This morning’s Sacramento Bee has a story about school districts who are facing, in the voter-approved tax extension that the governor hopes for, an 11 billion dollar question on next year’s budget.
One Superintendent said, “We look at the nature of what’s taking place with the budget, the nature of the economy, the nature of what people are prognosticating. You have to keep an eye on what’s taking place in the Legislature – or lack thereof.”
Larger class sizes. Not buying textbooks. Not filling positions. “And we’re better off than many districts,” another Superintendent said, and that again could have been ours.
Davis Schools are not alone, but the community in Davis has helped to brace the massive statewide cuts through a series of parcel taxes.
“California’s public schools have seen a precipitous decline in state money during the last three years, and it stands to get worse given the latest budget impasse in Sacramento,” wrote the Bee in an editorial. “Cuts fall hard on urban school districts. But no district is left unscathed, including those in wealthier suburban areas where test scores are high.”
The stakes are clear: the Davis schools face at least a $6 million deficit this year. If Measure A passes, that covers about half of the deficit. If the legislature can figure out a way to restore $4.5 billion in funding that would be cut with an all-cuts budget, the local school district loses no money.
“Brown tried a “half & half” approach for solving the state’s deficit – half cuts, half tax extensions,” the Bee continued. “If voters had approved the tax extensions, education would have had essentially flat funding, a little less than the year before. But the bleeding would have been stanched.”
However, without it, districts are left with a good deal of uncertainty about how much money they will have this coming fall.
This uncertainty, reports the Bee, has made it even more difficult to project what the budget will actually look like. Naturally, districts like Davis have planned for the worst.
But planning for the worst, while fiscally prudent, is painful. It means that more teachers will have to be laid off. It may mean a shortening of the school year. And it may mean that the district will have to eliminate programs.
Reports the Bee, there may be huge educational impacts, “The Democratic governor has not specified what would happen if his taxes fail, but he has alluded to shortening the school year by a month. He also has vowed to reject accounting gimmicks.”
Shortening the school year means cutting down on instructional time. However, most deem that unlikely unless the Legislature made a move to both suspend collective bargaining and force teachers to take a monthlong furlough.
That is something that will not happen.
School districts like Davis are going to have to plan for the worst cuts and then make them, because there is no chance to get additional revenue until the fall.
Reports the Bee, “Budget officials say that at the very least, they want the Legislature to provide guidance for the next year so they can determine how deep to cut before classes begin in August. It is one reason many school leaders – and the California Teachers Association – do not want their funding determined by voters in the fall with the school year in full stride.”
“That would be horrible for school districts,” Dennis Meyers, assistant executive director for the California Association of School Budget Officials told the Bee. “What would they plan for? That’s why we’re urging the Legislature to adopt a revenue extension for at least another fiscal year and put on the ballot a question of what happens after 2011-12.”
The Bee editorial argued that the Republicans should have “extracted reasonable reforms in exchange for putting tax extensions on the June ballot. But they squandered the opportunity. That failure to act requires lawmakers to confront an “all-cuts budget.””
Republican Ted Gaines, who was a target of the Bee editorial, “California does not need to extend the onerous 2009 tax increases to improve education. We need to simplify our bureaucracy and get more money to our teachers where it can do the most good for our kids.”
That may have been a good talking point a decade ago, although most educators would have taken issue with it. In reality, most districts have had to cut programs to the bone. They have also had to cut administration. In Davis, they eliminated one Associate Superintendent position on the education side and most of the support staff on the budget side.
A school district is a large and complex organization, but the district had to make tough choices to spare teachers.
Nevertheless, Senator Gaines argues, “The real story of our schools is that only 60 percent of each education dollar makes its way to the classroom where the teachers teach and students learn.”
That figure implies 40% goes to administration. But the problem is that Senator Gaines is gaming the statistics. He is only counting that teachers are money spent on the classroom, and ignoring the countless support staff, facility costs, and other costs to maintain the district.
In Davis over 80 percent of money goes to the classroom, and less than 10% goes to administration.
Davis voters will get a clear choice next week. They can vote to increase the yearly tax by $200 and save the jobs of about one-quarter of the general fund paid teachers in the district, or the district will look very different this time next year with 35-40 student classrooms, overcrowded and cramped.
For the state, we need to figure out a better way and soon. This is the future that we are mortgaging to pay our current bills.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“….increase they yearly tax by $200”
As I remember it, the $200 figure was polled as the MAXIMUM that had a possible chance of getting the 2/3 vote. I would guess that if it does not reach 2/3, we will see another parcel tax ballot measure on the upcoming June ballot, perhaps with 1/2 the proposed parcel tax increase along with some additional “provisos” in how it would be spent, making it more palatable to the voters.
As usual, it is all the Republicans fault… sigh…
David, I thought you would’ve been all over Dunning’s LWV story this morning.
DMG: This is the future that we are mortgaging to pay our current bills.
people don’t eat in the future.
I checked out Dunning’s story on Sunday, and just like Rusty, I too noticed the Vanguard’s deafening silence on the League of Women Voter’s decision to shut No on A out of the discussion.
I believe the league of women voters hosted the forum which allowed me to debate Sue Greenwald on the sales tax, so I appreciate them for that, but if there is any truth to what Dunning says in Sunday’s column, I have lost a lot of respect for the Davis League of Women Voters. In their world, the only valid position is Yes on A, and they do not recognize anything else.
I also object to their organization calling themselves “Davis League of Women Voters” because the title implies they represent all Davis women, yet they shut out those women who don’t hold their belief on measure A.
The Davis LWV is not a neutral organization and ought not be given the chance to host any debates or forums in publicly owned halls, such as the Council chamber. They certainly should never get a fee waiver, which they did for their one-sided debate on Measure A.
I was shocked 5.5 years ago to see the DLWV taking positions on controversial state propositions–such as an abortion measure, which I agreed with the DLWV on. It made no sense to me then that a group which bills itself as promoters of the democratic process was in effect a part of the Democratic process (as seen by its endorsements).
————–
I should add a little background on Dunning’s Sunday column. Through emails, he and I discussed this issue late last week. I had been contacted by Tom Randall, and Tom showed me his exchanges with Jean Canary of the DLWV. After I looked into what Randall had claimed happened to him (and to Ralph Finch, who also wanted to participate in the debate), I passed the story on to Bob and he did his own research and wrote that column, which I think was spot on.
Thanks to all for bringing the Davis League of Women Voters/Measure A issue to light. Dunning’s column was shocking and spot on. Has this astroturf “nonprofit” (DLWV) actually gotten the fee waiver for the Measure A “debate”? dmg – I agree w Musser, your silence on this issue is deafening…
In case any Vanguard readers are interested in the subject, Judge David Rosenberg has written an op-ed ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/new-yolo-courthouse-will-benefit-residents/[/url]) in The Davis Enterprise attacking my column of April 13 ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/courtroom-construction-shouldnt-be-a-priority/[/url]), in which I questioned the wisdom of California spending $5 billion on 41 courthouse projects at this time, when our state is still $15 billion in the red.
Shocked at his op-ed, which I found to be poorly written and full of deceptive claims and some downright untruths, I penned a point-by-point response to the judge, which you can read here ([url]http://lexicondaily.blogspot.com/2011/04/judge-rosenberg-claims-my-column-was.html[/url]).
Actually I agree with you guys on the LWV issue. I didn’t see Dunning’s column before you guys pointed it out. I actually think I have criticized their format in the past, I thought their city council forum in 2010 was the worst of all the forums I attended and the forum they hosted for the appointment process was a joke as well.
dmg: “Actually I agree with you guys on the LWV issue. I didn’t see Dunning’s column before you guys pointed it out. I actually think I have criticized their format in the past, I thought their city council forum in 2010 was the worst of all the forums I attended and the forum they hosted for the appointment process was a joke as well.”
My apologies for assuming you failed to respond to Dunning’s column. I do remember your criticism of the Davis League of Women Voter’s format for the candidate’s forum…
To Rich Rifkin in regard to comment about courthouse (which I know is off topic, so hope you will indulge me Don Shor!):
The one thing that strikes me that is horribly wrong w Judge Rosenberg’s rebuttal is that traffic tickets paid are not necessarily from “convicted” defendants. Citizens frequently pay the traffic ticket whether guilty of the crime they are accused of or not, bc it is cheaper than taking the day off from work/hiring an attorney to represent them. In law I believe, a traffic ticket cannot be used as evidence against the person accused bc of its unreliability as evidence of guilt. Also, paying for a courthouse w traffic tickets sets up an incentive for law enforcement to institute speed traps and the like as revenue enhancers to get that big shiny new courthouse built. Very worrisome…
We fail to see the need for drastic change required. We failed to elect qualified leadership who would foster the required change. Apparently we don’t feel enough pain. I am voting “no” on Measure-A based on the evidence that we are continually falling behind in public education, and are incapable or unwilling to see the problems and opportunities in the correct light.
I find it ironic that my Davis friends will not hesitate to enroll their little darlings in an untested Spanish Emersion program, but then reject all progressive education programs like: teacher pay-for-performance, charter schools and vouchers, because “there is not enough proof that they will improve outcomes”. Forgetting for a moment that most progressive education programs are controlled by the same school boards that failed in their public school attempts, and are also hampered by meddling of the teachers’ union and the politics they control, this all I need to recognize ideology is trumping facts and morals.
Here’s the deal teachers’ unions and your political benefactors: come to me with commitments for commensurate improvements for each additional tax dollar, and I will vote “yes” to tax myself the additional dollars. However, come to me with your hand out to protect your status quo, and I will vote “no”.
WSJ articles on education from Bill Gates:
[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704728004576176802077647470.html?KEYWORDS=blame+teachers[/url]
[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703858404576214593545938506.html?KEYWORDS=blame+teachers[/url]
I find this op-ed [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704071704576276673922731938.html?KEYWORDS=demonize+teachers[/url] from the president of the American Federation of Teachers interesting (not surprising though) in that the argument presented is that America should not use market-based approaches because these other countries with stronger education outcomes are not.
So, to summarize, from her view, as it related to our public education system, the best the US can do is follow the lead of others. How American is that?
Comments like this from our current education “leaders” give us a window into the mindset and/or movites of the people controlling the system, and it should be all we need to recognize the need for significant reform. The problem here is that there is possibly nothing more important to protecting our way of life than the quality of our education system. We shouldn’t be discussing funding to protect the status quo. We should be discussing how to drastically improve our education outcomes. Liberals will wring their hands in outrage over the child that does not have enough to eat, but apparently not care so much that the public school system cranks out millions of kids illiterate and unprepared to enter the workforce…. and in many other cases, damages or destroys the child’s enthusiasm to learn. Why would I tax myself more for that?
JB: [i]untested Spanish Emersion program[/i]
What kind of tested results are you expecting?
[i] but apparently not care so much that the public school system cranks out millions of kids illiterate and unprepared to enter the workforce…[/i]
In Davis?
Seems like your rationale is voting no to focus your broad displeasure with the U.S. education system, when in fact Davis is one place where things work better.
Interestingly (and ironically?), I remember you pointing out and commending recently how the Finnish education system produced better outcomes than the U.S. When your article provoked me to do follow up research, I was surprised to learn that they don’t do any regular standardized testing.
It makes me think that some of our downfall is our over-obsession on measuring our results. Sort of like an athlete getting overly concerned about form and not focusing on the doing, and screwing up in the process.
But the problem is that I don’t think you and other tax payers would be satisfied unless the testing were being done. It’s the price of being accountable.
wdf1: from the second WSJ article from Gates:
[quote]Q: Do you think using student test scores to measure teacher effectiveness is a reliable measure?
A: Test scores aren’t perfect, but having a test score for math or reading or other things that we can objectively measure is a meaningful component that makes a lot of sense. Now you put everything onto that one thing, that’s not ideal. You want a broader set of measures. [/quote]
I am 100% in agreement with this. There is the adage “what gets measured gets done”. I think using test scores only is problematic, but less so than is the option of having ZERO measures of accountability which is what the teachers and their unions seem to prefer. We need a comprehensive and robust teacher, administrator and school performance management system that measures the outcomes we want, but also measures the behaviors, actions, and attitudes that we know contribute to the outcomes that we want. The teachers and unions block this, and then point to the use of student test scores as being detrimental to them providing a quality education. How self-serving is this argument? What profession gets to work without having any quantifiable performance expectations? If you find any, you should quickly close down the business that employs them because it will always fail.
On Spanish Emersion: I know people that put their young kids into that program on nearly blind faith that these kids would “catch-up” on their English language studies later… even with little data supporting this claim. Some of these same people are vehemently opposed to market-based approaches because there is not enough data to prove that it will produce better outcomes. I just see some irony there.
[i]”In Davis”[/i]
I have gone on record that I think Davis education quality for grades 8-12 is no better than average. In general I think the better outcomes are more related to the brainy gene pool and the all the assistance provided highly-educated, hyper-involved Davis parents, than related to higher quality education.
Jeff
I’m actually surprised to read that you have voted No on Measure A. Your reasons for not wanting to additionally support a system you find fault in is understood, but a major emphasis of the Yes campaign has been about home values (prices). You’re a homeowner, so where do you stand on that?
I happen to think the school district is a small part of the total package that makes Davis an attractive place to live.
Davis Enophile: Yes, I admit to that concern being weighed. I agree that the perception of better schools, even though I think it is a partial myth, is something that increases demand for Davis real estate. However I think there are other reasons that Davis real estate values remain high… like low development, low crime, and a vibrant down town.
But protecting individual wealth at the expense of children has never been behavior I support or welcome.
JB: [i]On Spanish Emersion: I know people that put their young kids into that program on nearly blind faith that these kids would “catch-up” on their English language studies later… even with little data supporting this claim. Some of these same people are vehemently opposed to market-based approaches because there is not enough data to prove that it will produce better outcomes. I just see some irony there.[/i]
I suppose you have to concede that parents have the right to make the decisions that they think are right for their kids, regardless of what you think.
But consider this. The 2010 STAR test scores (given in ~April 2010) for 6th grade Chavez Elementary language arts show 88% at proficient or above. The district totals for 6th grade language arts is 82%, proficient or above. Remember that the STAR test is given in English. Do you think your supposition is proven wrong? If not, what’s your explanation?
The folks in the Spanish Immersion program say that there will be some delay in English language ability along the way, but that by 6th grade the students perform as well as or better than their peers.
I will address your other points later.
wdf1: I don’t have a supposition on the educational outcomes of kids having attended Spanish Immersion. There are too many variables to make even an educated guess. My point was/is that some parents jumped into this the minute it opened without any data to prove that their kids would not be harmed academically by the loss of early English language teaching exposure. Yet these same parents scream “no way” over market-based approaches. I would even argue that there is more data supporting market-based approaches than language immersion approaches to education. Are not the most desirable institutions of secondary learning private colleges? [url]http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/11/best-colleges-universities-rating-ranking-opinions-best-colleges-10_land.html[/url]
By your point [i]I suppose you have to concede that parents have the right to make the decisions that they think are right for their kids, regardless of what you think.
[/i], you are on to my fundamental interest: “choice”.
I want as much choice as possible. Not just what a few self-anointed elites decide what is best. I want the bad and failed stuff to go away and be replaced with the best and most successful stuff… constantly. I want innovation, creativity, enthusiasm, excellence, energy, positivity, performance-managed employees working for service-oriented and customer-focused schools and who understands that as a parent and as a student they all work for me and not the other way around. I want MUCH better value for the money we spend on education. I want the current public education system and their political cover to self-destruct and disappear (because I believe it cannot be reformed soon enough and profoundly enough) so we can rebuild something the rest of world will marvel at and try to copy. I want the US to be leaders in the field of K-12 education like we are in secondary education and so many other things we take for granted. I don’t want to spend another dime on the current system. It is mediocre at best, but mostly crappy. Sure there are bright spots, but there are too few to meet my expectations of no child left behind. Children are being left behind every day.
JB: Please explain something. On the one hand you say that Davis students do well more because of the parents and not the schools or teachers, or anything good going on from that end. On the other hand in an earlier comment you made, you expressed disappointment feeling that the schools had failed your own kids in some way. Those seem like contradictory positions. What say you?
JB: Please explain something. On the one hand you say that Davis students do well more because of the parents and not the schools or teachers, or anything good going on from that end. On the other hand in an earlier comment you made, you expressed disappointment feeling that the schools had failed your own kids in some way. Those seem like contradictory positions. What say you?
wdf1: I don’t see a contradiction here. Beginning about 8th grade (when both my boys entered Emerson after having attended Patwin), their enthusiasm about school began to significantly decline. Maybe it started earlier… even before Emerson we had to play a very active role talking to other parents and working to make sure our kids did not get stuck with the bad teachers. (Yes, the names of these teachers were well known by the parents… since the teachers had been there doing the same crappy job since many years prior and would continue until they retired). We were usually able to get my oldest into classes with the good teachers, but my youngest seem to ALWAYS get the unlucky draw… for example, getting the nutty English teacher or the grouchy match teacher that everyone disliked. However, my youngest was always a bit more resilient and less sensitive and seemed to do fine despite the bad draws. I helped at the Patwin a few times and got to know some of the teachers. I was impressed with many, and could quickly see that others either had selected the wrong career or had grown to their highest level of incompetence. However, my general sense was that the school and the teachers truly cared for the kids and were working hard to take care of their individual needs. It was like a slightly dysfunctional, but caring, family.
Now moving to Emerson and DHS… Although there were/are some fantastic teachers there, the general culture of both these schools was/is different that was Patwin. Some of this was/is probably due to the introduction of hormonal-aged students, but there was definitely less care in the air. The admin staff sucked and as parents we seemed to be fighting too many battles working through the bureaucratic layers of inefficiency and confusion. Meanwhile, after spending time in the classrooms, our boys continued to pass us stories of issues like: tests being given on chapters not assigned to read; and homework not graded and reviewed, but tests given anyway. We talked to parents of older kids and frequently heard responses like: “Oh yeah, that teacher has always been like that!” Our kids told us how many teachers would teach to the brainy or gifted students and a few of the struggling students, but basically let the middle flounder. They also told us stories about being demonized for certain political and social views and being made to feel like their opinions were unwelcome. Like most Davis parents in our position, we talked to our kids. We hired tutors. We helped them were we could (although, unlike those lucky enough to have one spouse at home, or with a flexible work schedule, we were not able to spend time every day and night).
Both my kids are smart but not template “Davis smart kids”. They are more left-brained and more highly emotionally intelligent. My oldest ran long distance in track and cross-country. My youngest played in the DHS symphonic and jazz band. They both have a strong work ethic. They didn’t get in serious trouble (that I know about!). They had a great group of friends… some of them brainy Davis template smart kids. However, my boys’ Davis 8-12 experience set them back in terms of their enthusiasm for learning. My oldest is just now recovering after 3 very difficult years at college.
Learning OUR expensive lesson, we agreed to keep our youngest at home to attend a JC for two years so we can deprogram his dislike and distrust of the education system. I would have preferred that as a DHS grad both boys be enthused and eager to take their next academic step. I think both might have been better prepared and more enthused having attended Dixon high school. I think both boys would have graduated with higher GPAs and own more justified academic self-confidence.
I think part of the problem with Davis Jr High and High School is the large size, and the corresponding lack of skill to manage that large and complex of an operation to effectively provide the required level of student (customer) care. Also, I think the larger population of brain kids along with their hyper-participatory parents, gives the schools cover for these problems… and this in turn exacerbates the bad deal for the non-template kids.
wdf1: I don’t see a contradiction here. Beginning about 8th grade (when both my boys entered Emerson after having attended Patwin), their enthusiasm about school began to significantly decline. Maybe it started earlier… even before Emerson we had to play a very active role talking to other parents and working to make sure our kids did not get stuck with the bad teachers. (Yes, the names of these teachers were well known by the parents… since the teachers had been there doing the same crappy job since many years prior and would continue until they retired). We were usually able to get my oldest into classes with the good teachers, but my youngest seem to ALWAYS get the unlucky draw… for example, getting the nutty English teacher or the grouchy match teacher that everyone disliked. However, my youngest was always a bit more resilient and less sensitive and seemed to do fine despite the bad draws. I helped at the Patwin a few times and got to know some of the teachers. I was impressed with many, and could quickly see that others either had selected the wrong career or had grown to their highest level of incompetence. However, my general sense was that the school and the teachers truly cared for the kids and were working hard to take care of their individual needs. It was like a slightly dysfunctional, but caring, family.
Now moving to Emerson and DHS… Although there were/are some fantastic teachers there, the general culture of both these schools was/is different that was Patwin. Some of this was/is probably due to the introduction of hormonal-aged students, but there was definitely less care in the air. The admin staff sucked and as parents we seemed to be fighting too many battles working through the bureaucratic layers of inefficiency and confusion. Meanwhile, after spending time in the classrooms, our boys continued to pass us stories of issues like: tests being given on chapters not assigned to read; and homework not graded and reviewed, but tests given anyway. We talked to parents of older kids and frequently heard responses like: “Oh yeah, that teacher has always been like that!” Our kids told us how many teachers would teach to the brainy or gifted students and a few of the struggling students, but basically let the middle flounder. They also told us stories about being demonized for certain political and social views and being made to feel like their opinions were unwelcome. Like most Davis parents in our position, we talked to our kids. We hired tutors. We helped them were we could (although, unlike those lucky enough to have one spouse at home, or with a flexible work schedule, we were not able to spend time every day and night).
Both my kids are smart but not template “Davis smart kids”. They are more left-brained and more highly emotionally intelligent. My oldest ran long distance in track and cross-country. My youngest played in the DHS symphonic and jazz band. They both have a strong work ethic. They didn’t get in serious trouble (that I know about!). They had a great group of friends… some of them brainy Davis template smart kids. However, my boys’ Davis 8-12 experience set them back in terms of their enthusiasm for learning. My oldest is just now recovering after 3 very difficult years at college.
Learning OUR expensive lesson, we agreed to keep our youngest at home to attend a JC for two years so we can deprogram his dislike and distrust of the education system. I would have preferred that as a DHS grad both boys be enthused and eager to take their next academic step. I think both might have been better prepared and more enthused having attended Dixon high school. I think both boys would have graduated with higher GPAs and own more justified academic self-confidence.
I think part of the problem with Davis Jr High and High School is the large size, and the corresponding lack of skill to manage that large and complex of an operation to effectively provide the required level of student (customer) care. Also, I think the larger population of brain kids along with their hyper-participatory parents, gives the schools cover for these problems… and this in turn exacerbates the bad deal for the non-template kids.
However, all of this boils down to my main theme of wanting to blow up the current system and create a new marvel of K-12 education.
Our kids’ public school education should culminate with them being prepared for and enthused about the next step in their life. However, the current public school system as designed, attempts to put everything into a narrow box so that it can be controlled and a sense of “fairness” can reign. This “old school” approach of grouping and categorizing subjects, so controlling elites can be made comfortable about vetted fairness, only serves to marginalize non-template groups and categories. Also, it contrasts conflictingly with modern leadership and service-delivery best practice that is 100% situational and tuned to the needs of the individual. In the modern leadership service-delivery model, the only accepted “template” of constituency is the individual… and, systems that lead and deliver are always in constant-improvement mode to ensure they are continually optimized to focus on the needs of the individual.
As parents, we should have much more choice to help steer our kids in a direction best suited to their tendencies, wirings and interests. We also need competitive mechanisms to facilitate a constant improvement in service delivery. There should be no sacred cows except the animal of excellence. Market forces are our best bet for this.
However, all of this boils down to my main theme of wanting to blow up the current system and create a new marvel of K-12 education.
Our kids’ public school education should culminate with them being prepared for and enthused about the next step in their life. However, the current public school system as designed, attempts to put everything into a narrow box so that it can be controlled and a sense of “fairness” can reign. This “old school” approach of grouping and categorizing subjects, so controlling elites can be made comfortable about vetted fairness, only serves to marginalize non-template groups and categories. Also, it contrasts conflictingly with modern leadership and service-delivery best practice that is 100% situational and tuned to the needs of the individual. In the modern leadership service-delivery model, the only accepted “template” of constituency is the individual… and, systems that lead and deliver are always in constant-improvement mode to ensure they are continually optimized to focus on the needs of the individual.
As parents, we should have much more choice to help steer our kids in a direction best suited to their tendencies, wirings and interests. We also need competitive mechanisms to facilitate a constant improvement in service delivery. There should be no sacred cows except the animal of excellence. Market forces are our best bet for this.
Ever wonder why it’s the same group of people posting? The Vanguard seems to have become the anti-tax Tea Party forum whenever the topic is public funding of public services. Never saw a public service worth a public dime in this group.