It did not take long for the school board to find their replacement for James Hammond, it was a guy that they had just hired a year ago to help change the direction at Davis High School. And while he only spent a year at Davis High School, the results were encouraging. Now they will have to go back to the drawing board and find another Principal because late on Monday night, the Davis School Board named Winfred Roberson, the new Superintendent.
It was just over a year ago, June 18, 2009 when the Davis School Board introduced Mr. Roberson as the new Principal of Davis High. Now just 43, he is just four years older than the departing James Hammond, and the district hopes it struck gold again.
The Vanguard spoke with Board President Tim Taylor on Tuesday. “I am very excited to announce that Monday evening the Board of Trustees unanimously decided to offer the position of Superintendent to Winfred Roberson,” he said acknowledging his fatigue from the long and arduous process.
He was not alone, the Vanguard spoke with both trustees Sheila Allen and Gina Daleiden, both of whom were very excited by their choice and hopeful that they had found another dynamic superintendent to lead the district through still troubled times.
“This is one of the most important decisions that we as a Board can make,” Mr. Talor continued. “Since arriving in Davis, Winfred has been a catalyst for change and positive developments at Davis High School.”
From our understanding, many people associated with Davis High School have mixed feelings at the moment. They feel that Mr. Roberson will be a great superintendent but they also believe that Davis High will miss his leadership. The view expressed by two of the board members was that he had made some great changes in his very short tenure.
“We recognize and respect this leadership and his extraordinary educational commitment, and we look forward to this dynamic new era beginning July 1,” Tim Taylor said.
At the same time, there is still a great deal of sadness over the loss of James Hammond. The genuine feelings of emotion poured out last week as the board and community said their goodbyes.
“We are extremely grateful for the time and dedication provided by James Hammond, and we are confident that the excellent leadership team he has put in place in the District office and throughout the schools will continue to excel,” Tim Taylor said. “This includes the Board’s absolute commitment to continuing the many successes at Davis High. Together with our teachers, administrators, staff, and community, Winfred will help guide us in our mission to provide the strongest possible educational environment for the students and the community we serve.”
In the article from a year ago when Mr. Roberson was hired as principle they mentioned that his wife Yvette and three children would move to Davis last year and he was quoted as saying that his wife was enthusiastic about moving to Davis. The Enterprise article from Tuesday says they moved to Davis last summer.
The biggest error during James Hammonds term was not moving his family to Davis immediately. Instead he spent three years apart which created a huge strain not only on his marriage but due to the fact that he was away from his children.
Prior to coming to Davis high, Roberson had been the assistant Principal of Centennial High School in the Corona-Norco school district in Riverside County. It was a huge high school of around 2700 kids.
Commentary
The key question is will the district be able to catch lightning in a bottle twice. Last week they acknowledged they took a huge chance hiring James Hammond, who had no previous educational experience in California, having worked previously in Washington State as Superintendent. They did it on the strength of his personality and his character in addition to his impressive resume. Clearly the board is trying to recapture some of that magic with Winfred Roberson.
He has a background of dealing with children from a diverse background at the more diverse Centennial High. While the district has made some inroads into developing programming to address the achievement gap, it remains an unfinished journey.
The district has been reeling from three straight years of severe budget cutbacks, but feel that they are on much stronger fiscal ground now than they were when Mr. Hammond arrived.
One of the key things that Mr. Hammond was able to accomplish was to bring people together even during tough times. His leadership was able to produce the needed trust to get the teachers to take a paycut in order to avoid deeper layoffs this year. He has been able to bring community members together.
The question now is whether Mr. Roberson who in just a year has fostered great improvement in a high school that has had its share of problems over the years. Perhaps few people recall that in the Vanguard’s first year, prior to the arrival of James Hammond, we were talking about controversies at the high school as much as any other venue in the county. That has stopped in recent years and leadership at the top and on the site have greatly contributed to that.
The district is clearly going to have to made do with far less in the coming years, they may well face even more cutbacks next year, and it is unlikely that they will be able to see a restoration of funding any time soon.
Moreover, the district is looking perhaps at another parcel tax as soon as the fall or perhaps next year. The new superintendent will have to foster more community trust to guide the district through what may be a difficult process.
At the end of the day, the district is definitely rolling the dice. They did not take the safe choice or the choice that most thought they would take. Unlike Dr. Hammond, Mr. Roberson is a bit more of a known quantity having at least been in the district for a year, but he is still young and has no previous experience in this position.
We like the choice, but we acknowledge the risk and applaud the board for not merely playing things safe.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Can you be more specific about changes and improvements made at the High School?
I will work on that for a future story, no one I talked to gave specifics.
As a parent of a graduating senior I can share that many members of the senior class are explicitly appreciative of the leadership qualities of Mr. Roberson. In addition they applaud his accessibility and morale boosting actions.
Like Mr. Hammond, Mr. Roberson has visible energy. He used that to make the high school a much better place.
I think the School Board has made the right choice of person to continue the rebuilding and rejuvenation that the School Board and Mr Hammond jointly began.
I thank the Board for its good and quick judgement.
Every ship needs a captain that is respected, followed and liked and now we have one.
Congratulations Mr. Roberson.
Good coverage David.
Correction: James Hammond worked in Washington State as a Superintendent, he had no previous educational experience in California.
I wonder if Mike Cawley might be talked into coming back as DHS principal? I know he was burned out when he retired last year. However, he is only 56 years old. Maybe one year off has refreshed him enough to give it another go?
Rich: I can tell you that will not happen.
Alright , right on , a brother in charge , just like O’bama !!! Congrats Winfred .
“Moreover the district is looking at perhaps another parcel tax as soon as the fall or perhaps next year. The new superintendent will have to foster more community trust to guide the district through what may be a difficult process.”
There is no “looking at perhaps” about it. I would bet the ranch that the special schools assessment will jump from the current 360 to at least $600/yr. That has already been discussed at more than one school board meeting. What concerns me is that the district has a policy of encouraging and accepting nearly every out of district transfer request. As it is now you can buy your McMansion in in Woodland’s Springlake area, send your child to Davis schools, and not have to pay a dime of the $360/yr special schools assessment. Until the district finds a way to make parents of the 350+ out of district students contribute their fair share and also pay this special assessment they will get no support from me.
My understanding is that generally out of district transfers are good thing. They get ADA money which is a lot more than the household would generate in parcel tax, I think the difference is huge, I don’t know the exact amount we get in ADA per pupil, but I imagine it is somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 to $8 Thousand dollars, whereas a parcel tax is $600 at most if the new parcel tax passes. I understand your frustration wesley, but the math doesn’t seem to support your statement.
I do not follow you.
Out of district student generates ADA revenue.
In district student generates ADA revenue + parcel tax.
How does this make recruiting out of district students a good deal? It appears to me that the in district student is subsidizing the out of district student. The out of district student is able to take full advantage of the enrichment programs paid for by the parcel tax, but does not have to contribute any additional funds to pay for them.
Because the bulk of the parcel tax revenue isn’t generated by the parents of students, it’s generated by the townfolks regardless of students. Whether it’s $350 or $600, it’s marginal for one kid. But the ADA is not marginal. It’s one of the ways that the district has warded off declining enrollment somewhat is by attracting out of city kids whose parents work at UCD for instance.
“the district has a policy of encouraging and accepting nearly every out of district transfer request…”
The district does nothing that I am aware of to “encourage” interdistrict transfer requests. Nearly all of them are people who live out of the district but work here or whose kids are in day care here. The district does, as David noted, get ADA for each child. The parents presumably pay parcel taxes in their district of residence, from which they don’t directly benefit.
My kids went through DJUSD entirely as interdistrict transfer students. It happens that I pay the parcel tax because I own business property here. Interestingly, when my kids were entering junior high the district tried to throw out all ID transfer students because the schools were overcrowded. Most left, but some of us appealed to the county board of education and won.
The state education code is clear: if a child enters the district as a transfer student for reason of childcare in the district, he or she has to be allowed to stay through graduation so long as that is without interruption. The district and various board members disagreed with our case; other districts had clearly found in our favor. Our appeals were upheld, but each as an individual case and not on the basis of the state code. Nevertheless, when you allow in an interdistrict transfer student, it is probable that it is for the duration of that child’s education. But lack of capacity hasn’t been an issue for DJUSD for a while now.
But I digress. Lots of people pay the parcel tax who don’t directly benefit from it, wesley. Others are paying taxes in their district of residence and getting no benefit from those. When there is excess capacity in the school district, as there currently is (DJUSD has too many schools, not too few), each additional student helps bring in thousands of dollars from the state to pay for teachers and programs. There is no practical way to get those ID transfer families to pay a local parcel tax; some ID parents offered to, but the district had no way to deal with that nor did they want to set the precedent (plus they were hell-bent on getting rid of us all at the time). I guarantee that I have heard every argument you can make about interdistrict transfers. I still have all the files from our hours and hours of time spent with the district officials and the county. I guarantee you: interdistrict transfer students are a net fiscal benefit to the district.
People are dreaming if they think that they can pass a $600 per year parcel tax, even for the schools.
Inter-district transfer is another consequence of under building in Davis. All these extra commute miles resulting from people who vote against building because they don’t want people who live here clogging our roads. All this loss of tax dollars from parcels built outside the district but the children accepted to mask the decline in enrollment as kids graduate but the families stay here until they finish their careers and beyond into retirement. The worst thing that has occured in this county was Woodland over building and Davis under building driving prices through the floor in Woodland and through the roof in Davis. This is just one more consequence of a completely insane housing policy.
I don’t agree Ryan, I think in Davis and for education it can happen. It’s not a slam dunk, but I think to state, “People are dreaming” is not accurate.
Mr. Toad,
Then I assume you agree that Davis was over-building in the 1990’s, when they abruptly cancelled all inter-district transfers due to overcrowding in the schools?
Don’t know Don but one thing is clear the supply and demand dynamics of housing was more balanced in the 90’s when there was some supply added.
I hope that this superintendent never has to deal with the facilities and enrollment chaos that DJUSD went through in the 90’s. When my kids entered in 1992 – 4, interdistrict transfers were automatic: there was plenty of room, no problems. By 1997, when my daughter was in 5th grade, she arrived at the first day of school without placement: the elementary schools were overcrowded, and there was no place for her. Enrollment figures weren’t stable until the end of the first week. That occurred again in 1998. The overcrowded school was Valley Oak. When she entered Holmes in 1999 it was bursting at the seams, grossly over-enrolled. Six years later the “best uses” task force recommended closing Valley Oak due to insufficient enrollment.
At no time during my kids’ schooling did the district accurately project enrollment. The enrollment projections the Best Uses task force used in support of their recommendation to close Valley Oak were way off. Enrollment didn’t drop nearly as much as they projected, and in fact DJUSD enrollment declines have basically mirrored the state school age demographics. Yet throughout all of this, supporters of housing growth in Davis have somehow used this argument: that growth is good for the district.
Accurate projections and good facilities planning are good for the district. Big spurts of growth are harmful to school districts everywhere. There is no way to coordinate facilities with the ups and downs of the housing market. I hope this superintendent can focus on other issues.
You refer to a “completely insane housing policy.” Meaning what? That the voters get to decide on peripheral development proposals? Everything about most urban housing policies is essentially reactive. In most communities, land developers propose projects, city planners review them, city councils approve them (nearly always), and that is how cities grow. Citizens only get involved to oppose them, and rarely prevail. Davis has a unique aspect in that the community is hypothetically involved before a proposal comes forward. The housing element task force spent countless hours identifying sites for housing and ranking them.
The problems have involved projects that are outside of the existing planning area, and for sites that the housing element committee ranked lower. If developers work within the existing processes, their projects can go forward. Staff and council simply should not be moving forward on projects that aren’t “green light,” and any developer who puts forth a project that requires a Measure J/R vote has to come up with something really spectacularly meritorious. How would you propose changing this process to make it less “insane?” Do you prefer a developer-driven growth model? That is what all the surrounding communities have. The result is that they are overbuilt and show little evidence of good planning. And it certainly hasn’t improved their schools.
What I meant was that one community over built and the other under built. The result is people from another district bringing their kids into the schools but not paying the assessments or trying to make the schools in Woodland better. Its sort of like people driving into Oregon from Washington to avoid sales tax. Anyway it would have been better if Davis had built more and Woodland had built less. That development happened the way it did shows a lack of thoughtfulness in both communities.
At no time during my kids’ schooling did the district accurately project enrollment.
The problem I’ve seen with district projections on enrollment is that they assume present conditions projected into the future. As you say a little later, they don’t anticipate changes in the housing market or the economy.
Personally, I don’t think the district should be paying for yearly demographic projections for that reason. Maybe every other year would be just as helpful.
Anyway it would have been better if Davis had built more and Woodland had built less. That development happened the way it did shows a lack of thoughtfulness in both communities.
Although there is a certain amount of collegiality among city leaders betwee Davis and Woodland, there probably isn’t enough common vision between the two communities to agree on a coherent growth policy. Woodland wants its big box stores and its particular kind of retail market, Davis wants something else.
There is no “looking at perhaps” about it. I would bet the ranch that the special schools assessment will jump from the current 360 to at least $600/yr. That has already been discussed at more than one school board meeting.
School board discussion asked what level of increase would completely avoid any cuts (maintain services at 2009-2010 levels). It was determined that the parcel tax would have to rise to ~$600. The board expressed an aversion to raising it that high. In fact, the board already made cuts for the 2010-2011 year, even with the contributions of DSF and employee concessions.
The school board has decided not to run a parcel tax this November, but probably in May 2011.
The parcel tax discussion was not framed in a “do we need this” context but rather how high can we go, how can we make it permanent so we don’t have to revisit it every year or two, and when to best put it on the ballot so it will not be competing with other tax measures such as the sales tax renewal. The only aversion to the $600 figure was that it might be a very tough sell in a depressed economy, and with the sales tax renewal up for a vote it might be an even tougher sell.
The parcel tax discussion was not framed in a “do we need this” context but rather how high can we go, how can we make it permanent so we don’t have to revisit it every year or two, and when to best put it on the ballot so it will not be competing with other tax measures such as the sales tax renewal.
I disagree with the first part of your statement. The original premise for discussion was “we do need this”. That was determined from previous years’ budget discussion. But there wasn’t money available to have it all in preparing the 2010-2011 budget.
The board did not discuss making it permanent, but rather the options of extending the parcel tax for a longer period — for instance, 6 years rather than the usual 4 years.
To me the simple and unfortunate truth is that we can no longer rely on state government to fund education and therefore we have to transition toward more local sources for education revenue – if we want to preserve what we have.
To me the simple and unfortunate truth is that we can no longer rely on state government to fund education and therefore we have to transition toward more local sources for education revenue – if we want to preserve what we have.
Which was the situation (local funding of education) before Prop. 13 and Serrano vs. Priest. The governor and a core conservative minority in the state legislature is pushing things in this direction by preventing full funding of education by not allowing any rise in taxes to offset cuts in education.
On the ADA and interdistrict transfer issue mentioned earlier by Don Shor and wesley506:
In school board meetings, the district staff has said that they accept interdistrict transfers to fill in their classes when there is room. So, if this next year, a particular K-3 class had 24 students in it, it would be ideal to go ahead and take the interdistrict transfer student to round the class to 25 (which is the K-3 enrollment cap). The district was already going to pay for that teacher’s salary with 24 students. By taking the 25th student from out of district, it gets the extra ADA money from the state. It’s a sensible strategy.
The district has let out of district families know that there is a district parcel tax, and that families consider donating an equivalent amount to the district through DSF. But the out-of-district family is not obligated to pay anything.
So if there are 30 students in a particular K-3 class with a cap of 25, the district can enroll another 20 out of district students to fill the empty slots? My teenage daughter has had friends each school year whose families live in Woodland, Sacramento, and even in Vacaville. These families have absolutely no connection to Davis, or the university. It is a very very generous transfer policy and if you can come up with any excuse on why your child should be in the Davis school system, it is going to be granted.
I wish I could be given the option of choosing whether I want to contribute $360/yr.
Woodland and Vacaville school districts are both currently considering parcel taxes, in which case those parents will pay the district tax in their home district even if they send their kids to Davis.
As to your hypothetical, if the district allowed in 20 students to fill a classroom it would pay for itself. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee of which grade levels students would be applying for, and it isn’t an unlimited pool of potential transfer students. It is pretty random as to who wants their kid in the district. But if the facilities are underutilized, interdistrict transfer students are a net gain for the district.
Home districts have the right to refuse to allow students to transfer to other districts. Typically they haven’t refused, but there is growing incentive for districts to not allow students to transfer out.
Article in today’s Sac Bee on transfer policies in the Twin Rivers district in Sacramento. It touches on some of the motivations and policies behind interdistrict transfers:
[url]http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/05/2869269/student-transfers-worry-twin-rivers.html[/url]