I went to the school board meeting on Thursday night, expecting to watch the update on the budget and the final language of the parcel tax that voters would vote on in May, however something interesting happened along the way.
The place was packed with angry parents, and I thought, wow, the parents are upset about cuts to the schools and maybe some of these people are here to protest the parcel tax. Wrong! The parents were upset because the girl’s high school basketball coach was fired.
When public comment ended an hour later, the parents got up and stormed out. The district then got down to business, first hearing the bleak news in the budget that we reported on Friday, and then putting a parcel tax on the ballot.
I like sports as much as the next person. Later today I will be watching NFL playoff games, but I really don’t get the mentality of the parents. Don’t they realize what this district is facing? Don’t they realize that there is a possibility that their kids’ teachers will be the next ones fired, that the entire athletic department might have to be cut if the voters do not approve a parcel tax this May?
In other words, these parents were willing to come out and fight for a basketball coach, but almost no one came out to speak about the far more important issue – the future of the school district.
They are not alone, there were four people in the audience on Tuesday night when the city council had their most important discussion of the year.
The reality is that the fate of this school district now rests in the hands of the voters. They will have to decide whether keeping the current programs in the district is worth raising their taxes by $200 a year for two years.
The stark reality was laid out on Thursday night by CBO (Chief Budget Officer) and Associate Superintendent Bruce Colby. Reality is a word that we have to use a lot here because, while Mr. Colby laid out essentially two budgets, we all know which one is the real budget.
Governor Jerry Brown proposed that if the voters approve tax extensions in June, for the first time in four years education funding won’t be cut at the state level. But that is not reality. In reality, the Republicans will not even allow the tax issue to come to a vote of the people. And even if they did, the reality is that the voters in this state would probably vote against it.
In so doing, a minority of the population in California has allowed for education funding to be slashed by tens of billions over the course of this economic crisis. And if local school districts wish to stay at current levels of funding, then we have to pay for it ourselves.
Since 2007-8, state revenues to DJUSD have fallen from $56.8 million, to the $48.1 million projected for 2011-12 if the special tax fails. But it’s actually worse than that because those are in unadjusted dollars. You have to add in $5.5 million in unfunded inflation. That means in real dollars the number is not $8.7 million in cuts, but rather $14.7 million in cuts.
The news is actually a lot worse than that. As we explained on Friday, because of the state’s deferrals, the district has had to borrow at the beginning of each year to meet payroll obligations, but the district’s cash reserves are so low, they may not be able to have enough to borrow the money needed to meet payroll.
And the worst news is that none of this is going to change any time soon. We are looking at through 2016 without having funding restored. In the world of budgeting, those are permanent cuts.
I think John Munn is correct in a lot of things he said on Thursday night.
At some point we need to recognize that “the crisis is actually the reality,” as Mr. Munn said. “All indications are that the financial conditions of the state have changed. It is time for schools to recognize this and plan for change themselves.”
He remarked that he was almost hesitant to be up there because he almost felt like he was “kicking at a house of cards.”
“Something needs to be done so that that foundation can support the structure of the organization that we need so badly both in this town and this state,” he added. “I’m not sure that the way that schools are operated now is going to be viable in the long term.”
I do not take the next step that Mr. Munn does, which is to oppose the tax increase. But I did say on Thursday night, that the district may need to start re-thinking how it operates, just as the city is going to have to.
Right now the district is staring at a $6 million gap between their current funding needs and their likely revenues. The parcel tax would not fund all of that, maybe only half of that. That means, regardless of what happens, we need to go through painful cuts.
The district seems perfectly willing to allow the voters to decide when we change the way we operate. The district has fought hard to protect core programs and in 2007 and 2008, the voters have obliged. At some point, the voters are no longer going to support a tax increase, and the district seems willing to wait until that reality sets in before they change their practices.
A lot of people have spent a lot of time on this site going through positions that appear unnecessary. I don’t think that’s a useful exercise. Certainly not without sitting down with the budget person and the HR person and understanding the budget funding mechanism and the tasks that an individual performs. We are not at a stage where pinching pennies is going to do much more than rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.
Districts across the state have shelved music and art programs. We could go there are well. That is not the optimal path. I remember in my days in school some of my friends would not have graduated from high school had they not offered music, art, and drama. But at some point, we may have to make that choice.
We may have to cut counselors. Is that a good thing? When you have special needs kids, you understand the value of counselors. Without them, perhaps hundreds of students will face real jeopardy.
We may have to cut athletics programs. Yes, I said it. The community, or a segment of the community, will fight to the death over it and it may be self-defeating.
We may have to increase class sizes and cut more teachers.
All of these cuts would have a significant impact on some if not all students in the district. The question before the voters will be what kind of schools do they want and what kinds of programs are they willing to fund. There are no longer painless cuts. These cuts will hurt and hurt badly. It may not be your favored program, but that does not mean the cuts will not hurt.
I am sympathetic to the burden on tax payers, it is one of the reasons I have fought so hard for fiscal sustainability. Unfortunately the reality is that we must prioritize. We cannot have everything these days. Maybe those days of folly will return in half a decade to a decade, or maybe not.
The Davis voters will decide whether to fund these programs. The good news is that they have in the past. The bad news is that for students in the rest of the state, they will not have that option.
Is this a crisis? You bet. Will the prolonged economic downturn produce a lost generation in California? We will find out in the coming years. All we can do right now is take steps to prevent that from happening in Davis.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If I wanted to rear a nation of automatons, I would teach math and physics and enough language to take orders. Arts are the expression of our humanity and our only sure communication with the future. Imagine our world without the writers, composers, artists, musicians and actors that entertain us and portray our culture for posterity. Ancient Athens and Rome would only be piles of debris to be swept away like their corporeal creators. Arts, math, physical education and science are inextricably joined. Just ask da Vinci or Pythagoras. The idea that chemistry is more important than poetry or calculus is more valuable than music is intellectual chauvinism.
[i]”The parents were upset because the girl’s high school basketball coach was fired. They came up, and person after person talked about how much the coach meant to them, how good a person he was, and they expressed outrage at the district for firing him.”[/i]
It’s odd you didn’t cover this story. It seems to have all the race + politics elements you like in a controversy: two black players (sisters) were kicked off the team by their white coach (perhaps for not working hard in practice*).
The players’ mother apparently felt the coach was personally unfair to her daughters–I don’t believe she charged Coach Christian with being a racist–and asked for their reinstatement. The district–presumably the superintendent?–reinstated the girls and then decided that the coach’s actions were in violation of the district’s standards, so they fired the coach mid-season and replaced him with the AD, who happens to be black.
Normally–recalling your endless stories about all the supposed crimes committed against various Buzayans–your spin would be that Davis is a racist town and that the minority girls were victims of racism. But you have ignored this story–save your passing reference above. Perhaps you could explain why this was so unimportant but the story of the calculus teacher/Malcolm X was newsworthy?
*Frankly, I don’t know if that is why Jeff Christian kicked them off the team. I was told that by a neighbor who is the parent of two DHS students–my neighbor heard it second hand through his kids. No local stories (in The Enterprise or the Sacramento TV stations which covered this story) explained just why Christian thought he had to kick off two of his best players. My own take is that Mr. Christian should have talked this over with the AD (and maybe the principal) first, before he took such a drastic action, even if it was completely justified.
I like sports as much as the next person. Later today I will be watching NFL playoff games, but I really don’t get the mentality of the parents. Don’t they realize what this district is facing? Don’t they realize that there is a possibility that their kids’ teachers will be the next ones fired, that the entire athletic department might have to be cut if the voters do not approve a parcel tax this May?
In other words, these parents were willing to come out and fight for a basketball coach, but almost no one came out to speak about the far more important issue – the future of the school district.
I think your narrative is a plausible one — that Davis parents care more about their individual programs than looking at the bigger picture — but it overlooks more subtle realities. Just because the council chambers are (almost) empty doesn’t mean that few are paying attention. There are a good number of folks who watch the school board meeting on cable at home, streaming live over the internet, or watch the video archives later. Why go out late on a nasty January evening when there are conveniences that allow you to stay at home and follow?
Also, with respect to parcel tax interest, there was a significant amount of discussion with constituents by school board members outside the meeting on this issue. School board members aren’t allowed to talk about these issues with more than one other trustee outside the meeting (Brown Act). So a lot of back and forth meeting discussion about the parcel tax — what it will fund, how much, how long, when to put it up for vote — that when on over 3-4 school board meetings, actually reflects those discussions that go on outside the meetings.
If you visit other school board meetings and talk with folks in other districts, you will find that DJUSD board meetings are lively and involved by comparison. In other school districts, school boards tend to function a little more like rubber stamps for recommendations of the adminstration. Sometimes those board members don’t even appreciate that they can demand an alternative to the recommendations.
When cuts are made in many school districts, those cuts are only discovered for the first time when the HR director delivers the layoff notice to the teacher, meaning that no one bothered to follow the school board discussion that lead up to those cuts. Interestingly, in other districts, often the union rep. who is obligated to show up to these meetings fails to communicate adequately to his/her constituents that there are pending layoffs. It’s hard to have any say on the decision after it has been made. In such environments, you could have the perception that this was a “black box” decision. In Davis, those discussions are followed closely, because the reason a lot of parents choose to live in Davis was for the schools.
I would also give some credit to Jeff Hudson, Enterprise reporter whose beat is the city schools. He often writes preview articles about school board meetings that raises community awareness of school board discussion. School board meeting agendas are usually first posted on the Friday afternoon before the next school board meeting. Often one of his Sunday articles will preview the coming board meeting, based on the agenda (if it’s deemed newsworthy). And by the same token, your Vanguard articles have helped to raise awareness.
In summary, I would caution against assuming that the attendance pattern at last Thursday’s meeting demonstrates a lack of perspective among parents in the district. If you want to make a public comment, then you have to show up. But other processes can be more deliberative and require more communication than is permitted by the 3-minute limit (or 2-minutes in other instances) allowed in public comment.
Here’s today’s Jeff Hudson Enterprise article on the Jeff Christian (DHS girls’ basketball coach) issue:
[url]http://search.davisenterprise.com/display.php?id=73250[/url]
dmg: “I like sports as much as the next person. Later today I will be watching NFL playoff games, but I really don’t get the mentality of the parents. Don’t they realize what this district is facing? Don’t they realize that there is a possibility that their kids’ teachers will be the next ones fired, that the entire athletic department might have to be cut if the voters do not approve a parcel tax this May?”
The coach was not fired for budgetary reasons, but under a cloud of controversy for reasons other than the budget.
dmg: “I am sympathetic to the burden on tax payers, it is one of the reasons I have fought so hard for fiscal sustainability. Unfortunately the reality is that we must prioritize. We cannot have everything these days. Maybe those days of folly will return in half a decade to a decade, or maybe not.”
I agree wholeheartedly we must prioritize. There is not an unlimited supply of money – there never was. The state/nation is cashing checks they don’t have. The “house of cards” has crashed, and its now “time to pay the piper”…
dmg: “The district has fought hard to protect core programs and in 2007 and 2008, the voters have obliged. At some point, the voters are no longer going to support a tax increase, and the district seems willing to wait until that reality sets in before they change their practices.”
In other words, the district wants more leverage (waiting until school district is hard hit before they change the way they do business) so they can bring pressure to bear in asking for even greater tax increases – putting off changes to the way they do business indefinitely if possible… but that tactic just won’t fly anymore…
John Munn: “Something needs to be done so that that foundation can support the structure of the organization that we need so badly both in this town and this state,” he added. “I’m not sure that the way that schools are operated now is going to be viable in the long term.”
What changes is Munn advocating for?
David,
I undestand your point completely. That parents would only address the firing of a coach (no matter how beloved) and ignore the critical issue of budgeting for schools shows an inability to recognize a circumscribed issue is of lesser importance than a budgetary threat to the entire school system. If your ship is sinking, you would be foolish to spend time and energy fighting with your fellow passengers.
Rifkin’s comment seemed to be an absolute insult and his point had nothing to do with your comment. I really couldn’t read beyond some statement that you missed a chance to make a racial issue out of the coach firing. How does someone with such a hostile mind get a regular column in the Enterprise? He certainly detracts from the integrity of our only local newspaper. Thankfully, he doesn’t reflect the best of our town.
ERM: putting off changes to the way they do business indefinitely if possible… but that tactic just won’t fly anymore…
and
What changes is Munn advocating for?
You ask what changes Munn is advocating for. What changes are you advocating for?
[i]” How does someone with such a hostile mind get a regular column in the Enterprise? He certainly detracts from the integrity of our only local newspaper.”[/i]
Thank you, Ron. I always appreciate your attacks on me.
“Rifkin’s comment seemed to be an absolute insult and his point had nothing to do with your comment. I really couldn’t read beyond some statement that you missed a chance to make a racial issue out of the coach firing. How does someone with such a hostile mind get a regular column in the Enterprise? He certainly detracts from the integrity of our only local newspaper. Thankfully, he doesn’t reflect the best of our town.”
Way, way, way over the top. Rifkin is right, David normally jumps on these issues with racial overtones and tries to run with it.
@ itsme: no more attacks on other participants, please.
I too am surprised and dismayed with Rifkin’s comments. He is normally thoughtful and respectful in his views. As for the firing of the coach, I see no comments above regarding due process. The Enterprise suggested the parents complained directly to the superintendent, and that was that–no due process. Public employees, particularly teachers of any stripe are not normally fired at the whim of any individual, even the superintendent. I think there IS a problem here.
“so they fired the coach mid-season and replaced him with the AD, who happens to be black. “
Are you sure? I thought Mark Dietrich was AD and I didn’t know he was African American.
As for David not covering the details of the firing they seem to be under wraps. RR’s comment seems to be based on here say but does support his Bakke induced vision of the world.
The two issues are not unconnected. Cynical decision making and lack of integrity, in the long term, lead to a loss of confidence in our schools and local governments.
I hear that the coach took the girls off the team after they used profanities at a team meeting, both addressed to him and to other team members.
The superintendent could have conducted an investigation to see what happened. But perhaps it was better to simply fire the coach and avoid a possible discrimination lawsuit (even if unmerited). On the one hand, fair play and the integrity to fairly treat a coach who has dedicated years of his life to students for nominal pay. On the other hand, covering one’s ass.
What would you do?
[i]”Are you sure? I thought Mark Dietrich was AD and I didn’t know he was African American.”[/i]
I am [i]not[/i] sure. I was told the person’s name was Dennis Foster, and I was told he was African-American. I think his race is surely 100% irrelevant.
I will restate my view: I don’t think this case has anything to do with race. But because the girls are African-Americans and the ex-coach is white, it seemed to me the kind of story that David Greenwald would be attracted to. Obviously, in that he never once wrote about it, I was wrong.
[i]”RR’s comment seems to be based on here say but does support his Bakke induced vision of the world.”[/i]
Huh?
There are three reasons to comment on Rifkin’s entry. Rifkin raised the ugly head of racism in an article that had nothing to do with race. Whether a participant in this discussion or not, race baiting needs to be called for what it is. We don’t need anyone bringing up this divisive, explosive issue when this was not an article about race. Second, his comment was a snide, personal attack on the Vanguard reporter. An attack on the substance of the article would be appropriate, but from what I could stand to read, this was not an issue. Lastly, Rifkin’s comments should be called because he has the megaphone of a regular Enterprise article. That privilege should not be extended to someone who attacks with hostile, ad hominem, race baiting words. That mind set behind comments here is the same one that writes the columns. We have enough of divisiveness with Fox. And please note, I am objecting entirely to the contents of Rifkin’s comments. He may be fine as a person, but the words in his comment are not acceptable.
although there is a responsibility that goes with that privilege.
Editorial change: strike out the last line and change “that mind set” to “the mind set.” Otherwise, I stand behind my words.
[i]” Rifkin’s comments should be called because he has the megaphone of a regular Enterprise article. That privilege should not be extended to someone who attacks with hostile, ad hominem, race baiting words.”[/i]
I always enjoy your attacks, Ron. Keep it up, buddy.
While I agree with itsme I just want to say it isn’t me.
Sorry kids, personal vendettas and win/loss records trump education. I’m printing out this column and these comments so that they’re handy the next time someone starts the”Davis is the best place to raise kids” rant.
wdf1: “You ask what changes Munn is advocating for. What changes are you advocating for?”
1) Prioritization
2) Efficacy of programs
3) Necessity of programs
Not an easy determination to make to be sure, bc there are differences of opinion on efficacy/necessity. I don’t like the idea of cutting out music/art/vo tech etc. So that is why I added the efficacy determination. But clearly there just is not enough money to go around to fund everything, and prioritization has to take place.
One thought I had was to perhaps prioritize w efficacy/necessity in mind, and then specifically ask the community to raise donated funds to save specific programs on the chopping block. Parents might be more willing to cough up extra money to the Davis Schools Foundation, if the money was specifically targeted to save, say the music program, if the music program was going to be cut. Just a thought…
I repeat: “The coach was not fired for budgetary reasons, but under a cloud of controversy for reasons other than the budget.” dmg brought up the issue of the coach to make a point, but his point of the coach being fired was completely irrelevant to the school budget discussion…
More to the original topic of this article: It is interesting to see what is going on this year with K-12 funding in Texas. This is the first year of major cuts to their school districts.
This article summarizes the level of cuts in some major Texas school districts:
[url]http://www.statesman.com/news/local/austin-school-district-tackles-drastic-budget-cuts-1199159.html[/url]
This article gives one explanation why those cuts are happening, when Texas doesn’t appear to have had the same vulnerabilities as California (e.g., a runaway housing market earlier in the decade). Apparently Texas tried to roll back property taxes (which fund most K-12 education) by offering alternative taxes. But it didn’t balance out, and has been exacerbated by the recession:
[url]http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/texas-legislature/headlines/20100325-State-tax-swap-isn-t-even-1263.ece[/url]
Here’s a somewhat similar case to DJUSD:
[quote]Cupertino Union School District looks to voters to approve parcel tax measure
The Cupertino Union School District is once again asking residents living within the district boundaries to approve a parcel tax to combat ongoing budgetary woes.
On Jan. 24, the district board of trustees unanimously passed a resolution to place the parcel tax on a May 3 mail-in ballot for voter approval. The district is hoping residents will once again be generous with their dollars.
In May 2009, voters resoundingly approved Measure B, a $125 annual per parcel tax. The measure was passed by 70 percent of the voters in the May 5 mail-in ballot special election. Parcel tax measures require a two-thirds super majority for passage.
[url]http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_17195499?nclick_check=1[/url]
[/quote]
A few key differences between Davis and Cupertino:
Median home sales price:
Cupertino – $934,000
Davis – $411,000
Average home list price:
Cupertino – $1,478,526
Davis – $504,000
Housing price per sq ft:
Cupertino – $542
Davis – $277
Median household income:
Cupertino – $100,411
Davis – $42,454
Top 4 employers:
Cupertino – Apple, Symantec, Oracle, HewlettPackard
Davis – USD, DJUSD, City of Davis, Sutter
Current schools special assessment:
Cupertino – $240
Davis -$320
School system
Cupertino – Is very well known for its high achieving primary and secondary schools. For example, Faria Elementary School is the number one ranked elementary public school in the state of California, per California API test scores. Kennedy Middle School is the third best in the state. Furthermore, Monta Vista High School is ranked number 23 out of all the public schools in the nation.
Davis – not even close
My bad….
Current schools special assessment
Cupertino – $125 (propose to increase to $240)
Davis – $320 (proposed to increase to $520)