BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
A parcel tax for the Redwood City Elementary School District came up short because voters were confused and want to see more results, the board president said yesterday.
Redwood City’s Measure C faced online pushback — some fair, and some misdirected, board president David Weekly said in an interview.
For example, some voters said they opposed the parcel tax because the district closed TIDE Academy, a small tech-focused school in Menlo Park. But TIDE Academy is part of the completely separate Sequoia Union High School District.
Voters also may not understand the difference between a parcel tax and school bond measures, which Redwood City has passed twice to pay for facility renovations.
“Folks may have looked at that and said, ‘Hey, we already gave the district some money. Isn’t that good enough?’ and may not have really been able to understand school finance, which is admittedly a very complicated subject,” Weekly said.
Money from the parcel tax would’ve been used to give teachers raises, Weekly said.
The parcel tax would’ve brought in $12.2 million annually for eight years, with property owners charged 17.5 cents per building square foot.
That comes out to $350 per year for a 2,000-square-foot home.
The district’s current budget is $151 million and will remain balanced without the tax, Weekly said.
The district already has an $85 per-parcel tax, approved in November 2016 to bring in $1.9 million per year.
The district has 12 schools and 7,428 students. The board has tried to reduce the number of administrators as enrollment declines, Weekly said.
“That’s been difficult but also healthy.
But we’re at a point now where we could really use the community’s support to keep our teacher pay, especially for folks who are newer to the profes-sion, competitive with surrounding districts,” he said.
The district could miss out on higher qualified teachers starting in the 2027-2028 school year, Weekly said.
“It’s a bummer,” he said.
Weekly said he saw “Yes on Measure C” signs throughout Redwood City. A campaign led by parents Jessica Shade and Carlo Contavalli had an online presence and information sessions with PTAs.
The Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association wrote a ballot argument against the measure, but there was no organized opposition.
Moving forward, the district needs to show results on state test scores, improving English literacy by third grade and ensuring students are reaching their expected growth each school year, Weekly said.
Voters Aren’t Confused About Measure C—We’re Tired of Taxes
School Board President David Weekly has it completely backward when he blames “confusion” for the defeat of the Redwood City Elementary School District parcel tax. The only one confused here is Mr. Weekly. Voters understood the measure perfectly; we just don’t want any more taxes.
Look at the history: the district came to homeowners for a $67 tax in 2012, came back again for an $85 tax in 2016, and now they want a third tax based on building square footage. This money was explicitly intended to “enhance reading, writing, math, and science skills; attract and retain qualified teachers; and support school libraries.” Instead, you immediately turned around and closed schools, and test scores still didn’t improve.
Mr. Weekly notes that the board has tried to reduce the number of administrators as enrollment declines. Let’s be clear: if enrollment is declining, you don’t need as many teachers or administrators. You don’t just “try” to cut staff—you actually cut staff and consolidate schools to match the reality of a shrinking student body.
Instead of hitting homeowners with an extra tax every year based on square footage for schools many don’t even use, the district needs to look at its own spending. Public school teachers already receive full health benefits and a guaranteed Defined Benefit pension plan, all while working a tough, but limited, 190 days a year. If the district is facing a budget crunch, perhaps they should consider asking teachers to pay more into their own benefits or retirement packages, just like those of us in the private sector have to do.
Or, maybe the district should consider doing what the private sector does and hire teachers as independent contractors. This shift would eliminate the benefits and retirement payments altogether, allow staffing levels to increase or decrease fluidly based on actual enrollment demand, and make it simple to immediately part ways with underperformers.
Furthermore, if the district truly wants to show results on state test scores, it needs to address accountability. It’s time to get rid of teacher tenure. If a teacher is underperforming, give them a year to turn it around. If they don’t, put them on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), and if they still can’t deliver, fire them.
The defeat of Measure C wasn’t a communication breakdown or voter confusion. It was a clear message from taxpayers demanding fiscal responsibility and academic accountability instead of an open checkbook.
Thank you for your feedback on Measure C. While the final ballots from Tuesday’s election are still being counted and the official outcome remains to be determined, our absolute priority as a board must always be fiscal discipline and academic performance.
Your recommendations make complete sense within a private-sector framework. However, California public school districts operate under a rigid legal structure mandated by state law. Many standard corporate management tools are explicitly illegal for us to use:
Independent Contractor Teachers: We cannot hire teachers as contractors to fluidly manage staffing. California Education Code § 44915 legally mandates that all classroom teachers be classified as district employees (permanent, probationary, or temporary). Furthermore, under California’s strict independent contractor laws (Labor Code § 2775), anyone performing an organization’s core business—which is classroom instruction for a school district—cannot legally be classified as an independent contractor.
Pensions and Benefits: The school board has zero authority over teacher retirement structures. State law mandates that public school teachers enroll in the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS). The contribution rates and rules are set entirely by the State Legislature, not local boards. While health benefits are bargained locally, unilateral changes outside of collective bargaining violate the Educational Employment Relations Act (Gov. Code § 3540).
Staffing and Layoffs: You are right that declining enrollment requires staff reductions, and we *have* actively closed schools and consolidated positions. To wit, we did not just “try” to achieve reductions, please reference the last three years of consecutive cuts. State law limits how and when we do this. Under Education Code § 44955, we cannot adjust staffing fluidly or mid-year; we must issue formal notices by March 15th for the following school year, and state law requires cuts to be made strictly by statutory seniority (“last-in, first-out”) rather than merit.
Tenure and Dismissal: The corporate Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) model is preempted by state law. Education Code § 44929.21 mandates that teachers automatically receive permanent status (tenure) if they are re-elected for a third consecutive year. Once tenured, dismissing an underperforming teacher requires a prescriptive, multi-month statutory process adjudicated by state-appointed administrative law judges (Ed Code § 44932).
Whatever the final tally of Measure C shows, the community’s close scrutiny requires a rigorous look at how we allocate our existing resources, and we are committed to doing that work. Our challenge is to maximize fiscal efficiency and academic accountability within the strict legal boundaries established by the State of California.
Perhaps the lesson is that the voters realize that the schools will always seek more and more money, and that it is time to say “enough!”
Exactly! I hope people realize that sometimes no matter how much money you throw at education, it is not necessarily going to make all of the students any smarter or make them all strait “A” students. I studied very hard in school and my grades were above average. When I graduated, Harvard, Yale and Stanford were not knocking at my door. The College of San Mateo welcomed me with open arms and I did well there and transferred to a state college. I believe genetics plays a big role in how we turn out and our educational levels in life. And as they say, we are what our parents gave us. No, it’s not fair, but that’s just the way it is.
Thank you for taking the time to provide such a detailed and thorough response. I genuinely appreciate the specificity and the references to the applicable laws and regulations.
What stands out most from your explanation is just how constrained local school boards are in their ability to manage their districts. Many of the tools that organizations rely on to control costs, reward performance, address underperformance, and adapt to changing circumstances appear to be either heavily restricted or entirely unavailable under California law.
While I understand these laws were likely created with good intentions, it is concerning to see how little flexibility exists at the local level. Your response highlights what many taxpayers and parents find frustrating: accountability for outcomes rests with local districts, yet many of the decisions that drive those outcomes are dictated by Sacramento.
Regardless of the final outcome of Measure C, I hope this sparks a broader conversation about whether the current system is truly serving students, educators, and taxpayers as effectively as it could. Thank you again for your thoughtful response and for engaging in the discussion.