The Davis Enterprise, in a decision that will surprise no one who has been paying attention for the past four years, has endorsed Measure A, the school parcel tax, arguing, “We must do what’s necessary to preserve excellence in our schools.”
“The Davis schools are facing an emergency. And if we value education — like we all say we do — we must respond in appropriate fashion,” the editorial begins.
The question is simple: Are you willing to pay $200 per year over the next two years to fund essential school programs including core subjects, elective classes, reduced class sizes, counselors and school site safety?
The answer is also simple according to the Enterprise, voters should “reply with a resounding ‘yes.’ “
The editorial bases this on the emergency facing the Davis schools.
They write, “The past four years have been brutal for schools across California, and Davis is no exception. We’re receiving nearly $6 million less than we did in 2007-08, more than a 10 percent cut, to do the most important job in society: educating our next generation. And worse news is on the horizon. If Gov. Jerry Brown fails to get a tax-extension measure on the ballot this year, Davis will see another $2.6 million cut from the state.”
They also counter some of the opposition arguments, “We’ve done about all we can to blunt the impact of these year-after-year funding losses. We’ve increased class sizes at all grade levels. We’ve reduced custodial, grounds and secretarial services. We’ve deferred textbook purchases, and restricted summer school enrollment. We’ve trimmed administration and central office staff.”
“Don’t believe those who say there’s still fat to be cut,” they argue. “We’re a lean, mean, educatin’ machine in Davis. Just look at the numbers: California ranked last in the nation — LAST — in the number of K-12 students per teacher, 46th in the number per administrator, 49th in the number per guidance counselor and last in the number per librarian. And among California districts, Davis is near the bottom in all these categories.”
They continue, “Teachers pitched in by agreeing to a salary cut this year in exchange for five furlough days. Others accepted a retirement incentive to save their pink-slipped colleagues’ jobs. And, of course, the Davis Schools Foundation came through with multimillion-dollar fundraising campaigns to ensure that music, arts, athletics, elementary science, libraries — everything that sets our schools apart from others — could continue.”
Moreover they argue, “If you have children in school, your decision on Measure A should be a no-brainer. You know that kids learn best in small classes where they get more individual attention from a teacher. You know they’re best stimulated, and engaged, when they have opportunities — like a seventh period in junior high school so they can explore music or art or a practical art like cooking or woodworking.”
“If you no longer have kids in school, don’t you want the same opportunities for your friends’ and neighbors’ children that your own offspring had?” they ask rhetorically.
“And for all of us, this emergency tax is an important investment in our community. If you’re a homeowner, you know this $200 pays dividends in your property values many times over,” they continue arguing.
Bottom line is that they feel your pain. But this is too important to pass up. They conclude, “We know this economic downturn has touched you; it’s touched EVERYONE. We’re all hurting. But we need to think about our priorities as individuals and our priorities as a community. Educating the next generation should be our top priority. Davis has always known that. It’s time to show it again.”
This is actually one of their better editorials, in that they hit on the key points while at the same time debunking the myths. The truth is that there is not $3 million, let alone $6 million in fat in this district.
The first cuts were to the administrative staff. We have seen the cutting of one associate superintendent position, and we have seen the other associate superintendent, Bruce Colby, retained but his support staff cut.
We have seen attempts to keep core programs but we have seen the number of teachers drop and student to teacher ratio rise. We had done a great job in California of reducing that ratio, only to see it completely evaporate in the last few years.
Think that doesn’t matter? How well is a teacher going to teach your kid if they have seven to ten additional children in the classroom adding, several with behavioral or learning problems. Their aids have been cut, support has been cut.
Some have tried to argue that we still have “fluff” classes. But they forget something very basic, students still have entrance requirements they must meet to go to college and taking out, for instance, an Ornamental Horticulture class, which was posed by a reader last year, would not save money because they would simply have to find another class for the students to take.
The Vanguard last week published Delaine Eastin’s editorial on the subject, What Grade Will We Earn in the Parcel Tax Election https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4217:what-grade-will-we-earn-in-the-parcel-tax-election&catid=69:elections&Itemid=121.
Thomas Randall Jr., who should be no stranger to those well-versed in Davis election, as he has opposed every tax increase I can remember, has an editorial today, as well.
He argues that Measure A is “the wrong way for Davis.” Which is an interesting argument for someone who has been in the vast minority on issues before Davis. He argued against Measure W, for instance, that passed with 75% of the vote.
Nevertheless he says, “The Davis school board and the governing bodies of many other local government entities have placed an inordinate number of special tax measures on the ballot in recent elections. Eight special tax measures have passed and are in effect, amounting to an additional average property tax rate of $1,188 per parcel per year. This is a 75 percent increase from approximately $673.32 since 1998, when there were just five special property tax assessments within the Davis city limits. If Measure A passes, there will be nine.”
He continues, “Measure A provides no exemption for low-income property owners who are under 65 years of age; there is an age-based exemption only, not even a partial or a full exemption or even a refund program due to unforeseen personal income-related circumstances. This is also true of the school district’s Measures Q and W, and the Community Facilities District 1.”
He adds, “However, the school board had the option of including an exemption from this special tax and Measures Q and W for SSI disability recipients, as allowed by California Government Code Section 50079, but chose not to.”
He continues, “Because an increasing number of “middle-aged” and “middle-class” property owners find it too expensive to live in the Davis school district because of the ever-increasing property tax burden, rising utility rates and stringent growth control policies, the eventual effect is that the 65-and-over age group will be the major age group of property owners in the district.”
“The aging Davis community demographic exacerbates the declining enrollment situation faced in the schools,” he writes then adds, “This situation contributes to a decrease in the rates of enrollment in the Davis school district year by year, and justifies the defeat of Measure A. The local property tax burden shouldn’t increase to provide additional funding for instructional services, as district student enrollment declined from 8,863 students in 2007-08 to 8,833 students in 2008-09.”
He adds, “Measure A clearly is an example of an attempt to excessively tax the taxpayers of the district. If Measure A passes, the combined rate with Measures Q and W would rise from $320 per year to $520 per year. That’s a 62 percent increase just to support instructional programs in the district. It’s a higher combined rate than found in any school district in California, exceeding the $475-per-year special tax rate charged by the Ross Valley School District in Marin County, which currently has the highest such rate in the state.”
As one reader points out however, some of this is not true. WDF1 writes of the last claim, “That most definitely is not true. There are several other districts that have a much, much higher special school tax rate than Davis. I invite you to check out Palo Alto, Piedmont, Acalanes/Lafayette/Orinda, Mill Valley, among others. They have a much higher school parcel tax, serving fewer students, so their parcel taxes allow for much much higher benefit on a per-student basis.”
Regardless, Mr. Randall makes a compelling argument to the anti-tax minions. The problem is that in Davis those minions appear to be in the minority, and the vast minority.
Notably, he fails to address a critical point – how should the district respond to an additional $6 million deficit? It is a two-year bridge that will allow the district not to lay off another 60 to 80 employees due to cuts in state funding. The district, as the Enterprise correctly points out, has trimmed a lot of fat and frankly a lot of good meat – good young teachers, and student to teacher ratios are the highest they have been in two decades, teachers at their lowest level. That is the core of this district and what makes it unique.
The funniest thing, in a not so “ha ha” way, is all the complaints from the taxpayers here, when in fact the house is stacked in their favor. For ever two votes for Measure A it takes only one vote to counter them.
Despite this, Davis has demonstrated a consistent commitment to education and I have not seen anything to lead me to believe that Measure A will be defeated this time either.
I see pockets of dissent, but no organized campaign opposing the parcel tax and that is really what it would take to risk a real possibility of defeat here.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Because an increasing number of “middle-aged” and “middle-class” property owners find it too expensive to live in the Davis school district because of the ever-increasing property tax burden, rising utility rates and stringent growth control policies, the eventual effect is that the 65-and-over age group will be the major age group of property owners in the district.”
“The aging Davis community demographic exacerbates the declining enrollment situation faced in the schools,” he writes then adds, “This situation contributes to a decrease in the rates of enrollment in the Davis school district year by year, and justifies the defeat of Measure A. The local property tax burden shouldn’t increase to provide additional funding for instructional services, as district student enrollment declined from 8,863 students in 2007-08 to 8,833 students in 2008-09.”
He is right that growth control policies have caused enrollment declines, reducing student enrollments that are made up with inter-district transfers living in leapfrog developments as a result of those policies. But so what? This does not mean we should draw the line on the education of the children. We should have that debate but not by voting down measure A.
Vote yes on measure A!
I am a very strong supporter of Measure A. That seniors are exempted is too bad. I think there ought to be a means test. I am a senior and undertaxed along with commercail properties and others seniors with long owned homes. To be exempted from an override just makes the unfairness worse. Because I am undertaxed under of Prop13 my neighbors are overtaxed. That combination is neither fair nor very smart. If there was a means test my taxes would go up,but the taxes of new comers with school age children would go down. Just maybe that would increase the number of children in schools by lowering the expenses of living in Davis. Great schools have been part of the community for as long as I have lived here and our support of them is a reputation of which we can be proud.
Minnis
Excellent point. I could not agree with you more on both Measure A and the value of means testing which if applied to all, would also counter the anti tax argument about lack of exemption for the more economically disadvantaged members of our community in the future.
To Doug Minnis: It would be interesting to know how many 65 and over take advantage of the school tax waiver program… it is entirely possible many do not…
[quote]Because I am undertaxed under of Prop13 my neighbors are overtaxed. That combination is neither fair nor very smart. If there was a means test my taxes would go up,but the taxes of new comers with school age children would go down.[/quote]Easy to say… if you really feel that way, you could figure out the differential that you’d be paying in property taxes, and donate that directly to the district. Cuts out the “middle-persons”, the state’s cut, etc. Of course, the city & county would be in the same boat. There are those of us who have a lesser benefit from Prop 13 provisions, and are paying MR taxes for facilities that our children never benefited from. Those taxes extend for the next 15 years. Between the MR assessments and the school overrides, we’re talking close to $2000 per year.
If teachers, staff and administrators committed to no COLA, nor step increases for the two years (and continuation of the current # of furlough days), I’m good with the measure. As it is, I’m undecided, but leaning towards voting NO.
Hpierce
I think a fair number of us already do provide donations through the Davis Schools Foundation,ot directly to the schools of our choice through fundraisers, out right gifts, volunteering and the like. The question here is not can we raise enough through these activities to mitigate the losses? The question is what is the public responsibility in supporting a public institution that benefits the community as a whole even if not specifically our individual children. A vote against this measure will adversely affect not only the teachers, staff, and administrators, but also the students who have no say in the matter.
I also think that it is easy and popular to portray teachers and staff as “the other” and therefore some how greedy and unreasonable.
These are not for the most part highly paid workers and many are our neighbors and as such are also tax payees who will be financially impacted by this tax. I do not believe that cutting the public school support further at this time is a wise choice for the long term well being of this community and am a strong supporter of this measure as well as donor and volunteer.
Here’s a more sober piece by Ms. Eastin that goes beyond just Measure A:
[url]http://www.sacbee.com/2011/04/03/3521881/viewpoints-selfish-generations.html##storylink=scinlineshareb[/url]
To wdf1: Interesting article. However, is Ms. Eastin unrealistically advocating for a free college education for in-state students? That experiment has already failed, as being too costly to sustain…
hpierce: “If teachers, staff and administrators committed to no COLA, nor step increases for the two years (and continuation of the current # of furlough days), I’m good with the measure. As it is, I’m undecided, but leaning towards voting NO.”
I understand and am sympathetic to your concerns. One thing to think about is that the excellence of Davis schools is increasing your property values…
hpierce ” it is easy to say” Doing is a bit more complex. We have taxes so there is some possibility of equity and a system for collecting the taxes. For example, how does one detrmine the amount one is undertxed. Is it the difference between my property taxes and my next door nrighbors or is it the amount I would pay if there was a more equitable taxation? And after giving funds to the Davis School Foundation what else to do. Seems to me we need an organized approach and Measure A is a start. A means test would be a progressive next step. I have no children or grandchildren in the schools and since I am not moving property values neither point argue for me to vote for Measure A. I will vote for it beccause it is one small way of doing what I can to repay for the privlidges I was given by of several community efforts to educate me. I think we need to invest in education for the children of this and futuere generations just as past generations invested in ours.
[i]”If you no longer have kids in school, don’t you want the same opportunities for your friends’ and neighbors’ children that your own offspring had?” they ask rhetorically.”[/i]
What if your kid was treated poorly while they were attending Davis’ schools? Do you vote No? Probably.
DM: “I have no children or grandchildren in the schools and since I am not moving property values neither point argue for me to vote for Measure A.”
Increasing property value builds equity – equity you can tap into in your old age through a reverse mortgage, or equity your children can tap into once you are gone if you leave your estate to them. Just an observation…
DMG: Thomas Randall Jr., who should be no stranger to those well-versed in Davis election, as he has opposed every tax increase I can remember, has an editorial today, as well.
it all balances out since you have been a lapdog for the school board, and support every tax and service proposed. so he is no more agenda driven than you are.
btw: I noticed you didn’t really respond to the bulk of what he said.
, the Davis Schools Foundation came through with multimillion-dollar fundraising campaigns to ensure that music, arts, athletics, elementary science, libraries — everything that sets our schools apart from others — could continue.”
right, which means the schools have a generous funding source outside their normal budget. parents, taxpayers do not have a davis schools foundation to come up with money for their want and need, yet schools do. Parents have their hours cut back, layoffs, gas prices go up, yet they have to make do. apparently schools, for some reason, should be exempt.
” The problem is that in Davis those minions appear to be in the minority, and the vast minority.”
because those who cannot afford the taxes don’t live here. and your minions will shrink once the economic realities really sink in.
DMG: “Notably, he fails to address a critical point – how should the district respond to an additional $6 million deficit?”
And you fail to adress another one: with layoffs, increases in gas, tripling water and sewer fees, already passed prior tax increases, rent increases, how are low income people supposed to afford this?
if they could get away with it, the school board would knock the gold teeth out of every senior in davis.
[i]if they could get away with it, the school board would knock the gold teeth out of every senior in davis.[/i]
A lot of those seniors were working on and supporting parcel tax campaigns 10 to 30 years ago as parents.
and a lot of them did not.
by the way, I clicked on the link and read the piece you wrote which was little more than pro school propaganda with little evidence to support the outlandish charges.
pretty soon, we as a town are going to wish that all that money the davis schools foundation had raised, instead of going to all the frivolous expenditures of the past, would have been saved for the present.
[quote][u]Doug Minnis[/u]: “Because I am undertaxed under of Prop13 my neighbors are overtaxed. That combination is neither fair nor very smart.”
[u]hpierce[/u]: “Easy to say… if you really feel that way, you could figure out the differential that you’d be paying in property taxes, and donate that directly to the district…There are those of us who have a lesser benefit from Prop 13 provisions, and are paying MR taxes for facilities that our children never benefited from.”[/quote] Doug is absolutely correct, and it cannot be argued that Prop. 13 doesn’t bear a major responsibility for the sad state of our schools after all these years.
The number of Davis seniors who can’t afford to pay their fair share of property taxes could fit in the smallest room of the Davis Senior Center, where we could arrange for a needs-based rebate for each one of them. To suggest that there’s a single Davis homeowner who can’t afford another 55 cents a day to support our schools is an even more outrageous claim.[quote][u]Delaine Eastin op-ed[/u]: “K-12 education will drop from 44th of the 50 states to 47th in per-pupil spending while, at $51,000 per prisoner, we are No. 1 in per-prisoner costs and the shacklers grow fat. California in my lifetime has gone from No. 1 in education to No. 1 in prisons.”
[u]Kane607[/u]: “…with layoffs, increases in gas, tripling water and sewer fees, already passed prior tax increases, rent increases, how are low income people supposed to afford this? …by the way, I clicked on the link and read the piece you wrote which was little more than pro school propaganda with little evidence to support the outlandish charges.”[/quote] This may be a smaller problem that one would think for, as you pointed out yourself, the low-income people “who cannot afford the taxes don’t live here” anymore.
What do you make of Ms. Eastin’s “evidence” about per-student spending (a precipitous drop from first to lagging behind 46 other states)? We long ago agreed that we all benefit from certain government activities even if we’ve finished school, even if we don’t spend much time in the National Parks and Forests, even if we haven’t been shot at or robbed yet, even if we get our water from a well, even if we’re not sick or poor and even if we don’t believe in war. Each endeavor probably gets funded by taxes because voluntary donations just haven’t proved dependable enough operate a country…or a city or school district.
“This may be a smaller problem that one would think for, as you pointed out yourself, the low-income people “who cannot afford the taxes don’t live here” anymore.”
when those water and sewer increases take effect, the excrement is really going to hit the fan.
“What do you make of Ms. Eastin’s “evidence” about per-student spending (a precipitous drop from first to lagging behind 46 other states)? “
I’ll tell you what I make of it.
Ms. Eastin appears to be full of crap: http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/articles/article.asp?title=california comparison
“Comparing California with other states has some inherent difficulties. The data are not always consistent from one state to another. Differences can occur in what numbers are collected, how they are collected, and variations in their interpretations and reporting. States are dramatically different in size, ethnic and socioeconomic characteristics, cost of living, and in how they set policy, fund public education, and govern their schools. Teachers’ salaries can reflect the changing characteristics of the workforce over time, particularly the addition of new teachers. In addition, averages and aggregates, though often illuminating, can mask variations that are informative and important to the accuracy of the picture they paint.”
its also worth taking a second look at the pie chart:
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf
in other words, CA still spends over 40% of its budget on K-12 education. not to mention the federal and local govts, and in particular in davis, the davis schools foundation. So cry me a river.
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/articles/article.asp?title=california comparison
here is the full link.
Kane: So are you saying that education funding is much rosier in California than we’ve been led to believe? Can you point to some evidence that would support that?
Most comparisons of per student funding by state show that California is embarassingly underfunded.
A coming consequence of laying off teachers and publicly bashing teachers for their exhorbitant salaries and benefits. (yes, it’s sacrasm)
Today’s teacher layoffs threaten tomorrow’s college classrooms
[url]http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teaching-20110404,0,3739990.story[/url]
Don/David: Would you please fix Kane607’s link. If that works, how about trying to fix…. Thanks.