Last spring, the voters of Davis once again stepped up to the plate and approved an extension of the district parcel taxes. They did so nearly at a 3 to 1 rate. However, as we warned at the time, passing Measure C was not going to be the cure-all. The district will still have 3.5 million dollars in the form of a persistent structural deficit to deal with.
Had the teachers been willing to make additional concessions, the district might have avoided having to lay off more than fifty teachers and other employees.
The situation for this fall is very complex. First, the district is awaiting the results of the statewide governor’s tax. Second, the district has decided to roll the dice on another parcel tax that would extend the voter approved Measure A while possibly backfilling the loss of statewide money should the governor’s tax fail this November.
Even if the parcel tax passes, the district would have to cut $3.5 million in midyear reductions should the tax measure lose in two months.
The contingency plan is not a good plan, but it is a necessary plan. The district would reduce the school year by ten days – two weeks – if Proposition 30 fails in November.
The contingency is already in place for administrators and classified employees, but not for the teachers. On Thursday night, the district warned that they may have to declare impasse with the DTA.
Impasse with DTA is not like impasse for a city. It would trigger the entry of a mediator into the discussions. On Thursday, the district and teachers were hopeful that an agreement could be reached.
Superintendent Winfred Roberson wrote a memo this week to district employees, stating that while he hopes that Proposition 30 will pass, making the contingencies and concessions unnecessary, “if it fails and we have not reached an agreement, the situation could be dire for DJUSD and DTA members.”
Administrators have agreed to 3.5% pay cuts or seven furlough days with a similar agreement with CSEA (California School Employees Association), which represents the non-teaching employees of the district.
The teachers agreed to a five-day reduction in the school year a few years back, but have yet to agree to concessions since then, even when the concessions would save jobs.
The Vanguard unfortunately and reluctantly finds the teacher’s position to be untenable.
When the Vanguard met with last year’s DTA President Gail Mitchell back in May, the teachers believed somehow that the district has money that they have not tapped into.
When the Vanguard met with Ms. Mitchell in May, she argued that the deferrals were worse last year and better this year. She argued that the district is sitting on untapped fund balances and that, if the governor’s tax initiative passes, the district will be all right.
The teachers, she said, believe that the district has been overly-conservative with its budgeting, making more drastic cuts than needed, with the projections not being borne out.
The projections in the past, Ms. Mitchell showed the Vanguard with graphics, were way off. The teachers argued that there was no need for cuts at that time, which was in mid-May.
While none of this directly relates to the current situation, it should affect the mindset of teachers, who, unfortunately, seem to be blind to the peril that the school district is facing.
The current DTA president Frank Thomsen, in a message to his membership, indicated his disappointment with the district in moving toward impasse and argued that he needs more time to talk to members.
He argued that the membership has had no salary increase, no COLA, during a time when the costs of living has risen and health benefit costs for employees have increased.
We sympathize with teachers. We believe in general that teachers are not compensated nearly enough for the work they do or the service that they provide to the community.
That said, these arguments are likely to ring hollow in a community where just about every segment has been hit far harder, whether it is UC employees who have taken salary cuts, city employees asked to take cuts and benefit decreases, state employees who have taken salary cuts and repeated furloughs, or students who have seen their tuitions soar.
Moreover, this community has stepped up time and time again to help the schools out. In 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2012 the voters have approved either extensions or increases to the district parcel taxes. This fall, we will be asked up to step up again with an extension to our parcel tax, IF not an increase, should the governor’s tax measure fail.
Mr. Thomsen noted that teachers are working with markedly larger class sizes – well, guess what, that was the teachers’ decision. When they chose not to take concessions last spring, they forced staff reductions that directly led to class size increases.
The worst part of this is, by refusing to take concessions once again, they are probably putting this fall’s parcel tax in jeopardy. It was also dicey as to whether this parcel tax could pass.
Remember, this renews the parcel tax from 2011 that barely passed. And not only does it renew the tax that passed with 67% of the vote, it potentially increases it.
The teachers are, of course, supporting this parcel tax – its failure would mean potential school closures, more layoffs and a stark reduction of the school year.
But at some point the voters are going to balk at paying potentially another $240 a year. They are going to argue that if the teachers refuse to take concessions, why should we pay more in taxes? And who can blame them?
I never thought I would have to write a column criticizing the teachers in this fine community, teachers who provide this community with a top-notch education, but they are leaving me no real choice.
When the budget turns, we will lead the way for better pay and benefits for this community’s great teachers, but for right now, everyone has to sacrifice because we are all in the same boat.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I fully agree with this article.
“Mr. Thomsen noted that teachers are working with markedly larger class sizes – well guess what that was the teachers’ decision. When they chose not to take concessions last spring, they forced staff reductions that directly led to class size increases.”
Exactly…..
“Administrators have agreed to 3.5% pay cuts or seven furlough days with a similar agreement with CEA who represents the non-teaching employees of the district.”
I think the administrators should’ve taken a 10% cut in actual pay without any furlough days. That would’ve sent a stronger message.
[quote]Impasse with DTA is not like impasse for a city. It would trigger the entry of a mediator into the discussions. [/quote]How are these different? Why?
[quote]We sympathize with teachers. We believe in general that teachers are not compensated nearly enough for the work they do or the service that they provide to the community.
/quote]
[quote]When the budget turns, we will lead the way for better pay and benefits for this community’s great teachers, but for right now, everyone has to sacrifice because we are all in the same boat.
[/quote
Since I am not a teacher, and no longer have children in the local public school system, I feel free to play devil’s advocate here. I think it is reasonable to argue that if you truly feel that teacher’s are under compensated for their work ( as I do), then one could argue that they have already been “sacrificing” over many years for the welfare of our children. If that is the case, then what you are actually arguing is that they should be willing to sacrifice proportionately more than the rest of us since they would have also been less well compensated during the times when the rest of us were presumably doing better economically. If we do not all share equally in the benefits when the economy is doing well, then I don’t see how one can make the “we are all in this together” claim when times are tough.
Oops, sorry about my error in quote placement. I hope my meaning is clear.
Those of us who actually ‘think’, got it… I disagree to a certain extent, as I believe there is a “bell curve” for most employees, including public sector. Those at the ‘high’ end, tend to be under-compensated…. those at the low end tend to be over-compensated.
Most public employees have a 5-step salary range… teachers have a 20 +…. most employees have 5% between ranges, so they max out at 4 + years…. seen no sign that at least the younger teachers are not getting their 2.5% ‘merit’ increases (no matter where they are on the bell curve)
I do value those teachers above the middle of the bell curve, and those within one standard deviation below. Those below that should be replaced, but the unions prevent that.
David wrote:
> I never thought I would have to write a column criticizing
> the teachers in this fine community, teachers who provide
> this community with a top-notch education, but they are
> leaving me no real choice.
I got an e-mail from a friend that is very involved with Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) that he sent from the Democratic National Convention (DNC)yesterday. After years of trying with little sucess to point out to fellow Democrats that most (but not all) teachers Unions are actualy making it harder for us to to give kids a good education he said that this was a breakthrough year when many politicians said “I never thought I would have to critizize he teachers unions in our fine country”…
I agree with medwoman that it would be great if we could pay teachers more (my real goal would be to get better teachers), but it is important to remember that most teachers only work an average of 180 days vs. 250 days for the average American worker and teachers (on average work less hours per day than the average American worker). A few years back a friend (a CPA) ran the numbers and figured that his wife that made less than him as a teacher was making more per hour since she worked almost exactly half the hours he worked in the previous year…
hpierce: [i]I do value those teachers above the middle of the bell curve, and those within one standard deviation below. Those below that should be replaced, but the unions prevent that.[/i]
Teachers are on probation the first couple of years and can be terminated relatively easily. There are plenty of teachers “below the curve” that get replaced at that point in the process.
I’m not there (whether the next word is “yet” or “ever” I don’t know at the moment). I’m not a big fan of the number of work days as a measure. And while I see the teachers at the moment not being realistic about the budget situation and I see a situation where everyone has sacrificed, I am not at the point where I see teachers as part of the problem.
For example, I don’t see bad teachers as the problem. I think our schools work in places where our society works – middle class communities. Where our schools have failed, our society has broken down and we are suddenly shocked that the schools don’t work either?
The problem I see is that until we are willing to fix our neighborhoods and families, I don’t see how we fix our schools. But some people, I’m one, see schools as the way to break that cycle. Unless we are willing to commit to that, we’re never going to do it.
All of that being said, I think we do a disservice to the local issue when we take the issue globally each time this comes up. The problem here locally is that we have a deficit, our district has chosen raising local revenues as the solution, they are asking for concessions to cover a six month window between the potential loss of the state revenue and the potential pick up from local revenues. Last May they asked for similar concessions and were forced to lay off teachers when no agreement was reached.
That is really the subject of this commentary and where comments need to be directed.
[quote] There are plenty of teachers “below the curve” that get replaced at that point in the process. [/quote]Yes… if they keep their noses clean during probation, tho’, they can ‘slack off’… and there are a fair number who do, if, for no other reason, there are little or no objective metrics to measure a probationary employee… the teachers’ union has been good about making sure that doesn’t happen, either.
[quote]they are asking for concessions to cover [b]a six month window[/b] between the potential loss of the state revenue[/quote]Are we to construe that the concessions sought should have a “sunset” of six months… period?
[quote]The problem here locally is that we have a deficit, our district has chosen raising local revenues as the solution, they are asking for concessions to cover a six month window between the potential loss of the state revenue and the potential pick up from local revenues.[/quote]
I would have no difficulty with this as long as there was a stipulation that when the local economy improved, so would the teachers salaries as in, for example,the “sunset” mentioned by hpierce.
hpierce: [i]…there are little or no objective metrics to measure a probationary employee…[/i]
Your response suggests to me that you haven’t been responsible for teaching a class before on an extended basis. The first couple of years teaching are a very steep learning curve. What is revealed is whether you can maintain poise and rely on some native talent. Also, it becomes clear if teaching is your calling or not. Within the first couple of years, it becomes clear whether you can deal with all the shit that comes your way — including blame for the decline of American, a blame that has been around for 100+ years — and find satisfaction in intangible experiences and compensations.
One big failing of teachers’ unions is very poorly publicizing the good work teachers do. They spend comparatively too much time and energy involved in the political process — lobbying, campaign donations, etc. On the other hand, oil companies occasionally spend time with substantial ad campaigns spreading the message about how much they care for the environment, and how they keep America strong. And banks and credit card companies tell you how they help you achieve your dreams.
wdf… would respond and disagree, but that would be, “off-topic” per David.
“But at some point the voters are going to balk at paying potentially another $240 a year. They are going to argue that if the teachers refuse to take concessions, why should we pay more in taxes? And who can blame them?”
Who besides you is making this argument?
[i]You on the other hand insult voters who don’t agree with you. Or to be slightly kinder, you ascribe dishonorable motives to them.[/i]
wdf1: There is plenty of that going around from both sides.
However, I would be interested in your references backing that claim. My suspicion is that what you label as insult is something at a level that I consider just voicing a difference of opinion. I will certainly agree that I am caustic and acerbic at times. Unfortunately I think it is necessary to call enough attention to the fact that other opinions and ideas exist. People with my views tend to be working and/or more mild mannered. I think you and others with opposing views mistake their silence for agreement. You are so surprised to from this other worldview, that you of course have to attack the messenger as being deranged, unkind, uncaring and dishonorable.
“I disagree to a certain extent, as I believe there is a “bell curve” for most employees, including public sector. Those at the ‘high’ end, tend to be under-compensated…. those at the low end tend to be over-compensated.”
Absolutely agree with hpierce on this. It is in fact that main problem with unionized labor. They want same pay for a collective mob.
It takes about 10,000 hours for a person to become a master at something demanding high skills. During that development march, some find out that they have picked the wrong career. Those that pick the right career and become masters of their field deserve top compensation. Those in the early stages of their development deserve bottom-rung compensation. Those that stayed in their chosen career even failing to reach the level of master deserve two things: pay commensurate with their demonstrated performance, and constant encouragement to quit and go do what they were meant to do. Without this approach, what we end up with is akin to an adult day care center with a bunch of whiny employees chronically unhappy. The top senior performers are unhappy that their accomplishments and contributions do not get rewarded. The low senior performer are unhappy because they really don’t like what they are doing for a living… despite the fact that they convinced themselves the do. The developing performers become disenfranchised when they experience the attitudes of both sets of peers.
The kids experience all of this… unhappy teachers. How can an unhappy teacher encourage a student to like learning?
If there is even a whiff of teacher strike, the parcel tax is DOA. In addition, it will help accelerate the public acceptance that the old system has to do and complete education reform is required. I say bring on the srike!
“If there is even a whiff of teacher strike, the parcel tax is DOA. In addition, it will help accelerate the public acceptance that the old system has to do and complete education reform is required. I say bring on the srike! “
Who besides you is talking about a teacher strike?
We entrust our children to these Davis teachers all day, five days a week. We entrust them to teach the kids the basics, and more if they can.
I think teachers are underpaid for what they do for us and our families and society.
My friend Dick Livingston is a long time teacher, and he is still teaching into his 70s. You will never meet a kinder, more loving and effective teacher, and his efforts have improved the lives of many thousands of former students and those they touch in their lives.
As Mark Graham says, trade the cost of some bombs for more teacher positions and salaries, and I agree with that idea.
“It takes about 10,000 hours for a person to become a master at something demanding high skills. During that development march, some find out that they have picked the wrong career. Those that pick the right career and become masters of their field deserve top compensation.”
Problem is it takes about 20 years for teachers to reach the top of the pay scale. Honestly, I would be for getting rid of seniority and tenure protection for everything except academic freedom if teachers reached the top of the pay scale after 10,000 hours of work or 7 years plus their practice teaching.
I’ve heard this argument against seniority before, that it doesn’t take that long to become a high performing teacher, but I never see it combined with shortening the time to get to the top of the pay scale.
[quote]Without this approach, what we end up with is akin to an adult day care center with a bunch of whiny employees chronically unhappy. The top senior performers are unhappy that their accomplishments and contributions do not get rewarded.[/quote]
This presupposes that all of these folks are not adults….namely cannot derive satisfaction from their own sense of a job well done, as well as from external rewards. I would say that this actually applies to a relatively small number of workers regardless of field of endeavor at least within the professions. Most, in my experience derive satisfaction from both external rewards such as pay increases and acknowledgement of excellence, but also from the smaller day to day satisfactions of seeing a student grasp a concept, or gain an ability they did not have previously, or become involved in a learning activity that they previously would not have attempted.
Disgruntled teachers tend to take out their frustration on the kids. They can say that they don’t, but I’ve seen it happen too many times.
Not all teachers are of Dick Livingston’s caliber. Too many are not.
Oops… look like I had a copy-paste operator error at 12:26 PM. The first three paragraphs where from a different topic. Sorry about that. I was running out the door to ride my bike to see Obama 2016.
[i]This presupposes that all of these folks are not adults….namely cannot derive satisfaction from their own sense of a job well done[/i]
I think many can for a period of time, and some can for a longer period of time. But it is simple human motivation theory at work. It is that “what gets measured gets done” rule. If you reward seniority, then you get a high percentage of teachers striving for seniority.
Managing to excellence for any organization is like an out-of-center teeter-totter. The longest and heaviest end is that which would slip down toward greater mediocrity if not persistently and vigilantly demanding high performance and constant improvement. Sure you have some heroes that fight through cultures of mediocrity, but when the entire organization around her is fraught with minor league players… she will eventually get tired and start putting most of her energy blocking for the status quo and dreaming of retirement.
[i]” I’ve heard this argument against seniority before, that it doesn’t take that long to become a high performing teacher, but I never see it combined with shortening the time to get to the top of the pay scale.”[/i]
If it “does not take that long” then I would argue it is not worthy of high compensation. For a 40-hour week person, 10,000 hours is about 5 years. I think it is conceivable that a person could become a master in 5-7 years assuming that 5-7 years was spent developing to be a master teacher. Therein exists another problem with work cultures of mediocrity. If a teacher is developing in a lower-performing environment, the patterns of low performance will be reinforced in her development. In the data processing world we call this the “garbage in, garbage out” principle. Internally you might have everyone working very hard. They would do so with growing resentment and resistance to calls for them to improve as this it would mean working even harder. This is the teeter totter effect… where the weight of all that gets too heavy to lift.
That is why drastic education reform is required. The weight of the culture of mediocrity is crushingly heavy. The butts of the union fat-cats and the Democrat Party benefactors are added ballast. We frankly need to blow the entire thing up and replace it with a completely new model… a voucher and technology-enabled model. That is coming… just too slow for my interests… and too slow to save hundreds of thousands of kids lost every semester because they have to attend a crappy school.
Davis schools aren’t crappy. They provide “technology-enabled” options, among many other choices for students and parents. Davis schools appear, based on the voting record, to be popular with parents and Davis residents.
Vouchers would accomplish nothing positive here and would be a major drain on resources if implemented statewide. Among other serious problems.
Don Shor: [i]Davis schools aren’t crappy. They provide “technology-enabled” options, among many other choices for students and parents. Davis schools appear, based on the voting record, to be popular with parents and Davis residents.[/i]
Agreed!
“Mr. Thomsen noted that teachers are working with markedly larger class sizes – well, guess what, that was the teachers’ decision. When they chose not to take concessions last spring, they forced staff reductions that directly led to class size increases.”
Really? so now it’s the teacher’s jobs, in addition to everything else, to ensure that the district is on a sound financial footing?
Why does the Board get a pass on this? Isn’t it one of their primary duties to provide a fiscally responsible budget? This is the same Board that has spent our district into a structural deficit over the last 7 years. When the state cut our budget it was their decision to draft a bond measure instead of modify program to fit under the new, lower budget. They put off the true decision until now. Measure A sunsets and then what? Seems like we’re tied into passing another one.
David has asked before, “What else can they do?”
The Board could actually re-evaluate our district’s programs through the lens of reduced funding. They could look at our most disadvantaged children, EL’s, low economic status, etc and make decisions that support these children. Not only are they our most at risk and their test scores can make or break our testing success, but also, if our program supports the most challenged among us everyone one else will have a sufficiency of what they need.
What they need, not what they want. We fulfill our students’ needs first, and then you fulfill the ‘wants’ with what remains. That is a difficult concept in this district. We will increase class sizes in such sensitive areas as the primary grades, the very foundation of a child’s education, and in remedial classes of English and Math learners, children who need this material to graduate, while leaving intact the numerous other programs that are just not essential.
It seems to be easy to scapegoat teachers on the finances of this district. Does anyone remember the 5 days of pay we gave up just a short while ago? Does anyone know what happened to it? It was put into the district’s budget reserve. It wasn’t even used to support the program for that year as it was sold. It was also not offered back to the teachers when the feds came through with stimulus money that could have supplanted it. So, I gave a house payment and a month’s worth of groceries to support the children of this district (in addition to the property taxes). What have you done?
David-Would you investigate this? The teachers say cutting programs we want, but don’t need, is the way to save money. If classrooms are full, how would cutting programs save money? Are any of the programs costing the District more money than other programs? What are the District’s “progams?” Is GATE a program? Future Farmers? Offering high school classes at the junior high sites?