The Meyer/Mulvany camp is at it again. Presenting parts of a picture in order to further divide and attain personal agendas. At a time when communities should be rallied together and unified in support of success for all students, the same set continues to bash away and pit schools and their families against one another.

In the latest letter, written by Bob Mulvany in the Jan. 19 issue of the Willow Glen Resident, the agenda seems perfectly clear ... seek and destroy, then plunder. At least this piece clearly points out what has been more clearly hidden in past pieces, the fact that it is money that motivates this camp, not the best interests of students in the greater picture of the district. It is clear that the timing is once again amid the tough decision-making for meeting a balanced budget.

Mulvany and other authors present perspectives that blur lines and point blame, rather than support professional critique of the district. For example, programs funded through desegregation are federal funds, not related to the state cuts, which have triggered school closure. Thus such desegregation-funded programs are a false threat.

The underlying message here is "take the money and run." Measure F money that is. This bond money is part of a district-wide plan supported by voters, not a private pot of money for groups to commandeer. It is categorical funding for bricks and mortar, not the general fund. It is not part of state cuts for balanced budgets.

The district cannot simply close one site in order to attain its bond money for another. Such action would spark a "question of fairness." Measure F taxpayer money was allotted for modernizing school campuses, it was not meant to make them targets for closure. The money is earmarked and unspent for many and those schools have a right to those funds.

Contrary to what Mulvany says, I feel the board is quite competent in understanding such matters.

Amy Huddlestun

Lynhurst Way

There are others who
help with depression

Stuart Krigel states in his Jan. 13 letter to the editor that "Psychiatrists are the only mental health professionals trained to diagnose and treat depression..." This is incorrect. Psychologists, family therapists, social workers, and (I presume) nurse practitioners, who prescribe are also trained to diagnose and treat depression. His next phrase, "...and rule out possible medical illnesses that could be masquerading as depression" is misleading in that internists, family practitioners, and other physicians also diagnose related medical conditions and also often prescribe for depression. If he means that psychiatrists can do both, this is correct, but his sentence as a whole is misleading.

Linda Riebel

San Jose

District size matters,
and smaller is better

While recently researching what differentiates successful schools from the others, one thing stood out to me: Communities that believe their parcel tax dollars go only to their schools have much greater success raising money to fund them. Districts with one or two high schools fare much better in passing parcel taxes, and the educational success it seems to buy is more effective than for districts with four or more.

Size plainly matters when it comes to funding public education, and smaller usually means better. Communities like Angels Camp in Calaveras County, with one high school and one middle school, now have schools improving at a faster rate than schools with similar racial profiles in multi-school districts.

If a negative term has to be applied, "community self-centeredness" better explains this phenomenon far better than racism. The Los Gatos­Saratoga High School District is a good example. Two towns, two high schools, a predominance of Asians in one school, whites and a handful of non-Asian minorities in the other, high income and parent involvement in both, and the district ranks second in the state. The racial divide is apparent, but it doesn't stop either school from succeeding.

We can't control where people want to live or why they want to live there, but we can organize our school districts around the concept that "small is beautiful."

D.K. Sweet

San Jose

A new look at property
taxes could help schools

Thank you for your stories on the sorry state of affairs in the San Jose Unified School District.

One of the solutions chosen by the district, in order to stop the hemorrhaging of red ink, is the draconian one of closing schools. As recently as Jan. 5, it was reported that two additional schools are tentatively slated for closure. Families, teaching staff and neighbors are agitated and apprehensive. When will the next shoe drop? And the next, and the next? Healthy schools require a healthy level of funding. Recent studies by two respected think tanks agree.

The recent Rand Corporation study paints a grim picture of California's public education system. Marshall Smith, director of the Williams and Flora Hewlett foundation's education program, which commissioned the study, is calling on policy makers to "stop applying Band-Aids in the form of single reform efforts and embark on a comprehensive overhaul, starting with school finance." You betcha!

First, let's look at where the money to support our schools comes from. According to the Guide to California School Finance System, produced for the year 2003­04, the sources for school finance are: 13 percent from the federal government; 53 percent from the state budget--business, corporate and private income taxes, sales taxes and some special taxes; 27 percent from local property taxes; 6 percent from miscellaneous revenues, such as fees on commercial or residential construction, special elections for parcel taxes, contributions from parents, businesses, foundations and interest on investments by local school districts; and finally, 1 percent from the California State Lottery, which provides about $125 per student annually.

The California Tax Reform Association claims that residential owners are shouldering an unfair tax burden because home sales register change of ownership at the point of sale. Not so with commercial properties. Many corporations in our valley are paying the same property taxes as they were paying prior to Proposition 13. There are numerous reasons for this; one being that the change of ownership for commercial property is so complex that the commercial property owner can take advantage of legal loopholes that are unavailable to residential owners.

To counter this situation, the CTRA is making the following recommendations:

* Tighten the Change of Ownership laws (to regain $1 billion a year). This can be done by statute, as proposed in California Senate Bill 17 to ensure that cumulative and partial transfers of investment property are reassessed.

* Periodically reassess the Non-Residential Property Tax (to regain $3­$4 billion a year). Place a constitutional amendment on the ballot that states that all non-residential property shall be periodically reassessed at market value. CA Assembly Bill 16 was introduced during the 2004 session.

The CTRA shows how attention to unequal taxation can be an important answer to our concerns. It claims that the recent passage of Proposition 1A (returning certain funds from the state back to local communities) does not affect this position.

The next step might be to gather a group of concerned individuals to study the issue of finances and to develop a strategy for correcting this inequality. A point of clarification: not all commercial organizations are paying less than market value in property value in property taxes. Therefore one goal might be to make sure that all economic entities in our community are carrying their proportional share of property taxes. If this is achieved, our school system might be assured of a more secure financial footing.

Betsy Wolf-Graves

Emerson Court

Randol parent applauds
Foley for her decision

I am a resident of Willow Glen whose child attends James B. Randol Elementary School. I would like to commend Pam Foley in recusing herself from voting on the recommended action to close Randol.

Foley, or any other trustee who has a child attending a school targeted for closure, can't help but be faced with the perception of a conflict of interest. However, to make allegations that she was engaging in inappropriate conduct by influencing the trustees to close Randol rather than Hacienda is unfair and dirty politics.

Foley has been responsive to the questions and concerns placed before her by the Randol community. Her decision took courage, strength and integrity.

I look forward to working with Pam Foley during this difficult time of transition for our children. I am confident that she will serve us well.

Darlene D'Amico-Sorci

Garden Glen Way