Democracy is not an outcome, it is a process, and I will always argue that the most important part about an election is not the outcome but rather the interchange of ideas. Granted, in a lot of places, the idea of an interchange of ideas is a pipe dream, but in Davis we are still old fashioned enough to have a campaign based on ideas rather than simply slinging mud around and finding out what sticks.
And that is the part of the opposition to Measure C that has let me down. We need to have a conversation in this community about education and not just about how great our schools are – which they are.
Not just about all of the great programs that we can offer our students because we still have community support to fund them. And not just about what we stand to lose if the Measure doesn’t pass – which, combined with a $3.5 million deficit, will amount to $10 million annually – which would be devastating.
We needed to have a debate about what the school district could operate with. We needed to have a debate about what we should or should not fund. We needed to have discussion about how we could get by while spending less.
Instead of these helpful discussions, which might have shaped the future school policies in this community, we had straw man arguments that implied there was something nefarious about the mail-in ballot and that votes would be less secure.
Based on our discussion with Freddie Oakley, the county clerk who is in charge of voting in this county, yes, it is conceivably possible that someone could learn how an individual voted.
However, not only do most people have little to fear since they are largely anonymous in this community anyway, but there are numerous safeguards in place. The only realistic way that an elections worker, who is a sworn deputy in this process, can see how someone voted would be in the presence of others and potential observers.
And, more importantly, if you believe that there is something nefarious going to happen or potentially so, then you are really indicting the county clerk herself, and you ought to advocate for her removal.
In short, if we trust the county clerk to act appropriately, we have nothing to fear. If we don’t, we have much more important fish to fry in this process than whether the election ballot in a mail-in ballot is entirely secure.
We also had the phony debate over whether this was a new tax. Technically speaking, we can call it a tax new anytime that it is renewed, but then the label loses some of its force. The more critical question is whether the passage of Measure C will increase the amount of taxes owners of parcels are currently paying in Davis – and the answer to that is it will not.
The discussion I would have liked to have seen emerge is actually captured somewhat in a Sacramento Bee article this morning that chronicles the arguments of one Jose Granda.
Now, while we have to quibble with the notion that the schools tax faces “organized opposition,” we prefer some of the issues raised by Mr. Granda in this particular installment.
Mr. Granda told the Bee, “He attended a school board meeting on an unrelated matter and listened as trustees discussed the idea of a poll to measure how much extra Davis voters might be willing to pay.”
The Bee adds: “He said it stunned him. Rather than figuring out how to live within a budget, trustees were trying to figure out how much they could coax from the city’s voters, he said.”
Mr. Granda told the Bee: “”It was very arrogant, like they were entitled to this money.”
This would have been an interesting debate.
Mr. Granda sees about half the picture here. For one thing, he declines to note that neither the last parcel tax nor this one covered all of the cuts. So, the school district had to figure out how much money they were going to have to do without.
I fail to see how that is arrogant. The district knows that any shortfall is going to be made up through the laying off of teachers and the cutting of programs. They would be irresponsible if they did not see how to maximize the amount of money the measure brought in that two-thirds of the voters would be willing to support.
Mr. Granda told the Bee that “he believes the discussion should have been about cutting the six-figure salaries administrators receive or about how Davis schools are lagging behind other schools in the Sacramento region in test scores. But it wasn’t.”
That is a convenient argument that missed two critical points. The first is that back in 2008, Davis really cut back on its upper administration. On the education side, they got rid of their Associate Superintendent position. On the business side, they kept Bruce Colby but got rid of the Assistant Superintendent positions that used to operate under him.
By joining the debate late, Mr. Granda missed critical information and never bothered to education himself to get actual data.
Moreover, six figure salaries sound good, but we are still talking about a handful of positions within a $10 million deficit, where the current parcel tax only covers $6.5 million.
In other words, even if Measure C passed, there is $3.5 million that needs to be cut. To my knowledge, what opposition there has been to Measure C has never really grappled with the $10 million question of what happens if the measure does not pass.
Mr. Granda goes on to argue, “Voters showed their hesitancy to increase school taxes last year when Measure A, the $200 emergency parcel tax, passed by 67 percent to 33 percent – just over the 66 percent it needed to a pass.”
“That should signal to the board the public is tired of this,” Mr. Granda told the Bee.
The problem is that he is now conflating Measure A and Measure C. Measure A raised taxes by $200 – the voters, not surprisingly, were more reluctant to support that. Measure C will keep taxes where they are.
But to argue that the public is getting tired of this demonstrates how much Proposition 13’s two-thirds requirement raises the bar. Even at the low ebb in 2011, Measure A still received more than 67% of the vote. That means that only a small percentage of voters were “tired of this.”
As Measure C only seeks to keep the tax rate relatively flat, the voters are likely to support Measure C in higher numbers than Measure A.
Unfortunately, we are still stuck without the debate that I think we desperately need, which takes a real look at costs and services and assesses what the community wants and what we can afford without an endless string of tax measures into the future.
But in the meantime, until someone comes up with an answer to the $10 million question, the bulk of the members of this community are unlikely to, as School Board Member Richard Harris put it, “let the quality of the schools decline because of ongoing cuts in state funding.”
Until we find another way, it seems unlikely that the voters will not approve the next parcel tax.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Agreed that Granda’s Sac Bee comments would have formed an ideal basis for a constructive discussion in the campaign. But I think his ego has taken over on this issue, and he hasn’t focused on what is essential.
What is so far unreported is that at last Thursday’s school board meeting, Granda announced his intent to start a petition to recall all five members of the school board. That is just a little silly, given that 2 seats are up for election this November. It was just a little too petulant for the moment.
Rush Limbaugh and the vanguard have one thing in common: when you cannot find something new to discuss, drag out your old talking points and regurgitate them.
Limbaugh’s show lasts three hours.. in those three hours, he repeats himself over and over until the listener is bored to tears. by the same token, the vanguard writes too many articles, and it shows..
we have heard you. you have said this pro school stuff ad nauseam in your previous articles… if you win tomorrow, congratulations. now move the blank on.
I don’t see a lot of sentiment for that. In fact, if he wants to he should find two people to run in November. That would be more constructive.
Let’s face it… the voting is ‘over’…. probably 98% of those who will vote have already done so (I have)… there have been lies, inaccuracies, and partial truths employed by ‘both sides’. Examples: [quote]Measure C will keep taxes where they are.[/quote]It would have been more honest/accurate to say that the tax will remain the same, adjusted for inflation/COLA. The arguments about the ‘dangers’ of the all-mail ballot are clearly spurious. The concept that failure to pass the measure is all about the loss of teachers [only] is equally spurious… reductions needed to fill the “hole” could come from deferred maintenance, further cuts to administration, classified staff, etc. Yet this has not been evaluated (and, I’m not advocating cuts that would have long-term consequences, particularly deferred maintenance).
I partially agree with David that the discussion has been inadequate. If the continuance of the levy is inadequate to meet the true needs, why wasn’t more proposed? [politics] Why haven’t DJUSD employees offered to make concessions? [informed self interest]
Basically, it appears that the NO folks want to save a pittance in annual costs… the YES folks are genuinely concerned about the crappy economic situation, forcing us into hard choices and prioritization.
Yet, there has been little or no discussion about prioritization, if we end up finding ourselves in a “worst case” scenario. For example, which is more important: physical education, or having ranked team sports in football, basketball, tennis, etc.? There are those who think that everything we currently have is “mission critical”, [u][b]and[/b][/u] we’re not doing enough. Good luck funding the latter.
I find myself agreeing more with part of David’s point… we need a discussion… not on the ‘black and white’ of to vote for/against the funding, but on the ‘greys’ of what our educational, compensation, maintenance core values are, so that we can appropriately react to the vagaries of the availability of funds.
The problem with Granda’s more reasonable argument is that you only have to look at other school districts to see what the range of results will be. In every case it results in cutting the programs that Measure C would fund.
Granda’s argument might make a little more sense when thinking of higher education, because students take on loans and/or can postpone higher education, look for other options. Public education is different in that it is mandatory, it can’t be postponed, and it has to be free/accessible to the local students.
Octane: Gosh, you must not have been listening to Rush lately. He has given us lots of new stuff in the last couple of weeks.
I fail to see how what I wrote could be compared to Rush Limbaugh. But there is no moving the blank on as Octane suggests. The Measure does not fully cover district gaps in spending and the budget deficit will be ongoing.
[quote]Unfortunately, we are still stuck without the debate that I think we desperately need, which takes a real look at costs and services and assesses what the community wants and what we can afford without an endless string of tax measures into the future.[/quote]
Nothing has stopped the Vanguard from having the debate on costs and services. It is the Vanguard that has chosen to sidetrack itself away from this issue….
Elaine: That is untrue, I have addressed the issue in more than a handful of articles, at times we have had debates on it, other times not. Your statement however is totally and completely false.
[quote]Elaine: That is untrue, I have addressed the issue in more than a handful of articles, at times we have had debates on it, other times not. Your statement however is totally and completely false.[/quote]
I’m confused, which is it? You can’t have it both ways –
[quote]dmg: “…we are still stuck without the debate that I think we desperately need…”
dmg: “…I have addressed the issue in more than a handful of articles, at times we have had debates on it…”[/quote]
I don’t think you’re confused at all, I think you know entirely what the point was and that the public debate in this campaign has not occurred for a variety of reasons. The Vanguard raising an issue is not the same thing and i think you know it and are simply trying to be provocative.
“Elaine: That is untrue, I have addressed the issue in more than a handful of articles, at times we have had debates on it, other times not. Your statement however is totally and completely false.”
I’m a little surprised, David, that you cannot see that your reporting and commentaries on this issue have dealt at least as much with the “side issues” (improperly placed signs, how ballots are counted, the unfair approaches taken by the “no” people, etc.) as they have with “a real look at costs and services and assesses what the community wants and what we can afford without an endless string of tax measures into the future.”
“The discussion I would have liked to have seen emerge is actually captured somewhat in a Sacramento Bee article this morning that chronicles the arguments of one Jose Granda.”
Imagine what would have happened if YOU had written about the issues you now wish had gotten aired: “Mr. Granda told the VANGUARD, ‘I attended a school board meeting on an unrelated matter and listened as trustees discussed the idea of a poll to measure how much extra Davis voters might be willing to pay’. The VANGUARD adds: ‘He said it stunned him. Rather than figuring out how to live within a budget, trustees were trying to figure out how much they could coax from the city’s voters, he said’. Mr. Granda told the VANGUARD: ‘It was very arrogant, like they were entitled to this money’.”
Did you consider interviewing Mr. Granada, rather than just reporting and reacting to what was published elsewhere? Granted, you can ‘t be everywhere all the time. But, it was your choice to spend your valuable time with Freddie Oakley instead, doing several reports on the side-issue ballot arguments.
I would have been interested in more about the side issue of the polling effort and costs. I’m wondering if his experience is even being accurately reported.
While it’s no surprise that such “how much will the public support” polls are done, it’s usually a friendly side group (“Vote ‘Yes’ On….”) rather than the government body itself that pays for and conducts them. In fact, some jurisdictions have very strict regulations regarding spending tax money on surveying the public.
Do you know whether Mr. Granada and the Bee got this one right? And, if you’ll take a look back at all of your coverage on this parcel tax measure, you’ll want to apologize for calling her reasonable observation “totally and completely false.”
And, David, don’t you dare say, “Bingo!”
“I’m a little surprised, David, that you cannot see that your reporting and commentaries on this issue have dealt at least as much with the “side issues” (improperly placed signs, how ballots are counted, the unfair approaches taken by the “no” people, etc.) as they have with “a real look at costs and services and assesses what the community wants and what we can afford without an endless string of tax measures into the future.””
I’m a bit surprised Just Saying because that’s not exactly what I said – I expect a lawyer like Elaine to attempt to twist my words, I’m continually surprised that you attempt to do it consistently as well.
Elaine’s post implied that we had not covered this at all – and that is untrue. If you read most of the “side issue” articles which were covering the campaign, they contained admonishments that we ought to be discussing “B” when we are discussing “A” and a few times suggestions for better approaches. So I’m not saying that side issues were not discussed here, I am simply disputing the notion that we did not cover the core issues at least as I see it.
“But, it was your choice to spend your valuable time with Freddie Oakley instead, doing several reports on the side-issue ballot arguments.”
I didn’t feel like I had much choice given the level of misinformation out there.
“And, David, don’t you dare say, “Bingo!””
That’s like don’t under any circumstance think about pink elephants.
Think ahead. What will the political response be from Davisites after the parcel tax renewal fails (it will eventually fail)? Answer that question, and then ask yourself if approving the parcel tax renewal only serves to delay the need for this secondary response. Then ask yourself what are the consequences of this delay.
Said another way, are supplemental parcel taxes the new normal for communities to bridge education funding gaps? Are we really okay with this approach considering the obvious problem of disparity between affluent and non-affluent school districts? Are we happy with our success maintaining programs that used to be available to all students, but are now only available to students living in areas where family incomes are highest?
I’m not happy about it. I don’t want ANY kids to miss out on education opportunities. The system is broken and we are temporarily insulating ourselves from the impacts. It is a local Band Aid to a gaping state-wide wound that we are ignoring.
Jeff: you miss a critical point. The hope is that the parcel tax will slow the bleeding and forestall crisis until the point where the worst economic situation in the last 80 years turns around. And we see the light at the end of the tunnel now revenues should start to increase probably as soon as the spring and the crisis will finally be over.
“Elaine’s post implied that we had not covered this at all – and that is untrue.”
Elaine’s post didn’t imply any such thing, if this is what you’re talking about:
David: “Unfortunately, we are still stuck without the debate that I think we desperately need, which takes a real look at costs and services and assesses what the community wants and what we can afford without an endless string of tax measures into the future.”
Elaine: “Nothing has stopped the Vanguard from having the debate on costs and services. It is the Vanguard that has chosen to sidetrack itself away from this issue….”
“I didn’t feel like I had much choice given the level of misinformation out there.”
Well, I guess that’s my point–you did have the choice on what to spend your time, effort and space relating to the parcel tax election. If you wanted “a real look at costs and services and assesses what the community wants and what we can afford without an endless string of tax measures into the future”–your words, not twisted by lawyers or anyone else–you could have driven that discussion with your choice of articles.
Elaine’s point was about what you chose to emphasize as opposed to what you
…now wish would have been the primary topics discussed.
[i]”And we see the light at the end of the tunnel now revenues should start to increase probably as soon as the spring and the crisis will finally be over.”[/i]
Wait a minute David, when was this parcel tax first enacted? The Great Recession started late 2008 (when state tax revenues really started to decline); so then why did we need a supplemental parcel tax before then?
The economic downturn exacerbated the problem that already existed. The school funding mechanism is broken. The reason it is broken… education costs have exceeded the rate of inflation for decades, and the state has increased spending on other services, programs and entitlements.
Jeff: The district had passed originally a small parcel tax that funded things like seven period days, reduced class sizes, and other programs. That was Measure Q that was passed in 2007.
In 2008, the revenues in the state were already drastically down and the district in November of 2008 passed Measure W to bridge the original gap.
Measure C combines Q and W.
Jeff Boone: [i]Wait a minute David, when was this parcel tax first enacted? The Great Recession started late 2008 (when state tax revenues really started to decline); so then why did we need a supplemental parcel tax before then? [/i]
First school parcel tax in Davis was passed in 1984. The last bad recession to affect school funding in a big way was in the early 1980’s. Since that time, the state and federal government have placed increased restrictions on what is to be funded at the local level. In the 1990’s, for instance, schools were required to accommodate special ed. students. Some additional funding came to help out, but with all these mandates, the local school districts have been required to put some of their money to funding these mandates. It is admirable to have schools accommodate all students, but it would be desirable to have adequate funds to meet these mandates.
This is why, for instance, many school districts don’t have strong music programs. Unfunded mandates (including NCLB), have forced school districts to make cuts in order to meet mandates. You and I have argued about education reform. The education reform that is at stake here is valuing “integrated subjects & experiences” like performing arts and athletics, as opposed most other disciplines (math, English, science, etc.) which are taught and assessed based on individual proficiency. I characterize the integrated experiences as those involving teamwork, a practice/rehearsal ethic to prepare for public performance, and developing group identity and pride. You and I also have an interest in seeing that education be meaningful for boys. I think boys probably need the integrated experience a little more than girls, although everyone benefits.
State funding is not matching local priorities and interests. Hence local school parcel taxes. In a local context, your voice can be heard. In the state debate, it is drowned out by other competing interests.
[i]”State funding is not matching local priorities and interests. Hence local school parcel taxes. In a local context, your voice can be heard. In the state debate, it is drowned out by other competing interests.”[/i]
I would argue that it is not local priorities and interests; all communities want the same.
So, what you are saying that we should take care of our own because it is easier to do this instead of joining together to demand a state-wide change in spending priorities for competing interests. Those parents and kids in less affluent districts just have to suffer their own fate for failing to approve supplemental taxes. I’m sorry, but I cannot stomach that approach. As you know, I am all about self-determination and individual competition when it comes to able-bodied adults and economic prosperity. Where my egalitarian senses kick in is with school-age children. Every single child should have the same access to education opportunities. Those opportunities should be plentiful and robust. If the system as designed cannot make it happen, then it needs to be replaced with a new model that gets the job done.
Yes, I am particularly concerned about boys… the ones lacking academic gifts and copious parental resources. I think the K-12 education system has drifted toward making the teaching job easier for the teacher… and the changes have been helpful to girls at the expense of boys. The programs funded by our local supplemental parcel taxes are good in this respect because they tend to support things that help boys. However, it cannot be replicated across the state.
I think our education system is in crisis. It is failing so many kids… especially boys and especially minority boys. The system as designed can no longer meet our needs. It must be completely reformed. Supplemental parcel taxes just delay the inevitable call to arms to demand reform that would serve to benefit all students.
Jeff:
Of course the education system is in crisis, it has had its funding cut every year for the past five years.
Of course it is failing kids, especially kids of color who were most vulnerable to begin with. Most of the schools that are failing are serving failing neighborhoods and failing families. Why is this some sort of revelation?
The only surprising thing is the nonsensical belief that somehow money doesn’t matter in education. If you were facing trial for your life would you rather be represented by an underfunded public defender who has no resources to conduct investigations or hire experts or would you rather have a well funded defense team that can afford both? The answer is obvious and yet somehow when it comes to education, money doesn’t matter anymore.
Well that’s bs. I know that my nephew is a lot better off in Davis where he can have the services of counselors and resource teachers than where he was in Sacramento where he’s lucky if they have the resources to pull him out for a quarter of the day.
JB: [i]So, what you are saying that we should take care of our own because it is easier to do this instead of joining together to demand a state-wide change in spending priorities for competing interests. Those parents and kids in less affluent districts just have to suffer their own fate for failing to approve supplemental taxes. I’m sorry, but I cannot stomach that approach. As you know, I am all about self-determination and individual competition when it comes to able-bodied adults and economic prosperity. Where my egalitarian senses kick in is with school-age children. Every single child should have the same access to education opportunities. Those opportunities should be plentiful and robust. If the system as designed cannot make it happen, then it needs to be replaced with a new model that gets the job done.[/i]
Yes, every kid should, but the models of education that you’re looking for aren’t going to materialize by waiting for the state to do something, as you’re doing. Davis has more poverty than most here recognize. 20% are on free and reduced lunch, and I think more are eligible. I do volunteer work with some of those kids. There was a story in the Enterprise recently that is about one such family (unnamed in the article ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/crime-fire-courts/davis-family-sickened-by-carbon-monoxide-leak/[/url])), as an example. Those are the kinds of kids that get really shafted if funding doesn’t come through. I’m not going to wait for Sacramento to get its sh*t together, like you, and do nothing locally. I will work for the improvement of schools locally, and I will continue to say what I can to my legislators to promote change in Sacramento. Believe me, I’m well aware of what’s going on there, and I’ve even made visits out to the Capitol on this issue. Meanwhile, what are YOU doing, Jeff?
What am I doing?
Advocating for education reform. Contributing to organizations working on education reform.
Good article from WSJ:
[quote]Can Teachers Unions Do Education Reform?
California charter-school leader Steve Barr thinks so. But skeptics say unions exist only to protect jobs..
By ALLYSIA FINLEY
Los Angeles
Democratic activist Steve Barr thinks he’s found a solution for improving schools without jettisoning collective bargaining: Reformed unionism. Is this an oxymoron or the real deal?
“You can’t go into and change an 80-to-90 percent unionized industry without unionized labor,” Mr. Barr, CEO of Future Is Now Schools, explains. Toyota and Honda might beg to differ, but Mr. Barr is determined to prove that unions can be forces for good in education.
A former national finance chairman of the Democratic Party, Mr. Barr established the charter-school organization Green Dot in 1999 to help fix a system in which nearly half of the city’s public-school students don’t graduate. And he wanted to do so with unionized teachers.
Today, nine of 10 Green Dot grads are considered by the state to be prepared for California’s public universities, compared to three in 10 at Los Angeles’s public schools. What’s more, three-quarters of Green Dot grads go onto a four-year college.
Green Dot’s success is possible, Mr. Barr says, because its teachers aren’t part of United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA)—L.A.’s dominant, 35,000-strong union—but rather the fledgling Asociacion de Maestros Unido (AMU). The AMU’s collective-bargaining agreement is 33 pages, ghastly thin compared to UTLA’s 330-page monster. The biggest difference is that Green Dot teachers don’t have tenure. Oh, and their contract doesn’t regulate everything from access to bulletin boards to student codes of conduct. The model, says Mr. Barr, helps answer a crucial question: “Are [bad teachers] the union’s fault or the system’s fault?”
But some might say unions and the “system” are one and the same. Proxies of teachers unions dominate school boards since unions are usually the only groups that organize in school-board elections. School administrators belong to a union within the AFL-CIO, just like the American Federation of Teachers. And the AFT and the National Education Association (NEA) help run the accrediting body that dictates policy at university schools of education. The school system, in other words, is vertically and horizontally integrated by the unions.
Mr. Barr acknowledges that the unions have created an “undemocratic feel,” with “lots of meetings that aren’t posted” and “a handful of people [in] control,” most of whom have been “going at it for a long time.” Yet he sees opportunities for reform not only in new unions, as at Green Dot, but within the existing behemoths.
[/quote]
JB: [i]Advocating for education reform. Contributing to organizations working on education reform.[/i]
It certainly doesn’t keep you from working locally. There is a reasonable maxim, “charity starts at home”, that I think applies here.
hpierce: [i]For example, which is more important: physical education, or having ranked team sports in football, basketball, tennis, etc.?[/i]
60% of DHS students participate in athletics. It isn’t a matter of having ranked teams. JV teams are no-cut and are just as important. That’s what gives many kids experience working together in a team environment, connecting to schools through pride in their work, and working in a practice/performance mode. You don’t get that in most other academic disciplines, except performing arts.
JB: [i]Supplemental parcel taxes just delay the inevitable call to arms to demand reform that would serve to benefit all students.[/i]
Local funding is equivalent to having “skin in the game” that you cite in other contexts. By having local funding, we have local say and interest in what kinds of schools we have. If we wait for the state to decide how to run things, they will have their own set of strings attached, and it won’t necessarily be what you would want locally.
wdf1: My best work locally is in economic development to help grow the business environment so that students can have a job and develop related skills to grow their prosperity. I am not a trained teacher. However, my wife and I contributed plenty of time when my kids were attending Davis schools.
Again though, I tend to look at “help” in the greater context of service expectation. If I am helping to supplement services that are necessary but lacking, then my help becomes the new normal of service delivery expectation. I think parental and community involvement in education is a good and valuable thing until it starts to prop up a broken system.
Were I might concede to your views in the future… if the “new normal” becomes one where education funding and help levels are accepted as variable from one community to the next. Haven’t there been law suits from poorer districts demanding wealthier districts pass them a greater share of their tax revenue to offset the discrepancy?
Maybe the same should be challenged for help. If Davis has so much free help from the community, maybe that is not fair and Sacramento schools should get an equal share.
I fail to see how what I wrote could be compared to Rush Limbaugh. But there is no moving the blank on as Octane suggests. The Measure does not fully cover district gaps in spending and the budget deficit will be ongoing.
I wasn’t comparing anything you said specificially to Limbaugh, I was referring to the way that you, like him, sound like a broken record. Here’s a tip: write fewer articles.
and yes, I understand you won’t move on… you have to kick your opponents when they are down, throw salt, acid on their wounds…. Granda and Coleman are TWO people for christ sake.
and I love how the vanguard is upset that we are not having a “conversation” about the real issues, as if the vanguard truly wants have a two way table talk when what it really wants is to work on its political rivals to convince them the vanguard is right and they are wrong…
I tell you what David (or whoever you are).. why don’t we just take Coleman and Granda, put them in a “reeducation camp” with you at the helm and subject them to hours of interrogations….. hopefully you will convince them at some point you are right and will get their votes in favor of measure C.
[i]”Local funding is equivalent to having “skin in the game” that you cite in other contexts. By having local funding, we have local say and interest in what kinds of schools we have. If we wait for the state to decide how to run things, they will have their own set of strings attached, and it won’t necessarily be what you would want locally.”[/i]
Vouchers are more skin in the game. Give parents the money to chose the school and you give them the power to decide how to run things through the proxy vote of spending their dollars. Then it does not matter how affluent the district is or not.
So your proposal is to vote down the supplemental tax for Davis schools and give parents vouchers? How much should the vouchers be for? Which schools should they be allowed to use them at?
I read the Bee piece and have two observations. First, Granda had four kids go through DJUSD and now doesn’t want to pay anymore. I paid for his kids it would be nice if he paid for mine.
Second, the schools could swallow unlimited resources providing services so a discussion and study of what the limits of the community’s generosity allow is totally appropriate.
JB: [i]Vouchers are more skin in the game. Give parents the money to chose the school and you give them the power to decide how to run things through the proxy vote of spending their dollars. Then it does not matter how affluent the district is or not.[/i]
Vouchers give the illusion of choice. It is on a space-available basis. By that factor, vouchers already exist de facto for public schools. It is called intra- and inter-district transfer.
And the point behind any education reform is to serve more lower performing students (which is, most frequently, low SES). When compared on an income basis, the voucher model doesn’t provide any better outcomes than the neighborhood model.
JB: [i] Haven’t there been law suits from poorer districts demanding wealthier districts pass them a greater share of their tax revenue to offset the discrepancy?[/i]
Serrano vs. Priest. That’s where the state came in to set a base rate for educating a student, based on a formula. They’ve been cutting back on that base rate to get us where we are today, in spite of the fact that healthy majorities of Californians support a budget with no cuts to K-12 education, and even accepted extending those now-expired taxes to pay for it. The critical majority wouldn’t let it out of the legislature for us to vote on it.
Don: [i]So your proposal is to vote down the supplemental tax for Davis schools and give parents vouchers?[/i]
Yes
Don: [i]How much should the vouchers be for?[/i]
70% and 100% of the total education budget per student depending on the school.
Don: [i]”Which schools should they be allowed to use them at?”[/i]
Any public school and any private school chartered in the state that is eligible to accept vouchers.
Eligibility requirements would be set at the state level. These should include operational requirements like school performance and financial reporting and include student acceptance criteria. Acceptance criteria can come in two flavors: 1 – Controlled acceptance or 2 – Open acceptance. Schools with controlled acceptance (i.e., restricting eligibility for reasons other than just capacity) would be entitled to the reduced 70% voucher. Schools with open eligibility (i.e., no restrictions on eligibility other than capacity) would be entitled to the full 100% voucher. Schools accepting the 100% voucher cannot charge more. Schools accepting the 70% voucher can charge higher than the 100% cost up to some limit; but must also subsidize a percent of their total capacity of low income student population.
If Davis public schools are the best choice available, then 100% of the per-student budget will come back to them. However, if there are parents believing that Davis public schools are not the best choice for their sons and daughters, they can take a voucher to help pay for an alternative school. If this alternative school is a Controlled Acceptance flavor, the Davis public schools would retain 30% of the per-student budget that could be used to help improve options and outcomes for the students remaining there.
Obviously there are more limited options in Davis. I would expect that to change over time. For example, I would expect polytechnic schools and art schools to open.
This is just nonsense you have no basis to claim that this would work or be an improvement for all students.
[i]” for reasons other than just capacity”
[/i]Why should private schools be able to restrict admission based on capacity? Public schools can’t.
Why should schools that restrict admission for any reason get any public funds whatsoever?
[i]”Why should private schools be able to restrict admission based on capacity? Public schools can’t.”[/i]
Private schools would not have cheap public land to expand on. If they did have room to grown, I’m sure they would expand to accept all eligible paying students.
[i]”Why should schools that restrict admission for any reason get any public funds whatsoever?”[/i]
Give me a break Don. Public schools restrict participation to all sorts of things. Colleges restrict admission and get public funds. Your argument is half-baked. If it is an art school for example, there should be some testing of art aptitude, don’t you think?
You status quo supporters use this fear of some students being left out as a big red herring. Talk about students being left out! They are being left out of the potential for a good life with so much crappy public school performance. If the random sad story of a child not being able to get into the school he wants to is all you have, then you really got nothing… especially given the extra 30% that would be held by the public school to be spent on the children staying in the public school. You prefer the public schools and you want more money for them… so problem solved, right? Unless you are more interested in preserving public school employees than improving education for the students, this voucher approach should at least intrigue you.
Public schools restrict participation to all sorts of things.
Any student who moves into the DJUSD school district is entitled to a spot in the Davis schools. No, I won’t ‘give you a break” because you consistently tear down the performance of the local schools, consistently call them “crappy” and propose “solutions” that would destroy the public schools for all students in order to fulfill your totally implausible pipedream of private enterprise providing education.
My argument isn’t “half-baked”, Jeff. You just want to divert public funds to private schools at all costs.
Toad: [i]”This is just nonsense you have no basis to claim that this would work or be an improvement for all students.”[/i]
Is that your acceptance critera for reform… it has to be an improvement for ALL students? That sets the bar conveniently high don’t you think? What if it is an improvement for half the kids or even 25% of the kids. Don’t you think that would still make it worthwhile?
hpierce: [i]If the continuance of the levy is inadequate to meet the true needs, why wasn’t more proposed?[/i]
Because the condition of the economy and polling suggested that was unfeasible.
[i]Why haven’t DJUSD employees offered to make concessions? [/i]
Because the DTA membership won’t make any input until it’s clear what the cuts look like, and that won’t start to happen until pink slips are issued, which is on March 15. Another important date that’s a factor is the “May revise”, which is a set of modifications made to the budget based on economic revisions made at the state level in early May. Any concessions agreed to would take place probably between the May revise (~May 1) and May 15 (when final termination notices are issued).
Time to look at Finland, which operates of of the world’s top school systems. One key, apparently, is a seriously competitive teacher prep system that accepts only 10% of the country applicants, then gives those selected three years of strong academic courses followed by a two-year masters’s program.
Once educated, Finnish teachers are prepared to teach all kinds of students, special ed and G&T included. The highly respected teachers have wide latitude to determine how to teach their students.
Student test scores are among the highest in the world and run consistently high amongst all students (reflecting an equality of education opportunity we try to accomplish here, but don’t come close).
What they’ve rejected in Finland: national testing programs, charter schools, vouchers, merit pay, competition and evaluating teachers by the test scores of their students. The high quality of their educational program has been judged by testing of 15-year-olds by a 34-nation organization that includes the U.S.
Read more about it in Pasi Sahlberg’s “Finnish Lessons: What the World Learn form Educational Change in Finland?”
JB: [i]What if it is an improvement for half the kids or even 25% of the kids. Don’t you think that would still make it worthwhile?[/i]
It depends on who that 25% or 50% is.
JustSaying: [i]Read more about it in Pasi Sahlberg’s “Finnish Lessons: What the World Learn form Educational Change in Finland?”[/i]
Agreed. I’ve been reading it. Amazon link is here ([url]http://www.amazon.com/Finnish-Lessons-Educational-Change-Finland/dp/0807752576/[/url]).
Enrollment in private schools in California has dropped over the last decade by about 20%, from about 650,000 students to about 515,000. Meanwhile, enrollment in public schools has gone up barely, by about 3% over that period (and that is down from a slight peak in 2004-5).
Private: 2000 – 1: 648,564
2010 -11: 515,143
Public: 2000 – 1: 6,050,895
2010 – 11: 6,217,002
The very first problem with vouchers is that those 515,143 students would be entitled to public funds, and they are already out of the public system. At the current ADA expense of $8,323 per student, that would cost the state [b]over $4 billion[/b] in direct transfers to private schools for students who are already there.
Avid Reader link: [url]http://www.avidreaderbooks.com/book/9780807752579[/url]
No point in sending that sales tax out of Davis. 😉
Thanks for the tip, Don.
[i]”Time to look at Finland, which operates of of the world’s top school systems.”[/i]
I’m so tired of this… the only thing the education-status-quo-protect-the-public-schools-and-teachers-unions-at-all-costs… can come up with as an example. There is so much wrong with the Finland comparison it should not even register.
Finland is 93.4% Finn. It has the population density of Oregon (39th lowest population density of all states). It has a GDP smaller than Missouri (22nd in the US).
The US’s annual spending on education is $810 billion compared to a measly $10 billion for Finland. The average annual spending on school aged children in the US is $7,743, in Finland it is $5,653. Yet Finns score 548 on math testing compared to 474 for the US; and 563 on science compared to 489 in the US.
There is no argument here that backs support for public schools in the US using Finland as an example. We are not the same by a long shot. We spend a lot more and get much worse results. We will continue to unless US education drastically reforms.
[i]”The very first problem with vouchers is that those 515,143 students would be entitled to public funds”[/i]
Let me understand this. These kids do not attend public school, so the public schools do not see a dime of state or federal money for them. Isn’t this correct?
So, for Davis, a voucher system would result in even more public school funding… assuming there is no change.
I would happily vote to pay more taxes to fund this $4 billion with a voucher system. I think many people would. What I won’t do is vote to pay another dime for the status quo.
Looking at the figures you’ve provided, Jeff, Finland gets significantly better outcomes spending less per student. What’s not to like? The differences in population density and GDP say nothing about the techniques that have been successful in Finland. In fact, one could argue economies of scale would bode well for the U.S. making such changes.
Where did you come up with “education-status-quo-protect-the-public-schools-and-teachers-unions-at-all-costs” stuff? The significant thing I took away from this is the importance of developing and demanding quality [u]teachers[/u] in the equation, as opposed to the testing, funding, buildings involved.
Making the type of changes in training teachers and in teaching students that have been made in Finland would be drastic reforms. If you’re enamored with our current crop of teachers and the way we get them and reward them, the quality of public education will continue to decline.
[i]Let me understand this. These kids do not attend public school, so the public schools do not see a dime of state or federal money for them. Isn’t this correct?
So, for Davis, a voucher system would result in even more public school funding… assuming there is no change. [/i]
No, obviously you do not understand it at all.
Vouchers would lead to a huge hit to state ed finances.
Johnny goes to St. James, presently costing the state nothing.
State passes vouchers.
Johnny’s parents apply for voucher. Voucher current value approx. $8,323. State give money to Johnny’s parents to pay St. James.
[quote]Why should private schools be able to restrict admission based on capacity? Public schools can’t.
Why should schools that restrict admission for any reason get any public funds whatsoever?
[/quote]
Because the present public school system is a total failure and killing the future of this country. And because improving it is impossible due to the obstructionism of the teachers unions.
“Because the present public school system is a total failure and killing the future of this country. And because improving it is impossible due to the obstructionism of the teachers unions.”
Remember Bob Dole saying “its not the teachers its the teachers union.”
But the teachers unions are the teachers so as long as you want to bust the teachers unions they are going to oppose any change that makes them feel threatened. If you want to honestly work with teachers to try to improve things you might actually get somewhere but what teachers see are people who want to blame the teachers above all the institutional problems that exist in schools today.
By the way claiming that the public school system is a total failure shows you know nothing about what goes on in schools today. Public schools work well for many students. Davis schools work well for many students. Maybe that is because of the teachers union as well or the teachers that make up the schools.
One of my kids has a teacher with a doctorate. She is so dedicated to her work yet you demean her and her profession claiming that the obstruction of her union is the problem. The nerve!
JustSaying, can we learn something from Finland? Maybe. I just think it is lousy that we have to look to Finland. Here we are… the country that saved Europe from itself; that still protects the rest of the free world; that went to the moon; that invented so many products and entire industries… here we are on top of the global economic pyramid and we have to look at Finland for ideas on how to teach. What the hell is wrong with us that we would protect the mediocrity of something so important?
Can we really not envision and invent a much better model… one that would be the envy of the rest of the world? I think the answer is no while the teachers unions call so much of the shots.
I am really tired of local conservatives bashing the Davis schools. The overwhelming majority of my kids’ teachers were very good to outstanding. I have no idea which were members of the union, or whether they supported the union or not. Graduation rates and college entrance rates are very high. Davis schools are not a “total failure” or “crappy.” The overwhelming majority of parents are happy with the quality of the schools their kids attend, and fortunately I believe that sentiment prevails in Davis.
Davis schools aren’t mediocre. Are teachers unions responsible for the outcomes of Davis schools? Then they are doing great.
Me: [i]”I would happily vote to pay more taxes to fund this $4 billion with a voucher system.[/i]
Don: [i]I don’t believe you would vote to pay more taxes for anything whatsoever.[/i]
Now, now Don. Of course I would. I would pay greater taxes to improve infrastructure, to implement a surface water system in Davis, and to make reforms to education that I think are worth the extra investment. I would even support temporary tax increases to reduce the deficit as long as spending was cut to match the tax increases. I will not support any tax increases supporting the status quo of things that should be improved… like our water system and our education system.
Actually, we will pay fees to implement the surface water system, not taxes. But I take your point. I apologize for my poor choice of words.
[i]”The overwhelming majority of my kids’ teachers were very good to outstanding”[/i]
Not my kids’ teachers. A few were. Another few were a bit better than average. The rest were mediocre to terrible. I would say no different than Woodland or Dixon or any other public school district in the area.
[i]”The overwhelming majority of parents are happy with the quality of the schools their kids attend, and fortunately I believe that sentiment prevails in Davis.”[/i]
I might agree with “a large number of”, or maybe even “a majority”, but certainly not overwhelming.
I think a lot of people in this town supporting the myth of superior Davis schools and parcel taxes do so to protect their inflated property values. Can’t blame them having paid so much in the first place.
Davis schools are adequate. Most teachers are okay. And some are great. Some are terrible, as any Davis parent knows. The terrible ones do a lot of damage, but keep teaching for decades because they can’t be forced to switch to something they do well.
But the real tragedy of the public schools is the disgrace of public education in the inner cities and low income areas. We are destroying generation after generation of children to protect the teachers unions and their fear of competition from private and charter schools.
I am really tired of local leftists pretending that their policies aren’t devastating low income communities.
Jeff
“here we are on top of the global economic pyramid and we have to look at Finland for ideas on how to teach”
Why in the world would we not look to systems that are more successful than ours to get ideas to incorporate in to our own system ?
Do we have so much false pride that we are unable to consider that someone else may have a better approach ?
I remember graphically an exercise in a leadership training program I attended. We had several rounds of a group block building exercise with some deliberately vague instructions about what were allowable interactions. The groups that were the most successful in rounds two and three were not those who had scored the highest in the first round, but rather those whose group leaders had visited the more successful groups, gone back and incorporated the more successful stratgies into their own.
[i]I am really tired of local leftists pretending that their policies aren’t devastating low income communities.
[/i]
As we have demonstrated repeatedly on blog threads on this topic, there are school districts where teachers unions are cooperating with reform measures. The Obama administration has proposed reforms that include expansion of charter schools, specifically closing the poorest-performing schools and turning them into charter schools. As a condition of the Race to the Top funding from the federal government, school districts had to allow more charter schools to open and had to assess teacher performance based on student test scores.
Meanwhile, every Republican candidate has vowed to reduce or eliminate the federal role in education. And the only answer we seem to hear is vouchers. Implementing vouchers, as I have noted above, would come at a cost to existing public school funding. And conservatives want to cut funding for public schools. Somehow that is going to help students.
So how exactly is it that “leftists” are encouraging policies that “devastate low income communities?”
[i]the myth of superior Davis schools[/i]
What makes it a myth, Jeff?
“What makes it a myth, Jeff? “
The fact that if he admitted Davis Schools were good it would destroy his world view. He would then have to acknowledge the model could work and that the reason it doesn’t work in some communities is the fault of the conditions of those communities rather than schools.
On the myth of Davis schools being superior, here is what we have…
-Demonstrated teacher talent that is no better or no worse than for surrounding communities seen as inferior by Davis elites.
-A larger pool of academically-gifted students thanks to genetics and strong parental resources.
-A tendency toward teaching styles and methods supporting a model student that is more academically-gifted and more parent-assisted, and less engaging to average students.
Here is what we can honestly claim as superior…
-Greater affluence combined with a higher percentage of residents making their living from the education industry and others dependent on the myth of superior schools to help prop up their inflated property values voting to pass supplemental parcel taxes to fund education programs not available in other communities.
[i]”So how exactly is it that “leftists” are encouraging policies that “devastate low income communities?”[/i]
Lefty politicians with financial ties and obligations to teachers unions blocking reforms that would allow inner city kids to escape from their crappy schools and get a better education.
What reforms are being blocked, Jeff? I outlined what the Obama administration has pushed for. And I have previously given you examples of collaborative efforts between local schools and the teachers.
Don:
[quote]
WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama’s budget proposal includes no new funding for a private school voucher program for District of Columbia students.
The nation’s capital is the only jurisdiction where federal tax dollars are used to subsidize private-school tuition. Needy students can receive up to $12,000 a year to attend private schools of their choice.
At the Obama administration’s urging, Congress agreed in 2009 to phase out the program. But it was revived last year as part of a budget deal with House Republicans.
House Speaker John Boehner is a big proponent of the voucher program and is likely to try to get the funding reinstated. Students already participating in the program would be allowed to continue under Obama’s budget.
Many Democrats say the money would be better spent on public schools.
[/quote]
JB: [i]Here is what we can honestly claim as superior…[/i]
Also,
The relevance and value of a strong music program that is growing, up til now, at least. 25% of DHS students are in music. Continued growth is possible if funding continues, and as the number of participating Bridge students and other low SES students grows.
The relevance and value of the athletics program. 60% of DHS students participate. Here, too, the district has made gains in make the program more widely available and accessible.
[i]Students already participating in the program would be allowed to continue under Obama’s budget. [/i]
So spending public money to send kids to private schools is the “reform” that’s being “blocked”?
[i]”So spending public money to send kids to private schools is the “reform” that’s being “blocked”? [/i]
And changes to teaching methods and approaches that serve to lower costs and improve student engagement.
And changes to have teachers compensated based on performance.
And changes to tenure.
And changes that allow the firing of poor-performing teachers.
And change that prevent sonority being the primary criteria for determining layoffs.
etc., etc., etc…
You asked how Democrats and unions are blocking reforms that hurt kids in low income areas. These kids are forced to attend crappy public schools. Vouchers provide them a way to attend other better performing schools. Vouchers are blocked, so these kids are hurt. You asked the question and it was answered. So you move on to different questions without acknowledging the answer to your first question. It would be nice to hear you acknowledge the answer.
[i]And changes to teaching methods and approaches that serve to lower costs and improve student engagement. [/i]
That would be charter schools, which the Obama administration and many school districts are actively supporting.
[i]And changes to have teachers compensated based on performance.
[/i]
See above.
[i]And changes that allow the firing of poor-performing teachers.
[/i]
Example of a school district that has implemented that: [url]http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/new_eval_system_pushes_34_teachers_out/[/url]
[i]”New Haven’s new method of grading teachers spurred low performers to improve their game—and led 34 others to leave the school district, officials announced Monday in the first test of a nationally watched component of the city’s school reform drive.
School officials announced the news at a school board meeting Monday night, as New Haven enters its second full year of grading its teachers and principals based on how their students perform.
The departures took place without anyone getting fired, and with the district’s relationship with its union intact.[/i]”
I could go on, but it seems evidence of school districts who are actually implementing reforms and doing it by cooperating with teachers unions don’t get acknowledged.
A nation that doesn’t continuously seek to build a K-12 public schooling system that provides a top education to the smartest, most privileged as well as the challenged and poor plans its own decline.
Private schools are a great [u]addition[/u] to the public school system. However, public school opportunities should not suffer in order for private schools to thrive. Too many are put at risk for too few to benefit when we redirect public funds to private schools via vouchers and similar devices.
As long as we want K-12 education mandatory for everyone, we need to keep investing and improving to make the standard as high quality as possible for everyone who has to suffer through it. The fact that some private schools provide better educations than some public ones isn’t a reason to purposely widen the differences between the two.
[i]The fact that some private schools provide better educations than some public ones isn’t a reason to purposely widen the differences between the two.[/i]
To see the problem and opportunity here one only has to analyze this common argument that vouchers would harm public schools. Why would private schools attract away students from the public schools if the public schools are performing so well? The fact is that everyone KNOWS that public schools would end up being the second choice for many more students, and so blocking vouchers is clearly a method of forcing the kids to accept a lower quality education to protect the status quo and/or teachers unions.
[i] analyze this common argument that vouchers would harm public schools[/i]
As noted previously on this thread, the implementation of vouchers would immediately redirect billions of dollars of public funds to private schools even before another single student’s parent makes the choice. That would harm the public schools.
Vouchers just send taxpayer money to private schools.
Don, a couple of questions…
Would you support a voucher system that included tax increases to cover the cost of existing students attending private private school?
Do you think it is fair (that favorite new word he likes to use) that Obama sends his kids to private schools in DC, but most middle class and low income parents in DC cannot do the same?
1. I might support vouchers if the private schools could not discriminate, including based on capacity issues, and met state curriculum standards, and somehow managed to deal with the establishment clause issues. I’ve never heard any conservative advocate for tax increases to fund voucher programs, so this is completely hypothetical. Have you?
Personally, rather than send any tax funds to private schools, I prefer to see local school districts experiment with reforms and options including charter schools, tech schools, and changes such as I linked above.
2. I expect every president to send his or her children to whatever school the Secret Service deems safest. I am only aware of one president who sent his children to the public schools.
Jeff, this isn’t Jeopardy so why ask questions to which you and “everyone KNOWS” the answers. Public schools are [u]not[/u] “performing so well” that the opportunity to choose free or cheap private school over their public school wouldn’t attract many.
There are reasons that some private schools provide better than many public schools. What are they? Private schools aren’t better because of their private nature. There are identifiable factors that go into successful schools, whether they’re public or private.
We do not have a national obligation to provide public school educations to everyone (or to anyone), however, we are obligated in our own best interests to have quality public educations for [u]everyone[/u].
We cannot improve public education by moving a few students (and their tax dollars) to private schools–unless we select the rowdiest, dumbest, uneducated, disadvantaged troublemakers for the move. And, what would that do to the quality of the private school experience?
I’d have to agree that pretty much everyone who would end up carefully choosing to move to private schools thanks to the taxpayers likely would be improving their lots. Have you considered how many could or would make the move? Obviously, the burden of public schools would remain about the same–but with fewer dollars–even if the private schools could or would absorb twice the number they now accommodate.
Opposing vouchers clearly is [u]not[/u] “a method of forcing the kids to accept a lower quality education to protect the status quo and/or teachers unions.” It’s a realization that vouchers simply reduce public school capability to maintain the quality of education presently there.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s fair for the President to send his kids to private school. Just don’t ask me to help pay for his choice. Since most of his neighbors will end up attending public schools even is some people get vouchers, let’s figure out what makes for better education and get ‘er done in public schools and private schools, if they want to.
You seem to have concluded that the main culprit here is the teacher unions. If that’s the critical difference, fine, abolish them.
Teacher unions exist in nearly every school district, so far as I know, and yet results vary from district to district. So any notion that unions cause failure or success in educational outcomes is not borne out by evidence. Districts can work with unions.
Strong union states like Massachussets, Connecticut, and New Jersey have had strong performance on standardized tests. Wisconsin, another strong union state, has had good results with high school graduation rates. A number of weak union states, like South Carolina and Alabama haven’t perform well in this respect. There is no correlation between union membership and quality of education, as indicated by these measures.
Aw comon now wdf1. You must know that for every example you can find for a strong union state doing well on outcomes, I can cite 2-3 times as many doing poorly. Let’s use California, DC and Nevada as examples. Big union states with the 15th, 4th and 2nd highest dropout rates respectively. Then there is right to work Missouri that is 33rd on the list. North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana… whith their Finland-like population densities are all low union states with the lowest dropout rates in the nation (50th, 40th and 46th in the nation respectively.)
The only strong correlation I can find with respect to unions is that the strong union states are all facing the largest state budget problems.
Just to repeat: it seems evidence of school districts who are actually implementing reforms and doing it by cooperating with teachers unions don’t get acknowledged.