Should Dublin Unified School District voters approve Measure I? (November 3, 2026 ballot)

What's this about?

People disagree about whether Dublin voters should approve Measure I on November 3, 2026.

The plan would raise school funds, but it would also add a yearly tax on each parcel.

What supporters say

• Extra funds could help hire and keep teachers, lower class sizes, and buy school tools.
• Renewing the tax would stop the district from losing much of its current local school support.
• The measure would give schools a steady local fund for books, tech, libraries, and student help.
• The plan calls for a separate fund, yearly money reports, audits, and a citizen watch group.

What critics say

• The plan does not promise clear, trackable gains in grades, learning, or other school results.
• Checks and reports may not give the public a truly fair test of the measure's effects.
• The tax charges each parcel the same, so it may take a larger share from some people.
• Local parcel taxes may make school funding gaps between areas even wider.

How to read this

The number of points on each side does not show who is right; strong proof matters more than a long list.

Measure I asks Dublin Unified School District voters to approve a nine-year parcel tax on Nov. 3, 2026. The measure would raise local school funding, but it would also impose a uniform charge on taxable parcels, leaving voters to weigh added resources against questions about fairness and results.

The case for

The strongest argument for Measure I is that it would protect a local source of school funding that state money may not fully replace. The measure would raise about $2.9 million a year for teacher recruitment and retention, smaller classes, instructional materials, technology, libraries, and academic and student-support programs. California school districts have few options for raising local revenue, and research on school-finance changes suggests that sustained increases in education spending can improve graduation and later economic outcomes, especially when money reaches students who need it most. 1

The measure could also help the district address staffing and class-size pressures. Research links competitive teacher pay to recruitment and retention, while studies of smaller classes find benefits in some circumstances. Those findings do not guarantee better results, but they support the idea that additional resources can improve schools when used effectively. 2

Approval would preserve an existing local revenue stream rather than create an entirely new one. Official ballot materials describe Measure I as replacing the current $96 parcel tax, which would eventually end if voters rejected the measure. The proposed initial charge would be $144 per parcel each year, with inflation adjustments and exemptions available to eligible seniors and disabled residents. 4

Measure I also includes several financial safeguards. It requires a separate account, annual financial reporting, audits and a citizen oversight committee. District materials show that annual parcel-tax and financial reports are already published. These provisions offer a meaningful level of transparency about how the money is collected and spent. 3

The case against

The central objection is that the measure does not guarantee measurable educational improvements. Its language permits a broad range of spending but does not require particular salary increases, staffing levels, class-size targets or academic outcomes. Research showing that school spending or smaller classes can help therefore demonstrates only potential, not a reliable forecast for Dublin schools under this specific measure. 6

The tax also raises an equity concern. Because it charges a set amount per parcel rather than an amount based on property value or household income, the payment can take a larger share of the resources of owners of lower-value properties. Renters could also feel indirect effects through rents. The available research supports this concern, although the materials do not measure exactly how the burden would be distributed among Dublin households. 5

A broader concern is that parcel taxes can contribute to differences between school districts. Districts with more local wealth or greater willingness to approve such taxes may raise more money than others, potentially preserving unequal educational opportunities. Research and policy analysis support that general concern, but do not quantify how much Measure I itself would widen those differences. 7

Finally, financial oversight is not the same as independent evaluation. Audits, reports and a citizen committee can show whether money was collected and spent according to the rules. They do not necessarily show whether earlier parcel-tax spending improved achievement, teacher retention, class sizes or program quality. The school board would still control appointments, spending decisions and much of the reporting. 8