The school district this evening will discuss actions that will be needed to deal with another three million dollar budget reduction for 2011-12. The district will have a final resolution at their February 17, 2011 Board Meeting.
State law requires that they act to notify teachers that they will be on the layoff list by March 15, 2011. Typically they issue more notices than are needed and then rescind layoffs once funding becomes more certain.
The vast majority of jobs have been preserved, due to one-time fixes such as the Davis School Foundation and also teacher concessions.
The reality this year is not good. The district has attempted to bridge some of the funding gap by putting a two-year, $200 parcel tax expansion on the ballot. If two-thirds of the voters approve it, that will bridge a portion of the gap.
But unless Gov. Jerry Brown can get his tax plan on the ballot and get the voters to approve it, the state would be looking at another $9 billion cut to education funding, of which the district is likely looking at a $6 million deficit for next year, of which the parcel tax would include half of that.
If the taxes are extended, education would be flat-funded for 2011-12, still with no cost of living adjustment, but at least no new cuts.
Even under the best case scenario, the Governor’s budget would not cover the 1.67% estimated COLA (cost of living adjustment). Thus, “The funded base revenue limit drops approximately $19 per ADA from the 2010-11 level.”
Even under the best case scenario, things are not looking good. Flat funding will not protect against further cuts in the best case scenario, and the likelihood of a special election is not realistic.
What this means is that, regardless of what happens with the parcel tax, the district will have to lay off additional employees.
The parcel taxes and the efforts of the Davis Schools Foundation have helped to forestall worse cuts. Davis schools have fared far better than their counterparts, but the emergency funding scenario is a reality.
However, even with this bleak news, it appears that opposition is mounting. A letter to the Enterprise from a local resident called the parcel tax “absuive and outrageous.”
Writes the author, “It is also clear that the 62.5 percent increase will not benefit students. The board has not presented a specific need; rather, it is clear this money will go to salaries.”
Where that assertion comes from is not clear.
He continues, “For that reason, the supporters and promoters are the teachers’ union and district employees. I have voted in favor of money for schools, thinking that it benefits the children and their quality education. Instead, the money for salaries supports mismanagement. Therefore, this time I will vote no.”
Furthermore he adds, “The residents of Davis have no responsibility for the district’s mismanagement and not being able to adjust to the economy of the state. If we consider that Gov. Brown did not cut the budget for education, this school board is out [of] step with reality.”
This is partly true. The Governor has proposed a budget, premised on the passage of a tax in June that would not cut the budget. However, the individual writing the letter fails to recognize that a likely scenario involves an additional $9 billion cut to education because the likelihood of the tax measure getting on the ballot and passed is remote.
Moreover, even if it does, the budget does not account for increases to cost of a living (COLA), and therefore inflation puts the district in the hole even with flat state funding. Again, the individual appears to not really understand this.
As the California Budget Project reports, “Governor Brown’s Proposed 2011-12 Budget essentially “flat funds” K-12 education. However, the Governor’s funding level assumes that voters and lawmakers approve the Governor’s tax plan.”
They continue, “Without the revenues raised by the Governor’s tax plan, the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantee would fall by $2 billion in 2011-12 – equivalent to approximately $300 per K-12 student. If the Legislature and voters reject the Governor’s proposed tax plan and lawmakers chose to make up for lost revenues with across-the-board cuts, the reduction to K-12 education would be approximately $5.6 billion – more than $930 per student.”
Instead, the writer of the letter focuses on the fact that the district wants what now amounts to a 62.5% increase in the parcel tax and calls this, “abusive, unwarranted and outrageous.”
But is it really unwarranted? This is what has happened to the district’s revenue since 2007-08:
And it is worse than that, as we explained two weeks ago. The district is at the point where it almost does not have enough cash to cover the loans needed to make its payroll before state funding kicks in later in the year. This has arisen not out of any district policies or mismanagement, but rather because the state is increasingly deferring payments to local districts, by several months now.
This is the district’s cash situation.
This is not just a district problem. According to the California Budget project, “As a result of past cuts, California’s K-12 education spending dropped by more than $1,000 per student (10.2 percent) between 2008-09 and 2010-11 at the same time that US per student spending increased by nearly $550 (5.0 percent).”
They continue, “This year, California ranks 47th in the nation in per pupil spending compared to ranking 35th in 2008-09.”
Of course, the letter writer might suggest that the problem is really teachers failing to take enough pay cuts. Last year the teachers took a pay concession that amounted to $1 million in savings to the district. That amounted to between a 5 and 10 percent concession.
The teachers certainly did not help matters by making salary demands, but likely they will have to take another concession. However, that is small potatoes compared to the six million dollar hole that the district is facing and that will be plugged not through concessions, but through layoffs.
Layoffs mean cutbacks in programs and a much higher student to teacher ratio than we have had. And that will impact education.
Davis has been spared some of the worst cuts, through the generosity of this community. However, these problems are very real and the community is going to have to decide on their priorities.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This is the the letter that you reference for this piece:
[url]http://search.davisenterprise.com/display.php?id=73538[/url]
The writer is also the same gentleman who wrote the January 12 letter:
[url]http://search.davisenterprise.com/display.php?id=73031[/url]
that you used to represent “growing opposition” in your January 13 piece on the school budget issue:
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4006:commentary-re-thinking-parcel-tax-view-in-light-of-growing-opposition&catid=68:budgettaxes&Itemid=119[/url]
[quote]Writes the author, “It is also clear that the 62.5 percent increase will not benefit students. The board has not presented a specific need; rather, it is clear this money will go to salaries.”
Where that assertion comes from is not clear.
[/quote]It’s clear to me… one of the teachers’ union leaders proposed a “sunshine” proposal at the end of 2010 to reverse the furloughs agreed to this year. Teachers in DJUSD have had less concessions in the past two years (individuals) than local, county and/or state employees.
dmg: “Layoffs mean cutbacks in programs and a much higher student to teacher ratio than we have had. And that will impact education.”
Layoffs also means less tax revenue coming in. Out of work teachers cannot pay taxes on income they are not receiving. This has a downward spiraling effect, in that these same teachers cannot purchase goods and services, which damages businesses. We need to keep people employed as much as possible…
The letter writer fails to make an argument based on fact or reason. He fails to even acknowledge a problem, let alone offer a solution. Whining is easy, offering constructive solutions another matter entirely.
Last night the school board discussed cutting up to 60 certificated positions from next years school budget. This was done by raising K-3 class sizes from 25 to 30, cutting 5 secondary counselor positions, cutting 7th period from 7th & 8th grade, among other things. Here is the “PKS” list:
[url]https://davis.csbaagendaonline.net/cgi-bin/WebObjects/davis-eAgenda.woa/files/MTI5NjgzMjc2OTk0OC9kYXZpc2VBZ2VuZGEvNjQ2LzM4NjEvRmlsZXM=/02-03-11_certificated_pks_resolution_draft_7___8__board_agenda_2.3.11_.pdf[/url]
The district has to cut $7 million from next year’s budget, and this accounts for ~$2.7 million. There will be additional cuts proposed for classified administrative staff in future meetings. This may still require further cuts on top, likely involving compensation from staff in some way. This budget plan does not count on revenue from the proposed parcel tax in May, nor from any extended taxes from the state involved on a proposed June ballot (still has to be passed by the legislature for this to happen). Only after any additional revenue is approved can it be included in the school budget.
One interesting idea discussed last night was to have a discussion with the city council to ask for an allocation of RDA money to cover some of the deficit. Apparently next Tuesday the city council will discuss what to do with any remaining RDA money that may still be available. The viability of this idea was unknown and speculative, but district staff will be investigating.
Governor Brown has proposed eliminating RDA’s as a way to make more revenue available for schools and local services.
The video archive of last night’s meeting should probably be available after the weekend at
[url]http://djusd.davismedia.org/[/url]
Budget discussions took place in the last ~2 hours of the meeting. There was also an interesting presentation on teen mental health and suicide prevention. Measure Q funds the position of a district mental health specialist.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the RDA, of what it can do and cannot do. The community is in need of an RDA 101. That was made abundantly clear in the discussion that took place following the Brown budget announcement. The DDBA is going to do just that. We will be hosting an RDA forum at noon, February 23rd. The school board is welcome to join us.
To DTB: Where and when is the meeting on Feb 23 going to be?
Here’s Jeff Hudson’s Enterprise article today on last night’s school board meeting:
[url]http://search.davisenterprise.com/display.php?id=73624[/url]
The Feb. 23rd meeting is one of our regular monthly Brown Bag luncheons, which are always from noon to 1pm. We have yet to seek a venue, but will make an announcement well in advance.
DTB: “The Feb. 23rd meeting is one of our regular monthly Brown Bag luncheons, which are always from noon to 1pm. We have yet to seek a venue, but will make an announcement well in advance.”
It would be helpful if you post it on the Vanguard…
We all know data are manipulated to drive one’s point across. I don’t know where the DJUSD Attendance Revenue funding per student came from, but I urge voters to examine the district finances on their own. If you going to show a graph, reference the source data.
According to http://WWW.ED-DATA.ORG, in 2007/08 DJUSD had 8484 students and a General Fund Income of $70.9MM. That works out to $8357 per student. In addition, if you look a little further back in history (not included on the slide for some reason) in 2000/01 DJUSD had 8642 students and a budget of $57.3MM, which works out to just $6622 / student. (COLA adjusted, that would be $7973 in comparable 2007 dollars). Bottom line – the spending / student from 2000 to 2007 increased 5%, not decreased over the years. If you go back to 1996, the increase is even more pronounced.
Finally, if you use the same web source and calculate the number of School Admin. positions / student you will see DJUSD increased from 31 FTEs in 1996 to 76 FTE’s in 2008. On a per student basis that’s over an 100% increase. You will also find the teacher / student ratio remains relatively flat at 20-21 students / teacher.
“According to http://WWW.ED-DATA.ORG, in 2007/08 DJUSD had 8484 students and a General Fund Income of $70.9MM. That works out to $8357 per student. “
Here’s the problem with using the data in that way. First, where is the money coming from. So the data that was presented in the graphic shows state money separated from parcel tax money. And what’s happened is that the district has had to supplement state tax money with parcel tax money.
“…where is the money coming from”.
Come on, that’s easy! It’s coming from us the tax payers. Some from the Federal level, some from the State Level, some from the County level and some from the City level. But it’s all coming from us the tax payers. Spending is spending is spending. The argument that we can’t use this pot of money for that purpose is getting old. The threats about layoff teachers is getting old. Ask the voters if they want to pay more taxes to fund the bloating administration staff and then see how they vote.
Facts are the facts! We are spending more money on a per student basis to run the DJUSD then we have in the past.
See there’s the problem, you are suddenly not separating out local funding sources from state funding sources. And by doing that you are skewing you’re own analysis.