Wouldn’t it be logical to reduce number of teachers/staff given # of students are declining? I do understand that overall funds will be cut, but with reduced staffing needs, will it be a negative for the students?


You can’t just easily reduce teachers with unions. Also, schools are required by CA state law to have a list of administrative roles. Those roles become a bigger portion of the budget as enrollment falls, since you can’t get rid of administrators either. Plus, you have the portion of the school budget that’s going to pensions for retired teachers. That’s going to take a larger percent of the budget if the budget shrinks, because the pension obligation isn’t shrinking. You also have whatever fixed costs there are from old bond measures.


I’m confused. I thought that the wealthier districts were all funded by property taxes, not the state via attendance statistics…


And physical plant is generally the same cost regardless of variations in students.

Seems to me though, if there are budget cuts, the housing prices might reduce in response to a perception that the school won’t be as good and there could be an equilibrium at some point.


What is your “social circle”? Do you think that the discussion about private schools is starting because of the kids’ ages or increased wealth or discouragement about CA schools or something else? Just curious.


Is it possible that Cupertino enrollment is lower because Asian families have less kids on average than the previous demographic?


There is state money too and the state redistributes money in the name of fairness and equality. That’s why EPA spends more per student than Cupertino.


Are you sure about that?



“But it’s not always the case that districts serving poorer students take in less. Ravenswood City School District in struggling East Palo Alto received $12,119 per pupil, while the affluent area served by the Cupertino Union School District received $7,335 per pupil.”

"California School-Funding Sources

57% State government
23% Local property taxes
12% Federal government
7% Local miscellaneous funds (parcel taxes, fundraising)
1% State Lottery"

Oh the irony that they blame prop 13 limiting property taxes on the shift to state funding. We know from other data that property tax revenue has increased more than income tax revenue. It’s not a lack of property tax revenue that’s the problem.


Typical DINK tech workers. Gen X. 3 of our friends have put their kids in private school and it has been driven by the lack of confidence in the public school system at the elementary and middle school levels.


How can DINK couple have kids?


I was going to say. I sent my dogs to private school, but I don’t think that’s what this is about.


He meant DI, WK


Lol. Good point. We don’t qualify as DINK anymore. we are DI. :slight_smile:


You are working wealthy class. Tax paying gold medalists!


Read page6 of introductory section.
It answers most of questions I have about school funding.

“School Districts in California are either Community Funded, also known as Basic Aid, or
State Funded, also known as Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) funded. LCFF districts are
those that do not have sufficient local property taxes to meet the minimum state funding level. The
State provides the balance needed to meet that level. These districts have little concern about
revenue from property taxes because their funding is back‐filled by the State.
Palo Alto Unified School District is a Community Funded school district. Approximately 100
of the 1,000 school districts in the State, including PAUSD, have local property tax revenues that
result in dollars per Average Daily Attendance (ADA) that exceed the Local Control Funding
Formula (LCFF). These districts, under current state law, are allowed to keep all of their property
tax revenue. The result is an extremely high degree of dependence on local property taxes”

In case of CUSD, although property tax comprises 62% of its revenue (page5), it is still a revenue limit school district (ie LCFF funded school, meaning guaranteed budget based on #_of_students are larger than property tax revenue). On the other hand, PAUSD is community funded school (meaning guaranteed budget based on #_of_students are smaller than property tax revenue and school district is allowed to keep all of their property tax revenue in excess of guaranteed budget). Thus, PAUSD budget per student can be larger than CUSD.
Cupertino is not as wealthy as people think.


Another possibility is that Cupertino has too many kids per house. Parents move to good school district with an affordable price tag. But I think after 30 years, Cupertino may become community funded.

A million dollar question is which city today’s young parents are moving to. Is it Dublin, San Ramon or Fremont, or elsewhere?


I believe Fremont Mission is in the same boat as CUSD. Friend lives there and says their arts and music program got defunded by the school so the parents had to step in to fund and run it.


If the total property tax increases every year, the only 2 reasons for the school budget cut are

  1. students population geo distribution changes. Maybe higher student population growth in Central Valley than Silicon Valley

  2. Property tax growth in Silicon Valley is much faster than Central Valley and LA. So more distribution.

Per student funding level should be increasing since property tax increases faster than population growth.

I think the most probable reason is #1. Maybe Hispanic student population grows much faster so more funds would go to LA and Central Valley.