The people have entrusted to you the education of their children. You do not need me to tell you how big a responsibility that entails.
During the course of the campaign, I had the chance to speak with many, many people in the community about the schools. I would like to share some of my thoughts with you in a moment.
But first I would like to say I worked so hard to get the facts out for this measure because I believe in education. As I have said so many times on the blog, I sat up in the audience all too many nights last spring until all too late into the evening. I talked with parents and students and shared their anxieties and concerns. I supported Measure W first and foremost for them, never again did I want students to worry about the possibility of their schools closing and their teachers fired.
I have heard concerns about fiscal mismanagement, transparency, and accountability from many quarters in the community—including from people that it might surprise you to learn shared this concern. However, I believe that I have thoroughly reviewed and observed district practices. I believe that the district has gone to great lengths to be both transparent and accountable. I look forward to working in the future toward both of those goals.
Now however I offer some critiques and hopefully constructive criticism.
First, this has to be the last parcel tax until Measures Q and W expire in three years. The community was willing to back this one, but they were getting a bit leery. I support education strongly, the state budget is going to be a huge challenge, I can only hope that given a year at least where the district is assured that they will have the necessary funding, that the district finds ways to keep afloat in tough economic times. The taxpayers of Davis face all sorts of potentially new taxes, fees for service, and water rate increases in the coming years. I worry about their ability to make ends meet in these tough economic times. As such, I will state plainly right now, I will not support another parcel tax before these two parcel taxes expire. Furthermore, I urge the district to find a way to renew only Measure Q when the time comes, that means find a way to account for the $120 per year that Measure W provides even if the state does not.
Second, there needs to be community outreach on Valley Oak. There is still a lot of bitterness out there. I understand that Measure Q and Measure W passed despite the closure of Valley Oak and at times it passed with the support of many of those same parents, but there are two groups that you need to focus on. First, those parents and community members who fought so hard for to keep Valley Oak open. And second those in the community that really believed it was a special and unique school and who believe that there were racial elements that came into play.
I spoke with so many this year and many of them told me this fall that they were torn. They had always supported education, always voted for whatever measures were on the ballot to support education, but they were angry about Valley Oak. Those people in the end voted for W as they voted for Q, but do not let this fact mask a very serious animosity that has developed out there. A number of very prominent people did not endorse Measure W because of Valley Oak and they only in the last week and through great effort of many decided to hold their nose and vote for it.
I will never forget right before the election going on a police ride along of all things, and as we drove past Korematsu, the police officer told me that he had mixed feeling about that school. He described to me how he had worked at Valley Oak in his capacity as a police officer as he had several other schools over his lengthy career. But he said Valley Oak was different. They made him feel like he was part of the school itself. He did not feel like a visitor there. At one point, there was a troubled student without male role models in his life and they asked just to talk to him about ten minutes at recess.
To me this story reinforces to me that yes you can duplicate programs but a school is more than a sum of its programs. That is not to take away from the great things that this district does at every school. But I, like so many others believe that Valley Oak was special and unique that the district did this community and that neighborhood a great disservice by closing the school. The district and the board have not made amends for that or acknowledged that to the citizens of the community. And yet, the devoted parents and community leaders there remained loyal to this district and supported Measure W even as their hearts were breaking over the loss of their school. Talk to them, and you will see, the hurt feelings and raw emotions still. You will also see the love for schools and the commitment to education.
Third, again along the same lines, during the course of the budget struggle, there was another struggle that lost attention. In 2007, there was a serious push for stronger work toward closing the achievement gap. There were period but persistent concerns about race relations on the high school campus and elsewhere in the district. There was the controversy about the STAR testing. There were concerns raised by longtime and prominent members of the community that issues that were addressed in a 1990 report laid on the shelf for years, un-acted upon. These issues came back up in 2007. They have disappeared during the struggle for the budget. These are serious issues and they need to have renewed focus. The problem is no less real in 2008 going into 2009. The fact that the district will have fewer resources to deal with this problem means that we must be that much more aggressive at addressing it.
Fourth, there are serious issues of mistrust regarding Emerson Junior High. These are not merely manifested on the blog, but also in emails on several email lists developed to mobilize people to fight to keep Emerson open. Interestingly, not one email went out on that list urging people to vote Yes on W prior to the vote. There are people in this part of Davis that really believe that Emerson’s closure is fait accompli. I do not believe that is the case at all. From every conversation I have had with the district or board members, while they cannot promise that Measure W’s passage means Emerson stays open, I believe it would be logistically infeasible to close it.
However, I would suggest that there needs to be more communication between the school board, the district, and West Davis about the exact concerns about Emerson and the real prospects for it closing. Level with the public in advance if there is reason for concern and reassure them if there is not. Communication and trust are the keys. I understand that in the rush of the spring budget crisis, these discussions could not happen, but they can happen now and they need to.
Finally, Bruce Colby a couple of weeks ago suggested a Vanguard sponsored Q & A session. I hope to work with Mr. Colby and Dr. Hammond to facilitate something along those lines. We can think about how to structure it.
I am pleased with the transparency and accountability of this district, but I do believe that the district can do even better. Opening lines of communication are important. The new district website is better, but it could be better still.
In this day and age of instant communications, there is no excuse to have a communications gap with the community. I would look as a district toward finding ways to enact better communication tools. The Davis Enterprise is only read by less than one-third of the households in the city. The Vanguard is one alternative means to communicate more directly to the public, but not the only way.
The district has come a long way in the last four years in terms of public trust and accountability, but there is much that still needs to be done.
—David M. Greenwald
It would be fair to judge how well the district is doing in the next three years by how well they do on reducing the achievement gap. Closing the gap in three years is probably unrealistic, but we should see significant progress.
It would be fair to judge how well the district is doing in the next three years by how well they do on reducing the achievement gap. Closing the gap in three years is probably unrealistic, but we should see significant progress.
It would be fair to judge how well the district is doing in the next three years by how well they do on reducing the achievement gap. Closing the gap in three years is probably unrealistic, but we should see significant progress.
It would be fair to judge how well the district is doing in the next three years by how well they do on reducing the achievement gap. Closing the gap in three years is probably unrealistic, but we should see significant progress.
DPD, very well said and I know the District and James Hammond will take your comments to heart as they were voiced by a strong supporter who knew much about the public’s views on W and schools. From someone who voted NO on W for many of these reasons, I am glad it passed (I know, not logical) and hope your message ‘passes’ too.
DPD, very well said and I know the District and James Hammond will take your comments to heart as they were voiced by a strong supporter who knew much about the public’s views on W and schools. From someone who voted NO on W for many of these reasons, I am glad it passed (I know, not logical) and hope your message ‘passes’ too.
DPD, very well said and I know the District and James Hammond will take your comments to heart as they were voiced by a strong supporter who knew much about the public’s views on W and schools. From someone who voted NO on W for many of these reasons, I am glad it passed (I know, not logical) and hope your message ‘passes’ too.
DPD, very well said and I know the District and James Hammond will take your comments to heart as they were voiced by a strong supporter who knew much about the public’s views on W and schools. From someone who voted NO on W for many of these reasons, I am glad it passed (I know, not logical) and hope your message ‘passes’ too.
The fact that the district will have fewer resources to deal with this problem [achievement gap] means that we must be that much more aggressive at addressing it.
But with the passage of Q and W, the district has more resources (money) than most districts will with the impending and ongoing lean budget years from the state.
If any district around here has the resources to address the achievement gap, it is Davis.
The fact that the district will have fewer resources to deal with this problem [achievement gap] means that we must be that much more aggressive at addressing it.
But with the passage of Q and W, the district has more resources (money) than most districts will with the impending and ongoing lean budget years from the state.
If any district around here has the resources to address the achievement gap, it is Davis.
The fact that the district will have fewer resources to deal with this problem [achievement gap] means that we must be that much more aggressive at addressing it.
But with the passage of Q and W, the district has more resources (money) than most districts will with the impending and ongoing lean budget years from the state.
If any district around here has the resources to address the achievement gap, it is Davis.
The fact that the district will have fewer resources to deal with this problem [achievement gap] means that we must be that much more aggressive at addressing it.
But with the passage of Q and W, the district has more resources (money) than most districts will with the impending and ongoing lean budget years from the state.
If any district around here has the resources to address the achievement gap, it is Davis.
wdf:
I agree, I just don’t want that issue to be forgotten given the justifiably focus on the budget crisis (which is not going away).
wdf:
I agree, I just don’t want that issue to be forgotten given the justifiably focus on the budget crisis (which is not going away).
wdf:
I agree, I just don’t want that issue to be forgotten given the justifiably focus on the budget crisis (which is not going away).
wdf:
I agree, I just don’t want that issue to be forgotten given the justifiably focus on the budget crisis (which is not going away).
What are the chances of getting some fiscal reprieve for schools from the state on mid-year cuts?
What are the chances of getting some fiscal reprieve for schools from the state on mid-year cuts?
What are the chances of getting some fiscal reprieve for schools from the state on mid-year cuts?
What are the chances of getting some fiscal reprieve for schools from the state on mid-year cuts?
Did anyone out there attend Measure Q oversight committee meeting last Friday? If so, could you share the drama with us?
Did anyone out there attend Measure Q oversight committee meeting last Friday? If so, could you share the drama with us?
Did anyone out there attend Measure Q oversight committee meeting last Friday? If so, could you share the drama with us?
Did anyone out there attend Measure Q oversight committee meeting last Friday? If so, could you share the drama with us?
Given the grim fiscal situation at the state level, the district will still likley need to enact steep cuts over the next couple of years. The parcel taxes help, of course, but nothing but bad news is ahead. I think the district may need to contemplate closing at least one more campus, as hard on the community as it is.
Given the grim fiscal situation at the state level, the district will still likley need to enact steep cuts over the next couple of years. The parcel taxes help, of course, but nothing but bad news is ahead. I think the district may need to contemplate closing at least one more campus, as hard on the community as it is.
Given the grim fiscal situation at the state level, the district will still likley need to enact steep cuts over the next couple of years. The parcel taxes help, of course, but nothing but bad news is ahead. I think the district may need to contemplate closing at least one more campus, as hard on the community as it is.
Given the grim fiscal situation at the state level, the district will still likley need to enact steep cuts over the next couple of years. The parcel taxes help, of course, but nothing but bad news is ahead. I think the district may need to contemplate closing at least one more campus, as hard on the community as it is.
I read a blog on the achievement gap earlier this year, which asked for suggestions from experts in the field.
One idea is to put all “low-achieving” elementary aged kids in the same classroom for their grade at their school(1). The best teacher in the school should be assigned to teach that class. That, the theory goes, would help to reduce an achievement gap:
“One thing we have learned definitively in recent years is that teachers differ in their ability to raise students’ achievement. Research shows that your child’s learning will be very different at the end of the school year if he has the best teacher in his grade rather than the worst teacher. Importantly, it is not a master’s degree, a teaching certificate, or experience that makes a teacher the best or the worst. The data show that some teachers are simply better at raising achievement and that their superior talents are not revealed by credentials that would show up on a resume. Since we can identify the better teachers ex post but not necessarily when they are hired, it makes sense to reward teachers based on their students’ learning gains. If states introduced bonuses for teachers who raised achievement substantially and gave bigger bonuses to teachers who raised disadvantaged students’ achievement, considerable progress might be made in closing the achievement gap. Such a policy would not only give teachers strong incentives to improve their teaching, but it would also draw talented people into the teaching profession and keep them there.”
Another is: make the school year longer for “low-achieving” students.
“One factor that was found to correlate with a charter school’s success was a longer school year (210 days, say, as opposed to 180 days) and day (9 hours, say, as opposed to 5.5).”
Other ideas from that blog from other contributors:
* Make it harder to get into college — that supposedly would force low-achievers to work harder in high school;
* Raise expectations for all students;
*Reduce the disincentives of parents to marry and increase the financial incentives for parents to marry and remain together for their children (the idea is that a disproportionate number of minority kids are raised in broken and poor homes, and that hurts their prospects in school);
*Immediately fire all bad teachers (the idea being that these teachers do irreparable harm to “at-risk” kids) and keep at-risk kids away from teachers who are not yet proven to be good.
——-
(1) I know some people believe in the idea that the brightest and slowest kids should be mixed into the same classrooms, as somehow the slower kids gain from the fast learners. However, I am not sure there is scientific evidence for that. If it is true, it might contradict the idea of concentrating the low-achievers in the classrooms of the best teachers.
I read a blog on the achievement gap earlier this year, which asked for suggestions from experts in the field.
One idea is to put all “low-achieving” elementary aged kids in the same classroom for their grade at their school(1). The best teacher in the school should be assigned to teach that class. That, the theory goes, would help to reduce an achievement gap:
“One thing we have learned definitively in recent years is that teachers differ in their ability to raise students’ achievement. Research shows that your child’s learning will be very different at the end of the school year if he has the best teacher in his grade rather than the worst teacher. Importantly, it is not a master’s degree, a teaching certificate, or experience that makes a teacher the best or the worst. The data show that some teachers are simply better at raising achievement and that their superior talents are not revealed by credentials that would show up on a resume. Since we can identify the better teachers ex post but not necessarily when they are hired, it makes sense to reward teachers based on their students’ learning gains. If states introduced bonuses for teachers who raised achievement substantially and gave bigger bonuses to teachers who raised disadvantaged students’ achievement, considerable progress might be made in closing the achievement gap. Such a policy would not only give teachers strong incentives to improve their teaching, but it would also draw talented people into the teaching profession and keep them there.”
Another is: make the school year longer for “low-achieving” students.
“One factor that was found to correlate with a charter school’s success was a longer school year (210 days, say, as opposed to 180 days) and day (9 hours, say, as opposed to 5.5).”
Other ideas from that blog from other contributors:
* Make it harder to get into college — that supposedly would force low-achievers to work harder in high school;
* Raise expectations for all students;
*Reduce the disincentives of parents to marry and increase the financial incentives for parents to marry and remain together for their children (the idea is that a disproportionate number of minority kids are raised in broken and poor homes, and that hurts their prospects in school);
*Immediately fire all bad teachers (the idea being that these teachers do irreparable harm to “at-risk” kids) and keep at-risk kids away from teachers who are not yet proven to be good.
——-
(1) I know some people believe in the idea that the brightest and slowest kids should be mixed into the same classrooms, as somehow the slower kids gain from the fast learners. However, I am not sure there is scientific evidence for that. If it is true, it might contradict the idea of concentrating the low-achievers in the classrooms of the best teachers.
I read a blog on the achievement gap earlier this year, which asked for suggestions from experts in the field.
One idea is to put all “low-achieving” elementary aged kids in the same classroom for their grade at their school(1). The best teacher in the school should be assigned to teach that class. That, the theory goes, would help to reduce an achievement gap:
“One thing we have learned definitively in recent years is that teachers differ in their ability to raise students’ achievement. Research shows that your child’s learning will be very different at the end of the school year if he has the best teacher in his grade rather than the worst teacher. Importantly, it is not a master’s degree, a teaching certificate, or experience that makes a teacher the best or the worst. The data show that some teachers are simply better at raising achievement and that their superior talents are not revealed by credentials that would show up on a resume. Since we can identify the better teachers ex post but not necessarily when they are hired, it makes sense to reward teachers based on their students’ learning gains. If states introduced bonuses for teachers who raised achievement substantially and gave bigger bonuses to teachers who raised disadvantaged students’ achievement, considerable progress might be made in closing the achievement gap. Such a policy would not only give teachers strong incentives to improve their teaching, but it would also draw talented people into the teaching profession and keep them there.”
Another is: make the school year longer for “low-achieving” students.
“One factor that was found to correlate with a charter school’s success was a longer school year (210 days, say, as opposed to 180 days) and day (9 hours, say, as opposed to 5.5).”
Other ideas from that blog from other contributors:
* Make it harder to get into college — that supposedly would force low-achievers to work harder in high school;
* Raise expectations for all students;
*Reduce the disincentives of parents to marry and increase the financial incentives for parents to marry and remain together for their children (the idea is that a disproportionate number of minority kids are raised in broken and poor homes, and that hurts their prospects in school);
*Immediately fire all bad teachers (the idea being that these teachers do irreparable harm to “at-risk” kids) and keep at-risk kids away from teachers who are not yet proven to be good.
——-
(1) I know some people believe in the idea that the brightest and slowest kids should be mixed into the same classrooms, as somehow the slower kids gain from the fast learners. However, I am not sure there is scientific evidence for that. If it is true, it might contradict the idea of concentrating the low-achievers in the classrooms of the best teachers.
I read a blog on the achievement gap earlier this year, which asked for suggestions from experts in the field.
One idea is to put all “low-achieving” elementary aged kids in the same classroom for their grade at their school(1). The best teacher in the school should be assigned to teach that class. That, the theory goes, would help to reduce an achievement gap:
“One thing we have learned definitively in recent years is that teachers differ in their ability to raise students’ achievement. Research shows that your child’s learning will be very different at the end of the school year if he has the best teacher in his grade rather than the worst teacher. Importantly, it is not a master’s degree, a teaching certificate, or experience that makes a teacher the best or the worst. The data show that some teachers are simply better at raising achievement and that their superior talents are not revealed by credentials that would show up on a resume. Since we can identify the better teachers ex post but not necessarily when they are hired, it makes sense to reward teachers based on their students’ learning gains. If states introduced bonuses for teachers who raised achievement substantially and gave bigger bonuses to teachers who raised disadvantaged students’ achievement, considerable progress might be made in closing the achievement gap. Such a policy would not only give teachers strong incentives to improve their teaching, but it would also draw talented people into the teaching profession and keep them there.”
Another is: make the school year longer for “low-achieving” students.
“One factor that was found to correlate with a charter school’s success was a longer school year (210 days, say, as opposed to 180 days) and day (9 hours, say, as opposed to 5.5).”
Other ideas from that blog from other contributors:
* Make it harder to get into college — that supposedly would force low-achievers to work harder in high school;
* Raise expectations for all students;
*Reduce the disincentives of parents to marry and increase the financial incentives for parents to marry and remain together for their children (the idea is that a disproportionate number of minority kids are raised in broken and poor homes, and that hurts their prospects in school);
*Immediately fire all bad teachers (the idea being that these teachers do irreparable harm to “at-risk” kids) and keep at-risk kids away from teachers who are not yet proven to be good.
——-
(1) I know some people believe in the idea that the brightest and slowest kids should be mixed into the same classrooms, as somehow the slower kids gain from the fast learners. However, I am not sure there is scientific evidence for that. If it is true, it might contradict the idea of concentrating the low-achievers in the classrooms of the best teachers.
Given the grim fiscal situation at the state level, the district will still likley need to enact steep cuts over the next couple of years. The parcel taxes help, of course, but nothing but bad news is ahead. I think the district may need to contemplate closing at least one more campus, as hard on the community as it is.
I presume you are right if state funding for future years comes in significantly less than 08-09.
Given the grim fiscal situation at the state level, the district will still likley need to enact steep cuts over the next couple of years. The parcel taxes help, of course, but nothing but bad news is ahead. I think the district may need to contemplate closing at least one more campus, as hard on the community as it is.
I presume you are right if state funding for future years comes in significantly less than 08-09.
Given the grim fiscal situation at the state level, the district will still likley need to enact steep cuts over the next couple of years. The parcel taxes help, of course, but nothing but bad news is ahead. I think the district may need to contemplate closing at least one more campus, as hard on the community as it is.
I presume you are right if state funding for future years comes in significantly less than 08-09.
Given the grim fiscal situation at the state level, the district will still likley need to enact steep cuts over the next couple of years. The parcel taxes help, of course, but nothing but bad news is ahead. I think the district may need to contemplate closing at least one more campus, as hard on the community as it is.
I presume you are right if state funding for future years comes in significantly less than 08-09.
“Anonymous said…
Given the grim fiscal situation at the state level, the district will still likley need to enact steep cuts over the next couple of years. The parcel taxes help, of course, but nothing but bad news is ahead. I think the district may need to contemplate closing at least one more campus, as hard on the community as it is.”
Attempt to close another campus, and what you will get is an absolute revolt, and probably a recall vote of the School Board. Citizens are in no mood to watch another school close due to past fiscal irresponsibility.
“Anonymous said…
Given the grim fiscal situation at the state level, the district will still likley need to enact steep cuts over the next couple of years. The parcel taxes help, of course, but nothing but bad news is ahead. I think the district may need to contemplate closing at least one more campus, as hard on the community as it is.”
Attempt to close another campus, and what you will get is an absolute revolt, and probably a recall vote of the School Board. Citizens are in no mood to watch another school close due to past fiscal irresponsibility.
“Anonymous said…
Given the grim fiscal situation at the state level, the district will still likley need to enact steep cuts over the next couple of years. The parcel taxes help, of course, but nothing but bad news is ahead. I think the district may need to contemplate closing at least one more campus, as hard on the community as it is.”
Attempt to close another campus, and what you will get is an absolute revolt, and probably a recall vote of the School Board. Citizens are in no mood to watch another school close due to past fiscal irresponsibility.
“Anonymous said…
Given the grim fiscal situation at the state level, the district will still likley need to enact steep cuts over the next couple of years. The parcel taxes help, of course, but nothing but bad news is ahead. I think the district may need to contemplate closing at least one more campus, as hard on the community as it is.”
Attempt to close another campus, and what you will get is an absolute revolt, and probably a recall vote of the School Board. Citizens are in no mood to watch another school close due to past fiscal irresponsibility.
Good article DPD. I look forward to the Q&A session coming up – but don't count on it being polite. Citizens of Davis are angry.
Good article DPD. I look forward to the Q&A session coming up – but don't count on it being polite. Citizens of Davis are angry.
Good article DPD. I look forward to the Q&A session coming up – but don't count on it being polite. Citizens of Davis are angry.
Good article DPD. I look forward to the Q&A session coming up – but don't count on it being polite. Citizens of Davis are angry.
If somebody were to read this blog who knew nothing about Davis you would come away with the impression that W would never get 2/3 of the vote. But guess what? Measure W got 3/4.
So now this blog that gives voice to a bunch of reactionary anti-tax types demands more accountability and participation on the blog from the schools. Well guess what, the school district owes you nothing. Man, do you have nerve, after giving so much electronic space to people like Rifkin, Don Shor and Republicans to the right of John Munn you want the school district to come and smooze on your blog. Why should they? To capture the 25% of the vote that they would never get anyway.
If somebody were to read this blog who knew nothing about Davis you would come away with the impression that W would never get 2/3 of the vote. But guess what? Measure W got 3/4.
So now this blog that gives voice to a bunch of reactionary anti-tax types demands more accountability and participation on the blog from the schools. Well guess what, the school district owes you nothing. Man, do you have nerve, after giving so much electronic space to people like Rifkin, Don Shor and Republicans to the right of John Munn you want the school district to come and smooze on your blog. Why should they? To capture the 25% of the vote that they would never get anyway.
If somebody were to read this blog who knew nothing about Davis you would come away with the impression that W would never get 2/3 of the vote. But guess what? Measure W got 3/4.
So now this blog that gives voice to a bunch of reactionary anti-tax types demands more accountability and participation on the blog from the schools. Well guess what, the school district owes you nothing. Man, do you have nerve, after giving so much electronic space to people like Rifkin, Don Shor and Republicans to the right of John Munn you want the school district to come and smooze on your blog. Why should they? To capture the 25% of the vote that they would never get anyway.
If somebody were to read this blog who knew nothing about Davis you would come away with the impression that W would never get 2/3 of the vote. But guess what? Measure W got 3/4.
So now this blog that gives voice to a bunch of reactionary anti-tax types demands more accountability and participation on the blog from the schools. Well guess what, the school district owes you nothing. Man, do you have nerve, after giving so much electronic space to people like Rifkin, Don Shor and Republicans to the right of John Munn you want the school district to come and smooze on your blog. Why should they? To capture the 25% of the vote that they would never get anyway.
this blog gives voice to a bunch of reactionary anti-tax types / you have nerve, after giving so much electronic space to people like Rifkin, Don Shor and Republicans
Even though I am liberal I like to listen to other opinions. I’m glad Mr. Greenwald permits an open discusssion. It is not as good to only hear one side, clueless.
this blog gives voice to a bunch of reactionary anti-tax types / you have nerve, after giving so much electronic space to people like Rifkin, Don Shor and Republicans
Even though I am liberal I like to listen to other opinions. I’m glad Mr. Greenwald permits an open discusssion. It is not as good to only hear one side, clueless.
this blog gives voice to a bunch of reactionary anti-tax types / you have nerve, after giving so much electronic space to people like Rifkin, Don Shor and Republicans
Even though I am liberal I like to listen to other opinions. I’m glad Mr. Greenwald permits an open discusssion. It is not as good to only hear one side, clueless.
this blog gives voice to a bunch of reactionary anti-tax types / you have nerve, after giving so much electronic space to people like Rifkin, Don Shor and Republicans
Even though I am liberal I like to listen to other opinions. I’m glad Mr. Greenwald permits an open discusssion. It is not as good to only hear one side, clueless.
“Man, do you have nerve, after giving so much electronic space to people like Rifkin, Don Shor and Republicans to the right of John Munn…”
I endorsed Measure W on this blog.
“Man, do you have nerve, after giving so much electronic space to people like Rifkin, Don Shor and Republicans to the right of John Munn…”
I endorsed Measure W on this blog.
“Man, do you have nerve, after giving so much electronic space to people like Rifkin, Don Shor and Republicans to the right of John Munn…”
I endorsed Measure W on this blog.
“Man, do you have nerve, after giving so much electronic space to people like Rifkin, Don Shor and Republicans to the right of John Munn…”
I endorsed Measure W on this blog.
I like Don Shor’s and Rifkin’s comments. I never gave that much thought to their political preferences. Their analyses are very thoughtful. And yes, Don did endorse Measure W.
I do agree with the first part of your comment: If somebody were to read this blog who knew nothing about Davis you would come away with the impression that W would never get 2/3 of the vote.
It’s because if a person is upset or has a serious disagreement with mainstream Davis, then this blog is the biggest safe forum to vent.
I like Don Shor’s and Rifkin’s comments. I never gave that much thought to their political preferences. Their analyses are very thoughtful. And yes, Don did endorse Measure W.
I do agree with the first part of your comment: If somebody were to read this blog who knew nothing about Davis you would come away with the impression that W would never get 2/3 of the vote.
It’s because if a person is upset or has a serious disagreement with mainstream Davis, then this blog is the biggest safe forum to vent.
I like Don Shor’s and Rifkin’s comments. I never gave that much thought to their political preferences. Their analyses are very thoughtful. And yes, Don did endorse Measure W.
I do agree with the first part of your comment: If somebody were to read this blog who knew nothing about Davis you would come away with the impression that W would never get 2/3 of the vote.
It’s because if a person is upset or has a serious disagreement with mainstream Davis, then this blog is the biggest safe forum to vent.
I like Don Shor’s and Rifkin’s comments. I never gave that much thought to their political preferences. Their analyses are very thoughtful. And yes, Don did endorse Measure W.
I do agree with the first part of your comment: If somebody were to read this blog who knew nothing about Davis you would come away with the impression that W would never get 2/3 of the vote.
It’s because if a person is upset or has a serious disagreement with mainstream Davis, then this blog is the biggest safe forum to vent.
Don, I must have missed it I thought you did an analysis and then copped out on how people should vote. I stand beind the rest of my remarks.
Don, I must have missed it I thought you did an analysis and then copped out on how people should vote. I stand beind the rest of my remarks.
Don, I must have missed it I thought you did an analysis and then copped out on how people should vote. I stand beind the rest of my remarks.
Don, I must have missed it I thought you did an analysis and then copped out on how people should vote. I stand beind the rest of my remarks.
I can’t seem to make links correctly. Here was my post on Measure W.
—————
How should you vote on Measure W? That depends on
— your assessment of the causes of the current predicament,
— your guesses about future funding stability, and
— your faith in your elected officials and district staff.
I was curious about the history of the present predicament and wanted to analyze the district’s finances. For a while, it was pretty hard to find clear information. EdVoice.com and the state Dept of Ed site are useful resources. A fellow blogger sent me some statistics and Bruce Colby provided detailed information, and I thank both of them. The conclusions here are my own.
Most of the district’s money comes directly from the state, based on the enrollment. Most of the district’s money goes to instructional expenses: teachers, teaching staff, books and supplies.
Myth: enrollment decreases are the cause of the district’s fiscal problems.
Fact: Paid ADA enrollment has dropped less than .3% per year since 2002-3, a total decrease of only 1.6% over the entire 2002-8 period. This is a total reduction of 134 paid ADA students from 2002 to 2007. Enrollment appears to be up a bit this year.
Costs should be proportional to enrollment, as income is. You would expect the district’s expenses to rise by about the rate of inflation (16% overall 2002-7), adjusted for any change in enrollment (down 1.6%).
Based on those criteria, the district budget for 2007 should be about $67.5 million.
The actual (projected) budget for 2007-8 was $73.8 million.
So over the past six years, DJUSD expenses have increased $6.3 million (10%) more than they “should” have. We’ll call this “extra.”
Where did the money go?
So what expenses were rising faster than the rate of inflation (adjusted for enrollment) in DJUSD between 2002 and 2007-8?
Myth: bloated administrative costs are the problem.
Fact: administrative costs actually rose slower than the rate of inflation.
Teacher pay. With a slight decrease in enrollment 2007/2002, certificated salaries increased 20%. Difference over inflation, adjusted for enrollment: $1.8 million “extra.”
The number of teachers, after dropping slightly from 2002 to 2003, remained nearly constant, at least through 2006 (this number is pretty hard to pin down).
Davis teachers are paid, on average, slightly more than the statewide average. Their benefits package is comparable to other districts.
Teacher pay increases in 2005 and 2006 made up for increases in the previous two years that were well below inflation. But the 6% increase in the 2007 budget is a pay increase above the rate of inflation through 2007.
Staff pay. During the same time period (2007/2002), classified salaries increased 23%. Difference over inflation, less enrollment: $0.9 million “extra.”
The biggest increases were in the 2005 and 2006 school years, when certificated and classified salaries increased by 7% and 11% respectively, each year.
Benefits increased 31% 2007/2002: $1.3 million “extra.” According to one board member, DJUSD benefits had been pretty paltry. They are now in line with other school districts.
Books and supplies increased 61%: $1.5 million “extra.”
Services and other operating expenses increased 41%: $1.6 million “extra.”
There was a big jump in Services and other operating expenses in 2006: 27%, a single year increase of nearly $2 million. This includes increases in utility costs ($400,000), special ed transportation, payments to other districts, legal fees, consultants, and settlements. 2006 was a messy year.
Why didn’t they go broke sooner?
Fortunately for the school district, total revenues increased 22% during this time period, so income was actually increasing faster than the rate of inflation as well. DJUSD had nearly $13 million more money total in 2007 vs. 2002.
So what’s the problem? Unfortunately, total expenditures increased 25%: the district spent $14.7 million more.
Two big factors:
Some district expenses are restricted, and the state has been reimbursing less than these cost the district.
The state is not giving ADA cost-of-living increases, at least for 2008, so revenues will dip.
To their credit, the board has proposed an essentially flat budget for 2008-9 that will not even account for inflation. They are not hiring new teachers, nor are they budgeting for a pay increase. Administration has been trimmed. If they can hold the line on the expenses that are within their control, expenses and revenues are expected to balance in 2010 or so. But there is a gap between revenues and expenses for the next two budget years. School districts can’t run a deficit; in fact, they are required to maintain a prudent reserve.
The proposed parcel tax would bridge that gap in revenue with about $2.4 million per year for three years. It would maintain the current budget level and a healthy reserve, allowing the district to weather future state budget crises. It is unlikely that districts will get a full cost-of-living increase in the next couple of state budgets.
If Measure W doesn’t pass, the number of teachers will have to be cut for at least a year or so. That’s where the money goes, so that is what will be cut. Teachers equal programs and low student/teacher ratios. You can quibble about this program or that one, but it is the total number of teachers that matters. Programs would be cut and student/teacher ratios would increase. Since the lower grades are at state-mandated ratios, the effect would fall disproportionately on grades 7 – 12. Enrollment has been increasing in those grades as it declines in the lower grades.
To some degree, this comes down to trust.
As a strong supporter of Valley Oak, and then the charter proposal, I have serious issues with the board’s actions in the last couple of years. Closing Emerson is often discussed. There has been turbulence in the administration. This parcel tax will not be an easy thing to sell, and I share much of the skepticism others have voiced.
Some recommendations:
The district needs to update its web site and provide fiscal information in an easy-to-read manner.
Staffing should be proportional to enrollment. The district should implement a hiring freeze to adjust for the slight enrollment decrease over the last few years.
Expense increases should not exceed the rate of inflation, or the rate reimbursed by the state, whichever is lower.
Those are simple guidelines an oversight committee can enforce.
So if you have faith that this newly-elected school board will keep expenses in check, and will continue to be honest about fiscal issues, you will probably be willing to vote for this parcel tax on a one-time basis. If you are skeptical, talk directly to the board members and staff about your concerns. I think you’ll find them approachable and willing to provide information.
My own thoughts?
I don’t vote here, but as a local property owner I do pay this tax: business parcels are taxed at $120 per year. My kids went to DJUSD K – 12 as interdistrict transfer students. We went out of our way to bring our kids into this district each year for more than 14 years. The teaching quality and program choices here are excellent. Budget cuts would directly affect those.
Unlike the ongoing parcel tax that voters just approved, the board should not expect this tax to be renewed automatically by the voters. There are no guarantees, but the trend lines suggest that it would not be necessary. But with the loss of cost-of-living increases from the state and the continued increase in mandated, under-funded programs, Measure W gives DJUSD breathing room.
Don Shor is a business owner in Davis, owning Redbarn Nursery.
I can’t seem to make links correctly. Here was my post on Measure W.
—————
How should you vote on Measure W? That depends on
— your assessment of the causes of the current predicament,
— your guesses about future funding stability, and
— your faith in your elected officials and district staff.
I was curious about the history of the present predicament and wanted to analyze the district’s finances. For a while, it was pretty hard to find clear information. EdVoice.com and the state Dept of Ed site are useful resources. A fellow blogger sent me some statistics and Bruce Colby provided detailed information, and I thank both of them. The conclusions here are my own.
Most of the district’s money comes directly from the state, based on the enrollment. Most of the district’s money goes to instructional expenses: teachers, teaching staff, books and supplies.
Myth: enrollment decreases are the cause of the district’s fiscal problems.
Fact: Paid ADA enrollment has dropped less than .3% per year since 2002-3, a total decrease of only 1.6% over the entire 2002-8 period. This is a total reduction of 134 paid ADA students from 2002 to 2007. Enrollment appears to be up a bit this year.
Costs should be proportional to enrollment, as income is. You would expect the district’s expenses to rise by about the rate of inflation (16% overall 2002-7), adjusted for any change in enrollment (down 1.6%).
Based on those criteria, the district budget for 2007 should be about $67.5 million.
The actual (projected) budget for 2007-8 was $73.8 million.
So over the past six years, DJUSD expenses have increased $6.3 million (10%) more than they “should” have. We’ll call this “extra.”
Where did the money go?
So what expenses were rising faster than the rate of inflation (adjusted for enrollment) in DJUSD between 2002 and 2007-8?
Myth: bloated administrative costs are the problem.
Fact: administrative costs actually rose slower than the rate of inflation.
Teacher pay. With a slight decrease in enrollment 2007/2002, certificated salaries increased 20%. Difference over inflation, adjusted for enrollment: $1.8 million “extra.”
The number of teachers, after dropping slightly from 2002 to 2003, remained nearly constant, at least through 2006 (this number is pretty hard to pin down).
Davis teachers are paid, on average, slightly more than the statewide average. Their benefits package is comparable to other districts.
Teacher pay increases in 2005 and 2006 made up for increases in the previous two years that were well below inflation. But the 6% increase in the 2007 budget is a pay increase above the rate of inflation through 2007.
Staff pay. During the same time period (2007/2002), classified salaries increased 23%. Difference over inflation, less enrollment: $0.9 million “extra.”
The biggest increases were in the 2005 and 2006 school years, when certificated and classified salaries increased by 7% and 11% respectively, each year.
Benefits increased 31% 2007/2002: $1.3 million “extra.” According to one board member, DJUSD benefits had been pretty paltry. They are now in line with other school districts.
Books and supplies increased 61%: $1.5 million “extra.”
Services and other operating expenses increased 41%: $1.6 million “extra.”
There was a big jump in Services and other operating expenses in 2006: 27%, a single year increase of nearly $2 million. This includes increases in utility costs ($400,000), special ed transportation, payments to other districts, legal fees, consultants, and settlements. 2006 was a messy year.
Why didn’t they go broke sooner?
Fortunately for the school district, total revenues increased 22% during this time period, so income was actually increasing faster than the rate of inflation as well. DJUSD had nearly $13 million more money total in 2007 vs. 2002.
So what’s the problem? Unfortunately, total expenditures increased 25%: the district spent $14.7 million more.
Two big factors:
Some district expenses are restricted, and the state has been reimbursing less than these cost the district.
The state is not giving ADA cost-of-living increases, at least for 2008, so revenues will dip.
To their credit, the board has proposed an essentially flat budget for 2008-9 that will not even account for inflation. They are not hiring new teachers, nor are they budgeting for a pay increase. Administration has been trimmed. If they can hold the line on the expenses that are within their control, expenses and revenues are expected to balance in 2010 or so. But there is a gap between revenues and expenses for the next two budget years. School districts can’t run a deficit; in fact, they are required to maintain a prudent reserve.
The proposed parcel tax would bridge that gap in revenue with about $2.4 million per year for three years. It would maintain the current budget level and a healthy reserve, allowing the district to weather future state budget crises. It is unlikely that districts will get a full cost-of-living increase in the next couple of state budgets.
If Measure W doesn’t pass, the number of teachers will have to be cut for at least a year or so. That’s where the money goes, so that is what will be cut. Teachers equal programs and low student/teacher ratios. You can quibble about this program or that one, but it is the total number of teachers that matters. Programs would be cut and student/teacher ratios would increase. Since the lower grades are at state-mandated ratios, the effect would fall disproportionately on grades 7 – 12. Enrollment has been increasing in those grades as it declines in the lower grades.
To some degree, this comes down to trust.
As a strong supporter of Valley Oak, and then the charter proposal, I have serious issues with the board’s actions in the last couple of years. Closing Emerson is often discussed. There has been turbulence in the administration. This parcel tax will not be an easy thing to sell, and I share much of the skepticism others have voiced.
Some recommendations:
The district needs to update its web site and provide fiscal information in an easy-to-read manner.
Staffing should be proportional to enrollment. The district should implement a hiring freeze to adjust for the slight enrollment decrease over the last few years.
Expense increases should not exceed the rate of inflation, or the rate reimbursed by the state, whichever is lower.
Those are simple guidelines an oversight committee can enforce.
So if you have faith that this newly-elected school board will keep expenses in check, and will continue to be honest about fiscal issues, you will probably be willing to vote for this parcel tax on a one-time basis. If you are skeptical, talk directly to the board members and staff about your concerns. I think you’ll find them approachable and willing to provide information.
My own thoughts?
I don’t vote here, but as a local property owner I do pay this tax: business parcels are taxed at $120 per year. My kids went to DJUSD K – 12 as interdistrict transfer students. We went out of our way to bring our kids into this district each year for more than 14 years. The teaching quality and program choices here are excellent. Budget cuts would directly affect those.
Unlike the ongoing parcel tax that voters just approved, the board should not expect this tax to be renewed automatically by the voters. There are no guarantees, but the trend lines suggest that it would not be necessary. But with the loss of cost-of-living increases from the state and the continued increase in mandated, under-funded programs, Measure W gives DJUSD breathing room.
Don Shor is a business owner in Davis, owning Redbarn Nursery.
I can’t seem to make links correctly. Here was my post on Measure W.
—————
How should you vote on Measure W? That depends on
— your assessment of the causes of the current predicament,
— your guesses about future funding stability, and
— your faith in your elected officials and district staff.
I was curious about the history of the present predicament and wanted to analyze the district’s finances. For a while, it was pretty hard to find clear information. EdVoice.com and the state Dept of Ed site are useful resources. A fellow blogger sent me some statistics and Bruce Colby provided detailed information, and I thank both of them. The conclusions here are my own.
Most of the district’s money comes directly from the state, based on the enrollment. Most of the district’s money goes to instructional expenses: teachers, teaching staff, books and supplies.
Myth: enrollment decreases are the cause of the district’s fiscal problems.
Fact: Paid ADA enrollment has dropped less than .3% per year since 2002-3, a total decrease of only 1.6% over the entire 2002-8 period. This is a total reduction of 134 paid ADA students from 2002 to 2007. Enrollment appears to be up a bit this year.
Costs should be proportional to enrollment, as income is. You would expect the district’s expenses to rise by about the rate of inflation (16% overall 2002-7), adjusted for any change in enrollment (down 1.6%).
Based on those criteria, the district budget for 2007 should be about $67.5 million.
The actual (projected) budget for 2007-8 was $73.8 million.
So over the past six years, DJUSD expenses have increased $6.3 million (10%) more than they “should” have. We’ll call this “extra.”
Where did the money go?
So what expenses were rising faster than the rate of inflation (adjusted for enrollment) in DJUSD between 2002 and 2007-8?
Myth: bloated administrative costs are the problem.
Fact: administrative costs actually rose slower than the rate of inflation.
Teacher pay. With a slight decrease in enrollment 2007/2002, certificated salaries increased 20%. Difference over inflation, adjusted for enrollment: $1.8 million “extra.”
The number of teachers, after dropping slightly from 2002 to 2003, remained nearly constant, at least through 2006 (this number is pretty hard to pin down).
Davis teachers are paid, on average, slightly more than the statewide average. Their benefits package is comparable to other districts.
Teacher pay increases in 2005 and 2006 made up for increases in the previous two years that were well below inflation. But the 6% increase in the 2007 budget is a pay increase above the rate of inflation through 2007.
Staff pay. During the same time period (2007/2002), classified salaries increased 23%. Difference over inflation, less enrollment: $0.9 million “extra.”
The biggest increases were in the 2005 and 2006 school years, when certificated and classified salaries increased by 7% and 11% respectively, each year.
Benefits increased 31% 2007/2002: $1.3 million “extra.” According to one board member, DJUSD benefits had been pretty paltry. They are now in line with other school districts.
Books and supplies increased 61%: $1.5 million “extra.”
Services and other operating expenses increased 41%: $1.6 million “extra.”
There was a big jump in Services and other operating expenses in 2006: 27%, a single year increase of nearly $2 million. This includes increases in utility costs ($400,000), special ed transportation, payments to other districts, legal fees, consultants, and settlements. 2006 was a messy year.
Why didn’t they go broke sooner?
Fortunately for the school district, total revenues increased 22% during this time period, so income was actually increasing faster than the rate of inflation as well. DJUSD had nearly $13 million more money total in 2007 vs. 2002.
So what’s the problem? Unfortunately, total expenditures increased 25%: the district spent $14.7 million more.
Two big factors:
Some district expenses are restricted, and the state has been reimbursing less than these cost the district.
The state is not giving ADA cost-of-living increases, at least for 2008, so revenues will dip.
To their credit, the board has proposed an essentially flat budget for 2008-9 that will not even account for inflation. They are not hiring new teachers, nor are they budgeting for a pay increase. Administration has been trimmed. If they can hold the line on the expenses that are within their control, expenses and revenues are expected to balance in 2010 or so. But there is a gap between revenues and expenses for the next two budget years. School districts can’t run a deficit; in fact, they are required to maintain a prudent reserve.
The proposed parcel tax would bridge that gap in revenue with about $2.4 million per year for three years. It would maintain the current budget level and a healthy reserve, allowing the district to weather future state budget crises. It is unlikely that districts will get a full cost-of-living increase in the next couple of state budgets.
If Measure W doesn’t pass, the number of teachers will have to be cut for at least a year or so. That’s where the money goes, so that is what will be cut. Teachers equal programs and low student/teacher ratios. You can quibble about this program or that one, but it is the total number of teachers that matters. Programs would be cut and student/teacher ratios would increase. Since the lower grades are at state-mandated ratios, the effect would fall disproportionately on grades 7 – 12. Enrollment has been increasing in those grades as it declines in the lower grades.
To some degree, this comes down to trust.
As a strong supporter of Valley Oak, and then the charter proposal, I have serious issues with the board’s actions in the last couple of years. Closing Emerson is often discussed. There has been turbulence in the administration. This parcel tax will not be an easy thing to sell, and I share much of the skepticism others have voiced.
Some recommendations:
The district needs to update its web site and provide fiscal information in an easy-to-read manner.
Staffing should be proportional to enrollment. The district should implement a hiring freeze to adjust for the slight enrollment decrease over the last few years.
Expense increases should not exceed the rate of inflation, or the rate reimbursed by the state, whichever is lower.
Those are simple guidelines an oversight committee can enforce.
So if you have faith that this newly-elected school board will keep expenses in check, and will continue to be honest about fiscal issues, you will probably be willing to vote for this parcel tax on a one-time basis. If you are skeptical, talk directly to the board members and staff about your concerns. I think you’ll find them approachable and willing to provide information.
My own thoughts?
I don’t vote here, but as a local property owner I do pay this tax: business parcels are taxed at $120 per year. My kids went to DJUSD K – 12 as interdistrict transfer students. We went out of our way to bring our kids into this district each year for more than 14 years. The teaching quality and program choices here are excellent. Budget cuts would directly affect those.
Unlike the ongoing parcel tax that voters just approved, the board should not expect this tax to be renewed automatically by the voters. There are no guarantees, but the trend lines suggest that it would not be necessary. But with the loss of cost-of-living increases from the state and the continued increase in mandated, under-funded programs, Measure W gives DJUSD breathing room.
Don Shor is a business owner in Davis, owning Redbarn Nursery.
I can’t seem to make links correctly. Here was my post on Measure W.
—————
How should you vote on Measure W? That depends on
— your assessment of the causes of the current predicament,
— your guesses about future funding stability, and
— your faith in your elected officials and district staff.
I was curious about the history of the present predicament and wanted to analyze the district’s finances. For a while, it was pretty hard to find clear information. EdVoice.com and the state Dept of Ed site are useful resources. A fellow blogger sent me some statistics and Bruce Colby provided detailed information, and I thank both of them. The conclusions here are my own.
Most of the district’s money comes directly from the state, based on the enrollment. Most of the district’s money goes to instructional expenses: teachers, teaching staff, books and supplies.
Myth: enrollment decreases are the cause of the district’s fiscal problems.
Fact: Paid ADA enrollment has dropped less than .3% per year since 2002-3, a total decrease of only 1.6% over the entire 2002-8 period. This is a total reduction of 134 paid ADA students from 2002 to 2007. Enrollment appears to be up a bit this year.
Costs should be proportional to enrollment, as income is. You would expect the district’s expenses to rise by about the rate of inflation (16% overall 2002-7), adjusted for any change in enrollment (down 1.6%).
Based on those criteria, the district budget for 2007 should be about $67.5 million.
The actual (projected) budget for 2007-8 was $73.8 million.
So over the past six years, DJUSD expenses have increased $6.3 million (10%) more than they “should” have. We’ll call this “extra.”
Where did the money go?
So what expenses were rising faster than the rate of inflation (adjusted for enrollment) in DJUSD between 2002 and 2007-8?
Myth: bloated administrative costs are the problem.
Fact: administrative costs actually rose slower than the rate of inflation.
Teacher pay. With a slight decrease in enrollment 2007/2002, certificated salaries increased 20%. Difference over inflation, adjusted for enrollment: $1.8 million “extra.”
The number of teachers, after dropping slightly from 2002 to 2003, remained nearly constant, at least through 2006 (this number is pretty hard to pin down).
Davis teachers are paid, on average, slightly more than the statewide average. Their benefits package is comparable to other districts.
Teacher pay increases in 2005 and 2006 made up for increases in the previous two years that were well below inflation. But the 6% increase in the 2007 budget is a pay increase above the rate of inflation through 2007.
Staff pay. During the same time period (2007/2002), classified salaries increased 23%. Difference over inflation, less enrollment: $0.9 million “extra.”
The biggest increases were in the 2005 and 2006 school years, when certificated and classified salaries increased by 7% and 11% respectively, each year.
Benefits increased 31% 2007/2002: $1.3 million “extra.” According to one board member, DJUSD benefits had been pretty paltry. They are now in line with other school districts.
Books and supplies increased 61%: $1.5 million “extra.”
Services and other operating expenses increased 41%: $1.6 million “extra.”
There was a big jump in Services and other operating expenses in 2006: 27%, a single year increase of nearly $2 million. This includes increases in utility costs ($400,000), special ed transportation, payments to other districts, legal fees, consultants, and settlements. 2006 was a messy year.
Why didn’t they go broke sooner?
Fortunately for the school district, total revenues increased 22% during this time period, so income was actually increasing faster than the rate of inflation as well. DJUSD had nearly $13 million more money total in 2007 vs. 2002.
So what’s the problem? Unfortunately, total expenditures increased 25%: the district spent $14.7 million more.
Two big factors:
Some district expenses are restricted, and the state has been reimbursing less than these cost the district.
The state is not giving ADA cost-of-living increases, at least for 2008, so revenues will dip.
To their credit, the board has proposed an essentially flat budget for 2008-9 that will not even account for inflation. They are not hiring new teachers, nor are they budgeting for a pay increase. Administration has been trimmed. If they can hold the line on the expenses that are within their control, expenses and revenues are expected to balance in 2010 or so. But there is a gap between revenues and expenses for the next two budget years. School districts can’t run a deficit; in fact, they are required to maintain a prudent reserve.
The proposed parcel tax would bridge that gap in revenue with about $2.4 million per year for three years. It would maintain the current budget level and a healthy reserve, allowing the district to weather future state budget crises. It is unlikely that districts will get a full cost-of-living increase in the next couple of state budgets.
If Measure W doesn’t pass, the number of teachers will have to be cut for at least a year or so. That’s where the money goes, so that is what will be cut. Teachers equal programs and low student/teacher ratios. You can quibble about this program or that one, but it is the total number of teachers that matters. Programs would be cut and student/teacher ratios would increase. Since the lower grades are at state-mandated ratios, the effect would fall disproportionately on grades 7 – 12. Enrollment has been increasing in those grades as it declines in the lower grades.
To some degree, this comes down to trust.
As a strong supporter of Valley Oak, and then the charter proposal, I have serious issues with the board’s actions in the last couple of years. Closing Emerson is often discussed. There has been turbulence in the administration. This parcel tax will not be an easy thing to sell, and I share much of the skepticism others have voiced.
Some recommendations:
The district needs to update its web site and provide fiscal information in an easy-to-read manner.
Staffing should be proportional to enrollment. The district should implement a hiring freeze to adjust for the slight enrollment decrease over the last few years.
Expense increases should not exceed the rate of inflation, or the rate reimbursed by the state, whichever is lower.
Those are simple guidelines an oversight committee can enforce.
So if you have faith that this newly-elected school board will keep expenses in check, and will continue to be honest about fiscal issues, you will probably be willing to vote for this parcel tax on a one-time basis. If you are skeptical, talk directly to the board members and staff about your concerns. I think you’ll find them approachable and willing to provide information.
My own thoughts?
I don’t vote here, but as a local property owner I do pay this tax: business parcels are taxed at $120 per year. My kids went to DJUSD K – 12 as interdistrict transfer students. We went out of our way to bring our kids into this district each year for more than 14 years. The teaching quality and program choices here are excellent. Budget cuts would directly affect those.
Unlike the ongoing parcel tax that voters just approved, the board should not expect this tax to be renewed automatically by the voters. There are no guarantees, but the trend lines suggest that it would not be necessary. But with the loss of cost-of-living increases from the state and the continued increase in mandated, under-funded programs, Measure W gives DJUSD breathing room.
Don Shor is a business owner in Davis, owning Redbarn Nursery.
“Measure W gives djusd breathing room” is that an endorsement? No wonder I didn’t get it
“Measure W gives djusd breathing room” is that an endorsement? No wonder I didn’t get it
“Measure W gives djusd breathing room” is that an endorsement? No wonder I didn’t get it
“Measure W gives djusd breathing room” is that an endorsement? No wonder I didn’t get it
RU Kidding:
Keep in mind tens of thousands of people log onto this site each month, only a small fraction of them post. The views expressed in the comment section do not necessarily reflect the views of the majority of readers of the Vanguard.
I expect to have an announcement shortly on the time and form of the Q & A session, it should be interesting.
RU Kidding:
Keep in mind tens of thousands of people log onto this site each month, only a small fraction of them post. The views expressed in the comment section do not necessarily reflect the views of the majority of readers of the Vanguard.
I expect to have an announcement shortly on the time and form of the Q & A session, it should be interesting.
RU Kidding:
Keep in mind tens of thousands of people log onto this site each month, only a small fraction of them post. The views expressed in the comment section do not necessarily reflect the views of the majority of readers of the Vanguard.
I expect to have an announcement shortly on the time and form of the Q & A session, it should be interesting.
RU Kidding:
Keep in mind tens of thousands of people log onto this site each month, only a small fraction of them post. The views expressed in the comment section do not necessarily reflect the views of the majority of readers of the Vanguard.
I expect to have an announcement shortly on the time and form of the Q & A session, it should be interesting.
“I like Don Shor’s and Rifkin’s comments.”
Thanks, and I like Don’s, as well. Everything signed by WDF is always well thought out, whoever you are.
“And yes, Don did endorse Measure W.”
I realize that just about everything I wrote on W was negative. I did that to make clear my feeling that the heart of the problem — though not the whole problem — was to be found on the expense side of the ledger, not the revenue side. However, I never told anyone to vote No on W. I simply laid out the facts as I saw them. In the end, realizing that the DTA would rather have the district fire its shortest tenured members than give back their salary hikes, and that other contracted personnel of the district would do the same, all at the expense of children and of relatively low-paid employees, I reluctantly voted yes on W. If my reluctance makes me “a reactionary” in your mind, so be it. But if you care to use words correctly, as one who is socially liberal and generally prefers free markets, I am the opposite of a “reactionary,” my views on Robespierre notwithstanding.
———
Wikipedia: “Reactionary (also reactionist) refers to any movement or ideology that opposes change or progress in society and seeks a return to a previous state. The term originated in the French Revolution, denoting the counter-revolutionaries wishing to restore the real or imagined conditions of the monarchical Ancien Régime. In the nineteenth century, the term reactionism denoted those who wished to preserve feudalism and aristocratic privilege against industrialism, republicanism, [1] liberalism, and (sometimes) socialism.”
“I like Don Shor’s and Rifkin’s comments.”
Thanks, and I like Don’s, as well. Everything signed by WDF is always well thought out, whoever you are.
“And yes, Don did endorse Measure W.”
I realize that just about everything I wrote on W was negative. I did that to make clear my feeling that the heart of the problem — though not the whole problem — was to be found on the expense side of the ledger, not the revenue side. However, I never told anyone to vote No on W. I simply laid out the facts as I saw them. In the end, realizing that the DTA would rather have the district fire its shortest tenured members than give back their salary hikes, and that other contracted personnel of the district would do the same, all at the expense of children and of relatively low-paid employees, I reluctantly voted yes on W. If my reluctance makes me “a reactionary” in your mind, so be it. But if you care to use words correctly, as one who is socially liberal and generally prefers free markets, I am the opposite of a “reactionary,” my views on Robespierre notwithstanding.
———
Wikipedia: “Reactionary (also reactionist) refers to any movement or ideology that opposes change or progress in society and seeks a return to a previous state. The term originated in the French Revolution, denoting the counter-revolutionaries wishing to restore the real or imagined conditions of the monarchical Ancien Régime. In the nineteenth century, the term reactionism denoted those who wished to preserve feudalism and aristocratic privilege against industrialism, republicanism, [1] liberalism, and (sometimes) socialism.”
“I like Don Shor’s and Rifkin’s comments.”
Thanks, and I like Don’s, as well. Everything signed by WDF is always well thought out, whoever you are.
“And yes, Don did endorse Measure W.”
I realize that just about everything I wrote on W was negative. I did that to make clear my feeling that the heart of the problem — though not the whole problem — was to be found on the expense side of the ledger, not the revenue side. However, I never told anyone to vote No on W. I simply laid out the facts as I saw them. In the end, realizing that the DTA would rather have the district fire its shortest tenured members than give back their salary hikes, and that other contracted personnel of the district would do the same, all at the expense of children and of relatively low-paid employees, I reluctantly voted yes on W. If my reluctance makes me “a reactionary” in your mind, so be it. But if you care to use words correctly, as one who is socially liberal and generally prefers free markets, I am the opposite of a “reactionary,” my views on Robespierre notwithstanding.
———
Wikipedia: “Reactionary (also reactionist) refers to any movement or ideology that opposes change or progress in society and seeks a return to a previous state. The term originated in the French Revolution, denoting the counter-revolutionaries wishing to restore the real or imagined conditions of the monarchical Ancien Régime. In the nineteenth century, the term reactionism denoted those who wished to preserve feudalism and aristocratic privilege against industrialism, republicanism, [1] liberalism, and (sometimes) socialism.”
“I like Don Shor’s and Rifkin’s comments.”
Thanks, and I like Don’s, as well. Everything signed by WDF is always well thought out, whoever you are.
“And yes, Don did endorse Measure W.”
I realize that just about everything I wrote on W was negative. I did that to make clear my feeling that the heart of the problem — though not the whole problem — was to be found on the expense side of the ledger, not the revenue side. However, I never told anyone to vote No on W. I simply laid out the facts as I saw them. In the end, realizing that the DTA would rather have the district fire its shortest tenured members than give back their salary hikes, and that other contracted personnel of the district would do the same, all at the expense of children and of relatively low-paid employees, I reluctantly voted yes on W. If my reluctance makes me “a reactionary” in your mind, so be it. But if you care to use words correctly, as one who is socially liberal and generally prefers free markets, I am the opposite of a “reactionary,” my views on Robespierre notwithstanding.
———
Wikipedia: “Reactionary (also reactionist) refers to any movement or ideology that opposes change or progress in society and seeks a return to a previous state. The term originated in the French Revolution, denoting the counter-revolutionaries wishing to restore the real or imagined conditions of the monarchical Ancien Régime. In the nineteenth century, the term reactionism denoted those who wished to preserve feudalism and aristocratic privilege against industrialism, republicanism, [1] liberalism, and (sometimes) socialism.”
Very interesting comments by all, but I predict voters will be keeping a close eye on how Measure W funds are spent.
Taxpayers are strapped to the bone with property-tax add-ons, and I predict a failure to renew past DJUSD add-ons, UNLESS Measure W funds are spent efficiently and effectively.
The ball is in your court, DJUSD. If you blow the lifesaver,” it will take many years before citizens trust you again or vote to renew current tax add-ons.
Very interesting comments by all, but I predict voters will be keeping a close eye on how Measure W funds are spent.
Taxpayers are strapped to the bone with property-tax add-ons, and I predict a failure to renew past DJUSD add-ons, UNLESS Measure W funds are spent efficiently and effectively.
The ball is in your court, DJUSD. If you blow the lifesaver,” it will take many years before citizens trust you again or vote to renew current tax add-ons.
Very interesting comments by all, but I predict voters will be keeping a close eye on how Measure W funds are spent.
Taxpayers are strapped to the bone with property-tax add-ons, and I predict a failure to renew past DJUSD add-ons, UNLESS Measure W funds are spent efficiently and effectively.
The ball is in your court, DJUSD. If you blow the lifesaver,” it will take many years before citizens trust you again or vote to renew current tax add-ons.
Very interesting comments by all, but I predict voters will be keeping a close eye on how Measure W funds are spent.
Taxpayers are strapped to the bone with property-tax add-ons, and I predict a failure to renew past DJUSD add-ons, UNLESS Measure W funds are spent efficiently and effectively.
The ball is in your court, DJUSD. If you blow the lifesaver,” it will take many years before citizens trust you again or vote to renew current tax add-ons.
With regard to the “achievement gap” – let’s keep in mind that this phrase over-simplifies a real but complex situation. Lumping all people together by dint of only one aspect of their multi-faceted lives presents the very real problem of grossly inaccurate stereotyping. It is important to mindfully tease apart the factors that contribute to this situation.
That said, I think it would be useful for the community to read “Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada’s Quest to Change Harlem and America” by Paul Tough. I say think, as my copy has just arrived at the Avid Reader, and I haven’t gotten it yet. From what I have heard (and others may have heard the NPR review) it suggests changes for improving school performance, and, more importantly, lives.
With regard to the “achievement gap” – let’s keep in mind that this phrase over-simplifies a real but complex situation. Lumping all people together by dint of only one aspect of their multi-faceted lives presents the very real problem of grossly inaccurate stereotyping. It is important to mindfully tease apart the factors that contribute to this situation.
That said, I think it would be useful for the community to read “Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada’s Quest to Change Harlem and America” by Paul Tough. I say think, as my copy has just arrived at the Avid Reader, and I haven’t gotten it yet. From what I have heard (and others may have heard the NPR review) it suggests changes for improving school performance, and, more importantly, lives.
With regard to the “achievement gap” – let’s keep in mind that this phrase over-simplifies a real but complex situation. Lumping all people together by dint of only one aspect of their multi-faceted lives presents the very real problem of grossly inaccurate stereotyping. It is important to mindfully tease apart the factors that contribute to this situation.
That said, I think it would be useful for the community to read “Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada’s Quest to Change Harlem and America” by Paul Tough. I say think, as my copy has just arrived at the Avid Reader, and I haven’t gotten it yet. From what I have heard (and others may have heard the NPR review) it suggests changes for improving school performance, and, more importantly, lives.
With regard to the “achievement gap” – let’s keep in mind that this phrase over-simplifies a real but complex situation. Lumping all people together by dint of only one aspect of their multi-faceted lives presents the very real problem of grossly inaccurate stereotyping. It is important to mindfully tease apart the factors that contribute to this situation.
That said, I think it would be useful for the community to read “Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada’s Quest to Change Harlem and America” by Paul Tough. I say think, as my copy has just arrived at the Avid Reader, and I haven’t gotten it yet. From what I have heard (and others may have heard the NPR review) it suggests changes for improving school performance, and, more importantly, lives.
“Given the grim fiscal situation at the state level, the district will still likley need to enact steep cuts over the next couple of years. The parcel taxes help, of course, but nothing but bad news is ahead. I think the district may need to contemplate closing at least one more campus, as hard on the community as it is.”
I don’t know what the district is supposed to do for mid-year cuts. But as for future budget years (2009-10, etc.), if state funding comes in below the 2008-09 year, the district really needs to re-visit the idea of renegotiating teacher salaries and admin. salaries.
I didn’t exactly like Rifkin’s column on this when it came out, but he has a good point. I know that teachers are never paid enough, but I am appalled that the DTA seems to care less about the possible dismissal of pink-slipped teachers than does the community — who led DSF fundraising and the Measure W campaign.
At this point, too, I think the adminisitrators could consider a voluntary cut. This could be done on a conditional, year-by-year basis, for as long as the state underfunds the district by a critical amount.
This would be a fair acknowledgement to the community as to the financial challenges that we’re all facing, and how much the community cares about the schools.
“Given the grim fiscal situation at the state level, the district will still likley need to enact steep cuts over the next couple of years. The parcel taxes help, of course, but nothing but bad news is ahead. I think the district may need to contemplate closing at least one more campus, as hard on the community as it is.”
I don’t know what the district is supposed to do for mid-year cuts. But as for future budget years (2009-10, etc.), if state funding comes in below the 2008-09 year, the district really needs to re-visit the idea of renegotiating teacher salaries and admin. salaries.
I didn’t exactly like Rifkin’s column on this when it came out, but he has a good point. I know that teachers are never paid enough, but I am appalled that the DTA seems to care less about the possible dismissal of pink-slipped teachers than does the community — who led DSF fundraising and the Measure W campaign.
At this point, too, I think the adminisitrators could consider a voluntary cut. This could be done on a conditional, year-by-year basis, for as long as the state underfunds the district by a critical amount.
This would be a fair acknowledgement to the community as to the financial challenges that we’re all facing, and how much the community cares about the schools.
“Given the grim fiscal situation at the state level, the district will still likley need to enact steep cuts over the next couple of years. The parcel taxes help, of course, but nothing but bad news is ahead. I think the district may need to contemplate closing at least one more campus, as hard on the community as it is.”
I don’t know what the district is supposed to do for mid-year cuts. But as for future budget years (2009-10, etc.), if state funding comes in below the 2008-09 year, the district really needs to re-visit the idea of renegotiating teacher salaries and admin. salaries.
I didn’t exactly like Rifkin’s column on this when it came out, but he has a good point. I know that teachers are never paid enough, but I am appalled that the DTA seems to care less about the possible dismissal of pink-slipped teachers than does the community — who led DSF fundraising and the Measure W campaign.
At this point, too, I think the adminisitrators could consider a voluntary cut. This could be done on a conditional, year-by-year basis, for as long as the state underfunds the district by a critical amount.
This would be a fair acknowledgement to the community as to the financial challenges that we’re all facing, and how much the community cares about the schools.
“Given the grim fiscal situation at the state level, the district will still likley need to enact steep cuts over the next couple of years. The parcel taxes help, of course, but nothing but bad news is ahead. I think the district may need to contemplate closing at least one more campus, as hard on the community as it is.”
I don’t know what the district is supposed to do for mid-year cuts. But as for future budget years (2009-10, etc.), if state funding comes in below the 2008-09 year, the district really needs to re-visit the idea of renegotiating teacher salaries and admin. salaries.
I didn’t exactly like Rifkin’s column on this when it came out, but he has a good point. I know that teachers are never paid enough, but I am appalled that the DTA seems to care less about the possible dismissal of pink-slipped teachers than does the community — who led DSF fundraising and the Measure W campaign.
At this point, too, I think the adminisitrators could consider a voluntary cut. This could be done on a conditional, year-by-year basis, for as long as the state underfunds the district by a critical amount.
This would be a fair acknowledgement to the community as to the financial challenges that we’re all facing, and how much the community cares about the schools.
if state funding comes in below the 2008-09 year, the district really needs to re-visit the idea of renegotiating teacher salaries and admin. salaries.
When does the current contract expire? Does anyone out there know?
if state funding comes in below the 2008-09 year, the district really needs to re-visit the idea of renegotiating teacher salaries and admin. salaries.
When does the current contract expire? Does anyone out there know?
if state funding comes in below the 2008-09 year, the district really needs to re-visit the idea of renegotiating teacher salaries and admin. salaries.
When does the current contract expire? Does anyone out there know?
if state funding comes in below the 2008-09 year, the district really needs to re-visit the idea of renegotiating teacher salaries and admin. salaries.
When does the current contract expire? Does anyone out there know?
WDF: I believe it is this coming year, but don’t quote me on it.
Anonymous:
“the district really needs to re-visit the idea of renegotiating teacher salaries and admin. salaries.”
That’s not going to happen. The best you can hope for is no increase in salaries. From what I understand the teachers would rather see personnel cuts than salary cuts.
WDF: I believe it is this coming year, but don’t quote me on it.
Anonymous:
“the district really needs to re-visit the idea of renegotiating teacher salaries and admin. salaries.”
That’s not going to happen. The best you can hope for is no increase in salaries. From what I understand the teachers would rather see personnel cuts than salary cuts.
WDF: I believe it is this coming year, but don’t quote me on it.
Anonymous:
“the district really needs to re-visit the idea of renegotiating teacher salaries and admin. salaries.”
That’s not going to happen. The best you can hope for is no increase in salaries. From what I understand the teachers would rather see personnel cuts than salary cuts.
WDF: I believe it is this coming year, but don’t quote me on it.
Anonymous:
“the district really needs to re-visit the idea of renegotiating teacher salaries and admin. salaries.”
That’s not going to happen. The best you can hope for is no increase in salaries. From what I understand the teachers would rather see personnel cuts than salary cuts.
“That’s not going to happen. The best you can hope for is no increase in salaries. From what I understand the teachers would rather see personnel cuts than salary cuts.”
I am very disappointed to hear that. I understand that this might be a typical stance for a public employees union, but I don’t think these are typical times. Coming months will establish the trends of the economy, but I don’t think this will be an economy that will offer many alternative employment opportunities to teachers who are let go.
That’s why I suggested (as anon 10:22) that the administrators also take an equivalent cut.
“That’s not going to happen. The best you can hope for is no increase in salaries. From what I understand the teachers would rather see personnel cuts than salary cuts.”
I am very disappointed to hear that. I understand that this might be a typical stance for a public employees union, but I don’t think these are typical times. Coming months will establish the trends of the economy, but I don’t think this will be an economy that will offer many alternative employment opportunities to teachers who are let go.
That’s why I suggested (as anon 10:22) that the administrators also take an equivalent cut.
“That’s not going to happen. The best you can hope for is no increase in salaries. From what I understand the teachers would rather see personnel cuts than salary cuts.”
I am very disappointed to hear that. I understand that this might be a typical stance for a public employees union, but I don’t think these are typical times. Coming months will establish the trends of the economy, but I don’t think this will be an economy that will offer many alternative employment opportunities to teachers who are let go.
That’s why I suggested (as anon 10:22) that the administrators also take an equivalent cut.
“That’s not going to happen. The best you can hope for is no increase in salaries. From what I understand the teachers would rather see personnel cuts than salary cuts.”
I am very disappointed to hear that. I understand that this might be a typical stance for a public employees union, but I don’t think these are typical times. Coming months will establish the trends of the economy, but I don’t think this will be an economy that will offer many alternative employment opportunities to teachers who are let go.
That’s why I suggested (as anon 10:22) that the administrators also take an equivalent cut.
I am very disappointed to hear that. I understand that this might be a typical stance for a public employees union, but I don’t think these are typical times.
Teachers unions are about money for their members and not about education. If getting more money hurts education, they will take more money. There is nothing wrong with that approach as long as the union doesn’t pretend its mission is educational and those of us on the outside assume that the union is acting in the self-interest of its members and not in the public interest.
I am very disappointed to hear that. I understand that this might be a typical stance for a public employees union, but I don’t think these are typical times.
Teachers unions are about money for their members and not about education. If getting more money hurts education, they will take more money. There is nothing wrong with that approach as long as the union doesn’t pretend its mission is educational and those of us on the outside assume that the union is acting in the self-interest of its members and not in the public interest.
I am very disappointed to hear that. I understand that this might be a typical stance for a public employees union, but I don’t think these are typical times.
Teachers unions are about money for their members and not about education. If getting more money hurts education, they will take more money. There is nothing wrong with that approach as long as the union doesn’t pretend its mission is educational and those of us on the outside assume that the union is acting in the self-interest of its members and not in the public interest.
I am very disappointed to hear that. I understand that this might be a typical stance for a public employees union, but I don’t think these are typical times.
Teachers unions are about money for their members and not about education. If getting more money hurts education, they will take more money. There is nothing wrong with that approach as long as the union doesn’t pretend its mission is educational and those of us on the outside assume that the union is acting in the self-interest of its members and not in the public interest.
“Teachers unions are about money for their members and not about education. If getting more money hurts education, they will take more money. There is nothing wrong with that approach as long as the union doesn’t pretend its mission is educational and those of us on the outside assume that the union is acting in the self-interest of its members and not in the public interest.”
I wasn’t entirely assuming that education was the top priority of the union, rather that the union might be interested in protecting the jobs of its members.
If I were a brand new teacher in these times, I’m not sure that I would feel well-served by the union. Knowing that I’d be hung out the first moment that things got tough.
“Teachers unions are about money for their members and not about education. If getting more money hurts education, they will take more money. There is nothing wrong with that approach as long as the union doesn’t pretend its mission is educational and those of us on the outside assume that the union is acting in the self-interest of its members and not in the public interest.”
I wasn’t entirely assuming that education was the top priority of the union, rather that the union might be interested in protecting the jobs of its members.
If I were a brand new teacher in these times, I’m not sure that I would feel well-served by the union. Knowing that I’d be hung out the first moment that things got tough.
“Teachers unions are about money for their members and not about education. If getting more money hurts education, they will take more money. There is nothing wrong with that approach as long as the union doesn’t pretend its mission is educational and those of us on the outside assume that the union is acting in the self-interest of its members and not in the public interest.”
I wasn’t entirely assuming that education was the top priority of the union, rather that the union might be interested in protecting the jobs of its members.
If I were a brand new teacher in these times, I’m not sure that I would feel well-served by the union. Knowing that I’d be hung out the first moment that things got tough.
“Teachers unions are about money for their members and not about education. If getting more money hurts education, they will take more money. There is nothing wrong with that approach as long as the union doesn’t pretend its mission is educational and those of us on the outside assume that the union is acting in the self-interest of its members and not in the public interest.”
I wasn’t entirely assuming that education was the top priority of the union, rather that the union might be interested in protecting the jobs of its members.
If I were a brand new teacher in these times, I’m not sure that I would feel well-served by the union. Knowing that I’d be hung out the first moment that things got tough.
Keep in mind Chuck if the union gives in it sets a precedent and giving in means doing harm to 100% of the union teachers (with lower salaries) while not giving in means harming maybe 5% and the 5% will be fired leaving 95% fat and happy.
Keep in mind Chuck if the union gives in it sets a precedent and giving in means doing harm to 100% of the union teachers (with lower salaries) while not giving in means harming maybe 5% and the 5% will be fired leaving 95% fat and happy.
Keep in mind Chuck if the union gives in it sets a precedent and giving in means doing harm to 100% of the union teachers (with lower salaries) while not giving in means harming maybe 5% and the 5% will be fired leaving 95% fat and happy.
Keep in mind Chuck if the union gives in it sets a precedent and giving in means doing harm to 100% of the union teachers (with lower salaries) while not giving in means harming maybe 5% and the 5% will be fired leaving 95% fat and happy.
“Keep in mind Chuck if the union gives in it sets a precedent”
Which is why I suggested the administration would have to reciprocate.
The Sac Bee is throwing out superlatives on the magnitude of this budget deficit. This doesn’t seem like just any ordinary tough economy.
Another strategy would be for the district, at some point, to unilaterally demand lower salaries. If other districts are already laying off teachers, then there is a surplus pool to draw from.
“Keep in mind Chuck if the union gives in it sets a precedent”
Which is why I suggested the administration would have to reciprocate.
The Sac Bee is throwing out superlatives on the magnitude of this budget deficit. This doesn’t seem like just any ordinary tough economy.
Another strategy would be for the district, at some point, to unilaterally demand lower salaries. If other districts are already laying off teachers, then there is a surplus pool to draw from.
“Keep in mind Chuck if the union gives in it sets a precedent”
Which is why I suggested the administration would have to reciprocate.
The Sac Bee is throwing out superlatives on the magnitude of this budget deficit. This doesn’t seem like just any ordinary tough economy.
Another strategy would be for the district, at some point, to unilaterally demand lower salaries. If other districts are already laying off teachers, then there is a surplus pool to draw from.
“Keep in mind Chuck if the union gives in it sets a precedent”
Which is why I suggested the administration would have to reciprocate.
The Sac Bee is throwing out superlatives on the magnitude of this budget deficit. This doesn’t seem like just any ordinary tough economy.
Another strategy would be for the district, at some point, to unilaterally demand lower salaries. If other districts are already laying off teachers, then there is a surplus pool to draw from.
Unions of all types are a scourge and drain on all taxpayers. Unions reps need to serve their membership without pay and be honest in their dealings.
None of this will ever happen because people are greedy and union reps only serve themselves and will never do anything for the good of the employee. It seems especially true of SEIU rep thieves.
Unions of all types are a scourge and drain on all taxpayers. Unions reps need to serve their membership without pay and be honest in their dealings.
None of this will ever happen because people are greedy and union reps only serve themselves and will never do anything for the good of the employee. It seems especially true of SEIU rep thieves.
Unions of all types are a scourge and drain on all taxpayers. Unions reps need to serve their membership without pay and be honest in their dealings.
None of this will ever happen because people are greedy and union reps only serve themselves and will never do anything for the good of the employee. It seems especially true of SEIU rep thieves.
Unions of all types are a scourge and drain on all taxpayers. Unions reps need to serve their membership without pay and be honest in their dealings.
None of this will ever happen because people are greedy and union reps only serve themselves and will never do anything for the good of the employee. It seems especially true of SEIU rep thieves.
“Unions of all types are a scourge and drain on all taxpayers. Unions reps need to serve their membership without pay and be honest in their dealings.”
An impressive example of generalization!
Without unions, you’d find more examples of employers taking advantage of employees.
“Unions of all types are a scourge and drain on all taxpayers. Unions reps need to serve their membership without pay and be honest in their dealings.”
An impressive example of generalization!
Without unions, you’d find more examples of employers taking advantage of employees.
“Unions of all types are a scourge and drain on all taxpayers. Unions reps need to serve their membership without pay and be honest in their dealings.”
An impressive example of generalization!
Without unions, you’d find more examples of employers taking advantage of employees.
“Unions of all types are a scourge and drain on all taxpayers. Unions reps need to serve their membership without pay and be honest in their dealings.”
An impressive example of generalization!
Without unions, you’d find more examples of employers taking advantage of employees.