They made the argument that 420 students was the minimum size for a viable elementary school. This assumption was premised on the notion of differentiation and the amount of differentiation needed in order to have various features. However, as far as I can tell they cite no research to support their position.
A perusal of some of the research in a policy brief from WestEd, suggests a very different picture.
“No agreement exists on optimal school size, but research reviews suggest a maximum of 300-400 students for elementary schools…” A further note is that “researchers focusing on the interaction between poverty and enrollment size offer a rule of thumb: The poorer the school, the smaller its size should be.” We have to be a bit careful because Valley Oak is by no means an impoverished school.
The review of studies goes on to suggest several major benefits from small schools.
First–students learn well and often better in small rather than large schools. In fact, “no study found large-school achievement superior.”
Second–behavior problems diminish.
Third–attendance is higher.
Fourth–extracurricular participation increases.
Finally, poor and minority students benefit the most.
There are a number of key factors that suggest why smaller schools are better. First, smaller schools produce strong personal bonds to the school. Second, there is greater parental and community involvement in small versus large schools. In a large school individual parents would blend in to their surroundings more, while at smaller schools parents and teachers get to know each other and become allies in fostering student success. Third, it helps produce greater simplicity and focus which facilitates communication.
A big one that relates strong to the report offered by the task force is that “student achievement is influenced much more by caliber of instruction than by number of courses offered.” This important because it strikes at the heart of the differentiation argument put up by the Task Force.
It seems likely there is other research that suggests that large schools may be better in some settings. However, I think the most important point here is that there is likely competing literature and competing ideas on what is the best school size. The problem with the Task Force is that they did not provide the school board with those alternatives and instead picked the argument that best fit their conclusion rather than presenting competing arguments and then proceeding to a conclusion. The size of schools is but one example exactly that.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Remember the book( perhaps not the exact title),”Everything I Needed To Know, I Learned in Kindergarden”? Parents know intuitively that smaller elemementary schools,where their kids “learn” how to be part of a larger social group without becoming “lost in the crowd”, are best.
Remember the book( perhaps not the exact title),”Everything I Needed To Know, I Learned in Kindergarden”? Parents know intuitively that smaller elemementary schools,where their kids “learn” how to be part of a larger social group without becoming “lost in the crowd”, are best.
Remember the book( perhaps not the exact title),”Everything I Needed To Know, I Learned in Kindergarden”? Parents know intuitively that smaller elemementary schools,where their kids “learn” how to be part of a larger social group without becoming “lost in the crowd”, are best.
Remember the book( perhaps not the exact title),”Everything I Needed To Know, I Learned in Kindergarden”? Parents know intuitively that smaller elemementary schools,where their kids “learn” how to be part of a larger social group without becoming “lost in the crowd”, are best.
Regarding the small school versus large school issue:
There is a balance between optimal education environment and the economics of the situation. Smaller schools increase the overhead/operating costs of the district. Larger schools are more economically practical if one is applying the “volume business” approach to education.
We’re looking to find the balance between those two realities: the optimal learning environment without a budgetary deficit.
An elementary school in each neighborhood, enrollments capped at 400-450, boundaries adjusted, 100 or so transfer students accepted to fill in the enrollment gaps.
The projected numbers can support nine elementaries plus Fairfield at caps of 450 plus per site for the next six years. That is without inter interdistrict transfers.
Regarding the small school versus large school issue:
There is a balance between optimal education environment and the economics of the situation. Smaller schools increase the overhead/operating costs of the district. Larger schools are more economically practical if one is applying the “volume business” approach to education.
We’re looking to find the balance between those two realities: the optimal learning environment without a budgetary deficit.
An elementary school in each neighborhood, enrollments capped at 400-450, boundaries adjusted, 100 or so transfer students accepted to fill in the enrollment gaps.
The projected numbers can support nine elementaries plus Fairfield at caps of 450 plus per site for the next six years. That is without inter interdistrict transfers.
Regarding the small school versus large school issue:
There is a balance between optimal education environment and the economics of the situation. Smaller schools increase the overhead/operating costs of the district. Larger schools are more economically practical if one is applying the “volume business” approach to education.
We’re looking to find the balance between those two realities: the optimal learning environment without a budgetary deficit.
An elementary school in each neighborhood, enrollments capped at 400-450, boundaries adjusted, 100 or so transfer students accepted to fill in the enrollment gaps.
The projected numbers can support nine elementaries plus Fairfield at caps of 450 plus per site for the next six years. That is without inter interdistrict transfers.
Regarding the small school versus large school issue:
There is a balance between optimal education environment and the economics of the situation. Smaller schools increase the overhead/operating costs of the district. Larger schools are more economically practical if one is applying the “volume business” approach to education.
We’re looking to find the balance between those two realities: the optimal learning environment without a budgetary deficit.
An elementary school in each neighborhood, enrollments capped at 400-450, boundaries adjusted, 100 or so transfer students accepted to fill in the enrollment gaps.
The projected numbers can support nine elementaries plus Fairfield at caps of 450 plus per site for the next six years. That is without inter interdistrict transfers.
I went to WDI when the school had only 5th & 6th grade. We had three classes in each grade of 32 students = 192 students. (WDE had K-4th). I don’t believe that the academic quality suffered because of its size. There was lots of opportunity for the kids – track & field events, school plays, music instruction, field trips, etc. It was a very good transition to Junior High.
My son experience a similar separation of grades at North Davis elementary school. The sixth grade was housed in portable classrooms on the West side of the campus away from the rest of the school. The curriculum was team-taught with the students traveling between three classrooms, a science room and the computer lab. It formed into a smaller school on the campus due to the separation in physical location and different organization. It was the best year of his education in Davis schools.
The administration and the parents might need a critical mass of students at a school, but the kids don’t feel it unless the school is overcrowded and access becomes limited.
Sharla Cheney Harrington
I went to WDI when the school had only 5th & 6th grade. We had three classes in each grade of 32 students = 192 students. (WDE had K-4th). I don’t believe that the academic quality suffered because of its size. There was lots of opportunity for the kids – track & field events, school plays, music instruction, field trips, etc. It was a very good transition to Junior High.
My son experience a similar separation of grades at North Davis elementary school. The sixth grade was housed in portable classrooms on the West side of the campus away from the rest of the school. The curriculum was team-taught with the students traveling between three classrooms, a science room and the computer lab. It formed into a smaller school on the campus due to the separation in physical location and different organization. It was the best year of his education in Davis schools.
The administration and the parents might need a critical mass of students at a school, but the kids don’t feel it unless the school is overcrowded and access becomes limited.
Sharla Cheney Harrington
I went to WDI when the school had only 5th & 6th grade. We had three classes in each grade of 32 students = 192 students. (WDE had K-4th). I don’t believe that the academic quality suffered because of its size. There was lots of opportunity for the kids – track & field events, school plays, music instruction, field trips, etc. It was a very good transition to Junior High.
My son experience a similar separation of grades at North Davis elementary school. The sixth grade was housed in portable classrooms on the West side of the campus away from the rest of the school. The curriculum was team-taught with the students traveling between three classrooms, a science room and the computer lab. It formed into a smaller school on the campus due to the separation in physical location and different organization. It was the best year of his education in Davis schools.
The administration and the parents might need a critical mass of students at a school, but the kids don’t feel it unless the school is overcrowded and access becomes limited.
Sharla Cheney Harrington
I went to WDI when the school had only 5th & 6th grade. We had three classes in each grade of 32 students = 192 students. (WDE had K-4th). I don’t believe that the academic quality suffered because of its size. There was lots of opportunity for the kids – track & field events, school plays, music instruction, field trips, etc. It was a very good transition to Junior High.
My son experience a similar separation of grades at North Davis elementary school. The sixth grade was housed in portable classrooms on the West side of the campus away from the rest of the school. The curriculum was team-taught with the students traveling between three classrooms, a science room and the computer lab. It formed into a smaller school on the campus due to the separation in physical location and different organization. It was the best year of his education in Davis schools.
The administration and the parents might need a critical mass of students at a school, but the kids don’t feel it unless the school is overcrowded and access becomes limited.
Sharla Cheney Harrington
“There is a balance between optimal education environment and the economics of the situation. Smaller schools increase the overhead/operating costs of the district.”
Colleen,
That is true. However, we can be more creative with overhead in our district. We don’t have to have a full complement of administrators and non-classroom personnel at every campus.
One thing that some large urban high schools have done is to divide themselves into “colleges.” (This is similar to the Da Vinci concept at Davis High.) When divided into different colleges of a few hundred students each, the children get to know all of the kids who are in their particular college. They know the teachers in their college. They fit in with the kids and teachers in their college. On a campus with 3,000 students, they can actually know the 300 kids who are sharing their “college” experience.
But each college doesn’t have its own full administration. There can still be one principal for the entire school. The school can have one interscholastic volleyball team, one baseball team, one marching band, etc.
As such, they get the benefits of scale and the benefits of a smaller learning environment.
For our Davis elementary schools, I don’t see why we couldn’t employ the administrative and other “overhead” personnel for 8 schools, but spread those people over 9 campuses. If we did so, we would have the benefits of smaller learning communities, without the added price of excessive overhead.
“There is a balance between optimal education environment and the economics of the situation. Smaller schools increase the overhead/operating costs of the district.”
Colleen,
That is true. However, we can be more creative with overhead in our district. We don’t have to have a full complement of administrators and non-classroom personnel at every campus.
One thing that some large urban high schools have done is to divide themselves into “colleges.” (This is similar to the Da Vinci concept at Davis High.) When divided into different colleges of a few hundred students each, the children get to know all of the kids who are in their particular college. They know the teachers in their college. They fit in with the kids and teachers in their college. On a campus with 3,000 students, they can actually know the 300 kids who are sharing their “college” experience.
But each college doesn’t have its own full administration. There can still be one principal for the entire school. The school can have one interscholastic volleyball team, one baseball team, one marching band, etc.
As such, they get the benefits of scale and the benefits of a smaller learning environment.
For our Davis elementary schools, I don’t see why we couldn’t employ the administrative and other “overhead” personnel for 8 schools, but spread those people over 9 campuses. If we did so, we would have the benefits of smaller learning communities, without the added price of excessive overhead.
“There is a balance between optimal education environment and the economics of the situation. Smaller schools increase the overhead/operating costs of the district.”
Colleen,
That is true. However, we can be more creative with overhead in our district. We don’t have to have a full complement of administrators and non-classroom personnel at every campus.
One thing that some large urban high schools have done is to divide themselves into “colleges.” (This is similar to the Da Vinci concept at Davis High.) When divided into different colleges of a few hundred students each, the children get to know all of the kids who are in their particular college. They know the teachers in their college. They fit in with the kids and teachers in their college. On a campus with 3,000 students, they can actually know the 300 kids who are sharing their “college” experience.
But each college doesn’t have its own full administration. There can still be one principal for the entire school. The school can have one interscholastic volleyball team, one baseball team, one marching band, etc.
As such, they get the benefits of scale and the benefits of a smaller learning environment.
For our Davis elementary schools, I don’t see why we couldn’t employ the administrative and other “overhead” personnel for 8 schools, but spread those people over 9 campuses. If we did so, we would have the benefits of smaller learning communities, without the added price of excessive overhead.
“There is a balance between optimal education environment and the economics of the situation. Smaller schools increase the overhead/operating costs of the district.”
Colleen,
That is true. However, we can be more creative with overhead in our district. We don’t have to have a full complement of administrators and non-classroom personnel at every campus.
One thing that some large urban high schools have done is to divide themselves into “colleges.” (This is similar to the Da Vinci concept at Davis High.) When divided into different colleges of a few hundred students each, the children get to know all of the kids who are in their particular college. They know the teachers in their college. They fit in with the kids and teachers in their college. On a campus with 3,000 students, they can actually know the 300 kids who are sharing their “college” experience.
But each college doesn’t have its own full administration. There can still be one principal for the entire school. The school can have one interscholastic volleyball team, one baseball team, one marching band, etc.
As such, they get the benefits of scale and the benefits of a smaller learning environment.
For our Davis elementary schools, I don’t see why we couldn’t employ the administrative and other “overhead” personnel for 8 schools, but spread those people over 9 campuses. If we did so, we would have the benefits of smaller learning communities, without the added price of excessive overhead.
Dear Mr. Rifkin,
Another excellent, creative solution that doesn’t pit one neighborhood against another for district resources. I thank you.
They are all our children,
Colleen Connolly
Dear Mr. Rifkin,
Another excellent, creative solution that doesn’t pit one neighborhood against another for district resources. I thank you.
They are all our children,
Colleen Connolly
Dear Mr. Rifkin,
Another excellent, creative solution that doesn’t pit one neighborhood against another for district resources. I thank you.
They are all our children,
Colleen Connolly
Dear Mr. Rifkin,
Another excellent, creative solution that doesn’t pit one neighborhood against another for district resources. I thank you.
They are all our children,
Colleen Connolly
PS I think this is an important fact: currently, there is no financial deficit in the district budget. We are solvent until 2009 without making any changes to current policy of configuration. The deficit is merely a possibility in 2009-2010.
PS I think this is an important fact: currently, there is no financial deficit in the district budget. We are solvent until 2009 without making any changes to current policy of configuration. The deficit is merely a possibility in 2009-2010.
PS I think this is an important fact: currently, there is no financial deficit in the district budget. We are solvent until 2009 without making any changes to current policy of configuration. The deficit is merely a possibility in 2009-2010.
PS I think this is an important fact: currently, there is no financial deficit in the district budget. We are solvent until 2009 without making any changes to current policy of configuration. The deficit is merely a possibility in 2009-2010.
exactly. i grew up hearing people complain about the horrible overcrowding at davis schools, and how terrible it was that valley oak (ca. 1980s) had to squeeze students into those portable classrooms, and now they’re saying that the same school that was overcrowded a decade ago is suddenly too small to be viable?
not convincing.
exactly. i grew up hearing people complain about the horrible overcrowding at davis schools, and how terrible it was that valley oak (ca. 1980s) had to squeeze students into those portable classrooms, and now they’re saying that the same school that was overcrowded a decade ago is suddenly too small to be viable?
not convincing.
exactly. i grew up hearing people complain about the horrible overcrowding at davis schools, and how terrible it was that valley oak (ca. 1980s) had to squeeze students into those portable classrooms, and now they’re saying that the same school that was overcrowded a decade ago is suddenly too small to be viable?
not convincing.
exactly. i grew up hearing people complain about the horrible overcrowding at davis schools, and how terrible it was that valley oak (ca. 1980s) had to squeeze students into those portable classrooms, and now they’re saying that the same school that was overcrowded a decade ago is suddenly too small to be viable?
not convincing.
additionally, if there is a deficit, it is easily remedied by simply increasing funding. for all the patting ourselves on the back for having “great schools” and being a “great place to raise kids,” you’d think davisites (all of ’em, not just you, davisite 😉 )wouldn’t balk at upping the ante to keep those great schools and walkable neighborhoods.
in fact, wasn’t that what we all voted for, explicity, with the last school bond that came up?
additionally, if there is a deficit, it is easily remedied by simply increasing funding. for all the patting ourselves on the back for having “great schools” and being a “great place to raise kids,” you’d think davisites (all of ’em, not just you, davisite 😉 )wouldn’t balk at upping the ante to keep those great schools and walkable neighborhoods.
in fact, wasn’t that what we all voted for, explicity, with the last school bond that came up?
additionally, if there is a deficit, it is easily remedied by simply increasing funding. for all the patting ourselves on the back for having “great schools” and being a “great place to raise kids,” you’d think davisites (all of ’em, not just you, davisite 😉 )wouldn’t balk at upping the ante to keep those great schools and walkable neighborhoods.
in fact, wasn’t that what we all voted for, explicity, with the last school bond that came up?
additionally, if there is a deficit, it is easily remedied by simply increasing funding. for all the patting ourselves on the back for having “great schools” and being a “great place to raise kids,” you’d think davisites (all of ’em, not just you, davisite 😉 )wouldn’t balk at upping the ante to keep those great schools and walkable neighborhoods.
in fact, wasn’t that what we all voted for, explicity, with the last school bond that came up?
Wu-ming… I see this as the continuing “VALUES” political contest in our great town and I am hopeful…. always the optimist.
Wu-ming… I see this as the continuing “VALUES” political contest in our great town and I am hopeful…. always the optimist.
Wu-ming… I see this as the continuing “VALUES” political contest in our great town and I am hopeful…. always the optimist.
Wu-ming… I see this as the continuing “VALUES” political contest in our great town and I am hopeful…. always the optimist.
Given the excellent ideas presented in just a short period of time on this blog, and in Rifkin’s column, it sounds to me as though an “Alternative Best Uses of Schools” (A-BUS) task force should be formed to advise the Board.
Moreover, I think colleen’s point ought to be repeated: there is no deficit now. So the urgency of this argument is not compelling.
I think a movement to draft Val Dolcini for the school board would also be worth considering.
Given the excellent ideas presented in just a short period of time on this blog, and in Rifkin’s column, it sounds to me as though an “Alternative Best Uses of Schools” (A-BUS) task force should be formed to advise the Board.
Moreover, I think colleen’s point ought to be repeated: there is no deficit now. So the urgency of this argument is not compelling.
I think a movement to draft Val Dolcini for the school board would also be worth considering.
Given the excellent ideas presented in just a short period of time on this blog, and in Rifkin’s column, it sounds to me as though an “Alternative Best Uses of Schools” (A-BUS) task force should be formed to advise the Board.
Moreover, I think colleen’s point ought to be repeated: there is no deficit now. So the urgency of this argument is not compelling.
I think a movement to draft Val Dolcini for the school board would also be worth considering.
Given the excellent ideas presented in just a short period of time on this blog, and in Rifkin’s column, it sounds to me as though an “Alternative Best Uses of Schools” (A-BUS) task force should be formed to advise the Board.
Moreover, I think colleen’s point ought to be repeated: there is no deficit now. So the urgency of this argument is not compelling.
I think a movement to draft Val Dolcini for the school board would also be worth considering.
Dear Mr. Shor,
Based on Mr. Dolcini’s thoughtful, even-handed approach to the Task Force mission I’d support him in a run for school board.
Mr. Dolcini?
Colleen Connolly
Dear Mr. Shor,
Based on Mr. Dolcini’s thoughtful, even-handed approach to the Task Force mission I’d support him in a run for school board.
Mr. Dolcini?
Colleen Connolly
Dear Mr. Shor,
Based on Mr. Dolcini’s thoughtful, even-handed approach to the Task Force mission I’d support him in a run for school board.
Mr. Dolcini?
Colleen Connolly
Dear Mr. Shor,
Based on Mr. Dolcini’s thoughtful, even-handed approach to the Task Force mission I’d support him in a run for school board.
Mr. Dolcini?
Colleen Connolly
Net of all other factors, school size shouldn’t matter. It doesn’t matter for Fairfield, a very successful school; it has a very involved parent population. There’s nothing wrong with smaller school size, per se.
But the decision whether or not to keep Valley Oak open isn’t made in a vacuum. VO already has the lowest PTA budget of any K-6 school in the district by far (smaller size sure won’t help that) and is losing some of its Title I funds this year due to federal budget cuts. In addition, as a more diverse school, VO has greater challenges to parent volunteering at school than do some other schools (language barriers, job hours, etc.). A smaller school may be beneficial in many cases but I’m not convinced this is one of them.
Net of all other factors, school size shouldn’t matter. It doesn’t matter for Fairfield, a very successful school; it has a very involved parent population. There’s nothing wrong with smaller school size, per se.
But the decision whether or not to keep Valley Oak open isn’t made in a vacuum. VO already has the lowest PTA budget of any K-6 school in the district by far (smaller size sure won’t help that) and is losing some of its Title I funds this year due to federal budget cuts. In addition, as a more diverse school, VO has greater challenges to parent volunteering at school than do some other schools (language barriers, job hours, etc.). A smaller school may be beneficial in many cases but I’m not convinced this is one of them.
Net of all other factors, school size shouldn’t matter. It doesn’t matter for Fairfield, a very successful school; it has a very involved parent population. There’s nothing wrong with smaller school size, per se.
But the decision whether or not to keep Valley Oak open isn’t made in a vacuum. VO already has the lowest PTA budget of any K-6 school in the district by far (smaller size sure won’t help that) and is losing some of its Title I funds this year due to federal budget cuts. In addition, as a more diverse school, VO has greater challenges to parent volunteering at school than do some other schools (language barriers, job hours, etc.). A smaller school may be beneficial in many cases but I’m not convinced this is one of them.
Net of all other factors, school size shouldn’t matter. It doesn’t matter for Fairfield, a very successful school; it has a very involved parent population. There’s nothing wrong with smaller school size, per se.
But the decision whether or not to keep Valley Oak open isn’t made in a vacuum. VO already has the lowest PTA budget of any K-6 school in the district by far (smaller size sure won’t help that) and is losing some of its Title I funds this year due to federal budget cuts. In addition, as a more diverse school, VO has greater challenges to parent volunteering at school than do some other schools (language barriers, job hours, etc.). A smaller school may be beneficial in many cases but I’m not convinced this is one of them.
I would hope that the District allots more money to VO to make up for the fact that its parent population is less able to match the PTA fundraising and parent volunteer hours of more affluent student populations.
I would hope that the District allots more money to VO to make up for the fact that its parent population is less able to match the PTA fundraising and parent volunteer hours of more affluent student populations.
I would hope that the District allots more money to VO to make up for the fact that its parent population is less able to match the PTA fundraising and parent volunteer hours of more affluent student populations.
I would hope that the District allots more money to VO to make up for the fact that its parent population is less able to match the PTA fundraising and parent volunteer hours of more affluent student populations.
VO is allotted more in Title I funds, but that money goes to pay for needed resources such as the reading and English Language Learner teachers. Those Title I dollars don’t pay for the art teachers, computers and other special extras that wealthier schools fund through their PTAs.
VO is allotted more in Title I funds, but that money goes to pay for needed resources such as the reading and English Language Learner teachers. Those Title I dollars don’t pay for the art teachers, computers and other special extras that wealthier schools fund through their PTAs.
VO is allotted more in Title I funds, but that money goes to pay for needed resources such as the reading and English Language Learner teachers. Those Title I dollars don’t pay for the art teachers, computers and other special extras that wealthier schools fund through their PTAs.
VO is allotted more in Title I funds, but that money goes to pay for needed resources such as the reading and English Language Learner teachers. Those Title I dollars don’t pay for the art teachers, computers and other special extras that wealthier schools fund through their PTAs.
“[Valley Oak] is losing some of its Title I funds this year due to federal budget cuts.”
Really?
I have not read that anywhere. Do you have a source for this news? I’m not questioning your honesty. I just would like to read this for myself.
“[Valley Oak] is losing some of its Title I funds this year due to federal budget cuts.”
Really?
I have not read that anywhere. Do you have a source for this news? I’m not questioning your honesty. I just would like to read this for myself.
“[Valley Oak] is losing some of its Title I funds this year due to federal budget cuts.”
Really?
I have not read that anywhere. Do you have a source for this news? I’m not questioning your honesty. I just would like to read this for myself.
“[Valley Oak] is losing some of its Title I funds this year due to federal budget cuts.”
Really?
I have not read that anywhere. Do you have a source for this news? I’m not questioning your honesty. I just would like to read this for myself.
FWIW, after posting my question above, I Googled “education spending” “bush administration” and found a number of articles on the subject. What is notable is that over the last 6 years — the W. years — federal spending on Title I is specific and education in general has skyrocketted. According to a few articles I looked at, it was up over 70% in the first three years of Bush, and now is up about 100% over what it was when Clinton left office. That does not mean that you are wrong — that for the 2007/08 school year Title I spending will recede — but in the big picture of things, Title I spending is apparently higher than it has ever been.
And for what that is worth, federal Title I makes less sense in California than in most other states. Whereas our school districts, save a couple, are pretty close to each other (after accounting for type of school district) in terms of how much money they get per capita, other states greatly favor rich districts with high property tax roles. It is for that property tax disparity that Title I was deemed necessary. But in California, it is not the case. And in fact, because of Title I, low-income districts have quite a bit more money per student than we have in the DJUSD.
FWIW, after posting my question above, I Googled “education spending” “bush administration” and found a number of articles on the subject. What is notable is that over the last 6 years — the W. years — federal spending on Title I is specific and education in general has skyrocketted. According to a few articles I looked at, it was up over 70% in the first three years of Bush, and now is up about 100% over what it was when Clinton left office. That does not mean that you are wrong — that for the 2007/08 school year Title I spending will recede — but in the big picture of things, Title I spending is apparently higher than it has ever been.
And for what that is worth, federal Title I makes less sense in California than in most other states. Whereas our school districts, save a couple, are pretty close to each other (after accounting for type of school district) in terms of how much money they get per capita, other states greatly favor rich districts with high property tax roles. It is for that property tax disparity that Title I was deemed necessary. But in California, it is not the case. And in fact, because of Title I, low-income districts have quite a bit more money per student than we have in the DJUSD.
FWIW, after posting my question above, I Googled “education spending” “bush administration” and found a number of articles on the subject. What is notable is that over the last 6 years — the W. years — federal spending on Title I is specific and education in general has skyrocketted. According to a few articles I looked at, it was up over 70% in the first three years of Bush, and now is up about 100% over what it was when Clinton left office. That does not mean that you are wrong — that for the 2007/08 school year Title I spending will recede — but in the big picture of things, Title I spending is apparently higher than it has ever been.
And for what that is worth, federal Title I makes less sense in California than in most other states. Whereas our school districts, save a couple, are pretty close to each other (after accounting for type of school district) in terms of how much money they get per capita, other states greatly favor rich districts with high property tax roles. It is for that property tax disparity that Title I was deemed necessary. But in California, it is not the case. And in fact, because of Title I, low-income districts have quite a bit more money per student than we have in the DJUSD.
FWIW, after posting my question above, I Googled “education spending” “bush administration” and found a number of articles on the subject. What is notable is that over the last 6 years — the W. years — federal spending on Title I is specific and education in general has skyrocketted. According to a few articles I looked at, it was up over 70% in the first three years of Bush, and now is up about 100% over what it was when Clinton left office. That does not mean that you are wrong — that for the 2007/08 school year Title I spending will recede — but in the big picture of things, Title I spending is apparently higher than it has ever been.
And for what that is worth, federal Title I makes less sense in California than in most other states. Whereas our school districts, save a couple, are pretty close to each other (after accounting for type of school district) in terms of how much money they get per capita, other states greatly favor rich districts with high property tax roles. It is for that property tax disparity that Title I was deemed necessary. But in California, it is not the case. And in fact, because of Title I, low-income districts have quite a bit more money per student than we have in the DJUSD.
I have not read that anywhere. Do you have a source for this news? I’m not questioning your honesty. I just would like to read this for myself.
I heard this from a member of the Valley Oak site council.
I have not read that anywhere. Do you have a source for this news? I’m not questioning your honesty. I just would like to read this for myself.
I heard this from a member of the Valley Oak site council.
I have not read that anywhere. Do you have a source for this news? I’m not questioning your honesty. I just would like to read this for myself.
I heard this from a member of the Valley Oak site council.
I have not read that anywhere. Do you have a source for this news? I’m not questioning your honesty. I just would like to read this for myself.
I heard this from a member of the Valley Oak site council.
I am not a Title I, English Learner Program expert but I did read recently that G. Bush had cut 28 million dollars from the Title I program.
Addittionally, in 2004, the Title I cost of living adjustment of 3% coincided with a 6% rise in Title One eligibility population.
Valley Oak has the highest Title I eligible enrollment in Davis, thus the most funds. As a Title One School,(any schoool with a greater percentage of Title I students than the Title One student percentage district wide,) it is entitled to mix those funds with other program funding as long as the same intent is followed. Thus Valley Oak is the only elementary with a full time counselor on campus thanks to Title One funding. In a Title One School, programs funded by Title One can be used by any student in the school, regardless of income. This is a great thing when one considers that learning disabilities and adjustment issues know no socio-eonomic boundaries.
Valley Oak’s English Learners program is so successful it is the only school to send eight ELL students to the GATE program last year.
As for the inequities between well-resourced schools and those less-resourced: There can be economic trade offs for having such a rich diversity in enrollment, that is what the Davis Schools Foundation was set up to address. Davis Schools Foundation should be granting funds to the less resourced schools to level the playing field.
Colleen Connolly
I am not a Title I, English Learner Program expert but I did read recently that G. Bush had cut 28 million dollars from the Title I program.
Addittionally, in 2004, the Title I cost of living adjustment of 3% coincided with a 6% rise in Title One eligibility population.
Valley Oak has the highest Title I eligible enrollment in Davis, thus the most funds. As a Title One School,(any schoool with a greater percentage of Title I students than the Title One student percentage district wide,) it is entitled to mix those funds with other program funding as long as the same intent is followed. Thus Valley Oak is the only elementary with a full time counselor on campus thanks to Title One funding. In a Title One School, programs funded by Title One can be used by any student in the school, regardless of income. This is a great thing when one considers that learning disabilities and adjustment issues know no socio-eonomic boundaries.
Valley Oak’s English Learners program is so successful it is the only school to send eight ELL students to the GATE program last year.
As for the inequities between well-resourced schools and those less-resourced: There can be economic trade offs for having such a rich diversity in enrollment, that is what the Davis Schools Foundation was set up to address. Davis Schools Foundation should be granting funds to the less resourced schools to level the playing field.
Colleen Connolly
I am not a Title I, English Learner Program expert but I did read recently that G. Bush had cut 28 million dollars from the Title I program.
Addittionally, in 2004, the Title I cost of living adjustment of 3% coincided with a 6% rise in Title One eligibility population.
Valley Oak has the highest Title I eligible enrollment in Davis, thus the most funds. As a Title One School,(any schoool with a greater percentage of Title I students than the Title One student percentage district wide,) it is entitled to mix those funds with other program funding as long as the same intent is followed. Thus Valley Oak is the only elementary with a full time counselor on campus thanks to Title One funding. In a Title One School, programs funded by Title One can be used by any student in the school, regardless of income. This is a great thing when one considers that learning disabilities and adjustment issues know no socio-eonomic boundaries.
Valley Oak’s English Learners program is so successful it is the only school to send eight ELL students to the GATE program last year.
As for the inequities between well-resourced schools and those less-resourced: There can be economic trade offs for having such a rich diversity in enrollment, that is what the Davis Schools Foundation was set up to address. Davis Schools Foundation should be granting funds to the less resourced schools to level the playing field.
Colleen Connolly
I am not a Title I, English Learner Program expert but I did read recently that G. Bush had cut 28 million dollars from the Title I program.
Addittionally, in 2004, the Title I cost of living adjustment of 3% coincided with a 6% rise in Title One eligibility population.
Valley Oak has the highest Title I eligible enrollment in Davis, thus the most funds. As a Title One School,(any schoool with a greater percentage of Title I students than the Title One student percentage district wide,) it is entitled to mix those funds with other program funding as long as the same intent is followed. Thus Valley Oak is the only elementary with a full time counselor on campus thanks to Title One funding. In a Title One School, programs funded by Title One can be used by any student in the school, regardless of income. This is a great thing when one considers that learning disabilities and adjustment issues know no socio-eonomic boundaries.
Valley Oak’s English Learners program is so successful it is the only school to send eight ELL students to the GATE program last year.
As for the inequities between well-resourced schools and those less-resourced: There can be economic trade offs for having such a rich diversity in enrollment, that is what the Davis Schools Foundation was set up to address. Davis Schools Foundation should be granting funds to the less resourced schools to level the playing field.
Colleen Connolly
“I did read recently that G. Bush had cut 28 million dollars from the Title I program.”
According to the Council of Chief State School Officers’ website, the federal government appropriated $12.713 billion dollars in 2006 for 2007 Title I spending.
So if $28 million were cut, that would represent a 0.22% reduction. All in all, essentially nothing.
“I did read recently that G. Bush had cut 28 million dollars from the Title I program.”
According to the Council of Chief State School Officers’ website, the federal government appropriated $12.713 billion dollars in 2006 for 2007 Title I spending.
So if $28 million were cut, that would represent a 0.22% reduction. All in all, essentially nothing.
“I did read recently that G. Bush had cut 28 million dollars from the Title I program.”
According to the Council of Chief State School Officers’ website, the federal government appropriated $12.713 billion dollars in 2006 for 2007 Title I spending.
So if $28 million were cut, that would represent a 0.22% reduction. All in all, essentially nothing.
“I did read recently that G. Bush had cut 28 million dollars from the Title I program.”
According to the Council of Chief State School Officers’ website, the federal government appropriated $12.713 billion dollars in 2006 for 2007 Title I spending.
So if $28 million were cut, that would represent a 0.22% reduction. All in all, essentially nothing.
Dear Mr.Rifkin,
Thank you for doing the math on that one. What is the math on the cost of keeping Valley Oak, $423,000/yr. on a $49 million plus district operating budget?
The $28 million cut may be more to California than the other 49 states. As the most populous state in the union, California gets the largest amount of Title One funds, with New York as a close second. $28 million becomes a tad more significant as more people fall into the Title One eligible income bracket.
Regarding Fairfield School. The principal of Willett is also he principal of Fairfield, thus their overhead is low. I believe their enrollment is less than 100, 90 strikes me as right.(Anyone?)
In any case, to open FTK as a K-3 one gets quite close to the same expense of operating a K-6. It costs approximately $109,000 to add a grade a year to FTK as opposed to the $423,000 it costs to operate a full K-6.
As a member of Davis-OPEN I’d like to clarify the Parcel Tax increase. In order to just maintain the wonderful programs the Parcel Tax currently funds, the par tax would have to be increased from its current approx. $140/yr per parcel to approx. $160./yr/per parcel.
Should the district find absolutley no money for Valley Oak overhead, the enrollment drops again, and there are absolutely zero inter-district transfer applications, the parcel tax would have to be increased $20.00/yr./parcel ON TOP Of the $20./yr increase added to maintain what we already have. That brings it up to close to $190.00/yr.parcel.
That’s just to clarify what amounts of money we are talking about, and for what purpose.
Colleen Connolly
Dear Mr.Rifkin,
Thank you for doing the math on that one. What is the math on the cost of keeping Valley Oak, $423,000/yr. on a $49 million plus district operating budget?
The $28 million cut may be more to California than the other 49 states. As the most populous state in the union, California gets the largest amount of Title One funds, with New York as a close second. $28 million becomes a tad more significant as more people fall into the Title One eligible income bracket.
Regarding Fairfield School. The principal of Willett is also he principal of Fairfield, thus their overhead is low. I believe their enrollment is less than 100, 90 strikes me as right.(Anyone?)
In any case, to open FTK as a K-3 one gets quite close to the same expense of operating a K-6. It costs approximately $109,000 to add a grade a year to FTK as opposed to the $423,000 it costs to operate a full K-6.
As a member of Davis-OPEN I’d like to clarify the Parcel Tax increase. In order to just maintain the wonderful programs the Parcel Tax currently funds, the par tax would have to be increased from its current approx. $140/yr per parcel to approx. $160./yr/per parcel.
Should the district find absolutley no money for Valley Oak overhead, the enrollment drops again, and there are absolutely zero inter-district transfer applications, the parcel tax would have to be increased $20.00/yr./parcel ON TOP Of the $20./yr increase added to maintain what we already have. That brings it up to close to $190.00/yr.parcel.
That’s just to clarify what amounts of money we are talking about, and for what purpose.
Colleen Connolly
Dear Mr.Rifkin,
Thank you for doing the math on that one. What is the math on the cost of keeping Valley Oak, $423,000/yr. on a $49 million plus district operating budget?
The $28 million cut may be more to California than the other 49 states. As the most populous state in the union, California gets the largest amount of Title One funds, with New York as a close second. $28 million becomes a tad more significant as more people fall into the Title One eligible income bracket.
Regarding Fairfield School. The principal of Willett is also he principal of Fairfield, thus their overhead is low. I believe their enrollment is less than 100, 90 strikes me as right.(Anyone?)
In any case, to open FTK as a K-3 one gets quite close to the same expense of operating a K-6. It costs approximately $109,000 to add a grade a year to FTK as opposed to the $423,000 it costs to operate a full K-6.
As a member of Davis-OPEN I’d like to clarify the Parcel Tax increase. In order to just maintain the wonderful programs the Parcel Tax currently funds, the par tax would have to be increased from its current approx. $140/yr per parcel to approx. $160./yr/per parcel.
Should the district find absolutley no money for Valley Oak overhead, the enrollment drops again, and there are absolutely zero inter-district transfer applications, the parcel tax would have to be increased $20.00/yr./parcel ON TOP Of the $20./yr increase added to maintain what we already have. That brings it up to close to $190.00/yr.parcel.
That’s just to clarify what amounts of money we are talking about, and for what purpose.
Colleen Connolly
Dear Mr.Rifkin,
Thank you for doing the math on that one. What is the math on the cost of keeping Valley Oak, $423,000/yr. on a $49 million plus district operating budget?
The $28 million cut may be more to California than the other 49 states. As the most populous state in the union, California gets the largest amount of Title One funds, with New York as a close second. $28 million becomes a tad more significant as more people fall into the Title One eligible income bracket.
Regarding Fairfield School. The principal of Willett is also he principal of Fairfield, thus their overhead is low. I believe their enrollment is less than 100, 90 strikes me as right.(Anyone?)
In any case, to open FTK as a K-3 one gets quite close to the same expense of operating a K-6. It costs approximately $109,000 to add a grade a year to FTK as opposed to the $423,000 it costs to operate a full K-6.
As a member of Davis-OPEN I’d like to clarify the Parcel Tax increase. In order to just maintain the wonderful programs the Parcel Tax currently funds, the par tax would have to be increased from its current approx. $140/yr per parcel to approx. $160./yr/per parcel.
Should the district find absolutley no money for Valley Oak overhead, the enrollment drops again, and there are absolutely zero inter-district transfer applications, the parcel tax would have to be increased $20.00/yr./parcel ON TOP Of the $20./yr increase added to maintain what we already have. That brings it up to close to $190.00/yr.parcel.
That’s just to clarify what amounts of money we are talking about, and for what purpose.
Colleen Connolly
“Thank you for doing the math on that one. What is the math on the cost of keeping Valley Oak, $423,000/yr. on a $49 million plus district operating budget?”
Colleen,
As it happens, I did the math on Valley Oak in my column a while back. And the figure I came up with, based on the figures provided to me by the DJUSD, was far lower than the Task Force is saying — $480,000 — and lower than you are saying — $423,000.
My number is $389,661 for Valley Oak overhead for the 2006/07 school year. (If you want the spread sheet, send me an email and I’ll attach it back.)
Regarding Fairfield School’s overhead, I think that provide’s a good model for Valley Oak. It is not necessary to have a full complement of administrators on site at every school. That may have been necessary before telephony. But it’s just no big deal now to use electronic communication. In a high percentage of private companies, for example, it is not unusual to have a secretary working for a number of different executives, each of which is located in a different city or country.
Why couldn’t a similar arrangement be made for all of the non-classroom personnel at our DJUSD elementaries? If that were done, all 9 campuses could be operated, but we’d only have to pay for the overhead of 8.
Keep this in mind, too: there will be (almost) no savings on janitorial or yard maintenance by shuttering Valley Oak. Unless the campus is sold off — and that, we know by example of Grande, is nearly impossible — the district will still have to cut the grass and trim the bushes and so on. And while the classrooms inside of Valley Oak will not have to be cleaned, the kids who will not be using them will be messing up classrooms at Korematsu, which now don’t need to be cleaned. As such, there is almost no savings on janitorial from shuttering Valley Oak.
“Thank you for doing the math on that one. What is the math on the cost of keeping Valley Oak, $423,000/yr. on a $49 million plus district operating budget?”
Colleen,
As it happens, I did the math on Valley Oak in my column a while back. And the figure I came up with, based on the figures provided to me by the DJUSD, was far lower than the Task Force is saying — $480,000 — and lower than you are saying — $423,000.
My number is $389,661 for Valley Oak overhead for the 2006/07 school year. (If you want the spread sheet, send me an email and I’ll attach it back.)
Regarding Fairfield School’s overhead, I think that provide’s a good model for Valley Oak. It is not necessary to have a full complement of administrators on site at every school. That may have been necessary before telephony. But it’s just no big deal now to use electronic communication. In a high percentage of private companies, for example, it is not unusual to have a secretary working for a number of different executives, each of which is located in a different city or country.
Why couldn’t a similar arrangement be made for all of the non-classroom personnel at our DJUSD elementaries? If that were done, all 9 campuses could be operated, but we’d only have to pay for the overhead of 8.
Keep this in mind, too: there will be (almost) no savings on janitorial or yard maintenance by shuttering Valley Oak. Unless the campus is sold off — and that, we know by example of Grande, is nearly impossible — the district will still have to cut the grass and trim the bushes and so on. And while the classrooms inside of Valley Oak will not have to be cleaned, the kids who will not be using them will be messing up classrooms at Korematsu, which now don’t need to be cleaned. As such, there is almost no savings on janitorial from shuttering Valley Oak.
“Thank you for doing the math on that one. What is the math on the cost of keeping Valley Oak, $423,000/yr. on a $49 million plus district operating budget?”
Colleen,
As it happens, I did the math on Valley Oak in my column a while back. And the figure I came up with, based on the figures provided to me by the DJUSD, was far lower than the Task Force is saying — $480,000 — and lower than you are saying — $423,000.
My number is $389,661 for Valley Oak overhead for the 2006/07 school year. (If you want the spread sheet, send me an email and I’ll attach it back.)
Regarding Fairfield School’s overhead, I think that provide’s a good model for Valley Oak. It is not necessary to have a full complement of administrators on site at every school. That may have been necessary before telephony. But it’s just no big deal now to use electronic communication. In a high percentage of private companies, for example, it is not unusual to have a secretary working for a number of different executives, each of which is located in a different city or country.
Why couldn’t a similar arrangement be made for all of the non-classroom personnel at our DJUSD elementaries? If that were done, all 9 campuses could be operated, but we’d only have to pay for the overhead of 8.
Keep this in mind, too: there will be (almost) no savings on janitorial or yard maintenance by shuttering Valley Oak. Unless the campus is sold off — and that, we know by example of Grande, is nearly impossible — the district will still have to cut the grass and trim the bushes and so on. And while the classrooms inside of Valley Oak will not have to be cleaned, the kids who will not be using them will be messing up classrooms at Korematsu, which now don’t need to be cleaned. As such, there is almost no savings on janitorial from shuttering Valley Oak.
“Thank you for doing the math on that one. What is the math on the cost of keeping Valley Oak, $423,000/yr. on a $49 million plus district operating budget?”
Colleen,
As it happens, I did the math on Valley Oak in my column a while back. And the figure I came up with, based on the figures provided to me by the DJUSD, was far lower than the Task Force is saying — $480,000 — and lower than you are saying — $423,000.
My number is $389,661 for Valley Oak overhead for the 2006/07 school year. (If you want the spread sheet, send me an email and I’ll attach it back.)
Regarding Fairfield School’s overhead, I think that provide’s a good model for Valley Oak. It is not necessary to have a full complement of administrators on site at every school. That may have been necessary before telephony. But it’s just no big deal now to use electronic communication. In a high percentage of private companies, for example, it is not unusual to have a secretary working for a number of different executives, each of which is located in a different city or country.
Why couldn’t a similar arrangement be made for all of the non-classroom personnel at our DJUSD elementaries? If that were done, all 9 campuses could be operated, but we’d only have to pay for the overhead of 8.
Keep this in mind, too: there will be (almost) no savings on janitorial or yard maintenance by shuttering Valley Oak. Unless the campus is sold off — and that, we know by example of Grande, is nearly impossible — the district will still have to cut the grass and trim the bushes and so on. And while the classrooms inside of Valley Oak will not have to be cleaned, the kids who will not be using them will be messing up classrooms at Korematsu, which now don’t need to be cleaned. As such, there is almost no savings on janitorial from shuttering Valley Oak.
It is really a shame that all of the thoughtful counterpoints that have been expressed here on this blog were not raised publicly and discussed , in depth, during the Task Force presentation.. It clearly illustrates the flawed format of the Task Force process and presentation. We are witnessing this , again, in the surface water project public presentation by Public Works to the Council. We may be in for a similar flawed process with the Housing Element Steering Committee process.
It is really a shame that all of the thoughtful counterpoints that have been expressed here on this blog were not raised publicly and discussed , in depth, during the Task Force presentation.. It clearly illustrates the flawed format of the Task Force process and presentation. We are witnessing this , again, in the surface water project public presentation by Public Works to the Council. We may be in for a similar flawed process with the Housing Element Steering Committee process.
It is really a shame that all of the thoughtful counterpoints that have been expressed here on this blog were not raised publicly and discussed , in depth, during the Task Force presentation.. It clearly illustrates the flawed format of the Task Force process and presentation. We are witnessing this , again, in the surface water project public presentation by Public Works to the Council. We may be in for a similar flawed process with the Housing Element Steering Committee process.
It is really a shame that all of the thoughtful counterpoints that have been expressed here on this blog were not raised publicly and discussed , in depth, during the Task Force presentation.. It clearly illustrates the flawed format of the Task Force process and presentation. We are witnessing this , again, in the surface water project public presentation by Public Works to the Council. We may be in for a similar flawed process with the Housing Element Steering Committee process.
Just a few thoughts about the various comments:
Fairfield has about 60 kids (two classrooms, with no class size reduction, and parent participation is required as in a co-op).
The district apparently received about $100,000 less in Title 1 this year than it was expecting, and cuts had to be made midyear. Since Valley Oak has the most Title 1 students, it probably had the biggest shortfall.
Correction: The counselor at Valley Oak is not full time, and the hours will likely be reduced further for next year (so that all EL teachers and aids, and the reading aids are not cut. The number of reading aids has already been reduced from last year).
Nobody wants to see a school close. But I think that people are underestimating the impact opening Korematsu (and loosing all those kids and families with resources) is/will have on Valley Oak. Under the 9 school plan, it is really going to be those kids left at Valley Oak with limited resources who are going to loose out. With 9 schools Valley Oak will not be diverse socio-economically. The poor kids will be concentrated at the poor school.
Just a few thoughts about the various comments:
Fairfield has about 60 kids (two classrooms, with no class size reduction, and parent participation is required as in a co-op).
The district apparently received about $100,000 less in Title 1 this year than it was expecting, and cuts had to be made midyear. Since Valley Oak has the most Title 1 students, it probably had the biggest shortfall.
Correction: The counselor at Valley Oak is not full time, and the hours will likely be reduced further for next year (so that all EL teachers and aids, and the reading aids are not cut. The number of reading aids has already been reduced from last year).
Nobody wants to see a school close. But I think that people are underestimating the impact opening Korematsu (and loosing all those kids and families with resources) is/will have on Valley Oak. Under the 9 school plan, it is really going to be those kids left at Valley Oak with limited resources who are going to loose out. With 9 schools Valley Oak will not be diverse socio-economically. The poor kids will be concentrated at the poor school.
Just a few thoughts about the various comments:
Fairfield has about 60 kids (two classrooms, with no class size reduction, and parent participation is required as in a co-op).
The district apparently received about $100,000 less in Title 1 this year than it was expecting, and cuts had to be made midyear. Since Valley Oak has the most Title 1 students, it probably had the biggest shortfall.
Correction: The counselor at Valley Oak is not full time, and the hours will likely be reduced further for next year (so that all EL teachers and aids, and the reading aids are not cut. The number of reading aids has already been reduced from last year).
Nobody wants to see a school close. But I think that people are underestimating the impact opening Korematsu (and loosing all those kids and families with resources) is/will have on Valley Oak. Under the 9 school plan, it is really going to be those kids left at Valley Oak with limited resources who are going to loose out. With 9 schools Valley Oak will not be diverse socio-economically. The poor kids will be concentrated at the poor school.
Just a few thoughts about the various comments:
Fairfield has about 60 kids (two classrooms, with no class size reduction, and parent participation is required as in a co-op).
The district apparently received about $100,000 less in Title 1 this year than it was expecting, and cuts had to be made midyear. Since Valley Oak has the most Title 1 students, it probably had the biggest shortfall.
Correction: The counselor at Valley Oak is not full time, and the hours will likely be reduced further for next year (so that all EL teachers and aids, and the reading aids are not cut. The number of reading aids has already been reduced from last year).
Nobody wants to see a school close. But I think that people are underestimating the impact opening Korematsu (and loosing all those kids and families with resources) is/will have on Valley Oak. Under the 9 school plan, it is really going to be those kids left at Valley Oak with limited resources who are going to loose out. With 9 schools Valley Oak will not be diverse socio-economically. The poor kids will be concentrated at the poor school.