In his column he presents numbers on the district’s fiscal situation. I both agree and disagree with his findings. And I agree in part with his conclusions.
Let us begin here:
“In the 1997-98 school year, the Davis school district had $4,995 to spend per student in average daily attendance (ADA) revenues. Ten years later, that had grown to $7,972, a 60 percent increase, which equals a compounded annual inflation of 5.33 percent. On top of the ADA money, the district receives funding from other state and federal sources, as well as our local taxes.
Had the ADA revenues simply kept pace with inflation over the past 10 years, our district would have had $6,517 in ADA money per student. That’s $1,455 less per child than we are actually getting and spending.”
He then writes:
“The answer is clear: The school board has been increasing salaries and benefits (for teachers, staff and administrators) at an unsustainable rate.”
And we can pin the culprit to the 2005 and 2006 school years when certificated and classified salaries increased by 7 and 11 percent.
The Vanguard reported on this issue back on July 24, 2008.
The genesis of this problem was a memo sent out by then-Davis Joint Unified Superintendent David Murphy to the Board of Education dated September 20, 2006.
“In this memo are factually incorrect statements that ultimately led the school board to approve a 6.5% teacher pay hike based on claims in it that the district had the funding available over a three-year period to pay for this pay increase. At the time this was a factually incorrect assessment. According to sources however, it is likely that neither the Superintendent nor the interim CBO were aware of this fact.”
The board was told that they would have to use one-time reserves the first year of this pay increase in order to cover the expenditures. After that, monies would become available on an on-going basis to pay for the salary increase. The board was told that this increase would thus only require a one-time use of one-time money. As it turned out, this was not accurate either.
The three-year ongoing fund projection was wrong. There were at least two glaring errors in it.
First, the budget was missing some positions that were being paid $400,000. FCMAT discovered this in their report to the school district.
Second, there were changes to special education funding that were not factored in and this accounted for nearly half a million dollars in expenditures. Both of these errors accounted for $900,000 or just under half of the money spent in the salary increase.
The district would keep itself fiscally solvent and the budget on the positive side by spending the district’s voluntary (as opposed to the state mandated) reserves. As those reserves have become depleted however, the district has run into huge fiscal problems.
What is the root of these problems? According to a board member at that time, the problem largely consisted of problematic budget tracking procedures that were in enacted under Tahir Ahad.
The new board has taken steps to correct this problem.
So when Rich Rifkin writes:
“What needs to be done going forward is some responsible financial planning by the district. Whenever money rolls in – as it did during the housing boom – our school district spends it as if there is no tomorrow. They agree to contracts with huge inflators, under the assumption that the good times will never end. And then when they do end, all they can think of is to raise another parcel tax.
Instead, the school board ought to cap the increase in per-pupil spending on all programs at 3 percent per year, regardless of how much money they get from the state. In good times, this will result in a large surplus. And in bad times, the district will be able to move forward without a crisis or a tax increase.”
I completely agree with Mr. Rifkin’s assessment and I believe that every member of the current school board completely agrees as well. The board has worked very hard since the departure of the former Superintendent and CBO to put the district on sound fiscal footing.
The other point that Mr. Rifkin does not make is that even with the increase of spending over the last 10 years, California and by extension Davis’ schools still have remained substantially below the national average in terms of per pupil spending.
As Michael Hulsizer cites in his recent letter to editor now posted on the Measure W website.
“According to the most current data from the National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Labor Statistics, California schools spend $1,055 less per student than the national average. This means that our Davis schools currently receive $9.1 million annually less than the national average.”
Remember that this below average spending occurs DESPITE the fact that the cost of living in California is considerably higher than in almost all other states.
Mr. Hulsizer writes:
“In September 2007, Stanford University researchers concluded that despite higher costs than almost all other states, California schools are funded 30 percent below the national average and a staggering $5,500 PER STUDENT below schools in New York State. The result is that California schools have the highest student-to-staff ratios (teachers and administrators) in the United States.”
And he concludes:
“While Measure W will not bring Davis schools to the national average, this modest proposal will at least allow our schools to protect several core instructional programs that help our school district arguably be one of the finest in our region, if not the entire state. Moreover, 100% of Measure W funding will go to programs and services for our children.”
I have spent many hours working to understand the city of Davis’ fiscal situation. I have devote many columns to that. I agree here with Rich Rifkin in part in terms of fiscal responsibility. Where I might differ (although perhaps not) is that I believe the district has already taken the steps that Mr. Rifkin recommends to prevent the kind of problems that surfaced back in 2005 and 2006.
Moreover, I also believe that teachers as a whole in this society, are underpaid in terms of the jobs that they perform and the importance of those jobs to our society. The fact is that we have increased their wages and benefits over the last decade. I would argue that is a good thing. The bad thing is that the district prior to 2006 did not have good fiscal management practices. As I have gone into painstaking detail however, those issues have been resolved with both better personnel and better practices as recommended by FCMAT in 2006.
Finally the big picture is that we do not spend nearly enough on education in California, especially when you taken into account cost of living. And we are nowhere near the top in performance.
Davis voters get a chance to do two things. First, they get a chance to keep Davis schools great. And second, they get a chance to renew their commitment to excellence in education. We can find ways to save money in other aspects of our lives. We can hold the line on fiscal discipline in other ways that do not harm our children’s ability to receive a quality education.
What has struck me in this debate is the 90 percent of the things that critics have suggested the district do, the district has already done. The other thing that has struck me in this debate is how many times discredited arguments are repeated with no acknowledgment that they have already been asked and answered. What that tells me is that people are looking for excuses to vote no on this measure rather than reasons to vote yes. That is unfortunate because the end result will be a cutback in the programs that make Davis schools what they are.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
I applaud Rich Rifkin for publically taking an unpopular stand in his editorial. He is expressing much of what many of us feel. Yes, things and people may have changed, but we STILL are burdened with the decisions that have been made in the past…and the perception. I do not understand the details as well as DPD and RR, yet I do watch the Board meetings and it does not appear to me that the Board ‘gets’ it as far as the community’s reluctance to support.
I applaud Rich Rifkin for publically taking an unpopular stand in his editorial. He is expressing much of what many of us feel. Yes, things and people may have changed, but we STILL are burdened with the decisions that have been made in the past…and the perception. I do not understand the details as well as DPD and RR, yet I do watch the Board meetings and it does not appear to me that the Board ‘gets’ it as far as the community’s reluctance to support.
I applaud Rich Rifkin for publically taking an unpopular stand in his editorial. He is expressing much of what many of us feel. Yes, things and people may have changed, but we STILL are burdened with the decisions that have been made in the past…and the perception. I do not understand the details as well as DPD and RR, yet I do watch the Board meetings and it does not appear to me that the Board ‘gets’ it as far as the community’s reluctance to support.
I applaud Rich Rifkin for publically taking an unpopular stand in his editorial. He is expressing much of what many of us feel. Yes, things and people may have changed, but we STILL are burdened with the decisions that have been made in the past…and the perception. I do not understand the details as well as DPD and RR, yet I do watch the Board meetings and it does not appear to me that the Board ‘gets’ it as far as the community’s reluctance to support.
How much is a teacher worth?
During the 2006/2007 school year the average teacher salary in Davis was $63,378 and benefits added roughly 20%. The average Woodland salary was 10% less but benefits were 3% more (23% in Woodaland versus 20% in Davis. The overall average cost of a teacher in Davis is about 7% more than Woodland.
Several factors for into teachers salaries – pay scale, experience and training. I do not have all of the data but I do know that the average Davis teacher has 3 years more experience than the average teacher in Woodland.
If you laid out all of the factors going into salaries you would realize that Davis teachers are not being overpaid – compared with their counterparts throughout the State.
Teacher salaries have risen over the past 10 years and one reason for that is that they were seriously underpaid to start with. Furthermore we decided it was better to educate kids with fewer kids in the class. When you cut class sizes you need more teachers.
If you conclude the teachers are earning what they make then the Rifkin conclusions are wrong. There are two sides to the issue – revenue and spending. For whatever reasons, Davis has not generated a reasonable amount of money for it’s schools. I would not lose sight of spending control but you are fooling yourself if you thing spending is the single problem.
How much is a teacher worth?
During the 2006/2007 school year the average teacher salary in Davis was $63,378 and benefits added roughly 20%. The average Woodland salary was 10% less but benefits were 3% more (23% in Woodaland versus 20% in Davis. The overall average cost of a teacher in Davis is about 7% more than Woodland.
Several factors for into teachers salaries – pay scale, experience and training. I do not have all of the data but I do know that the average Davis teacher has 3 years more experience than the average teacher in Woodland.
If you laid out all of the factors going into salaries you would realize that Davis teachers are not being overpaid – compared with their counterparts throughout the State.
Teacher salaries have risen over the past 10 years and one reason for that is that they were seriously underpaid to start with. Furthermore we decided it was better to educate kids with fewer kids in the class. When you cut class sizes you need more teachers.
If you conclude the teachers are earning what they make then the Rifkin conclusions are wrong. There are two sides to the issue – revenue and spending. For whatever reasons, Davis has not generated a reasonable amount of money for it’s schools. I would not lose sight of spending control but you are fooling yourself if you thing spending is the single problem.
How much is a teacher worth?
During the 2006/2007 school year the average teacher salary in Davis was $63,378 and benefits added roughly 20%. The average Woodland salary was 10% less but benefits were 3% more (23% in Woodaland versus 20% in Davis. The overall average cost of a teacher in Davis is about 7% more than Woodland.
Several factors for into teachers salaries – pay scale, experience and training. I do not have all of the data but I do know that the average Davis teacher has 3 years more experience than the average teacher in Woodland.
If you laid out all of the factors going into salaries you would realize that Davis teachers are not being overpaid – compared with their counterparts throughout the State.
Teacher salaries have risen over the past 10 years and one reason for that is that they were seriously underpaid to start with. Furthermore we decided it was better to educate kids with fewer kids in the class. When you cut class sizes you need more teachers.
If you conclude the teachers are earning what they make then the Rifkin conclusions are wrong. There are two sides to the issue – revenue and spending. For whatever reasons, Davis has not generated a reasonable amount of money for it’s schools. I would not lose sight of spending control but you are fooling yourself if you thing spending is the single problem.
How much is a teacher worth?
During the 2006/2007 school year the average teacher salary in Davis was $63,378 and benefits added roughly 20%. The average Woodland salary was 10% less but benefits were 3% more (23% in Woodaland versus 20% in Davis. The overall average cost of a teacher in Davis is about 7% more than Woodland.
Several factors for into teachers salaries – pay scale, experience and training. I do not have all of the data but I do know that the average Davis teacher has 3 years more experience than the average teacher in Woodland.
If you laid out all of the factors going into salaries you would realize that Davis teachers are not being overpaid – compared with their counterparts throughout the State.
Teacher salaries have risen over the past 10 years and one reason for that is that they were seriously underpaid to start with. Furthermore we decided it was better to educate kids with fewer kids in the class. When you cut class sizes you need more teachers.
If you conclude the teachers are earning what they make then the Rifkin conclusions are wrong. There are two sides to the issue – revenue and spending. For whatever reasons, Davis has not generated a reasonable amount of money for it’s schools. I would not lose sight of spending control but you are fooling yourself if you thing spending is the single problem.
Anonymous 7:52:
I feel that the board does understand the community’s possible reluctance to support. I think they believe there is no other choice. I know I do.
Anonymous 8:08
I agree with you that teachers are not overpaid, I do think it was a mistake that they got as large a raise as they did a couple of years ago, I think that has harmed the district. Not that I don’t think they deserved the raise, but it turned out we could not support it. I agree with Rifkin’s analysis, but not his bottom line. I think we do need to increase our spending, this actually doesn’t increase our spending, it holds it even.
Anonymous 7:52:
I feel that the board does understand the community’s possible reluctance to support. I think they believe there is no other choice. I know I do.
Anonymous 8:08
I agree with you that teachers are not overpaid, I do think it was a mistake that they got as large a raise as they did a couple of years ago, I think that has harmed the district. Not that I don’t think they deserved the raise, but it turned out we could not support it. I agree with Rifkin’s analysis, but not his bottom line. I think we do need to increase our spending, this actually doesn’t increase our spending, it holds it even.
Anonymous 7:52:
I feel that the board does understand the community’s possible reluctance to support. I think they believe there is no other choice. I know I do.
Anonymous 8:08
I agree with you that teachers are not overpaid, I do think it was a mistake that they got as large a raise as they did a couple of years ago, I think that has harmed the district. Not that I don’t think they deserved the raise, but it turned out we could not support it. I agree with Rifkin’s analysis, but not his bottom line. I think we do need to increase our spending, this actually doesn’t increase our spending, it holds it even.
Anonymous 7:52:
I feel that the board does understand the community’s possible reluctance to support. I think they believe there is no other choice. I know I do.
Anonymous 8:08
I agree with you that teachers are not overpaid, I do think it was a mistake that they got as large a raise as they did a couple of years ago, I think that has harmed the district. Not that I don’t think they deserved the raise, but it turned out we could not support it. I agree with Rifkin’s analysis, but not his bottom line. I think we do need to increase our spending, this actually doesn’t increase our spending, it holds it even.
You applaud Rich Rifkin for spewing jibberish every two weeks, there is a reason he only writes twice a month ,his articles are aimed at demeaning whatever he writes about ,with only his one sided views..
One sided views are just that , the worst form of journalism that there is ..
$2.50 a week , thats a no-brainer !!!!
You applaud Rich Rifkin for spewing jibberish every two weeks, there is a reason he only writes twice a month ,his articles are aimed at demeaning whatever he writes about ,with only his one sided views..
One sided views are just that , the worst form of journalism that there is ..
$2.50 a week , thats a no-brainer !!!!
You applaud Rich Rifkin for spewing jibberish every two weeks, there is a reason he only writes twice a month ,his articles are aimed at demeaning whatever he writes about ,with only his one sided views..
One sided views are just that , the worst form of journalism that there is ..
$2.50 a week , thats a no-brainer !!!!
You applaud Rich Rifkin for spewing jibberish every two weeks, there is a reason he only writes twice a month ,his articles are aimed at demeaning whatever he writes about ,with only his one sided views..
One sided views are just that , the worst form of journalism that there is ..
$2.50 a week , thats a no-brainer !!!!
Rifkins analysis is too simplistic since the source of inflation data he uses isn’t articulated. Therefore I assume he is using the data from the commerce department, data that many economists have derided as understated to keep cost of living increases for social security low. A better analysis could be had by looking at the cost of housing or rent inflation in Davis over the same time period.
I could go on if I had more time but the bottom line is that Rifkin believes that public service employees are overpaid in general so it is no surprise that he would have this line of attack.
Rifkins analysis is too simplistic since the source of inflation data he uses isn’t articulated. Therefore I assume he is using the data from the commerce department, data that many economists have derided as understated to keep cost of living increases for social security low. A better analysis could be had by looking at the cost of housing or rent inflation in Davis over the same time period.
I could go on if I had more time but the bottom line is that Rifkin believes that public service employees are overpaid in general so it is no surprise that he would have this line of attack.
Rifkins analysis is too simplistic since the source of inflation data he uses isn’t articulated. Therefore I assume he is using the data from the commerce department, data that many economists have derided as understated to keep cost of living increases for social security low. A better analysis could be had by looking at the cost of housing or rent inflation in Davis over the same time period.
I could go on if I had more time but the bottom line is that Rifkin believes that public service employees are overpaid in general so it is no surprise that he would have this line of attack.
Rifkins analysis is too simplistic since the source of inflation data he uses isn’t articulated. Therefore I assume he is using the data from the commerce department, data that many economists have derided as understated to keep cost of living increases for social security low. A better analysis could be had by looking at the cost of housing or rent inflation in Davis over the same time period.
I could go on if I had more time but the bottom line is that Rifkin believes that public service employees are overpaid in general so it is no surprise that he would have this line of attack.
I just want to know where I can pick up a No on W lawn sign.
I just want to know where I can pick up a No on W lawn sign.
I just want to know where I can pick up a No on W lawn sign.
I just want to know where I can pick up a No on W lawn sign.
Didn’t the Vanguard promote salary increases for teachers at some point in the past before all the money problems in the District became so apparent?
It’s unfortunate that Tahir Ahad has done so much to leave us in the place where we are, but we can’t go back in time and retroactively correct the decisions the 2006 board made. Fiscal conservatism as we go forward is critical, but we still need to support Measure W this year to continue to pay the excellent teachers in our District.
Didn’t the Vanguard promote salary increases for teachers at some point in the past before all the money problems in the District became so apparent?
It’s unfortunate that Tahir Ahad has done so much to leave us in the place where we are, but we can’t go back in time and retroactively correct the decisions the 2006 board made. Fiscal conservatism as we go forward is critical, but we still need to support Measure W this year to continue to pay the excellent teachers in our District.
Didn’t the Vanguard promote salary increases for teachers at some point in the past before all the money problems in the District became so apparent?
It’s unfortunate that Tahir Ahad has done so much to leave us in the place where we are, but we can’t go back in time and retroactively correct the decisions the 2006 board made. Fiscal conservatism as we go forward is critical, but we still need to support Measure W this year to continue to pay the excellent teachers in our District.
Didn’t the Vanguard promote salary increases for teachers at some point in the past before all the money problems in the District became so apparent?
It’s unfortunate that Tahir Ahad has done so much to leave us in the place where we are, but we can’t go back in time and retroactively correct the decisions the 2006 board made. Fiscal conservatism as we go forward is critical, but we still need to support Measure W this year to continue to pay the excellent teachers in our District.
” I just want to know where I can pick up a No on W lawn sign.”
Maybe Rob Roy can paint one for you.
” I just want to know where I can pick up a No on W lawn sign.”
Maybe Rob Roy can paint one for you.
” I just want to know where I can pick up a No on W lawn sign.”
Maybe Rob Roy can paint one for you.
” I just want to know where I can pick up a No on W lawn sign.”
Maybe Rob Roy can paint one for you.
“it does not appear to me that the Board ‘gets’ it as far as the community’s reluctance to support.”
This statement ignores one factor, at least. The board was not uniformly enthusiastic about proposing a parcel tax last spring. But a sizable portion of the community was energetically enthusiastic about a parcel tax. In the end, the board unanimously responded to that sentiment.
“it does not appear to me that the Board ‘gets’ it as far as the community’s reluctance to support.”
This statement ignores one factor, at least. The board was not uniformly enthusiastic about proposing a parcel tax last spring. But a sizable portion of the community was energetically enthusiastic about a parcel tax. In the end, the board unanimously responded to that sentiment.
“it does not appear to me that the Board ‘gets’ it as far as the community’s reluctance to support.”
This statement ignores one factor, at least. The board was not uniformly enthusiastic about proposing a parcel tax last spring. But a sizable portion of the community was energetically enthusiastic about a parcel tax. In the end, the board unanimously responded to that sentiment.
“it does not appear to me that the Board ‘gets’ it as far as the community’s reluctance to support.”
This statement ignores one factor, at least. The board was not uniformly enthusiastic about proposing a parcel tax last spring. But a sizable portion of the community was energetically enthusiastic about a parcel tax. In the end, the board unanimously responded to that sentiment.
That’s a good point, the other point would be all of the polling showing around a 60% initial support for the parcel tax by the public–so there is a segment of the population that may not support it, but it’s about a third of the population. They acknowledged this at the meeting where they agreed to put the parcel tax on the ballot, they are concerned about it. This is what I was talking about when I made the comment that sometimes the statements coming out on this board do not reflect what has actually happened.
That’s a good point, the other point would be all of the polling showing around a 60% initial support for the parcel tax by the public–so there is a segment of the population that may not support it, but it’s about a third of the population. They acknowledged this at the meeting where they agreed to put the parcel tax on the ballot, they are concerned about it. This is what I was talking about when I made the comment that sometimes the statements coming out on this board do not reflect what has actually happened.
That’s a good point, the other point would be all of the polling showing around a 60% initial support for the parcel tax by the public–so there is a segment of the population that may not support it, but it’s about a third of the population. They acknowledged this at the meeting where they agreed to put the parcel tax on the ballot, they are concerned about it. This is what I was talking about when I made the comment that sometimes the statements coming out on this board do not reflect what has actually happened.
That’s a good point, the other point would be all of the polling showing around a 60% initial support for the parcel tax by the public–so there is a segment of the population that may not support it, but it’s about a third of the population. They acknowledged this at the meeting where they agreed to put the parcel tax on the ballot, they are concerned about it. This is what I was talking about when I made the comment that sometimes the statements coming out on this board do not reflect what has actually happened.
“Even with the current salaries that teachers make, I wouldn’t characterize teachers as being overpaid, certainly not compared to firefighters.”
I don’t think teachers are necessarily overpaid (or over-benefitted) in some sort of societal comparison with other jobs. I would we prefer we valued good teachers twice as much as we value prison guards, but in pay the reverse is true.
However, the Davis school board is not charged with answering that kind of philosophical question. It is charged with making contracts which conform with its budgetary constraints. And unfortunately, because they failed to properly control their spending, despite much higher income over the past decade, our district is in a terrible bind right now, and the DTA has refused to budge to help them out of this mess.
“The problem with Rich’s assumptions is that it doesn’t appropriately factor in the cost of housing over the the ten years that he follows the increase.”
If you look up how the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ All-Urban CPI for the Bay Area is calculated — this is the figure used in Davis for inflation — it in fact includes the cost of housing. I am fairly certain that inflation factor is not specific to Davis, though I would guess our housing inflation (1998-2007) is in line with the Bay Area’s…. It is fair to note, though, that since 2006, inflation has been much higher than it was the 8 years prior, housing included. Food and transportation costs are way up, and these are included in the BLS numbers.
I posted the above on the other W thread. I am too busy to write more now, but I’ll respond later this afternoon when I’m done with work.
“Even with the current salaries that teachers make, I wouldn’t characterize teachers as being overpaid, certainly not compared to firefighters.”
I don’t think teachers are necessarily overpaid (or over-benefitted) in some sort of societal comparison with other jobs. I would we prefer we valued good teachers twice as much as we value prison guards, but in pay the reverse is true.
However, the Davis school board is not charged with answering that kind of philosophical question. It is charged with making contracts which conform with its budgetary constraints. And unfortunately, because they failed to properly control their spending, despite much higher income over the past decade, our district is in a terrible bind right now, and the DTA has refused to budge to help them out of this mess.
“The problem with Rich’s assumptions is that it doesn’t appropriately factor in the cost of housing over the the ten years that he follows the increase.”
If you look up how the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ All-Urban CPI for the Bay Area is calculated — this is the figure used in Davis for inflation — it in fact includes the cost of housing. I am fairly certain that inflation factor is not specific to Davis, though I would guess our housing inflation (1998-2007) is in line with the Bay Area’s…. It is fair to note, though, that since 2006, inflation has been much higher than it was the 8 years prior, housing included. Food and transportation costs are way up, and these are included in the BLS numbers.
I posted the above on the other W thread. I am too busy to write more now, but I’ll respond later this afternoon when I’m done with work.
“Even with the current salaries that teachers make, I wouldn’t characterize teachers as being overpaid, certainly not compared to firefighters.”
I don’t think teachers are necessarily overpaid (or over-benefitted) in some sort of societal comparison with other jobs. I would we prefer we valued good teachers twice as much as we value prison guards, but in pay the reverse is true.
However, the Davis school board is not charged with answering that kind of philosophical question. It is charged with making contracts which conform with its budgetary constraints. And unfortunately, because they failed to properly control their spending, despite much higher income over the past decade, our district is in a terrible bind right now, and the DTA has refused to budge to help them out of this mess.
“The problem with Rich’s assumptions is that it doesn’t appropriately factor in the cost of housing over the the ten years that he follows the increase.”
If you look up how the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ All-Urban CPI for the Bay Area is calculated — this is the figure used in Davis for inflation — it in fact includes the cost of housing. I am fairly certain that inflation factor is not specific to Davis, though I would guess our housing inflation (1998-2007) is in line with the Bay Area’s…. It is fair to note, though, that since 2006, inflation has been much higher than it was the 8 years prior, housing included. Food and transportation costs are way up, and these are included in the BLS numbers.
I posted the above on the other W thread. I am too busy to write more now, but I’ll respond later this afternoon when I’m done with work.
“Even with the current salaries that teachers make, I wouldn’t characterize teachers as being overpaid, certainly not compared to firefighters.”
I don’t think teachers are necessarily overpaid (or over-benefitted) in some sort of societal comparison with other jobs. I would we prefer we valued good teachers twice as much as we value prison guards, but in pay the reverse is true.
However, the Davis school board is not charged with answering that kind of philosophical question. It is charged with making contracts which conform with its budgetary constraints. And unfortunately, because they failed to properly control their spending, despite much higher income over the past decade, our district is in a terrible bind right now, and the DTA has refused to budge to help them out of this mess.
“The problem with Rich’s assumptions is that it doesn’t appropriately factor in the cost of housing over the the ten years that he follows the increase.”
If you look up how the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ All-Urban CPI for the Bay Area is calculated — this is the figure used in Davis for inflation — it in fact includes the cost of housing. I am fairly certain that inflation factor is not specific to Davis, though I would guess our housing inflation (1998-2007) is in line with the Bay Area’s…. It is fair to note, though, that since 2006, inflation has been much higher than it was the 8 years prior, housing included. Food and transportation costs are way up, and these are included in the BLS numbers.
I posted the above on the other W thread. I am too busy to write more now, but I’ll respond later this afternoon when I’m done with work.
BLS only uses the cost of rental housing in the Consumer Price Index. Since the cost of renting compared to owning is about 50 to 1in Davis when a more normal ratio is 15 to 1 Rifkin understates the rate of inflation by more than BLS does.
BLS only uses the cost of rental housing in the Consumer Price Index. Since the cost of renting compared to owning is about 50 to 1in Davis when a more normal ratio is 15 to 1 Rifkin understates the rate of inflation by more than BLS does.
BLS only uses the cost of rental housing in the Consumer Price Index. Since the cost of renting compared to owning is about 50 to 1in Davis when a more normal ratio is 15 to 1 Rifkin understates the rate of inflation by more than BLS does.
BLS only uses the cost of rental housing in the Consumer Price Index. Since the cost of renting compared to owning is about 50 to 1in Davis when a more normal ratio is 15 to 1 Rifkin understates the rate of inflation by more than BLS does.
Is Rifkin more conservative than John Munn?
Is Rifkin more conservative than John Munn?
Is Rifkin more conservative than John Munn?
Is Rifkin more conservative than John Munn?
Rich does not consider the impact of smaller class sizes.
If you take two classes with 30 students each and reduce the class size to 20 you automatically need another teacher and therefore a 50%increase in teacher salaries.
Rich does not consider the impact of smaller class sizes.
If you take two classes with 30 students each and reduce the class size to 20 you automatically need another teacher and therefore a 50%increase in teacher salaries.
Rich does not consider the impact of smaller class sizes.
If you take two classes with 30 students each and reduce the class size to 20 you automatically need another teacher and therefore a 50%increase in teacher salaries.
Rich does not consider the impact of smaller class sizes.
If you take two classes with 30 students each and reduce the class size to 20 you automatically need another teacher and therefore a 50%increase in teacher salaries.
I don’t often find myself in agreement with Rich Rifkin, but this time he is right. And no, I’m not an old, male, childless, conservative, kid-hater. I’m a left-leaning, mother of two who did support Measure Q, but has had enough.
The school district and the citizens of Davis will not learn to make wise spending choices if we keep handing over more and more money. Yes, it’s only a bit here and a bit there, but it adds up.
I don’t often find myself in agreement with Rich Rifkin, but this time he is right. And no, I’m not an old, male, childless, conservative, kid-hater. I’m a left-leaning, mother of two who did support Measure Q, but has had enough.
The school district and the citizens of Davis will not learn to make wise spending choices if we keep handing over more and more money. Yes, it’s only a bit here and a bit there, but it adds up.
I don’t often find myself in agreement with Rich Rifkin, but this time he is right. And no, I’m not an old, male, childless, conservative, kid-hater. I’m a left-leaning, mother of two who did support Measure Q, but has had enough.
The school district and the citizens of Davis will not learn to make wise spending choices if we keep handing over more and more money. Yes, it’s only a bit here and a bit there, but it adds up.
I don’t often find myself in agreement with Rich Rifkin, but this time he is right. And no, I’m not an old, male, childless, conservative, kid-hater. I’m a left-leaning, mother of two who did support Measure Q, but has had enough.
The school district and the citizens of Davis will not learn to make wise spending choices if we keep handing over more and more money. Yes, it’s only a bit here and a bit there, but it adds up.
“I could go on if I had more time but the bottom line is that Rifkin believes that public service employees are overpaid in general so it is no surprise that he would have this line of attack.”
I work for the university, so I am a public employee. I think the real question, which Rich has raised, is whether the school district or any other unit of government has been responsible in how it has allocated the public’s money. If society wants teachers or other public employees to make more money, then let’s have a vote on that and we can pass a tax to pay for it. That isn’t the question we are considering with Measure W. The question is how and why did the school board in Davis give such large raises the last few years without the money to pay for them? Since the board seems to have acted irresponsibly with our money, I am having trouble seeing how it makes sense for me to vote for a new tax to bail the district out of the trouble it should have avoided.
“I could go on if I had more time but the bottom line is that Rifkin believes that public service employees are overpaid in general so it is no surprise that he would have this line of attack.”
I work for the university, so I am a public employee. I think the real question, which Rich has raised, is whether the school district or any other unit of government has been responsible in how it has allocated the public’s money. If society wants teachers or other public employees to make more money, then let’s have a vote on that and we can pass a tax to pay for it. That isn’t the question we are considering with Measure W. The question is how and why did the school board in Davis give such large raises the last few years without the money to pay for them? Since the board seems to have acted irresponsibly with our money, I am having trouble seeing how it makes sense for me to vote for a new tax to bail the district out of the trouble it should have avoided.
“I could go on if I had more time but the bottom line is that Rifkin believes that public service employees are overpaid in general so it is no surprise that he would have this line of attack.”
I work for the university, so I am a public employee. I think the real question, which Rich has raised, is whether the school district or any other unit of government has been responsible in how it has allocated the public’s money. If society wants teachers or other public employees to make more money, then let’s have a vote on that and we can pass a tax to pay for it. That isn’t the question we are considering with Measure W. The question is how and why did the school board in Davis give such large raises the last few years without the money to pay for them? Since the board seems to have acted irresponsibly with our money, I am having trouble seeing how it makes sense for me to vote for a new tax to bail the district out of the trouble it should have avoided.
“I could go on if I had more time but the bottom line is that Rifkin believes that public service employees are overpaid in general so it is no surprise that he would have this line of attack.”
I work for the university, so I am a public employee. I think the real question, which Rich has raised, is whether the school district or any other unit of government has been responsible in how it has allocated the public’s money. If society wants teachers or other public employees to make more money, then let’s have a vote on that and we can pass a tax to pay for it. That isn’t the question we are considering with Measure W. The question is how and why did the school board in Davis give such large raises the last few years without the money to pay for them? Since the board seems to have acted irresponsibly with our money, I am having trouble seeing how it makes sense for me to vote for a new tax to bail the district out of the trouble it should have avoided.
“The question is how and why did the school board in Davis give such large raises the last few years without the money to pay for them?”
I think DPD lays it out in this article, i.e. Supt. Murphy told the board based on information Ahad had given him, that they did in fact have the money to pay for them.
They made a decision based on faulty information. The books have now been cleared up and they have the correct information.
Refusing to fund the currently employed teachers by failing to pass W is an attempt to punish two people who are no longer at the district (Murphy and Ahad), and instead inadvertently punishing the kids who didn’t have any part in this mess.
“The question is how and why did the school board in Davis give such large raises the last few years without the money to pay for them?”
I think DPD lays it out in this article, i.e. Supt. Murphy told the board based on information Ahad had given him, that they did in fact have the money to pay for them.
They made a decision based on faulty information. The books have now been cleared up and they have the correct information.
Refusing to fund the currently employed teachers by failing to pass W is an attempt to punish two people who are no longer at the district (Murphy and Ahad), and instead inadvertently punishing the kids who didn’t have any part in this mess.
“The question is how and why did the school board in Davis give such large raises the last few years without the money to pay for them?”
I think DPD lays it out in this article, i.e. Supt. Murphy told the board based on information Ahad had given him, that they did in fact have the money to pay for them.
They made a decision based on faulty information. The books have now been cleared up and they have the correct information.
Refusing to fund the currently employed teachers by failing to pass W is an attempt to punish two people who are no longer at the district (Murphy and Ahad), and instead inadvertently punishing the kids who didn’t have any part in this mess.
“The question is how and why did the school board in Davis give such large raises the last few years without the money to pay for them?”
I think DPD lays it out in this article, i.e. Supt. Murphy told the board based on information Ahad had given him, that they did in fact have the money to pay for them.
They made a decision based on faulty information. The books have now been cleared up and they have the correct information.
Refusing to fund the currently employed teachers by failing to pass W is an attempt to punish two people who are no longer at the district (Murphy and Ahad), and instead inadvertently punishing the kids who didn’t have any part in this mess.
The board has worked very hard since the departure of the former Superintendent and CBO to put the district on sound fiscal footing.
the only thing the board works at is “the price is right” on measure Q and measure W.
with all of the time they spend holding their collective hands out, they could be getting us on track.
The board has worked very hard since the departure of the former Superintendent and CBO to put the district on sound fiscal footing.
the only thing the board works at is “the price is right” on measure Q and measure W.
with all of the time they spend holding their collective hands out, they could be getting us on track.
The board has worked very hard since the departure of the former Superintendent and CBO to put the district on sound fiscal footing.
the only thing the board works at is “the price is right” on measure Q and measure W.
with all of the time they spend holding their collective hands out, they could be getting us on track.
The board has worked very hard since the departure of the former Superintendent and CBO to put the district on sound fiscal footing.
the only thing the board works at is “the price is right” on measure Q and measure W.
with all of the time they spend holding their collective hands out, they could be getting us on track.
The school district and the citizens of Davis will not learn to make wise spending choices if we keep handing over more and more money. Yes, it’s only a bit here and a bit there, but it adds up.
couldn’t agree more! good response to “its only $10, you can afford it.”
The school district and the citizens of Davis will not learn to make wise spending choices if we keep handing over more and more money. Yes, it’s only a bit here and a bit there, but it adds up.
couldn’t agree more! good response to “its only $10, you can afford it.”
The school district and the citizens of Davis will not learn to make wise spending choices if we keep handing over more and more money. Yes, it’s only a bit here and a bit there, but it adds up.
couldn’t agree more! good response to “its only $10, you can afford it.”
The school district and the citizens of Davis will not learn to make wise spending choices if we keep handing over more and more money. Yes, it’s only a bit here and a bit there, but it adds up.
couldn’t agree more! good response to “its only $10, you can afford it.”
“Refusing to fund the currently employed teachers by failing to pass W is an attempt to punish two people who are no longer at the district (Murphy and Ahad), and instead inadvertently punishing the kids who didn’t have any part in this mess.”
The DTA is still in Davis, yet the DTA has refused to modify the pay raise they got that the district can’t pay for. It seems to me that if the teachers union cared as much about education as they care about an 11% pay increase, they would reopen talks with the district on their contract. If the DTA did that, no teachers would lose their jobs. The problem is the DTA would rather have 50 teachers fired and our kids harmed than have the highest paid teachers lose their 11% raise. As long as that is the attitude of the union, I am voting No on W.
“Refusing to fund the currently employed teachers by failing to pass W is an attempt to punish two people who are no longer at the district (Murphy and Ahad), and instead inadvertently punishing the kids who didn’t have any part in this mess.”
The DTA is still in Davis, yet the DTA has refused to modify the pay raise they got that the district can’t pay for. It seems to me that if the teachers union cared as much about education as they care about an 11% pay increase, they would reopen talks with the district on their contract. If the DTA did that, no teachers would lose their jobs. The problem is the DTA would rather have 50 teachers fired and our kids harmed than have the highest paid teachers lose their 11% raise. As long as that is the attitude of the union, I am voting No on W.
“Refusing to fund the currently employed teachers by failing to pass W is an attempt to punish two people who are no longer at the district (Murphy and Ahad), and instead inadvertently punishing the kids who didn’t have any part in this mess.”
The DTA is still in Davis, yet the DTA has refused to modify the pay raise they got that the district can’t pay for. It seems to me that if the teachers union cared as much about education as they care about an 11% pay increase, they would reopen talks with the district on their contract. If the DTA did that, no teachers would lose their jobs. The problem is the DTA would rather have 50 teachers fired and our kids harmed than have the highest paid teachers lose their 11% raise. As long as that is the attitude of the union, I am voting No on W.
“Refusing to fund the currently employed teachers by failing to pass W is an attempt to punish two people who are no longer at the district (Murphy and Ahad), and instead inadvertently punishing the kids who didn’t have any part in this mess.”
The DTA is still in Davis, yet the DTA has refused to modify the pay raise they got that the district can’t pay for. It seems to me that if the teachers union cared as much about education as they care about an 11% pay increase, they would reopen talks with the district on their contract. If the DTA did that, no teachers would lose their jobs. The problem is the DTA would rather have 50 teachers fired and our kids harmed than have the highest paid teachers lose their 11% raise. As long as that is the attitude of the union, I am voting No on W.
Let me get this straight “Bob” rather than paying $120 additional per year, you would rather teachers take an 11% paycut, which is something on the order of $6000 per year? It seems to me, that you can live without that $120 far easier than they can live with a 10% paycut.
Let me get this straight “Bob” rather than paying $120 additional per year, you would rather teachers take an 11% paycut, which is something on the order of $6000 per year? It seems to me, that you can live without that $120 far easier than they can live with a 10% paycut.
Let me get this straight “Bob” rather than paying $120 additional per year, you would rather teachers take an 11% paycut, which is something on the order of $6000 per year? It seems to me, that you can live without that $120 far easier than they can live with a 10% paycut.
Let me get this straight “Bob” rather than paying $120 additional per year, you would rather teachers take an 11% paycut, which is something on the order of $6000 per year? It seems to me, that you can live without that $120 far easier than they can live with a 10% paycut.
“I work for the university, so I am a public employee. I think the real question, which Rich has raised, is whether the school district or any other unit of government has been responsible in how it has allocated the public’s money.”
One thing left out of this discussion has been state funding. The fact is, the state has cut back because the economy is bad. If the economy was better (and accordingly more state funding available) there would be no need to the new parcel tax.
UC manages to keep going during hard times by raising tuition. The school district can not do that. I do not remember any UCD employees offering to give back part of their salaries the last time tuitions were raised.
“I work for the university, so I am a public employee. I think the real question, which Rich has raised, is whether the school district or any other unit of government has been responsible in how it has allocated the public’s money.”
One thing left out of this discussion has been state funding. The fact is, the state has cut back because the economy is bad. If the economy was better (and accordingly more state funding available) there would be no need to the new parcel tax.
UC manages to keep going during hard times by raising tuition. The school district can not do that. I do not remember any UCD employees offering to give back part of their salaries the last time tuitions were raised.
“I work for the university, so I am a public employee. I think the real question, which Rich has raised, is whether the school district or any other unit of government has been responsible in how it has allocated the public’s money.”
One thing left out of this discussion has been state funding. The fact is, the state has cut back because the economy is bad. If the economy was better (and accordingly more state funding available) there would be no need to the new parcel tax.
UC manages to keep going during hard times by raising tuition. The school district can not do that. I do not remember any UCD employees offering to give back part of their salaries the last time tuitions were raised.
“I work for the university, so I am a public employee. I think the real question, which Rich has raised, is whether the school district or any other unit of government has been responsible in how it has allocated the public’s money.”
One thing left out of this discussion has been state funding. The fact is, the state has cut back because the economy is bad. If the economy was better (and accordingly more state funding available) there would be no need to the new parcel tax.
UC manages to keep going during hard times by raising tuition. The school district can not do that. I do not remember any UCD employees offering to give back part of their salaries the last time tuitions were raised.
“The school district and the citizens of Davis will not learn to make wise spending choices if we keep handing over more and more money.”
What evidence do you have that they haven’t learned to spend wisely?
“The school district and the citizens of Davis will not learn to make wise spending choices if we keep handing over more and more money.”
What evidence do you have that they haven’t learned to spend wisely?
“The school district and the citizens of Davis will not learn to make wise spending choices if we keep handing over more and more money.”
What evidence do you have that they haven’t learned to spend wisely?
“The school district and the citizens of Davis will not learn to make wise spending choices if we keep handing over more and more money.”
What evidence do you have that they haven’t learned to spend wisely?
This blog is usually taken over by Rifkin’s verbosity. It adds little substance, but does take up more time to read it all. He doesn’t add any value, however.
Answer to previous deleted question: A sandwich is not a tool.
This blog is usually taken over by Rifkin’s verbosity. It adds little substance, but does take up more time to read it all. He doesn’t add any value, however.
Answer to previous deleted question: A sandwich is not a tool.
This blog is usually taken over by Rifkin’s verbosity. It adds little substance, but does take up more time to read it all. He doesn’t add any value, however.
Answer to previous deleted question: A sandwich is not a tool.
This blog is usually taken over by Rifkin’s verbosity. It adds little substance, but does take up more time to read it all. He doesn’t add any value, however.
Answer to previous deleted question: A sandwich is not a tool.
When your as busy as Rich Rifkin is, writing 2 articles a month, it leaves him a lot of time to spew one sided stories like “Jona Jamison of the Daily Bugle ” .
Bob Dunning who writes 6 articles a week ,is the best newsperson in this town, a true “Clark Kent ” of a writer…
$ 2.50 a week , what a deal compared to 800 billion !
When your as busy as Rich Rifkin is, writing 2 articles a month, it leaves him a lot of time to spew one sided stories like “Jona Jamison of the Daily Bugle ” .
Bob Dunning who writes 6 articles a week ,is the best newsperson in this town, a true “Clark Kent ” of a writer…
$ 2.50 a week , what a deal compared to 800 billion !
When your as busy as Rich Rifkin is, writing 2 articles a month, it leaves him a lot of time to spew one sided stories like “Jona Jamison of the Daily Bugle ” .
Bob Dunning who writes 6 articles a week ,is the best newsperson in this town, a true “Clark Kent ” of a writer…
$ 2.50 a week , what a deal compared to 800 billion !
When your as busy as Rich Rifkin is, writing 2 articles a month, it leaves him a lot of time to spew one sided stories like “Jona Jamison of the Daily Bugle ” .
Bob Dunning who writes 6 articles a week ,is the best newsperson in this town, a true “Clark Kent ” of a writer…
$ 2.50 a week , what a deal compared to 800 billion !
There is really nothing out here that hasn’t been worked over before. For instance, this past spring, Richard Harris himself suggested that the teachers forego their recent increases.
He was roundly criticized on this blog for making that suggestion.
And salary increases are not the only factor that is affecting the district budget. But it is the one that Rifkin is focusing on for now.
Some comments here blame the DTA as if somehow it is separate from the individual teachers we love. They are one and the same. Maybe not all teachers are in agreement w/ DTA decisions, but the organization responds to the interests of the members.
Asking teachers to cut back on salaries puts a serious pinch on an already underpaid profession. Teachers trying to pay mortgages, cover health costs, etc. At least a couple of teachers in the district have already had to deal with foreclosure on their homes.
Based on what we saw this spring, the board has already given a good indication of what they will consider to balance the budget — consolidate (close schools) and cut programs and teachers. Probably a combination.
Some of these programs considered for cuts will probably cost a little more to start up again — hiring new teachers, loss of continuity, loss of momentum. This is not pure speculation. This happened before during the cuts associated with Prop. 13.
Elementary music was cut in Davis. Within 2-3 years the JH music program was decimated because very few elementary kids had the background to participate. 5-6 years later the HS music program was decimated because there weren’t very many JH kids coming in. At one point the DHS band was down to 15-20 students in the mid-1980’s. This year it is ~150 students in three classes; what a bargain of a student-teacher ratio!
Fred Lange, current DHS band director, started in the district when the district started up the music program again. He and others have gone on to build the reputation of the music program in the district. It would be a supreme irony if, as he approaches retirement, he watches the program collapse to the point where he started.
In voting down Measure W, no matter what you do, it will be the kids’ education that suffers, and it will be the least affluent families in Davis who will least be able to compensate for those losses.
There is really nothing out here that hasn’t been worked over before. For instance, this past spring, Richard Harris himself suggested that the teachers forego their recent increases.
He was roundly criticized on this blog for making that suggestion.
And salary increases are not the only factor that is affecting the district budget. But it is the one that Rifkin is focusing on for now.
Some comments here blame the DTA as if somehow it is separate from the individual teachers we love. They are one and the same. Maybe not all teachers are in agreement w/ DTA decisions, but the organization responds to the interests of the members.
Asking teachers to cut back on salaries puts a serious pinch on an already underpaid profession. Teachers trying to pay mortgages, cover health costs, etc. At least a couple of teachers in the district have already had to deal with foreclosure on their homes.
Based on what we saw this spring, the board has already given a good indication of what they will consider to balance the budget — consolidate (close schools) and cut programs and teachers. Probably a combination.
Some of these programs considered for cuts will probably cost a little more to start up again — hiring new teachers, loss of continuity, loss of momentum. This is not pure speculation. This happened before during the cuts associated with Prop. 13.
Elementary music was cut in Davis. Within 2-3 years the JH music program was decimated because very few elementary kids had the background to participate. 5-6 years later the HS music program was decimated because there weren’t very many JH kids coming in. At one point the DHS band was down to 15-20 students in the mid-1980’s. This year it is ~150 students in three classes; what a bargain of a student-teacher ratio!
Fred Lange, current DHS band director, started in the district when the district started up the music program again. He and others have gone on to build the reputation of the music program in the district. It would be a supreme irony if, as he approaches retirement, he watches the program collapse to the point where he started.
In voting down Measure W, no matter what you do, it will be the kids’ education that suffers, and it will be the least affluent families in Davis who will least be able to compensate for those losses.
There is really nothing out here that hasn’t been worked over before. For instance, this past spring, Richard Harris himself suggested that the teachers forego their recent increases.
He was roundly criticized on this blog for making that suggestion.
And salary increases are not the only factor that is affecting the district budget. But it is the one that Rifkin is focusing on for now.
Some comments here blame the DTA as if somehow it is separate from the individual teachers we love. They are one and the same. Maybe not all teachers are in agreement w/ DTA decisions, but the organization responds to the interests of the members.
Asking teachers to cut back on salaries puts a serious pinch on an already underpaid profession. Teachers trying to pay mortgages, cover health costs, etc. At least a couple of teachers in the district have already had to deal with foreclosure on their homes.
Based on what we saw this spring, the board has already given a good indication of what they will consider to balance the budget — consolidate (close schools) and cut programs and teachers. Probably a combination.
Some of these programs considered for cuts will probably cost a little more to start up again — hiring new teachers, loss of continuity, loss of momentum. This is not pure speculation. This happened before during the cuts associated with Prop. 13.
Elementary music was cut in Davis. Within 2-3 years the JH music program was decimated because very few elementary kids had the background to participate. 5-6 years later the HS music program was decimated because there weren’t very many JH kids coming in. At one point the DHS band was down to 15-20 students in the mid-1980’s. This year it is ~150 students in three classes; what a bargain of a student-teacher ratio!
Fred Lange, current DHS band director, started in the district when the district started up the music program again. He and others have gone on to build the reputation of the music program in the district. It would be a supreme irony if, as he approaches retirement, he watches the program collapse to the point where he started.
In voting down Measure W, no matter what you do, it will be the kids’ education that suffers, and it will be the least affluent families in Davis who will least be able to compensate for those losses.
There is really nothing out here that hasn’t been worked over before. For instance, this past spring, Richard Harris himself suggested that the teachers forego their recent increases.
He was roundly criticized on this blog for making that suggestion.
And salary increases are not the only factor that is affecting the district budget. But it is the one that Rifkin is focusing on for now.
Some comments here blame the DTA as if somehow it is separate from the individual teachers we love. They are one and the same. Maybe not all teachers are in agreement w/ DTA decisions, but the organization responds to the interests of the members.
Asking teachers to cut back on salaries puts a serious pinch on an already underpaid profession. Teachers trying to pay mortgages, cover health costs, etc. At least a couple of teachers in the district have already had to deal with foreclosure on their homes.
Based on what we saw this spring, the board has already given a good indication of what they will consider to balance the budget — consolidate (close schools) and cut programs and teachers. Probably a combination.
Some of these programs considered for cuts will probably cost a little more to start up again — hiring new teachers, loss of continuity, loss of momentum. This is not pure speculation. This happened before during the cuts associated with Prop. 13.
Elementary music was cut in Davis. Within 2-3 years the JH music program was decimated because very few elementary kids had the background to participate. 5-6 years later the HS music program was decimated because there weren’t very many JH kids coming in. At one point the DHS band was down to 15-20 students in the mid-1980’s. This year it is ~150 students in three classes; what a bargain of a student-teacher ratio!
Fred Lange, current DHS band director, started in the district when the district started up the music program again. He and others have gone on to build the reputation of the music program in the district. It would be a supreme irony if, as he approaches retirement, he watches the program collapse to the point where he started.
In voting down Measure W, no matter what you do, it will be the kids’ education that suffers, and it will be the least affluent families in Davis who will least be able to compensate for those losses.
“Since the cost of renting compared to owning is about 50 to 1in Davis when a more normal ratio is 15 to 1 Rifkin understates the rate of inflation by more than BLS does.”
While I doubt your specific numbers, your point is well taken and is a good indicator that home prices in our region likely will have to keep coming down.
If you click on this link to Fortune Magazine, it reports that our regional Price/Rent ratio (in June, 2007) was 28.7:1, while the 15 year average for our area is 19.4:1. What that suggests is that our area should expect a 32.2 percent correction, adjusting rents up and prices down in some combination.
Nevertheless, the price of rents is the correct measure of inflation, not the price of an investment. The question is how much it costs to live, not how much an investment is worth.
Here is what the BLS says about this question:
“Until 1983, the CPI measure of homeowner cost was based largely on house prices. The long-recognized flaw of that approach was that owner-occupied housing combines both consumption and investment elements, and the CPI is designed to exclude investment items. The approach now used in the CPI, called rental equivalence, measures the value of shelter to owner-occupants as the amount they forgo by not renting out their homes.
The rental equivalence approach is grounded in economic theory, receives broad support from academic economists and each of the prominent panels, and agencies that have reviewed the CPI, and is the most commonly used method by countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Critics often assume that the BLS adopted rental equivalence in order to lower the measured rate of inflation. It is certainly true that an index based on home prices would be more volatile, and might move differently from other CPI indexes over any given time period. However, when it was first introduced, rental equivalence actually increased the rate of change of the CPI shelter index, and in the long run there is no evidence that the CPI method yields lower inflation rates than some other alternatives. For example, according to the National Association of Realtors, between 1983 and 2007 the monthly principal and interest payment required to purchase a median-priced existing home in the United States rose by 79 percent, much less than the rental equivalence increase of 140 percent over that same period.”
“Since the cost of renting compared to owning is about 50 to 1in Davis when a more normal ratio is 15 to 1 Rifkin understates the rate of inflation by more than BLS does.”
While I doubt your specific numbers, your point is well taken and is a good indicator that home prices in our region likely will have to keep coming down.
If you click on this link to Fortune Magazine, it reports that our regional Price/Rent ratio (in June, 2007) was 28.7:1, while the 15 year average for our area is 19.4:1. What that suggests is that our area should expect a 32.2 percent correction, adjusting rents up and prices down in some combination.
Nevertheless, the price of rents is the correct measure of inflation, not the price of an investment. The question is how much it costs to live, not how much an investment is worth.
Here is what the BLS says about this question:
“Until 1983, the CPI measure of homeowner cost was based largely on house prices. The long-recognized flaw of that approach was that owner-occupied housing combines both consumption and investment elements, and the CPI is designed to exclude investment items. The approach now used in the CPI, called rental equivalence, measures the value of shelter to owner-occupants as the amount they forgo by not renting out their homes.
The rental equivalence approach is grounded in economic theory, receives broad support from academic economists and each of the prominent panels, and agencies that have reviewed the CPI, and is the most commonly used method by countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Critics often assume that the BLS adopted rental equivalence in order to lower the measured rate of inflation. It is certainly true that an index based on home prices would be more volatile, and might move differently from other CPI indexes over any given time period. However, when it was first introduced, rental equivalence actually increased the rate of change of the CPI shelter index, and in the long run there is no evidence that the CPI method yields lower inflation rates than some other alternatives. For example, according to the National Association of Realtors, between 1983 and 2007 the monthly principal and interest payment required to purchase a median-priced existing home in the United States rose by 79 percent, much less than the rental equivalence increase of 140 percent over that same period.”
“Since the cost of renting compared to owning is about 50 to 1in Davis when a more normal ratio is 15 to 1 Rifkin understates the rate of inflation by more than BLS does.”
While I doubt your specific numbers, your point is well taken and is a good indicator that home prices in our region likely will have to keep coming down.
If you click on this link to Fortune Magazine, it reports that our regional Price/Rent ratio (in June, 2007) was 28.7:1, while the 15 year average for our area is 19.4:1. What that suggests is that our area should expect a 32.2 percent correction, adjusting rents up and prices down in some combination.
Nevertheless, the price of rents is the correct measure of inflation, not the price of an investment. The question is how much it costs to live, not how much an investment is worth.
Here is what the BLS says about this question:
“Until 1983, the CPI measure of homeowner cost was based largely on house prices. The long-recognized flaw of that approach was that owner-occupied housing combines both consumption and investment elements, and the CPI is designed to exclude investment items. The approach now used in the CPI, called rental equivalence, measures the value of shelter to owner-occupants as the amount they forgo by not renting out their homes.
The rental equivalence approach is grounded in economic theory, receives broad support from academic economists and each of the prominent panels, and agencies that have reviewed the CPI, and is the most commonly used method by countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Critics often assume that the BLS adopted rental equivalence in order to lower the measured rate of inflation. It is certainly true that an index based on home prices would be more volatile, and might move differently from other CPI indexes over any given time period. However, when it was first introduced, rental equivalence actually increased the rate of change of the CPI shelter index, and in the long run there is no evidence that the CPI method yields lower inflation rates than some other alternatives. For example, according to the National Association of Realtors, between 1983 and 2007 the monthly principal and interest payment required to purchase a median-priced existing home in the United States rose by 79 percent, much less than the rental equivalence increase of 140 percent over that same period.”
“Since the cost of renting compared to owning is about 50 to 1in Davis when a more normal ratio is 15 to 1 Rifkin understates the rate of inflation by more than BLS does.”
While I doubt your specific numbers, your point is well taken and is a good indicator that home prices in our region likely will have to keep coming down.
If you click on this link to Fortune Magazine, it reports that our regional Price/Rent ratio (in June, 2007) was 28.7:1, while the 15 year average for our area is 19.4:1. What that suggests is that our area should expect a 32.2 percent correction, adjusting rents up and prices down in some combination.
Nevertheless, the price of rents is the correct measure of inflation, not the price of an investment. The question is how much it costs to live, not how much an investment is worth.
Here is what the BLS says about this question:
“Until 1983, the CPI measure of homeowner cost was based largely on house prices. The long-recognized flaw of that approach was that owner-occupied housing combines both consumption and investment elements, and the CPI is designed to exclude investment items. The approach now used in the CPI, called rental equivalence, measures the value of shelter to owner-occupants as the amount they forgo by not renting out their homes.
The rental equivalence approach is grounded in economic theory, receives broad support from academic economists and each of the prominent panels, and agencies that have reviewed the CPI, and is the most commonly used method by countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Critics often assume that the BLS adopted rental equivalence in order to lower the measured rate of inflation. It is certainly true that an index based on home prices would be more volatile, and might move differently from other CPI indexes over any given time period. However, when it was first introduced, rental equivalence actually increased the rate of change of the CPI shelter index, and in the long run there is no evidence that the CPI method yields lower inflation rates than some other alternatives. For example, according to the National Association of Realtors, between 1983 and 2007 the monthly principal and interest payment required to purchase a median-priced existing home in the United States rose by 79 percent, much less than the rental equivalence increase of 140 percent over that same period.”
“When you’re as busy as Rich Rifkin is, writing 2 articles a month, it leaves him a lot of time to spew one sided stories like ‘Jona Jamison of the Daily Bugle.'”
I’m not familiar with Jona Jamison.
“Bob Dunning who writes 6 articles a week, is the best newsperson in this town, a true “Clark Kent ” of a writer…”
No one admires Bob Dunning more than I do. He is the best. And of course, for those of us who have been around Davis for a long time, Bob isn’t just a great journalist and humorist — he was the best tennis player in Davis for many years. I have fond memories of his match with the Sugar Daddy, Bobby Riggs.
“When you’re as busy as Rich Rifkin is, writing 2 articles a month, it leaves him a lot of time to spew one sided stories like ‘Jona Jamison of the Daily Bugle.'”
I’m not familiar with Jona Jamison.
“Bob Dunning who writes 6 articles a week, is the best newsperson in this town, a true “Clark Kent ” of a writer…”
No one admires Bob Dunning more than I do. He is the best. And of course, for those of us who have been around Davis for a long time, Bob isn’t just a great journalist and humorist — he was the best tennis player in Davis for many years. I have fond memories of his match with the Sugar Daddy, Bobby Riggs.
“When you’re as busy as Rich Rifkin is, writing 2 articles a month, it leaves him a lot of time to spew one sided stories like ‘Jona Jamison of the Daily Bugle.'”
I’m not familiar with Jona Jamison.
“Bob Dunning who writes 6 articles a week, is the best newsperson in this town, a true “Clark Kent ” of a writer…”
No one admires Bob Dunning more than I do. He is the best. And of course, for those of us who have been around Davis for a long time, Bob isn’t just a great journalist and humorist — he was the best tennis player in Davis for many years. I have fond memories of his match with the Sugar Daddy, Bobby Riggs.
“When you’re as busy as Rich Rifkin is, writing 2 articles a month, it leaves him a lot of time to spew one sided stories like ‘Jona Jamison of the Daily Bugle.'”
I’m not familiar with Jona Jamison.
“Bob Dunning who writes 6 articles a week, is the best newsperson in this town, a true “Clark Kent ” of a writer…”
No one admires Bob Dunning more than I do. He is the best. And of course, for those of us who have been around Davis for a long time, Bob isn’t just a great journalist and humorist — he was the best tennis player in Davis for many years. I have fond memories of his match with the Sugar Daddy, Bobby Riggs.
The school board is required to pass a balanced budget. The district is required to make projections two years into the future. There is nothing out there right now that indicates a balanced budget without Measure W for those two years.
If you deem the school board to be at fault, the most effective action would be to vote in new, acceptable members in the next school board election in November 2009.
Of course the rental vs owner ratio is only one variable that makes the inflation numbers understated. There is also the Price Deflator as well. My point is that there is little reason to think that the Consumer Price Index is an accurate reflection of the inflation rate. Additionally, I don’t think Rifkin included a regression adjustment for the local variation from the Bay Area.
At any rate, Rifkin is always attacking the teachers, this time for their raise, last time suggesting they give up their medical benefits. One thing he leaves out is that Davis got about the same amount, on a percentage basis, as all the other districts when Arnold used the state budget like a cash cow to get re-elected. In doing so he is pointing the finger at the wrong people, the teachers.
He also seems to miss what is really the point of measure W which is essentially a bridge loan to help the district downsize over time without making too many painful cuts in too short a time frame. Even the conservative Taxpayers Association understands this as stated by John Munn when he claimed their support can not be counted on going forward.
Last year the district got saved by the Schools Foundation and this year they hope to bridge the gap with W. But W only lasts a few years and the district will continue downsizing through attrition and retirement. If you vote down W it will be hard for the Schools Foundation to come up with another 1.8 million and your schools are going to take a huge hit making cuts faster than most people would like to see.
The school board is required to pass a balanced budget. The district is required to make projections two years into the future. There is nothing out there right now that indicates a balanced budget without Measure W for those two years.
If you deem the school board to be at fault, the most effective action would be to vote in new, acceptable members in the next school board election in November 2009.
Of course the rental vs owner ratio is only one variable that makes the inflation numbers understated. There is also the Price Deflator as well. My point is that there is little reason to think that the Consumer Price Index is an accurate reflection of the inflation rate. Additionally, I don’t think Rifkin included a regression adjustment for the local variation from the Bay Area.
At any rate, Rifkin is always attacking the teachers, this time for their raise, last time suggesting they give up their medical benefits. One thing he leaves out is that Davis got about the same amount, on a percentage basis, as all the other districts when Arnold used the state budget like a cash cow to get re-elected. In doing so he is pointing the finger at the wrong people, the teachers.
He also seems to miss what is really the point of measure W which is essentially a bridge loan to help the district downsize over time without making too many painful cuts in too short a time frame. Even the conservative Taxpayers Association understands this as stated by John Munn when he claimed their support can not be counted on going forward.
Last year the district got saved by the Schools Foundation and this year they hope to bridge the gap with W. But W only lasts a few years and the district will continue downsizing through attrition and retirement. If you vote down W it will be hard for the Schools Foundation to come up with another 1.8 million and your schools are going to take a huge hit making cuts faster than most people would like to see.
The school board is required to pass a balanced budget. The district is required to make projections two years into the future. There is nothing out there right now that indicates a balanced budget without Measure W for those two years.
If you deem the school board to be at fault, the most effective action would be to vote in new, acceptable members in the next school board election in November 2009.
Of course the rental vs owner ratio is only one variable that makes the inflation numbers understated. There is also the Price Deflator as well. My point is that there is little reason to think that the Consumer Price Index is an accurate reflection of the inflation rate. Additionally, I don’t think Rifkin included a regression adjustment for the local variation from the Bay Area.
At any rate, Rifkin is always attacking the teachers, this time for their raise, last time suggesting they give up their medical benefits. One thing he leaves out is that Davis got about the same amount, on a percentage basis, as all the other districts when Arnold used the state budget like a cash cow to get re-elected. In doing so he is pointing the finger at the wrong people, the teachers.
He also seems to miss what is really the point of measure W which is essentially a bridge loan to help the district downsize over time without making too many painful cuts in too short a time frame. Even the conservative Taxpayers Association understands this as stated by John Munn when he claimed their support can not be counted on going forward.
Last year the district got saved by the Schools Foundation and this year they hope to bridge the gap with W. But W only lasts a few years and the district will continue downsizing through attrition and retirement. If you vote down W it will be hard for the Schools Foundation to come up with another 1.8 million and your schools are going to take a huge hit making cuts faster than most people would like to see.
The school board is required to pass a balanced budget. The district is required to make projections two years into the future. There is nothing out there right now that indicates a balanced budget without Measure W for those two years.
If you deem the school board to be at fault, the most effective action would be to vote in new, acceptable members in the next school board election in November 2009.
Of course the rental vs owner ratio is only one variable that makes the inflation numbers understated. There is also the Price Deflator as well. My point is that there is little reason to think that the Consumer Price Index is an accurate reflection of the inflation rate. Additionally, I don’t think Rifkin included a regression adjustment for the local variation from the Bay Area.
At any rate, Rifkin is always attacking the teachers, this time for their raise, last time suggesting they give up their medical benefits. One thing he leaves out is that Davis got about the same amount, on a percentage basis, as all the other districts when Arnold used the state budget like a cash cow to get re-elected. In doing so he is pointing the finger at the wrong people, the teachers.
He also seems to miss what is really the point of measure W which is essentially a bridge loan to help the district downsize over time without making too many painful cuts in too short a time frame. Even the conservative Taxpayers Association understands this as stated by John Munn when he claimed their support can not be counted on going forward.
Last year the district got saved by the Schools Foundation and this year they hope to bridge the gap with W. But W only lasts a few years and the district will continue downsizing through attrition and retirement. If you vote down W it will be hard for the Schools Foundation to come up with another 1.8 million and your schools are going to take a huge hit making cuts faster than most people would like to see.
Jona Jamison is the editor of the Daily Bugle in the Spiderman movies …
Need I say more..
$ 2.50 a week , only the best bargain in town !!!!!
Jona Jamison is the editor of the Daily Bugle in the Spiderman movies …
Need I say more..
$ 2.50 a week , only the best bargain in town !!!!!
Jona Jamison is the editor of the Daily Bugle in the Spiderman movies …
Need I say more..
$ 2.50 a week , only the best bargain in town !!!!!
Jona Jamison is the editor of the Daily Bugle in the Spiderman movies …
Need I say more..
$ 2.50 a week , only the best bargain in town !!!!!
“At any rate, Rifkin is always attacking the teachers, this time for their raise, last time suggesting they give up their medical benefits.”
This is an unfair assertion. I am not attacking the teachers. This is a question of resource management and responsible governance. I would like to see the best teachers paid a great salary with great benefits, given the money the district has to work with. But I don’t think it is wise policy to raise taxes when the district has overspent its limited resources and failed to plan for a downturn in the real estate market, which was obviously going to come.
“One thing he leaves out is that Davis got about the same amount, on a percentage basis, as all the other districts when Arnold used the state budget like a cash cow to get re-elected.”
I don’t find it a compelling argument to say, “We are not so bad in being irresponsible because others have been irresponsible, too.” The question is did our irresponsibility get us in this bind? and the answer is yes.
“In doing so he is pointing the finger at the wrong people, the teachers.”
The teachers have every right to take every penny the district wants to give them. But if the district gives them too much and that results in layoffs, then those layoffs are rightly seen as a result of overly generous contracts — not just with the teachers, but with other district personnel, as well (as Don Shor’s research showed).
“He also seems to miss what is really the point of measure W which is essentially a bridge loan to help the district downsize over time without making too many painful cuts in too short a time frame.”
If the unions would renegotiate the contracts, no painful cuts would have to be made in any time frame. That is simply a matter of fact.
Further, I would like to know of one increase in taxes in Davis which was done for the short term crisis which ever was then removed?
With our experience with these things going back to the “short-term” street lighting tax, which is now renamed and 20+ years old, and later the original library tax, I am rightly skeptical of “short-term” taxes. It is only common sense to presume this will become permanent.
However, permanence is a democratic question. If the voters in Davis want to have higher taxes, then they should vote for W and its subsequent levies.
“At any rate, Rifkin is always attacking the teachers, this time for their raise, last time suggesting they give up their medical benefits.”
This is an unfair assertion. I am not attacking the teachers. This is a question of resource management and responsible governance. I would like to see the best teachers paid a great salary with great benefits, given the money the district has to work with. But I don’t think it is wise policy to raise taxes when the district has overspent its limited resources and failed to plan for a downturn in the real estate market, which was obviously going to come.
“One thing he leaves out is that Davis got about the same amount, on a percentage basis, as all the other districts when Arnold used the state budget like a cash cow to get re-elected.”
I don’t find it a compelling argument to say, “We are not so bad in being irresponsible because others have been irresponsible, too.” The question is did our irresponsibility get us in this bind? and the answer is yes.
“In doing so he is pointing the finger at the wrong people, the teachers.”
The teachers have every right to take every penny the district wants to give them. But if the district gives them too much and that results in layoffs, then those layoffs are rightly seen as a result of overly generous contracts — not just with the teachers, but with other district personnel, as well (as Don Shor’s research showed).
“He also seems to miss what is really the point of measure W which is essentially a bridge loan to help the district downsize over time without making too many painful cuts in too short a time frame.”
If the unions would renegotiate the contracts, no painful cuts would have to be made in any time frame. That is simply a matter of fact.
Further, I would like to know of one increase in taxes in Davis which was done for the short term crisis which ever was then removed?
With our experience with these things going back to the “short-term” street lighting tax, which is now renamed and 20+ years old, and later the original library tax, I am rightly skeptical of “short-term” taxes. It is only common sense to presume this will become permanent.
However, permanence is a democratic question. If the voters in Davis want to have higher taxes, then they should vote for W and its subsequent levies.
“At any rate, Rifkin is always attacking the teachers, this time for their raise, last time suggesting they give up their medical benefits.”
This is an unfair assertion. I am not attacking the teachers. This is a question of resource management and responsible governance. I would like to see the best teachers paid a great salary with great benefits, given the money the district has to work with. But I don’t think it is wise policy to raise taxes when the district has overspent its limited resources and failed to plan for a downturn in the real estate market, which was obviously going to come.
“One thing he leaves out is that Davis got about the same amount, on a percentage basis, as all the other districts when Arnold used the state budget like a cash cow to get re-elected.”
I don’t find it a compelling argument to say, “We are not so bad in being irresponsible because others have been irresponsible, too.” The question is did our irresponsibility get us in this bind? and the answer is yes.
“In doing so he is pointing the finger at the wrong people, the teachers.”
The teachers have every right to take every penny the district wants to give them. But if the district gives them too much and that results in layoffs, then those layoffs are rightly seen as a result of overly generous contracts — not just with the teachers, but with other district personnel, as well (as Don Shor’s research showed).
“He also seems to miss what is really the point of measure W which is essentially a bridge loan to help the district downsize over time without making too many painful cuts in too short a time frame.”
If the unions would renegotiate the contracts, no painful cuts would have to be made in any time frame. That is simply a matter of fact.
Further, I would like to know of one increase in taxes in Davis which was done for the short term crisis which ever was then removed?
With our experience with these things going back to the “short-term” street lighting tax, which is now renamed and 20+ years old, and later the original library tax, I am rightly skeptical of “short-term” taxes. It is only common sense to presume this will become permanent.
However, permanence is a democratic question. If the voters in Davis want to have higher taxes, then they should vote for W and its subsequent levies.
“At any rate, Rifkin is always attacking the teachers, this time for their raise, last time suggesting they give up their medical benefits.”
This is an unfair assertion. I am not attacking the teachers. This is a question of resource management and responsible governance. I would like to see the best teachers paid a great salary with great benefits, given the money the district has to work with. But I don’t think it is wise policy to raise taxes when the district has overspent its limited resources and failed to plan for a downturn in the real estate market, which was obviously going to come.
“One thing he leaves out is that Davis got about the same amount, on a percentage basis, as all the other districts when Arnold used the state budget like a cash cow to get re-elected.”
I don’t find it a compelling argument to say, “We are not so bad in being irresponsible because others have been irresponsible, too.” The question is did our irresponsibility get us in this bind? and the answer is yes.
“In doing so he is pointing the finger at the wrong people, the teachers.”
The teachers have every right to take every penny the district wants to give them. But if the district gives them too much and that results in layoffs, then those layoffs are rightly seen as a result of overly generous contracts — not just with the teachers, but with other district personnel, as well (as Don Shor’s research showed).
“He also seems to miss what is really the point of measure W which is essentially a bridge loan to help the district downsize over time without making too many painful cuts in too short a time frame.”
If the unions would renegotiate the contracts, no painful cuts would have to be made in any time frame. That is simply a matter of fact.
Further, I would like to know of one increase in taxes in Davis which was done for the short term crisis which ever was then removed?
With our experience with these things going back to the “short-term” street lighting tax, which is now renamed and 20+ years old, and later the original library tax, I am rightly skeptical of “short-term” taxes. It is only common sense to presume this will become permanent.
However, permanence is a democratic question. If the voters in Davis want to have higher taxes, then they should vote for W and its subsequent levies.
“Further, I would like to know of one increase in taxes in Davis which was done for the short term crisis which ever was then removed?”
No one with an ounce of sense believes that three years from now the school district will say “we don’t need the Measure W money any longer.” Rifkin is right, it is going to be a permanent tax and the citizens are going to be told the school children will suffer immeasurably if they ever get rid of it. Even the folks who say “it is a bridge” don’t believe that lie. Taxes in Davis go only in one direction: UP!
“Further, I would like to know of one increase in taxes in Davis which was done for the short term crisis which ever was then removed?”
No one with an ounce of sense believes that three years from now the school district will say “we don’t need the Measure W money any longer.” Rifkin is right, it is going to be a permanent tax and the citizens are going to be told the school children will suffer immeasurably if they ever get rid of it. Even the folks who say “it is a bridge” don’t believe that lie. Taxes in Davis go only in one direction: UP!
“Further, I would like to know of one increase in taxes in Davis which was done for the short term crisis which ever was then removed?”
No one with an ounce of sense believes that three years from now the school district will say “we don’t need the Measure W money any longer.” Rifkin is right, it is going to be a permanent tax and the citizens are going to be told the school children will suffer immeasurably if they ever get rid of it. Even the folks who say “it is a bridge” don’t believe that lie. Taxes in Davis go only in one direction: UP!
“Further, I would like to know of one increase in taxes in Davis which was done for the short term crisis which ever was then removed?”
No one with an ounce of sense believes that three years from now the school district will say “we don’t need the Measure W money any longer.” Rifkin is right, it is going to be a permanent tax and the citizens are going to be told the school children will suffer immeasurably if they ever get rid of it. Even the folks who say “it is a bridge” don’t believe that lie. Taxes in Davis go only in one direction: UP!
The school board doesn’t have the power to make the tax permanent–the voter have to approve it. In fact all parcel taxes have had a three or four year sunset. A lot will depend on the state economy in three years as to the amount of the next parcel tax.
The school board doesn’t have the power to make the tax permanent–the voter have to approve it. In fact all parcel taxes have had a three or four year sunset. A lot will depend on the state economy in three years as to the amount of the next parcel tax.
The school board doesn’t have the power to make the tax permanent–the voter have to approve it. In fact all parcel taxes have had a three or four year sunset. A lot will depend on the state economy in three years as to the amount of the next parcel tax.
The school board doesn’t have the power to make the tax permanent–the voter have to approve it. In fact all parcel taxes have had a three or four year sunset. A lot will depend on the state economy in three years as to the amount of the next parcel tax.
Did you people ever go to school ? Because it doesn’t sound like it.
Most of you sound like I have mine ,screw the future needs..
Rifkin doesn’t get my vote !
When you got a person with free ink, who bashes the backbone of the USA as Rifkin does ,only one sided negative thoughts are presented by his narrow vision .
Did you people ever go to school ? Because it doesn’t sound like it.
Most of you sound like I have mine ,screw the future needs..
Rifkin doesn’t get my vote !
When you got a person with free ink, who bashes the backbone of the USA as Rifkin does ,only one sided negative thoughts are presented by his narrow vision .
Did you people ever go to school ? Because it doesn’t sound like it.
Most of you sound like I have mine ,screw the future needs..
Rifkin doesn’t get my vote !
When you got a person with free ink, who bashes the backbone of the USA as Rifkin does ,only one sided negative thoughts are presented by his narrow vision .
Did you people ever go to school ? Because it doesn’t sound like it.
Most of you sound like I have mine ,screw the future needs..
Rifkin doesn’t get my vote !
When you got a person with free ink, who bashes the backbone of the USA as Rifkin does ,only one sided negative thoughts are presented by his narrow vision .
Taxes in Davis go only in one direction: UP!
Hi, old fart,
Actually the 1995 parcel tax renewed at $120. In 1999 it renewed at $114.36.
Taxes in Davis go only in one direction: UP!
Hi, old fart,
Actually the 1995 parcel tax renewed at $120. In 1999 it renewed at $114.36.
Taxes in Davis go only in one direction: UP!
Hi, old fart,
Actually the 1995 parcel tax renewed at $120. In 1999 it renewed at $114.36.
Taxes in Davis go only in one direction: UP!
Hi, old fart,
Actually the 1995 parcel tax renewed at $120. In 1999 it renewed at $114.36.
I don’t think teachers are necessarily overpaid (or over-benefitted) in some sort of societal comparison with other jobs. I would we prefer we valued good teachers twice as much as we value prison guards, but in pay the reverse is true.
However, the Davis school board is not charged with answering that kind of philosophical question. It is charged with making contracts which conform with its budgetary constraints. And unfortunately, because they failed to properly control their spending, despite much higher income over the past decade, our district is in a terrible bind right now, and the DTA has refused to budge to help them out of this mess.
If you really feel that way about teachers (valuing them more than we do), then you can frame Measure W as a referendum on keeping teachers at their current salary in Davis, on the basis that they deserve it because of their positive role in society.
I don’t think teachers are necessarily overpaid (or over-benefitted) in some sort of societal comparison with other jobs. I would we prefer we valued good teachers twice as much as we value prison guards, but in pay the reverse is true.
However, the Davis school board is not charged with answering that kind of philosophical question. It is charged with making contracts which conform with its budgetary constraints. And unfortunately, because they failed to properly control their spending, despite much higher income over the past decade, our district is in a terrible bind right now, and the DTA has refused to budge to help them out of this mess.
If you really feel that way about teachers (valuing them more than we do), then you can frame Measure W as a referendum on keeping teachers at their current salary in Davis, on the basis that they deserve it because of their positive role in society.
I don’t think teachers are necessarily overpaid (or over-benefitted) in some sort of societal comparison with other jobs. I would we prefer we valued good teachers twice as much as we value prison guards, but in pay the reverse is true.
However, the Davis school board is not charged with answering that kind of philosophical question. It is charged with making contracts which conform with its budgetary constraints. And unfortunately, because they failed to properly control their spending, despite much higher income over the past decade, our district is in a terrible bind right now, and the DTA has refused to budge to help them out of this mess.
If you really feel that way about teachers (valuing them more than we do), then you can frame Measure W as a referendum on keeping teachers at their current salary in Davis, on the basis that they deserve it because of their positive role in society.
I don’t think teachers are necessarily overpaid (or over-benefitted) in some sort of societal comparison with other jobs. I would we prefer we valued good teachers twice as much as we value prison guards, but in pay the reverse is true.
However, the Davis school board is not charged with answering that kind of philosophical question. It is charged with making contracts which conform with its budgetary constraints. And unfortunately, because they failed to properly control their spending, despite much higher income over the past decade, our district is in a terrible bind right now, and the DTA has refused to budge to help them out of this mess.
If you really feel that way about teachers (valuing them more than we do), then you can frame Measure W as a referendum on keeping teachers at their current salary in Davis, on the basis that they deserve it because of their positive role in society.
So, do you like the Davis schools?
They’ve done a fantastic job for my kids. Most of their teachers have been fantastic.
So, do you like the Davis schools?
They’ve done a fantastic job for my kids. Most of their teachers have been fantastic.
So, do you like the Davis schools?
They’ve done a fantastic job for my kids. Most of their teachers have been fantastic.
So, do you like the Davis schools?
They’ve done a fantastic job for my kids. Most of their teachers have been fantastic.
That was the biggest reason we moved to Davis!
That was the biggest reason we moved to Davis!
That was the biggest reason we moved to Davis!
That was the biggest reason we moved to Davis!
“It’s a no brainer”?? You bet it’s a “no brainer”. Stop the foolishness. For the dependent and marginally talented so called “licensed professional’s”. This is not about the kids or the teachers.
I’ts about the greed. If the schools go down, so goes a corrupt real estate market!!
Can I toss you a life ring perhaps?
You’re going to need it!! LOL!!!!
“It’s a no brainer”?? You bet it’s a “no brainer”. Stop the foolishness. For the dependent and marginally talented so called “licensed professional’s”. This is not about the kids or the teachers.
I’ts about the greed. If the schools go down, so goes a corrupt real estate market!!
Can I toss you a life ring perhaps?
You’re going to need it!! LOL!!!!
“It’s a no brainer”?? You bet it’s a “no brainer”. Stop the foolishness. For the dependent and marginally talented so called “licensed professional’s”. This is not about the kids or the teachers.
I’ts about the greed. If the schools go down, so goes a corrupt real estate market!!
Can I toss you a life ring perhaps?
You’re going to need it!! LOL!!!!
“It’s a no brainer”?? You bet it’s a “no brainer”. Stop the foolishness. For the dependent and marginally talented so called “licensed professional’s”. This is not about the kids or the teachers.
I’ts about the greed. If the schools go down, so goes a corrupt real estate market!!
Can I toss you a life ring perhaps?
You’re going to need it!! LOL!!!!
“For whatever reasons, Davis has not generated a reasonable amount of money for it’s schools. I would not lose sight of spending control but you are fooling yourself if you thing spending is the single problem.”
Spending IS the main problem, and is the only part the district can control. The state budget cuts are a factor. Restricted expenditures that are not fully reimbursed are a factor. But the district can’t do anything about those.
The district’s money comes from the state. ADA funding is not directly tied to sales tax, property tax, or any local policies. The money you pay in taxes goes into the state’s general fund, and is then redistributed to the districts based on their daily attendance. Developing businesses to increase the sales tax base won’t increase revenue to the district. Expenses should be proportional to enrollment, so building more houses and increasing the population won’t solve the problem. There is basically nothing significant that Davis can do to increase revenue for the schools.
Average salary:
Davis: $63,378 class size avg 24.6
Woodland: $57,688 class size avg 24.6
Statewide: $63,323
If DJUSD paid teachers what Woodland does, it would save the district $2.65 million. But as noted:
“… the average Davis teacher has 3 years more experience than the average teacher in Woodland.”
Davis has more fully credentialed teachers than Woodland (98.5% to 92.4%). You get what you pay for.
Voters are indeed being asked to pay for teachers, because that is the major expenditure the district has. Teachers = programs. Voters are being asked to resolve fiscal problems that have their roots in prior decisions. It is not realistic to ask the teachers to renegotiate their contract. But it is also not unreasonable for the district to put any further increases on hold for the duration of this tax.
There is oversight, but I don’t believe it is specific enough. The board gives direction on these issues, and I haven’t heard any board member state their guiding fiscal principles in implementing this tax. It would be nice to hear at least three board members go on record that:
• For the next three years, they will not vote to authorize any pay or benefits increase higher than the state COLA for teachers and staff. No COLA, no raise.
• Teacher/student ratios will not exceed the average of 2002-2006 (FTE equivalent).
• This parcel tax will not be put before voters again in three years if the state resumes COLA for ADA and the gap between revenues and expenditures disappears as expected.
That would give some measurable criteria for voters in re-assessing this in three years, as well as in judging the candidates in the next election cycle.
“For whatever reasons, Davis has not generated a reasonable amount of money for it’s schools. I would not lose sight of spending control but you are fooling yourself if you thing spending is the single problem.”
Spending IS the main problem, and is the only part the district can control. The state budget cuts are a factor. Restricted expenditures that are not fully reimbursed are a factor. But the district can’t do anything about those.
The district’s money comes from the state. ADA funding is not directly tied to sales tax, property tax, or any local policies. The money you pay in taxes goes into the state’s general fund, and is then redistributed to the districts based on their daily attendance. Developing businesses to increase the sales tax base won’t increase revenue to the district. Expenses should be proportional to enrollment, so building more houses and increasing the population won’t solve the problem. There is basically nothing significant that Davis can do to increase revenue for the schools.
Average salary:
Davis: $63,378 class size avg 24.6
Woodland: $57,688 class size avg 24.6
Statewide: $63,323
If DJUSD paid teachers what Woodland does, it would save the district $2.65 million. But as noted:
“… the average Davis teacher has 3 years more experience than the average teacher in Woodland.”
Davis has more fully credentialed teachers than Woodland (98.5% to 92.4%). You get what you pay for.
Voters are indeed being asked to pay for teachers, because that is the major expenditure the district has. Teachers = programs. Voters are being asked to resolve fiscal problems that have their roots in prior decisions. It is not realistic to ask the teachers to renegotiate their contract. But it is also not unreasonable for the district to put any further increases on hold for the duration of this tax.
There is oversight, but I don’t believe it is specific enough. The board gives direction on these issues, and I haven’t heard any board member state their guiding fiscal principles in implementing this tax. It would be nice to hear at least three board members go on record that:
• For the next three years, they will not vote to authorize any pay or benefits increase higher than the state COLA for teachers and staff. No COLA, no raise.
• Teacher/student ratios will not exceed the average of 2002-2006 (FTE equivalent).
• This parcel tax will not be put before voters again in three years if the state resumes COLA for ADA and the gap between revenues and expenditures disappears as expected.
That would give some measurable criteria for voters in re-assessing this in three years, as well as in judging the candidates in the next election cycle.
“For whatever reasons, Davis has not generated a reasonable amount of money for it’s schools. I would not lose sight of spending control but you are fooling yourself if you thing spending is the single problem.”
Spending IS the main problem, and is the only part the district can control. The state budget cuts are a factor. Restricted expenditures that are not fully reimbursed are a factor. But the district can’t do anything about those.
The district’s money comes from the state. ADA funding is not directly tied to sales tax, property tax, or any local policies. The money you pay in taxes goes into the state’s general fund, and is then redistributed to the districts based on their daily attendance. Developing businesses to increase the sales tax base won’t increase revenue to the district. Expenses should be proportional to enrollment, so building more houses and increasing the population won’t solve the problem. There is basically nothing significant that Davis can do to increase revenue for the schools.
Average salary:
Davis: $63,378 class size avg 24.6
Woodland: $57,688 class size avg 24.6
Statewide: $63,323
If DJUSD paid teachers what Woodland does, it would save the district $2.65 million. But as noted:
“… the average Davis teacher has 3 years more experience than the average teacher in Woodland.”
Davis has more fully credentialed teachers than Woodland (98.5% to 92.4%). You get what you pay for.
Voters are indeed being asked to pay for teachers, because that is the major expenditure the district has. Teachers = programs. Voters are being asked to resolve fiscal problems that have their roots in prior decisions. It is not realistic to ask the teachers to renegotiate their contract. But it is also not unreasonable for the district to put any further increases on hold for the duration of this tax.
There is oversight, but I don’t believe it is specific enough. The board gives direction on these issues, and I haven’t heard any board member state their guiding fiscal principles in implementing this tax. It would be nice to hear at least three board members go on record that:
• For the next three years, they will not vote to authorize any pay or benefits increase higher than the state COLA for teachers and staff. No COLA, no raise.
• Teacher/student ratios will not exceed the average of 2002-2006 (FTE equivalent).
• This parcel tax will not be put before voters again in three years if the state resumes COLA for ADA and the gap between revenues and expenditures disappears as expected.
That would give some measurable criteria for voters in re-assessing this in three years, as well as in judging the candidates in the next election cycle.
“For whatever reasons, Davis has not generated a reasonable amount of money for it’s schools. I would not lose sight of spending control but you are fooling yourself if you thing spending is the single problem.”
Spending IS the main problem, and is the only part the district can control. The state budget cuts are a factor. Restricted expenditures that are not fully reimbursed are a factor. But the district can’t do anything about those.
The district’s money comes from the state. ADA funding is not directly tied to sales tax, property tax, or any local policies. The money you pay in taxes goes into the state’s general fund, and is then redistributed to the districts based on their daily attendance. Developing businesses to increase the sales tax base won’t increase revenue to the district. Expenses should be proportional to enrollment, so building more houses and increasing the population won’t solve the problem. There is basically nothing significant that Davis can do to increase revenue for the schools.
Average salary:
Davis: $63,378 class size avg 24.6
Woodland: $57,688 class size avg 24.6
Statewide: $63,323
If DJUSD paid teachers what Woodland does, it would save the district $2.65 million. But as noted:
“… the average Davis teacher has 3 years more experience than the average teacher in Woodland.”
Davis has more fully credentialed teachers than Woodland (98.5% to 92.4%). You get what you pay for.
Voters are indeed being asked to pay for teachers, because that is the major expenditure the district has. Teachers = programs. Voters are being asked to resolve fiscal problems that have their roots in prior decisions. It is not realistic to ask the teachers to renegotiate their contract. But it is also not unreasonable for the district to put any further increases on hold for the duration of this tax.
There is oversight, but I don’t believe it is specific enough. The board gives direction on these issues, and I haven’t heard any board member state their guiding fiscal principles in implementing this tax. It would be nice to hear at least three board members go on record that:
• For the next three years, they will not vote to authorize any pay or benefits increase higher than the state COLA for teachers and staff. No COLA, no raise.
• Teacher/student ratios will not exceed the average of 2002-2006 (FTE equivalent).
• This parcel tax will not be put before voters again in three years if the state resumes COLA for ADA and the gap between revenues and expenditures disappears as expected.
That would give some measurable criteria for voters in re-assessing this in three years, as well as in judging the candidates in the next election cycle.
David Greenwald,
Rich Rifkin is correct the majority of the time when compared to you. And at least he uses his real name.
David Greenwald,
Rich Rifkin is correct the majority of the time when compared to you. And at least he uses his real name.
David Greenwald,
Rich Rifkin is correct the majority of the time when compared to you. And at least he uses his real name.
David Greenwald,
Rich Rifkin is correct the majority of the time when compared to you. And at least he uses his real name.
“Spending IS the main problem, and is the only part the district can control.”
Other districts manage to reduce reliance on state ada money. This may be a long term solution, but you can not get there if you do not start
Maximize grants – find more grants.
Encourage building a more viable business community – growing businesses are more willing to donate annually to local schools.
Maximize investment income – either sell unused space or lease it out at market rates. Use the investment income to shore up general fund spending.
Ask the University to contribute to the solution – perhaps as simple as matching staff donations to Davis schools. UCD is the biggest employer and should understand education is important.
Davis might not want to do any of these things but the alternatives are parcel taxes or spending cuts.
“Spending IS the main problem, and is the only part the district can control.”
Other districts manage to reduce reliance on state ada money. This may be a long term solution, but you can not get there if you do not start
Maximize grants – find more grants.
Encourage building a more viable business community – growing businesses are more willing to donate annually to local schools.
Maximize investment income – either sell unused space or lease it out at market rates. Use the investment income to shore up general fund spending.
Ask the University to contribute to the solution – perhaps as simple as matching staff donations to Davis schools. UCD is the biggest employer and should understand education is important.
Davis might not want to do any of these things but the alternatives are parcel taxes or spending cuts.
“Spending IS the main problem, and is the only part the district can control.”
Other districts manage to reduce reliance on state ada money. This may be a long term solution, but you can not get there if you do not start
Maximize grants – find more grants.
Encourage building a more viable business community – growing businesses are more willing to donate annually to local schools.
Maximize investment income – either sell unused space or lease it out at market rates. Use the investment income to shore up general fund spending.
Ask the University to contribute to the solution – perhaps as simple as matching staff donations to Davis schools. UCD is the biggest employer and should understand education is important.
Davis might not want to do any of these things but the alternatives are parcel taxes or spending cuts.
“Spending IS the main problem, and is the only part the district can control.”
Other districts manage to reduce reliance on state ada money. This may be a long term solution, but you can not get there if you do not start
Maximize grants – find more grants.
Encourage building a more viable business community – growing businesses are more willing to donate annually to local schools.
Maximize investment income – either sell unused space or lease it out at market rates. Use the investment income to shore up general fund spending.
Ask the University to contribute to the solution – perhaps as simple as matching staff donations to Davis schools. UCD is the biggest employer and should understand education is important.
Davis might not want to do any of these things but the alternatives are parcel taxes or spending cuts.
A few additional points I think that need to be made:
In terms of spending, the line has really been held in the last few years on that. It is true that the teachers got a six percent raise two years ago, based on bad advise given to the board, but they held the line with a one percent raise last year, probably would expect a small raise if any this year, basically, any raise that is less than two percent means that the raise from two years ago would be washed out by inflation.
Second point, the state gives the district roughly 2.4 million less this year than last year, that’s what Measure W covers.
Third point, there will be no cola this year meaning that teachers will not get a cost of living adjustment which means essentially they will be paid less in real money than they received last year.
Someone here proposed cutting 11 percent to teachers, I suggest they really think about the ramifications for that. Asking teachers to take a 6K cut is not realistic and you’d never get it through a collective bargaining process. Arguing that that is preferable to a $120 per year tax hike to the taxpayers is frankly deplorable.
A few additional points I think that need to be made:
In terms of spending, the line has really been held in the last few years on that. It is true that the teachers got a six percent raise two years ago, based on bad advise given to the board, but they held the line with a one percent raise last year, probably would expect a small raise if any this year, basically, any raise that is less than two percent means that the raise from two years ago would be washed out by inflation.
Second point, the state gives the district roughly 2.4 million less this year than last year, that’s what Measure W covers.
Third point, there will be no cola this year meaning that teachers will not get a cost of living adjustment which means essentially they will be paid less in real money than they received last year.
Someone here proposed cutting 11 percent to teachers, I suggest they really think about the ramifications for that. Asking teachers to take a 6K cut is not realistic and you’d never get it through a collective bargaining process. Arguing that that is preferable to a $120 per year tax hike to the taxpayers is frankly deplorable.
A few additional points I think that need to be made:
In terms of spending, the line has really been held in the last few years on that. It is true that the teachers got a six percent raise two years ago, based on bad advise given to the board, but they held the line with a one percent raise last year, probably would expect a small raise if any this year, basically, any raise that is less than two percent means that the raise from two years ago would be washed out by inflation.
Second point, the state gives the district roughly 2.4 million less this year than last year, that’s what Measure W covers.
Third point, there will be no cola this year meaning that teachers will not get a cost of living adjustment which means essentially they will be paid less in real money than they received last year.
Someone here proposed cutting 11 percent to teachers, I suggest they really think about the ramifications for that. Asking teachers to take a 6K cut is not realistic and you’d never get it through a collective bargaining process. Arguing that that is preferable to a $120 per year tax hike to the taxpayers is frankly deplorable.
A few additional points I think that need to be made:
In terms of spending, the line has really been held in the last few years on that. It is true that the teachers got a six percent raise two years ago, based on bad advise given to the board, but they held the line with a one percent raise last year, probably would expect a small raise if any this year, basically, any raise that is less than two percent means that the raise from two years ago would be washed out by inflation.
Second point, the state gives the district roughly 2.4 million less this year than last year, that’s what Measure W covers.
Third point, there will be no cola this year meaning that teachers will not get a cost of living adjustment which means essentially they will be paid less in real money than they received last year.
Someone here proposed cutting 11 percent to teachers, I suggest they really think about the ramifications for that. Asking teachers to take a 6K cut is not realistic and you’d never get it through a collective bargaining process. Arguing that that is preferable to a $120 per year tax hike to the taxpayers is frankly deplorable.
“Maximize grants – find more grants.”
Some districts have had grant writing duties assigned to one or various individuals in the admin. Often these duties get cut in the crush to reduce administrative costs. Grant writing takes some time to develop — relationships w/ granting agencies, internal relationships and detailed knowledge of what can be funded. This sort of thing already goes on at a low level — teachers, parent volunteers. Getting grants to pay ongoing salaries is a harder prospect in general.
“Encourage building a more viable business community – growing businesses are more willing to donate annually to local schools.”
I think this is what DSF is working to develop.
“Maximize investment income – either sell unused space or lease it out at market rates. Use the investment income to shore up general fund spending.”
That is happening already. I think that rental revenue can only go toward facilities funding.
“Ask the University to contribute to the solution – perhaps as simple as matching staff donations to Davis schools. UCD is the biggest employer and should understand education is important.”
The district administration does keep contact w/ key people in the UCD administration. One way that UCD indirectly helps is by their out-of-town employees enrolling their students in the district (“inter-district transfers”). The district then gets additional ADA funding from their attendance. There are limits to what UCD will do, because they already have their own budget constraints and fundraising projects.
“Davis might not want to do any of these things but the alternatives are parcel taxes or spending cuts.”
Every little thing helps.
“Maximize grants – find more grants.”
Some districts have had grant writing duties assigned to one or various individuals in the admin. Often these duties get cut in the crush to reduce administrative costs. Grant writing takes some time to develop — relationships w/ granting agencies, internal relationships and detailed knowledge of what can be funded. This sort of thing already goes on at a low level — teachers, parent volunteers. Getting grants to pay ongoing salaries is a harder prospect in general.
“Encourage building a more viable business community – growing businesses are more willing to donate annually to local schools.”
I think this is what DSF is working to develop.
“Maximize investment income – either sell unused space or lease it out at market rates. Use the investment income to shore up general fund spending.”
That is happening already. I think that rental revenue can only go toward facilities funding.
“Ask the University to contribute to the solution – perhaps as simple as matching staff donations to Davis schools. UCD is the biggest employer and should understand education is important.”
The district administration does keep contact w/ key people in the UCD administration. One way that UCD indirectly helps is by their out-of-town employees enrolling their students in the district (“inter-district transfers”). The district then gets additional ADA funding from their attendance. There are limits to what UCD will do, because they already have their own budget constraints and fundraising projects.
“Davis might not want to do any of these things but the alternatives are parcel taxes or spending cuts.”
Every little thing helps.
“Maximize grants – find more grants.”
Some districts have had grant writing duties assigned to one or various individuals in the admin. Often these duties get cut in the crush to reduce administrative costs. Grant writing takes some time to develop — relationships w/ granting agencies, internal relationships and detailed knowledge of what can be funded. This sort of thing already goes on at a low level — teachers, parent volunteers. Getting grants to pay ongoing salaries is a harder prospect in general.
“Encourage building a more viable business community – growing businesses are more willing to donate annually to local schools.”
I think this is what DSF is working to develop.
“Maximize investment income – either sell unused space or lease it out at market rates. Use the investment income to shore up general fund spending.”
That is happening already. I think that rental revenue can only go toward facilities funding.
“Ask the University to contribute to the solution – perhaps as simple as matching staff donations to Davis schools. UCD is the biggest employer and should understand education is important.”
The district administration does keep contact w/ key people in the UCD administration. One way that UCD indirectly helps is by their out-of-town employees enrolling their students in the district (“inter-district transfers”). The district then gets additional ADA funding from their attendance. There are limits to what UCD will do, because they already have their own budget constraints and fundraising projects.
“Davis might not want to do any of these things but the alternatives are parcel taxes or spending cuts.”
Every little thing helps.
“Maximize grants – find more grants.”
Some districts have had grant writing duties assigned to one or various individuals in the admin. Often these duties get cut in the crush to reduce administrative costs. Grant writing takes some time to develop — relationships w/ granting agencies, internal relationships and detailed knowledge of what can be funded. This sort of thing already goes on at a low level — teachers, parent volunteers. Getting grants to pay ongoing salaries is a harder prospect in general.
“Encourage building a more viable business community – growing businesses are more willing to donate annually to local schools.”
I think this is what DSF is working to develop.
“Maximize investment income – either sell unused space or lease it out at market rates. Use the investment income to shore up general fund spending.”
That is happening already. I think that rental revenue can only go toward facilities funding.
“Ask the University to contribute to the solution – perhaps as simple as matching staff donations to Davis schools. UCD is the biggest employer and should understand education is important.”
The district administration does keep contact w/ key people in the UCD administration. One way that UCD indirectly helps is by their out-of-town employees enrolling their students in the district (“inter-district transfers”). The district then gets additional ADA funding from their attendance. There are limits to what UCD will do, because they already have their own budget constraints and fundraising projects.
“Davis might not want to do any of these things but the alternatives are parcel taxes or spending cuts.”
Every little thing helps.
“Rich Rifkin is correct the majority of the time when compared to you. And at least he uses his real name.”
I find Rifkin’s material interesting to read, usually well thought out to a certain degree.
But DPD (or Greenwald, if you wish) deserves a lot of credit for even maintaining such a well-trafficked blog. He is on a schedule of producing an article every day, here. Some topics are duds, but most importantly he provides a resource for Davis and area residents to learn about local issues and interact with others to develop their ideas.
I always like seeing responses of Rifkin, Don Shor, and Elaine Musser. Where else would you get such a forum?
“Rich Rifkin is correct the majority of the time when compared to you. And at least he uses his real name.”
I find Rifkin’s material interesting to read, usually well thought out to a certain degree.
But DPD (or Greenwald, if you wish) deserves a lot of credit for even maintaining such a well-trafficked blog. He is on a schedule of producing an article every day, here. Some topics are duds, but most importantly he provides a resource for Davis and area residents to learn about local issues and interact with others to develop their ideas.
I always like seeing responses of Rifkin, Don Shor, and Elaine Musser. Where else would you get such a forum?
“Rich Rifkin is correct the majority of the time when compared to you. And at least he uses his real name.”
I find Rifkin’s material interesting to read, usually well thought out to a certain degree.
But DPD (or Greenwald, if you wish) deserves a lot of credit for even maintaining such a well-trafficked blog. He is on a schedule of producing an article every day, here. Some topics are duds, but most importantly he provides a resource for Davis and area residents to learn about local issues and interact with others to develop their ideas.
I always like seeing responses of Rifkin, Don Shor, and Elaine Musser. Where else would you get such a forum?
“Rich Rifkin is correct the majority of the time when compared to you. And at least he uses his real name.”
I find Rifkin’s material interesting to read, usually well thought out to a certain degree.
But DPD (or Greenwald, if you wish) deserves a lot of credit for even maintaining such a well-trafficked blog. He is on a schedule of producing an article every day, here. Some topics are duds, but most importantly he provides a resource for Davis and area residents to learn about local issues and interact with others to develop their ideas.
I always like seeing responses of Rifkin, Don Shor, and Elaine Musser. Where else would you get such a forum?
“As usual, dpd is wrong again. More taxes? No Way. Having been here for 41+ years, I know the request for more funding is a continual issue. It stops here.”
Investing in the education of the next generation is the most worthwhile use of taxes. Sarah Palin went to lengths to say that paying taxes is not patriotic. This is one specific case where she clearly has it wrong. Developing a comprehensive public education system is one of the greatest concepts America has contributed to the world.
Investing in public education brings the highest return on the dollar to society. Increase the earning power of the next generation, and they will be able to pay more into medicare and social security for your generation. It increases the overall future tax revenue.
It reduces future expenditures on the corrections system, unemployment aid and unemployment.
Overall it creates a stronger society.
Each year we demand more and more from our public education system and seem less willing to pay for it. I applaud the goal of No Child Left Behind to make public education work for every single child. But let’s do our part to help that happen, at least here in Davis.
At present the funding structure for K-12 education is FUBAR. This is the best we can do to make it all work.
That’s why I’m voting for Measure W.
“As usual, dpd is wrong again. More taxes? No Way. Having been here for 41+ years, I know the request for more funding is a continual issue. It stops here.”
Investing in the education of the next generation is the most worthwhile use of taxes. Sarah Palin went to lengths to say that paying taxes is not patriotic. This is one specific case where she clearly has it wrong. Developing a comprehensive public education system is one of the greatest concepts America has contributed to the world.
Investing in public education brings the highest return on the dollar to society. Increase the earning power of the next generation, and they will be able to pay more into medicare and social security for your generation. It increases the overall future tax revenue.
It reduces future expenditures on the corrections system, unemployment aid and unemployment.
Overall it creates a stronger society.
Each year we demand more and more from our public education system and seem less willing to pay for it. I applaud the goal of No Child Left Behind to make public education work for every single child. But let’s do our part to help that happen, at least here in Davis.
At present the funding structure for K-12 education is FUBAR. This is the best we can do to make it all work.
That’s why I’m voting for Measure W.
“As usual, dpd is wrong again. More taxes? No Way. Having been here for 41+ years, I know the request for more funding is a continual issue. It stops here.”
Investing in the education of the next generation is the most worthwhile use of taxes. Sarah Palin went to lengths to say that paying taxes is not patriotic. This is one specific case where she clearly has it wrong. Developing a comprehensive public education system is one of the greatest concepts America has contributed to the world.
Investing in public education brings the highest return on the dollar to society. Increase the earning power of the next generation, and they will be able to pay more into medicare and social security for your generation. It increases the overall future tax revenue.
It reduces future expenditures on the corrections system, unemployment aid and unemployment.
Overall it creates a stronger society.
Each year we demand more and more from our public education system and seem less willing to pay for it. I applaud the goal of No Child Left Behind to make public education work for every single child. But let’s do our part to help that happen, at least here in Davis.
At present the funding structure for K-12 education is FUBAR. This is the best we can do to make it all work.
That’s why I’m voting for Measure W.
“As usual, dpd is wrong again. More taxes? No Way. Having been here for 41+ years, I know the request for more funding is a continual issue. It stops here.”
Investing in the education of the next generation is the most worthwhile use of taxes. Sarah Palin went to lengths to say that paying taxes is not patriotic. This is one specific case where she clearly has it wrong. Developing a comprehensive public education system is one of the greatest concepts America has contributed to the world.
Investing in public education brings the highest return on the dollar to society. Increase the earning power of the next generation, and they will be able to pay more into medicare and social security for your generation. It increases the overall future tax revenue.
It reduces future expenditures on the corrections system, unemployment aid and unemployment.
Overall it creates a stronger society.
Each year we demand more and more from our public education system and seem less willing to pay for it. I applaud the goal of No Child Left Behind to make public education work for every single child. But let’s do our part to help that happen, at least here in Davis.
At present the funding structure for K-12 education is FUBAR. This is the best we can do to make it all work.
That’s why I’m voting for Measure W.
“I think that rental revenue can only go toward facilities funding.”
Actually, selling property can only go toward facilities funding, but if they develop a property and rent it out, that rental income can then go to operating expenses.
“I think that rental revenue can only go toward facilities funding.”
Actually, selling property can only go toward facilities funding, but if they develop a property and rent it out, that rental income can then go to operating expenses.
“I think that rental revenue can only go toward facilities funding.”
Actually, selling property can only go toward facilities funding, but if they develop a property and rent it out, that rental income can then go to operating expenses.
“I think that rental revenue can only go toward facilities funding.”
Actually, selling property can only go toward facilities funding, but if they develop a property and rent it out, that rental income can then go to operating expenses.
“But DPD (or Greenwald, if you wish) deserves a lot of credit for even maintaining such a well-trafficked blog.”
I agree with that and more. In most of David’s articles, I am quite certain there is at least 6-8 hours of research, plus the time it takes to write them. He’s doing this 7 days a week, almost 365 days a year. On top of all of that, he attends a great number of events and meetings. My views often differ with David’s, but that doesn’t stop me from appreciating how worthy his work is.
“In terms of spending, the line has really been held in the last few years on that. It is true that the teachers got a six percent raise two years ago, based on bad advice given to the board, but they held the line with a one percent raise last year, probably would expect a small raise if any this year.”
I’m not sure about the numbers you quote here. They are in conflict with what Don Shor reported on this blog: “The biggest increases were in the 2005 and 2006 school years, when certificated and classified salaries increased by 7% and 11% respectively, each year.”
Further, I was told yesterday by a member of the school board that in 2008-09, this school year, teacher salaries per pupil are up 4 percent over last year. (Unfortunately, these numbers are not on the DJUSD website, AFAIK).
Also, you have to keep in mind that the school district has not capped the cost of benefits. As such, even if the employees get 5 percent more salary in a given year, their total compensation (including benefits) may go up by 8-10 percent that year. Most of us who work in the private sector understand that private companies do not and cannot absorb these costly increases in benefits. They either cut them back or increase the amount employees must contribute. Companies that don’t do that often go bankrupt.
Using Don’s salary numbers since the 2004-05, you can establish a baseline of 100.
2004-05 = 100 (times 1.07)
2005-06 = 107 (times 1.11)
2006-07 = 119 (times 1.05)
2007-08 = 125 (times 1.04)
2008-09 = 130
In other words, in 4 short years there was an inflation of 25-30 percent, depending on what really happened this year.
As I noted in my column, if the district had simply inflated its expenses (not just for teachers’ salaries but for all personnel expenses and other costs over which they have control), there would be no need for Measure W and the above chart would look like this:
2004-05 = 100 (times 1.03)
2005-06 = 103 (times 1.03)
2006-07 = 106 (times 1.03)
2007-08 = 109 (times 1.03)
2008-09 = 113
“But DPD (or Greenwald, if you wish) deserves a lot of credit for even maintaining such a well-trafficked blog.”
I agree with that and more. In most of David’s articles, I am quite certain there is at least 6-8 hours of research, plus the time it takes to write them. He’s doing this 7 days a week, almost 365 days a year. On top of all of that, he attends a great number of events and meetings. My views often differ with David’s, but that doesn’t stop me from appreciating how worthy his work is.
“In terms of spending, the line has really been held in the last few years on that. It is true that the teachers got a six percent raise two years ago, based on bad advice given to the board, but they held the line with a one percent raise last year, probably would expect a small raise if any this year.”
I’m not sure about the numbers you quote here. They are in conflict with what Don Shor reported on this blog: “The biggest increases were in the 2005 and 2006 school years, when certificated and classified salaries increased by 7% and 11% respectively, each year.”
Further, I was told yesterday by a member of the school board that in 2008-09, this school year, teacher salaries per pupil are up 4 percent over last year. (Unfortunately, these numbers are not on the DJUSD website, AFAIK).
Also, you have to keep in mind that the school district has not capped the cost of benefits. As such, even if the employees get 5 percent more salary in a given year, their total compensation (including benefits) may go up by 8-10 percent that year. Most of us who work in the private sector understand that private companies do not and cannot absorb these costly increases in benefits. They either cut them back or increase the amount employees must contribute. Companies that don’t do that often go bankrupt.
Using Don’s salary numbers since the 2004-05, you can establish a baseline of 100.
2004-05 = 100 (times 1.07)
2005-06 = 107 (times 1.11)
2006-07 = 119 (times 1.05)
2007-08 = 125 (times 1.04)
2008-09 = 130
In other words, in 4 short years there was an inflation of 25-30 percent, depending on what really happened this year.
As I noted in my column, if the district had simply inflated its expenses (not just for teachers’ salaries but for all personnel expenses and other costs over which they have control), there would be no need for Measure W and the above chart would look like this:
2004-05 = 100 (times 1.03)
2005-06 = 103 (times 1.03)
2006-07 = 106 (times 1.03)
2007-08 = 109 (times 1.03)
2008-09 = 113
“But DPD (or Greenwald, if you wish) deserves a lot of credit for even maintaining such a well-trafficked blog.”
I agree with that and more. In most of David’s articles, I am quite certain there is at least 6-8 hours of research, plus the time it takes to write them. He’s doing this 7 days a week, almost 365 days a year. On top of all of that, he attends a great number of events and meetings. My views often differ with David’s, but that doesn’t stop me from appreciating how worthy his work is.
“In terms of spending, the line has really been held in the last few years on that. It is true that the teachers got a six percent raise two years ago, based on bad advice given to the board, but they held the line with a one percent raise last year, probably would expect a small raise if any this year.”
I’m not sure about the numbers you quote here. They are in conflict with what Don Shor reported on this blog: “The biggest increases were in the 2005 and 2006 school years, when certificated and classified salaries increased by 7% and 11% respectively, each year.”
Further, I was told yesterday by a member of the school board that in 2008-09, this school year, teacher salaries per pupil are up 4 percent over last year. (Unfortunately, these numbers are not on the DJUSD website, AFAIK).
Also, you have to keep in mind that the school district has not capped the cost of benefits. As such, even if the employees get 5 percent more salary in a given year, their total compensation (including benefits) may go up by 8-10 percent that year. Most of us who work in the private sector understand that private companies do not and cannot absorb these costly increases in benefits. They either cut them back or increase the amount employees must contribute. Companies that don’t do that often go bankrupt.
Using Don’s salary numbers since the 2004-05, you can establish a baseline of 100.
2004-05 = 100 (times 1.07)
2005-06 = 107 (times 1.11)
2006-07 = 119 (times 1.05)
2007-08 = 125 (times 1.04)
2008-09 = 130
In other words, in 4 short years there was an inflation of 25-30 percent, depending on what really happened this year.
As I noted in my column, if the district had simply inflated its expenses (not just for teachers’ salaries but for all personnel expenses and other costs over which they have control), there would be no need for Measure W and the above chart would look like this:
2004-05 = 100 (times 1.03)
2005-06 = 103 (times 1.03)
2006-07 = 106 (times 1.03)
2007-08 = 109 (times 1.03)
2008-09 = 113
“But DPD (or Greenwald, if you wish) deserves a lot of credit for even maintaining such a well-trafficked blog.”
I agree with that and more. In most of David’s articles, I am quite certain there is at least 6-8 hours of research, plus the time it takes to write them. He’s doing this 7 days a week, almost 365 days a year. On top of all of that, he attends a great number of events and meetings. My views often differ with David’s, but that doesn’t stop me from appreciating how worthy his work is.
“In terms of spending, the line has really been held in the last few years on that. It is true that the teachers got a six percent raise two years ago, based on bad advice given to the board, but they held the line with a one percent raise last year, probably would expect a small raise if any this year.”
I’m not sure about the numbers you quote here. They are in conflict with what Don Shor reported on this blog: “The biggest increases were in the 2005 and 2006 school years, when certificated and classified salaries increased by 7% and 11% respectively, each year.”
Further, I was told yesterday by a member of the school board that in 2008-09, this school year, teacher salaries per pupil are up 4 percent over last year. (Unfortunately, these numbers are not on the DJUSD website, AFAIK).
Also, you have to keep in mind that the school district has not capped the cost of benefits. As such, even if the employees get 5 percent more salary in a given year, their total compensation (including benefits) may go up by 8-10 percent that year. Most of us who work in the private sector understand that private companies do not and cannot absorb these costly increases in benefits. They either cut them back or increase the amount employees must contribute. Companies that don’t do that often go bankrupt.
Using Don’s salary numbers since the 2004-05, you can establish a baseline of 100.
2004-05 = 100 (times 1.07)
2005-06 = 107 (times 1.11)
2006-07 = 119 (times 1.05)
2007-08 = 125 (times 1.04)
2008-09 = 130
In other words, in 4 short years there was an inflation of 25-30 percent, depending on what really happened this year.
As I noted in my column, if the district had simply inflated its expenses (not just for teachers’ salaries but for all personnel expenses and other costs over which they have control), there would be no need for Measure W and the above chart would look like this:
2004-05 = 100 (times 1.03)
2005-06 = 103 (times 1.03)
2006-07 = 106 (times 1.03)
2007-08 = 109 (times 1.03)
2008-09 = 113
“Actually, selling property can only go toward facilities funding,”
The point was that investment income from the proceeds of a sale can be used for operations. You leave the principle alone and work with the interest/dividend earned from whatever you invest in. You get a reasonably constant stream of dollars that goes into the operating fund forever.
“Actually, selling property can only go toward facilities funding,”
The point was that investment income from the proceeds of a sale can be used for operations. You leave the principle alone and work with the interest/dividend earned from whatever you invest in. You get a reasonably constant stream of dollars that goes into the operating fund forever.
“Actually, selling property can only go toward facilities funding,”
The point was that investment income from the proceeds of a sale can be used for operations. You leave the principle alone and work with the interest/dividend earned from whatever you invest in. You get a reasonably constant stream of dollars that goes into the operating fund forever.
“Actually, selling property can only go toward facilities funding,”
The point was that investment income from the proceeds of a sale can be used for operations. You leave the principle alone and work with the interest/dividend earned from whatever you invest in. You get a reasonably constant stream of dollars that goes into the operating fund forever.
Further, I was told yesterday by a member of the school board that in 2008-09, this school year, teacher salaries per pupil are up 4 percent over last year. (Unfortunately, these numbers are not on the DJUSD website, AFAIK).
There are some plausible explanations for 4%.
First, I understand that the district reduced positions at the secondary level, but did hire one extra elementary teacher to accomodate for increased enrollment. If there are few new teachers being hired, then step and column increases of a more experienced workforce will account salary increases more heavily on average.
Second, I believe that the DTA signed its last contract with the district in December or early January. At the time I think the contract called for a 1% salary increase and a 2% benefits increase (I’m working from slightly fuzzy memory, here). I don’t know details, but wasn’t that contract suppsed to start with this academic year? (Rich, I know that you do plenty of research. Perhaps you can verify?)
So if there is a comparison between this year and last year, these things should factor in.
A first step to fixing a problem is to understand what happened.
That said, if it is 4%, then we are going in the right direction to reduce increases from previous years — which you (and Don Shor) cite as 7%, 11%, and 5%.
I expect that we should be able to count on 3% or less in following years.
I have more confidence in Bruce Colby than I did in Tahir Ahad at the time. Colby lives in the district and has kids attending the schools. Parents make their own careful decisions in matters like this, but is clear that he has a personal stake to try harder and see that things work out.
There is something to be said in favor of an employee who is a willing consumer of his own product.
Further, I was told yesterday by a member of the school board that in 2008-09, this school year, teacher salaries per pupil are up 4 percent over last year. (Unfortunately, these numbers are not on the DJUSD website, AFAIK).
There are some plausible explanations for 4%.
First, I understand that the district reduced positions at the secondary level, but did hire one extra elementary teacher to accomodate for increased enrollment. If there are few new teachers being hired, then step and column increases of a more experienced workforce will account salary increases more heavily on average.
Second, I believe that the DTA signed its last contract with the district in December or early January. At the time I think the contract called for a 1% salary increase and a 2% benefits increase (I’m working from slightly fuzzy memory, here). I don’t know details, but wasn’t that contract suppsed to start with this academic year? (Rich, I know that you do plenty of research. Perhaps you can verify?)
So if there is a comparison between this year and last year, these things should factor in.
A first step to fixing a problem is to understand what happened.
That said, if it is 4%, then we are going in the right direction to reduce increases from previous years — which you (and Don Shor) cite as 7%, 11%, and 5%.
I expect that we should be able to count on 3% or less in following years.
I have more confidence in Bruce Colby than I did in Tahir Ahad at the time. Colby lives in the district and has kids attending the schools. Parents make their own careful decisions in matters like this, but is clear that he has a personal stake to try harder and see that things work out.
There is something to be said in favor of an employee who is a willing consumer of his own product.
Further, I was told yesterday by a member of the school board that in 2008-09, this school year, teacher salaries per pupil are up 4 percent over last year. (Unfortunately, these numbers are not on the DJUSD website, AFAIK).
There are some plausible explanations for 4%.
First, I understand that the district reduced positions at the secondary level, but did hire one extra elementary teacher to accomodate for increased enrollment. If there are few new teachers being hired, then step and column increases of a more experienced workforce will account salary increases more heavily on average.
Second, I believe that the DTA signed its last contract with the district in December or early January. At the time I think the contract called for a 1% salary increase and a 2% benefits increase (I’m working from slightly fuzzy memory, here). I don’t know details, but wasn’t that contract suppsed to start with this academic year? (Rich, I know that you do plenty of research. Perhaps you can verify?)
So if there is a comparison between this year and last year, these things should factor in.
A first step to fixing a problem is to understand what happened.
That said, if it is 4%, then we are going in the right direction to reduce increases from previous years — which you (and Don Shor) cite as 7%, 11%, and 5%.
I expect that we should be able to count on 3% or less in following years.
I have more confidence in Bruce Colby than I did in Tahir Ahad at the time. Colby lives in the district and has kids attending the schools. Parents make their own careful decisions in matters like this, but is clear that he has a personal stake to try harder and see that things work out.
There is something to be said in favor of an employee who is a willing consumer of his own product.
Further, I was told yesterday by a member of the school board that in 2008-09, this school year, teacher salaries per pupil are up 4 percent over last year. (Unfortunately, these numbers are not on the DJUSD website, AFAIK).
There are some plausible explanations for 4%.
First, I understand that the district reduced positions at the secondary level, but did hire one extra elementary teacher to accomodate for increased enrollment. If there are few new teachers being hired, then step and column increases of a more experienced workforce will account salary increases more heavily on average.
Second, I believe that the DTA signed its last contract with the district in December or early January. At the time I think the contract called for a 1% salary increase and a 2% benefits increase (I’m working from slightly fuzzy memory, here). I don’t know details, but wasn’t that contract suppsed to start with this academic year? (Rich, I know that you do plenty of research. Perhaps you can verify?)
So if there is a comparison between this year and last year, these things should factor in.
A first step to fixing a problem is to understand what happened.
That said, if it is 4%, then we are going in the right direction to reduce increases from previous years — which you (and Don Shor) cite as 7%, 11%, and 5%.
I expect that we should be able to count on 3% or less in following years.
I have more confidence in Bruce Colby than I did in Tahir Ahad at the time. Colby lives in the district and has kids attending the schools. Parents make their own careful decisions in matters like this, but is clear that he has a personal stake to try harder and see that things work out.
There is something to be said in favor of an employee who is a willing consumer of his own product.
Measure W is a “bridge loan”. It is not a loan – there is no way the school district will ever repay Measure W to tax payers! And you better believe once a parcel tax is in place, it stays in place – like cement.
Measure W is a “bridge loan”. It is not a loan – there is no way the school district will ever repay Measure W to tax payers! And you better believe once a parcel tax is in place, it stays in place – like cement.
Measure W is a “bridge loan”. It is not a loan – there is no way the school district will ever repay Measure W to tax payers! And you better believe once a parcel tax is in place, it stays in place – like cement.
Measure W is a “bridge loan”. It is not a loan – there is no way the school district will ever repay Measure W to tax payers! And you better believe once a parcel tax is in place, it stays in place – like cement.
I’m working on the numbers to lay this all out, probably have them up some time next week.
The parcel tax if W were to pass would expire in three years. At that point, the state budget would determine how much would be placed on the next ballot.
BTW, there is a possibility, but given the state climate it is unlikely, that if the budget improves and the state gives the district more money in the next three years, the district could take considerably less than the $120.
The other point that should be mentioned is that a lot of the alternatives that were mentioned earlier fall closer to the realm of one-time monies rather than on-going funding. It would be difficult for instance for a district to continue to rely on Davis Schools Foundation to bridge the gap between their revenue and expenditures as they did for the coming year’s budget.
It would also btw, be pretty unsettling for teachers to have to go in year to year not having any notion of stability, to each January being put on the list of possible layoffs only to be rehired when monies come in. That’s not conducive to having a good and stable teacher base.
Just some thoughts.
I’m working on the numbers to lay this all out, probably have them up some time next week.
The parcel tax if W were to pass would expire in three years. At that point, the state budget would determine how much would be placed on the next ballot.
BTW, there is a possibility, but given the state climate it is unlikely, that if the budget improves and the state gives the district more money in the next three years, the district could take considerably less than the $120.
The other point that should be mentioned is that a lot of the alternatives that were mentioned earlier fall closer to the realm of one-time monies rather than on-going funding. It would be difficult for instance for a district to continue to rely on Davis Schools Foundation to bridge the gap between their revenue and expenditures as they did for the coming year’s budget.
It would also btw, be pretty unsettling for teachers to have to go in year to year not having any notion of stability, to each January being put on the list of possible layoffs only to be rehired when monies come in. That’s not conducive to having a good and stable teacher base.
Just some thoughts.
I’m working on the numbers to lay this all out, probably have them up some time next week.
The parcel tax if W were to pass would expire in three years. At that point, the state budget would determine how much would be placed on the next ballot.
BTW, there is a possibility, but given the state climate it is unlikely, that if the budget improves and the state gives the district more money in the next three years, the district could take considerably less than the $120.
The other point that should be mentioned is that a lot of the alternatives that were mentioned earlier fall closer to the realm of one-time monies rather than on-going funding. It would be difficult for instance for a district to continue to rely on Davis Schools Foundation to bridge the gap between their revenue and expenditures as they did for the coming year’s budget.
It would also btw, be pretty unsettling for teachers to have to go in year to year not having any notion of stability, to each January being put on the list of possible layoffs only to be rehired when monies come in. That’s not conducive to having a good and stable teacher base.
Just some thoughts.
I’m working on the numbers to lay this all out, probably have them up some time next week.
The parcel tax if W were to pass would expire in three years. At that point, the state budget would determine how much would be placed on the next ballot.
BTW, there is a possibility, but given the state climate it is unlikely, that if the budget improves and the state gives the district more money in the next three years, the district could take considerably less than the $120.
The other point that should be mentioned is that a lot of the alternatives that were mentioned earlier fall closer to the realm of one-time monies rather than on-going funding. It would be difficult for instance for a district to continue to rely on Davis Schools Foundation to bridge the gap between their revenue and expenditures as they did for the coming year’s budget.
It would also btw, be pretty unsettling for teachers to have to go in year to year not having any notion of stability, to each January being put on the list of possible layoffs only to be rehired when monies come in. That’s not conducive to having a good and stable teacher base.
Just some thoughts.
The parcel tax if W were to pass would expire in three years. At that point, the state budget would determine how much would be placed on the next ballot.
uh-huh. sure. And the district would never even think of passing another one to replace the expired one, right?
given the track record of the district and how it seems to have its hand out more and more often, I doubt that.
But if you doubt what I am saying, then I will put my credibility on the line:
it will work one of two ways:
1) W passes, and the district knows about its expiration and passes a renewal or a new tax within that three years.
2) W does not pass. The school board asks for the tax again, albeit a smaller figure.
The parcel tax if W were to pass would expire in three years. At that point, the state budget would determine how much would be placed on the next ballot.
uh-huh. sure. And the district would never even think of passing another one to replace the expired one, right?
given the track record of the district and how it seems to have its hand out more and more often, I doubt that.
But if you doubt what I am saying, then I will put my credibility on the line:
it will work one of two ways:
1) W passes, and the district knows about its expiration and passes a renewal or a new tax within that three years.
2) W does not pass. The school board asks for the tax again, albeit a smaller figure.
The parcel tax if W were to pass would expire in three years. At that point, the state budget would determine how much would be placed on the next ballot.
uh-huh. sure. And the district would never even think of passing another one to replace the expired one, right?
given the track record of the district and how it seems to have its hand out more and more often, I doubt that.
But if you doubt what I am saying, then I will put my credibility on the line:
it will work one of two ways:
1) W passes, and the district knows about its expiration and passes a renewal or a new tax within that three years.
2) W does not pass. The school board asks for the tax again, albeit a smaller figure.
The parcel tax if W were to pass would expire in three years. At that point, the state budget would determine how much would be placed on the next ballot.
uh-huh. sure. And the district would never even think of passing another one to replace the expired one, right?
given the track record of the district and how it seems to have its hand out more and more often, I doubt that.
But if you doubt what I am saying, then I will put my credibility on the line:
it will work one of two ways:
1) W passes, and the district knows about its expiration and passes a renewal or a new tax within that three years.
2) W does not pass. The school board asks for the tax again, albeit a smaller figure.
You are forgetting there are two parcel taxes that put together will expire at the same time. There is a $200 parcel tax and now a proposed $120.
As WDF showed, the district has at times asked for less money. Measure W is strictly an emergency parcel tax, as long as the money comes from the state the district will not put a $320 parcel tax on the ballot, even if they did, it is unlikely it would pass.
You are forgetting there are two parcel taxes that put together will expire at the same time. There is a $200 parcel tax and now a proposed $120.
As WDF showed, the district has at times asked for less money. Measure W is strictly an emergency parcel tax, as long as the money comes from the state the district will not put a $320 parcel tax on the ballot, even if they did, it is unlikely it would pass.
You are forgetting there are two parcel taxes that put together will expire at the same time. There is a $200 parcel tax and now a proposed $120.
As WDF showed, the district has at times asked for less money. Measure W is strictly an emergency parcel tax, as long as the money comes from the state the district will not put a $320 parcel tax on the ballot, even if they did, it is unlikely it would pass.
You are forgetting there are two parcel taxes that put together will expire at the same time. There is a $200 parcel tax and now a proposed $120.
As WDF showed, the district has at times asked for less money. Measure W is strictly an emergency parcel tax, as long as the money comes from the state the district will not put a $320 parcel tax on the ballot, even if they did, it is unlikely it would pass.
Bottom line btw is who cares what they do in three years? If that’s your concern vote for this measure and vote against a measure in three if it ends up continuing the $320 per year parcel tax rather than simply renewing Measure Q.
Bottom line btw is who cares what they do in three years? If that’s your concern vote for this measure and vote against a measure in three if it ends up continuing the $320 per year parcel tax rather than simply renewing Measure Q.
Bottom line btw is who cares what they do in three years? If that’s your concern vote for this measure and vote against a measure in three if it ends up continuing the $320 per year parcel tax rather than simply renewing Measure Q.
Bottom line btw is who cares what they do in three years? If that’s your concern vote for this measure and vote against a measure in three if it ends up continuing the $320 per year parcel tax rather than simply renewing Measure Q.
I wonder if, in this blog discussion over Measure W, we have been witnessing a change in the concept of “public school”.
In an original sense, public school really meant community school, something that we’re all committed to and responsible for as a community. “Friday Night Lights” captures some of this kind of sentiment, in which in many west Texas towns of a certain time, the main center for community public activity is/was the local high school.
That kind of community relationship and commitment has the potential to produce very good results.
By the way, these are typically VERY politically conservative regions of Texas.
Some of the comments on this blog suggest at a certain detachment from the public schools, like a “not my problem” attitude.
Although an individual can legitimately claim no direct responsibility for a particular decision or consequence, there is a certain group responsibility that we all share. Most of us went to public schools at some point. Many of us may have kids someday who will go to public schools. Some of us had our kids graduate from the public schools years ago at the benifit of community dollars (taxes).
I wouldn’t say that this is a dominant attitude (“not my problem”) in Davis. Evidence for community caring and support is still found as evidenced by the DSF-led fundraising last spring. I was amazed at individuals who contributed who had no direct connection to the schools. That kind of community support is typically not possible.
But in general, I observe that the public schools are only as good as the local support.
A line of criticism comes over the fact that we’re proposing a “tax”, like it is a dirty word. This is a direct community investment that will provide something the community can be proud of.
It is very likely that the state of California will be proposing a budget next year very much like what we just saw passed. Because of DSF fundraising, Davis schools remain on equal financial footing with many neighboring districts. They didn’t have DSF, but they had some reserves to deplete.
Another state budget like what we’ve had to deal with will be a serious blow to districts all over the state. There are fewer reserve funds to protect those schools. There isn’t much that we can do to change things at a state level, but we can do something to help schools locally with Measure W.
Just some thoughts.
I wonder if, in this blog discussion over Measure W, we have been witnessing a change in the concept of “public school”.
In an original sense, public school really meant community school, something that we’re all committed to and responsible for as a community. “Friday Night Lights” captures some of this kind of sentiment, in which in many west Texas towns of a certain time, the main center for community public activity is/was the local high school.
That kind of community relationship and commitment has the potential to produce very good results.
By the way, these are typically VERY politically conservative regions of Texas.
Some of the comments on this blog suggest at a certain detachment from the public schools, like a “not my problem” attitude.
Although an individual can legitimately claim no direct responsibility for a particular decision or consequence, there is a certain group responsibility that we all share. Most of us went to public schools at some point. Many of us may have kids someday who will go to public schools. Some of us had our kids graduate from the public schools years ago at the benifit of community dollars (taxes).
I wouldn’t say that this is a dominant attitude (“not my problem”) in Davis. Evidence for community caring and support is still found as evidenced by the DSF-led fundraising last spring. I was amazed at individuals who contributed who had no direct connection to the schools. That kind of community support is typically not possible.
But in general, I observe that the public schools are only as good as the local support.
A line of criticism comes over the fact that we’re proposing a “tax”, like it is a dirty word. This is a direct community investment that will provide something the community can be proud of.
It is very likely that the state of California will be proposing a budget next year very much like what we just saw passed. Because of DSF fundraising, Davis schools remain on equal financial footing with many neighboring districts. They didn’t have DSF, but they had some reserves to deplete.
Another state budget like what we’ve had to deal with will be a serious blow to districts all over the state. There are fewer reserve funds to protect those schools. There isn’t much that we can do to change things at a state level, but we can do something to help schools locally with Measure W.
Just some thoughts.
I wonder if, in this blog discussion over Measure W, we have been witnessing a change in the concept of “public school”.
In an original sense, public school really meant community school, something that we’re all committed to and responsible for as a community. “Friday Night Lights” captures some of this kind of sentiment, in which in many west Texas towns of a certain time, the main center for community public activity is/was the local high school.
That kind of community relationship and commitment has the potential to produce very good results.
By the way, these are typically VERY politically conservative regions of Texas.
Some of the comments on this blog suggest at a certain detachment from the public schools, like a “not my problem” attitude.
Although an individual can legitimately claim no direct responsibility for a particular decision or consequence, there is a certain group responsibility that we all share. Most of us went to public schools at some point. Many of us may have kids someday who will go to public schools. Some of us had our kids graduate from the public schools years ago at the benifit of community dollars (taxes).
I wouldn’t say that this is a dominant attitude (“not my problem”) in Davis. Evidence for community caring and support is still found as evidenced by the DSF-led fundraising last spring. I was amazed at individuals who contributed who had no direct connection to the schools. That kind of community support is typically not possible.
But in general, I observe that the public schools are only as good as the local support.
A line of criticism comes over the fact that we’re proposing a “tax”, like it is a dirty word. This is a direct community investment that will provide something the community can be proud of.
It is very likely that the state of California will be proposing a budget next year very much like what we just saw passed. Because of DSF fundraising, Davis schools remain on equal financial footing with many neighboring districts. They didn’t have DSF, but they had some reserves to deplete.
Another state budget like what we’ve had to deal with will be a serious blow to districts all over the state. There are fewer reserve funds to protect those schools. There isn’t much that we can do to change things at a state level, but we can do something to help schools locally with Measure W.
Just some thoughts.
I wonder if, in this blog discussion over Measure W, we have been witnessing a change in the concept of “public school”.
In an original sense, public school really meant community school, something that we’re all committed to and responsible for as a community. “Friday Night Lights” captures some of this kind of sentiment, in which in many west Texas towns of a certain time, the main center for community public activity is/was the local high school.
That kind of community relationship and commitment has the potential to produce very good results.
By the way, these are typically VERY politically conservative regions of Texas.
Some of the comments on this blog suggest at a certain detachment from the public schools, like a “not my problem” attitude.
Although an individual can legitimately claim no direct responsibility for a particular decision or consequence, there is a certain group responsibility that we all share. Most of us went to public schools at some point. Many of us may have kids someday who will go to public schools. Some of us had our kids graduate from the public schools years ago at the benifit of community dollars (taxes).
I wouldn’t say that this is a dominant attitude (“not my problem”) in Davis. Evidence for community caring and support is still found as evidenced by the DSF-led fundraising last spring. I was amazed at individuals who contributed who had no direct connection to the schools. That kind of community support is typically not possible.
But in general, I observe that the public schools are only as good as the local support.
A line of criticism comes over the fact that we’re proposing a “tax”, like it is a dirty word. This is a direct community investment that will provide something the community can be proud of.
It is very likely that the state of California will be proposing a budget next year very much like what we just saw passed. Because of DSF fundraising, Davis schools remain on equal financial footing with many neighboring districts. They didn’t have DSF, but they had some reserves to deplete.
Another state budget like what we’ve had to deal with will be a serious blow to districts all over the state. There are fewer reserve funds to protect those schools. There isn’t much that we can do to change things at a state level, but we can do something to help schools locally with Measure W.
Just some thoughts.
“it is unlikely, that if the budget improves and the state gives the district more money in the next three years, the district could take considerably less than the $120.”
I agree with this. The notion that in 3 years the district will have planned its finances for W to expire is unrealistic. Thus, the selling point that W is a temporary bridge to get us over a short term crisis is less than honest.
Further, the selling point that W is necessary only because of the state’s budget situation, ignoring the spending decisions of the district over the last decade, particularly the last 5 years, is misleading. The bulk of our problem is our district’s fault, not Sacramento’s.
What I expect is that if W passes, the district will continue to do business as usual and assume that the voters in Davis will not question the raises in salary and benefits they give their employees. That would certainly be a reasonable assumption of the district.
“it is unlikely, that if the budget improves and the state gives the district more money in the next three years, the district could take considerably less than the $120.”
I agree with this. The notion that in 3 years the district will have planned its finances for W to expire is unrealistic. Thus, the selling point that W is a temporary bridge to get us over a short term crisis is less than honest.
Further, the selling point that W is necessary only because of the state’s budget situation, ignoring the spending decisions of the district over the last decade, particularly the last 5 years, is misleading. The bulk of our problem is our district’s fault, not Sacramento’s.
What I expect is that if W passes, the district will continue to do business as usual and assume that the voters in Davis will not question the raises in salary and benefits they give their employees. That would certainly be a reasonable assumption of the district.
“it is unlikely, that if the budget improves and the state gives the district more money in the next three years, the district could take considerably less than the $120.”
I agree with this. The notion that in 3 years the district will have planned its finances for W to expire is unrealistic. Thus, the selling point that W is a temporary bridge to get us over a short term crisis is less than honest.
Further, the selling point that W is necessary only because of the state’s budget situation, ignoring the spending decisions of the district over the last decade, particularly the last 5 years, is misleading. The bulk of our problem is our district’s fault, not Sacramento’s.
What I expect is that if W passes, the district will continue to do business as usual and assume that the voters in Davis will not question the raises in salary and benefits they give their employees. That would certainly be a reasonable assumption of the district.
“it is unlikely, that if the budget improves and the state gives the district more money in the next three years, the district could take considerably less than the $120.”
I agree with this. The notion that in 3 years the district will have planned its finances for W to expire is unrealistic. Thus, the selling point that W is a temporary bridge to get us over a short term crisis is less than honest.
Further, the selling point that W is necessary only because of the state’s budget situation, ignoring the spending decisions of the district over the last decade, particularly the last 5 years, is misleading. The bulk of our problem is our district’s fault, not Sacramento’s.
What I expect is that if W passes, the district will continue to do business as usual and assume that the voters in Davis will not question the raises in salary and benefits they give their employees. That would certainly be a reasonable assumption of the district.
One of the things I like about Rich Rifkin is he signs his posts. He also does excellent research, like DPD does.
I was raised in a fairly poor family, and my grandmother also said borrow money for tools, education, and a home.
I dont like the 2006 financial issues, but who are we punishing if we disapprove this tax? The kids. Pure and simple. Not Tahir or his friends.
Whenever presented with the choice, vote for money for educating our children. Plain and simple.
One of the things I like about Rich Rifkin is he signs his posts. He also does excellent research, like DPD does.
I was raised in a fairly poor family, and my grandmother also said borrow money for tools, education, and a home.
I dont like the 2006 financial issues, but who are we punishing if we disapprove this tax? The kids. Pure and simple. Not Tahir or his friends.
Whenever presented with the choice, vote for money for educating our children. Plain and simple.
One of the things I like about Rich Rifkin is he signs his posts. He also does excellent research, like DPD does.
I was raised in a fairly poor family, and my grandmother also said borrow money for tools, education, and a home.
I dont like the 2006 financial issues, but who are we punishing if we disapprove this tax? The kids. Pure and simple. Not Tahir or his friends.
Whenever presented with the choice, vote for money for educating our children. Plain and simple.
One of the things I like about Rich Rifkin is he signs his posts. He also does excellent research, like DPD does.
I was raised in a fairly poor family, and my grandmother also said borrow money for tools, education, and a home.
I dont like the 2006 financial issues, but who are we punishing if we disapprove this tax? The kids. Pure and simple. Not Tahir or his friends.
Whenever presented with the choice, vote for money for educating our children. Plain and simple.
It’s important to note a couple of factors that complicate any budget proposals.
A significant portion – 25% — of the budget is restricted. These funds must be spent on specific things that the legislature or the federal government has dictated. If the money isn’t spent on those activities, it isn’t transferable to other programs.
Some of these restricted programs aren’t fully funded, including Special Ed. The district has to provide them, but isn’t reimbursed specifically for them. According to Bruce Colby, that amounted to $2.3 million last year.
So Rich’s proposal to limit spending increases to 3% and use unspent funds in future years is more difficult to implement than it sounds.
My support for Measure W is for here and now, based on the district’s current fiscal position and budget:
— state COLA this year of 0.7%;
— no net increase in teachers;
— essentially flat budget proposal.
If the state resumes COLA’s and the board maintains fiscal discipline it would not be necessary to renew Measure W in three years. Assuming COLA’s 2 – 3 years from now, the budget could be back in balance by 2010-11.
Should the board decide to bring it to the voters, you have the numbers to judge the merits of their case. Nothing is inevitable: voters in Davis have not approved every parcel tax, if I recall.
The voters can assess the candidates in the next election. You have measurable criteria for incumbents in the budgets they’ve voted for and the contracts they’ve approved. You can ask challengers specific questions about how they would vote on budget increases, what kind of reserve they would maintain. If you want to send a signal about your dissatisfaction with prior decisions, do it in the board elections.
It’s important to note a couple of factors that complicate any budget proposals.
A significant portion – 25% — of the budget is restricted. These funds must be spent on specific things that the legislature or the federal government has dictated. If the money isn’t spent on those activities, it isn’t transferable to other programs.
Some of these restricted programs aren’t fully funded, including Special Ed. The district has to provide them, but isn’t reimbursed specifically for them. According to Bruce Colby, that amounted to $2.3 million last year.
So Rich’s proposal to limit spending increases to 3% and use unspent funds in future years is more difficult to implement than it sounds.
My support for Measure W is for here and now, based on the district’s current fiscal position and budget:
— state COLA this year of 0.7%;
— no net increase in teachers;
— essentially flat budget proposal.
If the state resumes COLA’s and the board maintains fiscal discipline it would not be necessary to renew Measure W in three years. Assuming COLA’s 2 – 3 years from now, the budget could be back in balance by 2010-11.
Should the board decide to bring it to the voters, you have the numbers to judge the merits of their case. Nothing is inevitable: voters in Davis have not approved every parcel tax, if I recall.
The voters can assess the candidates in the next election. You have measurable criteria for incumbents in the budgets they’ve voted for and the contracts they’ve approved. You can ask challengers specific questions about how they would vote on budget increases, what kind of reserve they would maintain. If you want to send a signal about your dissatisfaction with prior decisions, do it in the board elections.
It’s important to note a couple of factors that complicate any budget proposals.
A significant portion – 25% — of the budget is restricted. These funds must be spent on specific things that the legislature or the federal government has dictated. If the money isn’t spent on those activities, it isn’t transferable to other programs.
Some of these restricted programs aren’t fully funded, including Special Ed. The district has to provide them, but isn’t reimbursed specifically for them. According to Bruce Colby, that amounted to $2.3 million last year.
So Rich’s proposal to limit spending increases to 3% and use unspent funds in future years is more difficult to implement than it sounds.
My support for Measure W is for here and now, based on the district’s current fiscal position and budget:
— state COLA this year of 0.7%;
— no net increase in teachers;
— essentially flat budget proposal.
If the state resumes COLA’s and the board maintains fiscal discipline it would not be necessary to renew Measure W in three years. Assuming COLA’s 2 – 3 years from now, the budget could be back in balance by 2010-11.
Should the board decide to bring it to the voters, you have the numbers to judge the merits of their case. Nothing is inevitable: voters in Davis have not approved every parcel tax, if I recall.
The voters can assess the candidates in the next election. You have measurable criteria for incumbents in the budgets they’ve voted for and the contracts they’ve approved. You can ask challengers specific questions about how they would vote on budget increases, what kind of reserve they would maintain. If you want to send a signal about your dissatisfaction with prior decisions, do it in the board elections.
It’s important to note a couple of factors that complicate any budget proposals.
A significant portion – 25% — of the budget is restricted. These funds must be spent on specific things that the legislature or the federal government has dictated. If the money isn’t spent on those activities, it isn’t transferable to other programs.
Some of these restricted programs aren’t fully funded, including Special Ed. The district has to provide them, but isn’t reimbursed specifically for them. According to Bruce Colby, that amounted to $2.3 million last year.
So Rich’s proposal to limit spending increases to 3% and use unspent funds in future years is more difficult to implement than it sounds.
My support for Measure W is for here and now, based on the district’s current fiscal position and budget:
— state COLA this year of 0.7%;
— no net increase in teachers;
— essentially flat budget proposal.
If the state resumes COLA’s and the board maintains fiscal discipline it would not be necessary to renew Measure W in three years. Assuming COLA’s 2 – 3 years from now, the budget could be back in balance by 2010-11.
Should the board decide to bring it to the voters, you have the numbers to judge the merits of their case. Nothing is inevitable: voters in Davis have not approved every parcel tax, if I recall.
The voters can assess the candidates in the next election. You have measurable criteria for incumbents in the budgets they’ve voted for and the contracts they’ve approved. You can ask challengers specific questions about how they would vote on budget increases, what kind of reserve they would maintain. If you want to send a signal about your dissatisfaction with prior decisions, do it in the board elections.