:Tell your city council members no more on-street parking for people overcrowding into apartments or houses meant for one family.

concerned parent wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:53 AM:WHAT ABOUT AN EDUCATION FOR ALL THE LEGAL KIDS? OR DO THEY NEED TO SUFFER AS MY 4 WHITE CHILDREN HAVE? UNFORTUNATELY BY THE TIME THIS PROBLEM IS SOLVED MY LAST 2 WILL BE OUT OF SCHOOL

READ MY LIPS wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:55 AM:I will NOT pay any more money to educate illegal aliens, their children or their cousins. CLEAN UP OUR CITY NOW!

Patriot wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:58 AM:California is experiencing an illegal immigration-driven population explosion that is exhausting state resources. Unless and until all levels of government work together to prevent and remove incentives for illegal immigration, the voters will continue to be asked to approve new bonds or taxes, or suffer more reductions of quality in services. How much more sacrifice until we say no more illegals? How many more schools do we build? How much more do we pay for health care? How much less water and power do we use?

Do Not Tax Our Grandchildren wrote on Aug 27, 2008 9:11 AM:Proposition T will burden current AND future generations. No taxes will be collected for 11 years while the public’s liability increases. After that, everyone will pay for 33 years through property taxes or indirectly through rents. Worse yet, even our children, and even our grandchildren, will have to pay as adults until about 2054!

Citizen wrote on Aug 27, 2008 9:15 AM:Learn from the defeat of Tri-city hospital Bond A that was just defeated. No on School Bonds, find another way. The Citizens are fighting back and won this one. A bond is a tax. The cost of a bond is roughly doubled over the life of the bond when interest is added on. A $600,000,000 bond would cost about $1,200,000,000. Bonds can be reissued without a vote thus further increasing the cost to the taxpayer. Bonds put the citizen tax payers and their children deeper in debt as governments promote bonds rather than "pay as you go".

No Money no bond wrote on Aug 27, 2008 9:59 AM:Where do we get the No Prop T yard signs? With over 2,000 foreclosures in Escondido, enrollment should be declining. The EUHSD is going to have to learn that the property taxpayer's pocketbooks in this city have been tapped one too many times. When you have people who cannot even pay their mortgages, the last thing they need is higher property taxes. We all know there is another solution to this temporary overcrowding problem and the pie in the sky bond isn't it!

Citizen Wrong wrote on Aug 27, 2008 10:32 AM:You are wrong because the cost of this bond will be over 4 times the bond amount when interest is added on because the tax payments are being delayed for 11 years. Get educated on how bad Prop T is for the taxpayers. This bond will cost taxpayers between $400 million and $500 million when the interest payments are added. The bonds will not be paid off until 2054 ASSUMING that the economic assumptions hold true. Tri-City's arguments are not applicable to Prop T. Prop T is really bad news for taxpayers!

Ignores Real Estate Crash wrote on Aug 27, 2008 10:36 AM:The Financing Plan for Proposition T ignores now FALLING REAL ESTATE VALUES! The 'best estimate' of the tax liability in the proposition's TAX RATE STATEMENT is based on predictions of economic conditions over the next 44 years! The Plan hopes for growth in assessed values at a rate of 5.05% per year for 44 years with no accountability for wrong economic predictions.

NO Vote By One Trustee wrote on Aug 27, 2008 10:42 AM:For those who missed the article earlier this month: 'But while all the board members agreed on the district's list of improvements and direction, Trustee Kurt Marler voted against placing the measure on the ballot because of concerns about the lengthy debt obligation voters would have to assume.'

'"In 2054 I will be dead," Marler said. "And I really want to help pay for this bond. I don't want to give it to my grandchildren to pay ... if I am going to vote for it, I want to pay for it."'

www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/08/06/news/inland/escondido/doc4899d31509158377621934.txt

kim wrote on Aug 27, 2008 10:50 AM:VOTE NO!!!

your property taxes will skyrocket.

Did anyone wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:06 AM:listen to Hilary last night at the democratic convention. She stated that the the US needs to support all immigrants to unify American this being what our forefathers wanted.......what out who you pick in Nov. It is no secret that the Dem. like immigration.....

Yeah pay for it now wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:11 AM:Yes, Marler did say that. He's for all the expenses included in the bond. He would rather see the taxes increase even more by starting to pay now - while we still pay for the 1996 bond!

I'm sorry, not all of us can afford to pay for BOTH bonds at the same time! I'm just not in that tax bracket.

doomsday wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:12 AM:this will all not matter come dec.2012

oak hill neighbor wrote on Aug 27, 2008 12:58 PM:Ah, the good old days....
No art center, a small illegal population, only one "baby stage" gang, no murders, single family homes were actually occupied by a single family, neighbors actually knew their neighbors, no graffiti, a downtown that actually worked for the community with shops we needed and wanted to support, small class sizes at our neighborhood schools, and that we supported through volunteering our time to make them an even better place for our kids to learn and grow...
What happened to the Escondido I moved to 30 years ago?
I am so glad/thrilled that my kids are long out of the local schools.
Now if I could just afford to sell my home and get out of this decaying city!

Council Supporter wrote on Aug 27, 2008 2:01 PM:This is even a better reason to support the council members, and congressmembers (Bilbray, Issa, Hunter, Rorhbacher, etc.) that are trying to do something about the influx of illegal immigration!!!!! Why do we have so many Democrat assemblymembers and state senators in California?? They are all for amnesty.

School board thinks Esco voters are stupid wrote on Aug 27, 2008 3:02 PM:Once again the EUHSD school board has paid a consulting firm thousands of dollars to "do an analysis" and tell them what they want to hear. They need some ammunition to try and sell us this school bond. Unlike many of their students who are failing math and english, we can read,add up the numbers and conclude that Prop T will put a huge tax burden on Escondido property owners. Vote "NO" on Prop T.

Where are the yard signs?

No vote by Kurt Marler wrote on Aug 27, 2008 3:11 PM:Anyone who has been following this issue and attending the school board meetings knows that Kurt Marler has supported this bond from the get-go. He gave the one "Nay" vote because his seat on the school board is up for grabs this November, so he wants to appear to be the voice of reason.

While you are voting "NO" on Prop T,
also vote Marler off the board. We need some new people running the district.

Citizen wrote on Aug 27, 2008 3:23 PM:To Citizen Wrong:
I don't have all of the total numbers on bond costs, but I got you to write and give us the numbers. Mission Accomplished! I smell a revolution coming. Root cause, the North American Union.....just say NO!

lucki To Concerned Parent wrote on Aug 27, 2008 3:46 PM:No one wants to hear you whine about your "white children". Do not imply that every kid that is not white is illegal or assume that because your kids are white they deserve better.

Diane wrote on Aug 27, 2008 4:49 PM:VOTE MCCAIN! He at least seems to still have some old fashioned values - including securing our borders! My ex husbands family moved to Canada in 1965 and they were quarantined at the border to make sure they didn't take disease into the country. McCain wants to strengthen border control and he believes that a baby is a human from time of conception. 'The first african american nominee' wants to support partial birth abortions etc. at 8 months? Hmmmm...didn't Scott Peterson get a death sentence because he also killed his unborn son? One is murder, the other isn't? Obama's a little messed up in the head!! Get the illegals out and this City will become a beautiful place to live again.

Dane wrote on Aug 27, 2008 5:05 PM:It would be a wasteful use of tax dollars to construct new High Schools now given that the student population in K-8 has actually DECLINED. This study sounds very much like one designed to support the desired conclusion of having some kind of evidence to try to convince voters to vote for the latest (of an endless number) bond measure.

Vote NO on the bond measure.

Nameless wrote on Aug 27, 2008 5:34 PM:Why do I get the impression that most comments against Prop T were made by the same person?

And why do you think that there are substantial numbers of illegal immigrant kids in Escondido high schools? Escondido, like many other California cities, has a large second and third generation hispanic population. Hispanics have much higher birth rates than whites. There are lots of mexican kids in CA schools and many of them have US citizen parents and US citizen grandparents.

Stop taxing us wrote on Aug 27, 2008 5:41 PM:The Tri-City Prop A just went down in defeat for the third time. The taxpayers said NO to a $22 per $100,000
property assessment for 40 years. That's about what Esco property owners will be paying for this stupid bond. BE AWARE that a school bond propositon only needs %55 voter approval, so your NO VOTE on "T" is very important.

Superintendent Analysis wrote on Aug 27, 2008 7:17 PM:When is the District going to fork out money to do an analysis on the Superintendents performance???

To Citizen wrote on Aug 27, 2008 7:44 PM:That is cool. The bond consultants said that this bond had 58% support when it carefully worded to make it seem like tax rates would not increase. The bond consultants call this bond a tax extension. That worked with the SDCounty sales tax for transit. The reason I jumped all over you is because this bond is horrible for the taxpayer. It is not a normal bond! If it were a normal bond, expected tax rate would be much higher. For example, Borrowing $98 million at 4% over 30 years would require payments of $5.7 million per year to pay back the loan using normal amortization. The assessed value of properties in the EUHSD is about $15 to $16 billion. That works out to an intital tax rate of about $35 per $100,000 of assessed value. At that tax rate, the support may be below the needed 55%.

Unlimited Taxpayer Liability wrote on Aug 27, 2008 7:47 PM:The promised tax rate of $18.50 is not a cap. It is an estimate from 1996. Taxpayer exposure is virtually unlimited, if needed, to pay back the bonds. If real estate does not grow at a rate of 5% for the next 11 years, the intital tax rate will be higher. There is no guaranteed rate!

Stagnant Enrollment wrote on Aug 27, 2008 7:50 PM:The high school enrollment has been stagnant for over 3 years. There is no need for a new landlocked expansion campus. Being landlocked, the new campus will have no room for expansion unless the district decides to build highrises on the site.

To No Vote by Marler wrote on Aug 27, 2008 7:56 PM:That just adds another strong reason to vote no on Prop T. Even a strong supporter voted no because this bond's tax schedule stinks! Bond consultants do not care about voters. They say anything to get yes vote to collect more money, which will come out of the bond proceeds.

To Yeah Pay For It Now wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:03 PM:You claim you are not able to pay for both bonds now. Well, waiting to pay off the 1996 bond before paying on this bond will increase the interest cost on this bond by over $80 million! Thus, when you start paying on this bond in 2021, taxpayers will owe over $180 million! If you cannot afford the new taxes, vote NO now. Do not saddle future generations with a debt you claim you cannot afford!

Last Bond For Years wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:05 PM:Someone should ask Tina Pope if this is the last bond the high school district will need for the next 44 years.

Keep Dreaming Diane wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:09 PM:The Federal govenment (all three branches) has become too corrupted by political pandering to enforce existing or new immigration laws. If we build it, they will come.

Student Per Classroom wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:14 PM:Blame the teachers unions, not the taxpayers, for classes with 40 students. The teachers want higher salaries, not smaller classes. Thus, they bargained to teach larger classes to get more money per teacher. If more classroom are constructed to get to 'state recommended' levels of 27 students per class, there would NO money to pay for teachers for those classes at current salaries.

Escondidian wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:18 PM:What about all the articles over the last 3 years that the district was complaining about the declinging numbers of enrolled students? Now that the bond is looming on the horizon, we're told they have too many students. What a bunch of propaganda. C'mon, voters, vote NO on T and vote Bill Durney to Marler's seat.

School Expander wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:20 PM:Hey they school's are already being expanded. They already received grant funds to do that. There was a recent article discussing the money they already received to do the additions.

No Elite School wrote on Aug 27, 2008 9:03 PM:This new school they want to build will house 500 students? That's only 6% of the student population. And if it's high-tech, guess what, the best and brightest students will be there. And same with the teachers. So, you end up with a great school for a priveleged few.

What about the other 94%? Take away good teachers and their quality of education goes down. Not to mention spreading other thin resources to yet another campus.

You want something useful? Look to Vista and their Trade Tech High School. Maybe with a school like that, Escondido could lower its 1 out of 6 drop out rate.

This parent is voting NO on Proposition T.

To Student Per classroom wrote on Aug 27, 2008 9:08 PM:I realize that this is a forum for people to complain about stuff that might improve Escondido without stating any sources for their "facts". I don't know how true most of them are either so I can't criticize them. Some of them may even be true. Since I am an employee of EUHSD, I do know that what you wrote is the complete opposite of the truth. In the current contract, the teachers took a pay cut in order guarantee smaller class sizes. I know its fun to join all the bitter people of Escondido and complain. I know that I enjoy reading them and laughing at how stupid some people can be. But please be careful, sometimes facts will interfere with the "truthiness" of your complaint

To No Elite School... wrote on Aug 27, 2008 9:16 PM:High Tech High takes students through a lottery system not according to ability.

EUHSD wants to make a trade school specializing in biotech. Considering the size of the biotech community in SD county and the rewarding careers that are available in the biotech industry, I think they have picked a pretty good choice of a trade to specialize in.

They haven't stated how they would select students for the school so I am with you in hoping that it isn't just takes that best and brightest students. We don't need another school like Escondido Charter that only takes kids that will succeed no matter how good the school is.

bryan wrote on Aug 27, 2008 9:54 PM:thank you Bill in Escondido Aug 27, 2008 6:25 AM. Well said.

Hard-working tax payer in Escondido wrote on Aug 27, 2008 10:28 PM:A very important fact that was not mentioned in this article is that EUHSD actually has 5 High Schools. The one that was not mentioned in this article is Center City High School. My students graduated from CCHS and received a wonderful education through this Independent Study program where they received one-on-one instruction from their teachers. The School District has voted to close this high school in June 2009 and place these students back on the already over crowded remaining 4 high schools. Shame on you EUHSD for closing this wonderful high school and then asking the hard working taxpayers in Escondido to pay for a new school. I will NOT support the bond-nor will my neighbors, family or friends!!!

No Elite School is right... wrote on Aug 27, 2008 10:47 PM:A small, magnet school will only benefit 500 students, and the rest of them will still be at the delapidated, "overcrowded" campuses. Sounds pretty unfair to me! This district doesn't need to spend millions on a new campus focused on a small percentage of students. How much of the bond money goes to the elite school? NO on T!

Students Per Classroom wrote on Aug 27, 2008 10:49 PM:I got my classroom size information from the teachers of my students on parent's night, fall 2007. I ran into a trustee, complained, and was given the excuse that the teachers demanded it to get desired salaries.

The newspaper reported recent classroom size increases in this article: 'increases to ninth-grade class sizes'.
www.northcountytimes.com/articles/2008/04/16/news/inland/escondido/7fc68cff598d55468825742d001d79ed.txt

Instead of claiming I did not give accurate facts, why don't you educate the public. How much did an individual teacher's salary acutally go down each year in the current contract, to justify your claim that 'the teachers took a pay cut in order to guarantee smaller class sizes.' Likewise, what was the class size guarantee, and has it ever been exceeded during the current contract?

It is interesting that someone would call a concerned parent stupid and laugh at them. I talk to my student. I know what is going on. The laughing and name calling of a union devotee is the last place to look for 'truthiness'. That said, my original assertion still stands. If new classrooms were constructed and ready today, the teacher's union would not stand for allowing salaries to be set at a level that would allow staffing of classes in the new classrooms at anywhere near 27 students per class. That will not change it Prop T passes. That IS the truth!

To Bryan wrote on Aug 27, 2008 10:53 PM:"Bill in Escondido" is running for a seat on the school board. I am voting for him, and I hope you will, too.

TO Hard-Working About CCHS wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:00 PM:I agree. It did not make sense to move independent study students to the comprehensives, and then complain about overcrowding. One of my kids was not doing well at a comprehensive, and was 'invited' to attend CCHS, but instead decided to go to Escondido Charter HS's independent study program, and graduated. Perhaps City Center High School was closed by the District to prevent such 'leakage' from the comprehensives to Charter's independent study.

Yard Signs wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:03 PM:I've seen some comments here regarding yard signs. I'm working with a number of residents who are opposed to Proposition T. We are considering yard signs.

If you are interested in helping us out with putting one in your yard, please let me know. ... I've set up an option specifically for yard signs.

As our plans come together, we'll contact you and coordinate our efforts.

Resident wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:08 PM:Hispanics that go to the schools are second and third generation and we can perform the same jobs but at a lower rate other you compete or go out of business

False Left Right Paradigm wrote on Aug 28, 2008 2:27 AM:"VOTE MCCAIN! He at least seems to still have some old fashioned values - including securing our borders!"

Yeah right. I guess you forgot about McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Bill: S.1639 would have created a new class of visa, the "Z visa", that would be given to everyone who was living illegally in the United States on Jan. 1, 2007; this visa would give its holder the legal right to remain in the United States for the rest of their life, and access to a Social Security number. After eight years, the holder of a Z visa would be eligible for a United States Permanent Resident Card...five years after that the immigrant could begin the process of becoming a U.S. citizen.

Your boy Bush was the biggest proponent of Amnesty. Oh yeah, and about abortion. Republicans controlled the Executive and the Congress for the past 6-7 years. Is abortion now a crime? Wake up and realize BOTH parties want illegals since that's what the their corporate masters want. Abortion, gay marriage, etc., are just to there to fool you into thinking there is a difference. Turn off AM radio and think for yourself!

Latino who understands wrote on Aug 28, 2008 2:56 AM:The problem is there are too many white kids who think, and who's families think, should be given a free pass from responsibilities. Their poor school ethics, and spoiled behavior, detracts from the learning environment, detracting from the time needed for more deserving and appreciative immigrant students who want to learn.

JSten wrote on Aug 28, 2008 6:39 AM:Between the lunatics commenting on the article and the school census figures, I see a strong case for mandatory birth control.

To Nameless wrote on Aug 28, 2008 7:22 AM:We are not stupid. I was born and raised in Escondido and all the Mexican kids I was raised with spoke ENGLISH... and so did their parents. I worked for a construction company in Escondido and was talking to an old employee, she said they hired 33 men last week. ONLY 3 passed E-VERIFY. You people better wake up. We ARE having an invasion.

susan wrote on Aug 28, 2008 7:44 AM:If over 50 percent of our state budget funds goes to schools and the huge tax we already have on our property tax bill is not enough, then the district needs to sell some of the many parecels of land they own in town. We are already paying a tax for the high school, fire dept and hospital. On top of that, due to a state budget deficit we may have our sales tax raised another one percent. In my opinion, the California teachers union fought the taxpapyers in court when they overwhemingly voted against paying to educate those here illegally. They are directly responsible for the mess we have today becuase of greed and the wish for the money each student brings to the district. This is exactly why we have a state budget deficit. They got what they wanted and shouldn't ask for yet more money. I have to wonder what these districts and even the sate is going to do when they drive even more people and business from this state due to the high tax burden.

say what wrote on Aug 28, 2008 5:29 PM:Are we talking about the same school ? " Latino who understands" Do you know the ratio of white/hispanic kids in Escondido ?

fred wrote on Aug 28, 2008 5:55 PM:double sessions would stretch the available sq. footage per day... guess that is too obvious for this present school board.

Roberto wrote on Aug 28, 2008 5:58 PM:Latino who understands
[-] wrote on Aug 28, 2008 2:56 AM:

REPLY: Forget it, they just don't understand and will never figure it out because they are the reason for the low test scores.

To Yard Signs wrote on Aug 29, 2008 9:00 AM:How do we get the NO on Prop. T yard signs? Let us all know so we can pick some up. Is anyone getting together to start a NO on Prop T campaign?

The taxpayers of Escondido can not afford any more bonds. We need to unite to fight this one!

VOTE FOR BILL DURNEY TO REPLACE MARLER.

Comments wrote on Aug 29, 2008 9:05 AM:I read these comments and I am amazed by those that are ignorant or just plain stupid. If you let your ignorant emotions decide what to write and how you -feel- about this issue rather than your intellect of what the problem solving might be than you are stupid. As you write a comment think what others learn about you.

Wesley wrote on Aug 29, 2008 9:41 AM:simple solution to the younger generation.... Wear a condom, so many kids out there having kids at age 18 and younger. The children going to these schools have just as much of an education as their parents by the time they are in middle school.

Students Per Classroom wrote on Aug 30, 2008 9:34 AM:You are still wrong. I'll try to explain that to you again, but you did make the point that the 9th grade classes that were reduced in size are not anymore. That is correct. The district administration decided to do away with that. In part because it was one of the programs that were supposed to be cut by the state. Fiscally, it wasn't a bad decision. The state only pays the districts to reduce class sizes to 25:1, but expects them to actually at 20:1. Which doesn't sound like a lot, but when it is distributed over 3 high schools, it ends up being a lot of money.
Ok. As far as the other part goes, I don't know the exact numbers, so I will estimate. Each year the state gives the districts money that is traditionally used as a "cola". In many districts, it is even called a "cola" even though that is not really correct. It is not an actual coal, because the districts don't have to use it as that. So it needs to be negotiated in contracts. The EUHSD teachers union decided to ask for a smaller percentage of that money so long as there was a cap on the sizes of the classes. So, yes the teachers did get some type of raise, but part of the money that would have been included in the raise went to cap class sizes.
For your other questions, last year, the district was not required to maintain the class sizes, but tried to as a test run. This is the first year that they are contractually required. Some exceptions though, classes that are only offered as a single class ie. calculus. There might be 42 kids enrolled, really too many for 1 class, but not enough for 2. As for the actual numbers contact any of the schools and ask for a union representative and they should be more than happy to give you the actual numbers.

P.S. I actually am happy that there are parents like you out there. We need more parents like you. My problem is that you look for any argument the teachers make during contract negotiations and tell me that they aren't better for students. Try with what the district argues for and I think you will see who wants the best for students.

To Students per Classroom wrote on Aug 30, 2008 7:57 PM:Please don't try to explain for teachers. You are, yourself, confused.

1. The State of California reimburses Districts for reducing class sizes to 20:1 ADA, which is why some Districts enroll at 25:1 and others, such as EUHSD, enrolled class size reduction classes at 22:1.

2. COLA is not intended just for teacher salaries. COLA is intended for all additional personnel expenses which a District will incur during the upcoming fiscal cycle. This includes classified employees salaries, benefits for all, safety issues, and some operating expenses.
One of our problems is that we often look at that COLA and figure that it all should automatically be ours. I wish, but that's just not fair.

3. Remember that in the contract we negotiated, there is no cap on any individual class size, only on a teacher's class load over the course of a day. The teacher can have 175 students over 5 periods, but the students can be spread out in any way the District decides. If they have one regular class of 15, the could have another class of 55, with no contract violation.

"We must make sure we, and the public, understand our schools and the way they operate before we can ask anyone to support them."

Well Said wrote on Aug 30, 2008 10:29 PM:Thank you for your clarifying comments. I realize that this is way after the story, but I wish we could get informed and articulate commentatators like this last guy throughout the comments sections so we would have a clue what was going on.