Opponents Jose Granda and Thomas Randall have filed a suit, this time in the Yolo County Superior Court, alleging once again problems with the Measure E parcel tax that was passed by 69% of the voters in November 2012.
At issue is the differential assessment rates for multi-dwelling unit parcels which is charged at the base rate of twenty dollars per dwelling unit, and all other parcels which are assessed at $204 per parcel.
They challenged that parcel tax on the basis that the district exceeded their authority by charging homeowners and commercial property owners at different rates.
The 2008 Alameda Parcel Tax is by all accounts very unique. They levied a four-year emergency tax at $120 per residential parcel and 15 cents per square foot for commercial/industrial parcels.
In December, the First Appellate District of California ruled that “Measure H‟s property classifications and differential tax burdens exceed the District‟s taxing authority under section 50079 and the judgment entered in favor of the District must, in part, be reversed.”
However, the appellate court has presently pulled back their decision in order for the California Supreme Court to potentially review the suit.
In the suit against DJUSD, the complainants note: “The District included two exceptions to the qualified special tax. First, the District created an exemption for a persons 65 years or age or older “who occupies parcel as a principal residence.” The second exemption is for those parcels owned by one or more persons receiving Supplemental Security Income for a disability, regardless of age, “who occupies said parcel or unit as a principal residence”.
They contend that Measure E “violates the uniformity requirement as set forth in section 50079. The creation of classifications of taxpayers is not proper pursuant to section 50079. The uniformity requirement in section 50079 is a limitation on the District’s taxing power and the District cannot create classifications of taxpayers.”
In particular, they challenge the notion of exemptions to seniors and disabled on the grounds that “as a result of the District’s creation of taxpayer classifications, Measure E is invalid because it exceeds the taxing power set forth in section 50079.”
Furthermore, they add, “Measure E is invalid because of the exemptions for senior citizens over 65 and those receiving Supplemental Security Income are narrower than the exemptions set forth in section 50079.”
They conclude, “As a result of these multiple flaws, Measure E is invalid in its entirety and the lien that is created against all real property within the District’s boundaries should be deemed invalid as to all taxpayers within the Authorities boundaries.”
In the meantime, Assemblymember Rob Bonta, who represents Alameda in addition to much of Oakland, has introduced legislation that would clarify the state law.
In AB 59, the section is amended to read: “(State law) requiring uniform application of taxes shall not be construed as limiting a school district from assessing taxes in accordance with rational classifications among taxpayers or types of property within the school district. This subdivision is declaratory of existing law, and shall apply to transactions predating its enactment.”
“While Proposition 30 has temporarily slowed our state’s financial bleeding, local school districts are still suffering from years of cuts, and we must ensure all opportunities are available to them. Our state and our school districts are not in a position to wait,” Assemblymember Bonta said in a press release. “AB 59 clarifies existing revenue options for local school districts so they can continue providing educational opportunities in the face of ongoing state budget difficulties. This will have significant public policy and budget implications for school districts throughout the state.”
There is considerable difference between what DJUSD has done in terms of dealing with multi-family dwellings differently from single family units and what Alameda did in terms of establishing an entirely new basis for assessment.
It is also worth noting that even the court in the Alameda case did not necessarily strike down Measure H.
They write, “We also conclude these provisions can be severed from the measure and that Measure H‟s exemptions for senior and disabled taxpayers are permissible under the statute.”
While Mr. Brillant in the DJUSD suit calls for the entire parcel tax to be invalidated, that is not what the appellate court did in the precedent setting case.
The court noted, “We are well aware that we are being called on to interpret statutory language enacted in a different economic era and in the wake of two of the most far-reaching tax constraining measures ever passed by the state electorate (Propositions 13 and 62), that the state has since faced crippling economic conditions, and that school districts and other local governmental entities are more dependent than ever on the revenues from special taxes.”
They add, “The courts, however, cannot recalibrate the taxing power statutorily delegated to local entities; any adjustment in that regard must be made by the state Legislature.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Renters only being taxed at $20 per unit is totally unfair and as a result places a much higher burden on homeowners. I know of two story 4-plexes on huge lots where the landlord is only assessed $80 and right next door is a small private home where the owner is assessed $204.
I hope Mr. Granda prevails because he’s correct that the current tax structure is inequitable.
I’m guessing that Mr. Granda needs tax relief less than the children need education.
I believe that Mr. Granda is sincere in his desire to right what he sees as injustices. I only wish that as an educator himself, he would bring as much passon to the actual provision of education as he does to his anti tax obsession.
rusty49 wrote:
> Renters only being taxed at $20 per unit is
> totally unfair and as a result places a much
> higher burden on homeowners.
I wish that we could make everything “fair” (so everyone pays the same school taxes, everyone with the same GPA and test scores gets in to UCD and everyone pays the same as Bob Dunning for water), but when you make things “fair” you don’t get as much political power (or as much money from the people that come out ahead when things are “unfair”).
Here in Davis we can have a have young family with kids struggling to make ends meet living next door to a couple of retired UCD professors living on their pensions of over $200K+ (and other investments). The young family (that bought their home last year) will be paying over $6K a year in property tax while the older couple (thanks to Prop 13 will pay about $1K a year in property tax. The young couple will pay over $500 in school parcel taxes while the older couple (thanks to the senior exemption) will pay nothing…
Sadly I expect things to get more “unfair” as we see more ballot measures like “vote to tax business”, or basically vote to make “other people” pay for stuff…
rusty: [i]I hope Mr. Granda prevails because he’s correct that the current tax structure is inequitable.[/i]
Finding a tax structure that everyone agrees is equitable is impossible. It is like getting everyone to agree on what God is. Or finding one human being without flaw or fault who deserves to go to Heaven.
Given the constraints of state law, the tax structure is fairer than not adequately funding the public schools.
Granda and Randall have been all over the map in their opposition to local school parcel taxes. At one point Randall specifically criticized Measure A because it did not have an allowable SSI exemption. Now their current lawsuit criticizes it because it does have an SSI exemption.
Their current lawsuit calls for everyone to pay the same flat rate. In the past Granda has criticized that parcel taxes have charged the same flat residential rate to mansions and cottages.
“Finding a tax structure that everyone agrees is equitable is impossible.”
I’m sure a much fairer tax structure could’ve been implemented than one where renters only pay $20 and homeowners have to pay $204. Without having the actual numbers in front of me I’m sure one where renters maybe paid $60 would’ve reduced the homeowners tax to $120 (or so)and would’ve been much fairer system.
“where renters only pay $20”
Renters don’t pay parcel taxes, the landlords pay $20 per dwelling.
Is a duplex a “multi-dwelling unit” for this purpose? If not, how many units does it take to fall into the $20 category?
“Renters don’t pay parcel taxes, the landlords pay $20 per dwelling.”
That’s like saying that renters don’t pay the landlords mortgage. All of the owners costs are recouped and then some through his occupant’s rent.
The key thing to me is that these parcel taxes never “sneak by” with a close vote of 51-49. To pass them, 2/3 of our community must vote for them. We have been passing some of them by close to 3/4. They would not pass if an overwhelming majority of homeowners did not agree with their value to the community, notwithstanding any concerns they may have about fairness. As adults we know the world is not fair–we even teach our children that. Lawsuits like this one (and a few others in town recently) are nothing more than adult temper tantrums.
David wrote:
> Renters don’t pay parcel taxes, the
> landlords pay $20 per dwelling.
Then rusty49 wrote:
> That’s like saying that renters don’t pay the
> landlords mortgage. All of the owners costs are
> recouped and then some through his occupant’s rent.
This is a concept that most on the left don’t understand. Most on the left vote for higher taxes on business, but since most have never run a business they can’t understand that the business will be charging them more when the higher taxes kick in. Obama can get a crowd in a frenzy chanting “tax oil companies more” where not a single person in the crowd chanting knows that “taxing oil companies more” means “higher gas prices next time you fill up”…
SOD, the parcel tax pushers always try to have it both ways. They try and say that renters don’t have to pay the tax and at the same time they’ll say that renters do have skin in the game because of the $20 tax.
“As adults we know the world is not fair–we even teach our children that. Lawsuits like this one (and a few others in town recently) are nothing more than adult temper tantrums.”
LOL…..so should adults just realize that the “world is not fair” when Obama and the Occupiers complain about the 1%….should a minority just realize that the “world is not fair” when someone is racist towards them….or should just those that don’t agree with your views just realize that the “world is not fair”?
SOD: That’s actually not a true statement. Sometimes these rates can be passed through to the renters, but not always. For example from 2007 until 2012 when we moved from our apartment our rent was the same – even though the parcel taxes went up over that time for multi-family dwellings. To make the argument you are, is to ignore that there is a market of supply and demand that are at work as well.
rusty49, you’re correct. And, renters don’t pay the landlord’s bills from plumbers, painters, gardeners, etc. (They do pay directly the landlord’s profit!) These all are legitimate contributors to rent levels. But, every multi-dwelling parcel is different than a house situation and different than other multi-dwelling situation in more ways than just number of occupants–how would you “fairly” charge all parcel owners?
[i]” I know of two story 4-plexes on huge lots where the landlord is only assessed $80 and right next door is a small private home where the owner is assessed $204.”[/i]
If you have lived in your house longer than your neighbor, your assessed valuation is lower than his. Is that fair? If Mr. Granda has lived in his house for more than a couple of decades, his property tax is far lower than most of his neighbors. Is that fair?
I am surprised to learn that conservatives are so concerned about fairness.
[i]”…where not a single person in the crowd chanting knows that “taxing oil companies more” means “higher gas prices next time you fill up”… [/i]
Most liberals that I know are aware that increasing taxes on companies increases the cost of the products they sell.
Parcel taxes are not fair, but we voted and the majority approved this unfair system. I don’t think any lawsuit can get around that. I don’t think it is fair that high-income seniors who can opt out and people living in property tax exempt situations (URC for example) can vote on tax initiatives that the rest of us have to pay. It is not fair that some people pay $5000 per year and others pay $1000 per year for the same size property. But that is the system in California, approved by the voters.
David wrote:
> SOD: That’s actually not a true statement.
> Sometimes these rates can be passed through
> to the renters, but not always.
The increased costs cannot always be passed through “right away” but since less than 1% of tenants have a lease term of over a year it will not take long for just about every landlord to pass on the increased costs.
> For example from 2007 until 2012 when we moved
> from our apartment our rent was the same –
> even though the parcel taxes went up over that
> time for multi-family dwellings.
I have no idea why your rent did not move from 2007-2012, but according to UCD the average 2 bedroom unfurnished apartment in the city went from $1,172 in 2007 to $1,307 in 2012.
http://housing.ucdavis.edu/_pdownloads/2012_vacancy_report.pdf
> To make the argument you are, is to ignore that there
> is a market of supply and demand that are at work as well.
There is a low supply of housing in Davis (thanks to left leaning people that don’t like development and the right leaning people that own property and like making so much money that they don’t want any development) and a high demand so while you may have not had a rent increase from 2007-2012 99% of the other renters in the city have had increases th help cover the parvel tax(s)…
> I don’t really have time to do it, but it would be
> interesting to see if rents went up corresponding to
> the parcel tax going up, my guess is that our apartment
> complex was fairly typical and rents were relatively
> stable through that six year period.
It does not take much time to find every recent UCD housing study on line (I spent a couple minutes doing it) and most rents did go up after the parcel taxes. You were not typical in having flat rent. What makes you think that your entire “complex” also had stable rent for six years?
Don Shor:
“I am surprised to learn that conservatives are so concerned about fairness.”
Just as I’m surprised to learn that liberals have the attitude:
too bad, the world is not fair.
Don wrote:
> I am surprised to learn that conservatives
> are so concerned about fairness.
then rusty49 wrote:
> Just as I’m surprised to learn that liberals
> have the attitude: too bad, the world is not fair.
Most people (conservative and liberal) want to keep the unfair things that benefit them and change the things that don’t benefit them.
I don’t expect to see black liberals protesting the unfair admission practice that makes it easier for them to get in to UCD.
I also don’t expect to see conservatives protesting to end the unfair prop 13 that lets then pay far less in property tax than their neighbors.
rusty: [i]the parcel tax pushers always try to have it both ways. They try and say that renters don’t have to pay the tax and at the same time they’ll say that renters do have skin in the game because of the $20 tax.[/i]
The parcel tax opponents always try to have it both ways. They try and say that everyone should pay the same rate in fairness, and at the same time they’ll say that the flat rate is unfair to those of more modest means.
[i]I don’t expect to see black liberals protesting the unfair admission practice that makes it easier for them to get in to UCD. [/i]
Not wanting to get too far off topic, but I’m pretty sure racial preferences ended at UC in the 1990’s.
Don Shor: [i]If you have lived in your house longer than your neighbor, your assessed valuation is lower than his. Is that fair? If Mr. Granda has lived in his house for more than a couple of decades, his property tax is far lower than most of his neighbors. Is that fair?[/i]
In addition, Granda will turn 65 within the year, if he hasn’t already. So he can apply for an exemption, just like Janet Zwahlen, apparently, if he’s personally vexed over paying the school parcel tax.
[i]If you have lived in your house longer than your neighbor, your assessed valuation is lower than his. Is that fair?[/i]
Certainly it is fair as much as inflation, appreciation and depreciation is fair.
Also, this argument fails to consider the situation where someone purchased a house in 2006 at the peak of the housing bubbly, and then someone else across the street purchased the same model house in 2010. In this case, unless the assessed value of the house purchased in 2007 had decreased, the 2007 homeowner would be paying a higher property tax. Is that fair?
I pay an auto registration tax/fee every year that is in part based on the cost-value of the car. Is it fair that I pay a lower registration fee on my older car?
The appreciation or depreciation of any non-cash asset does not change the cash-wealth situation of the owner until that asset is liquidated. But, unlike paper investment, houses and cars are not liquid assets. They are life necessities and their book value gains or losses are passive and irrelevant to the budgets of the people that own them. Taxing passive gains of illiquid assets can absolutely damage people lacking the means to pay the higher taxes. They would have to liquidate (e.g., sell their house) in some cases. That would be very unfair. And it is the reason that Prop-13 passed, since this exact thing was happening to more and more people as California’s real estate values skyrocketed.
In general, I think it is fine to reward longevity. Buy a house and stay in it and you are likely better connected to your neighborhood and community and deserving of a lower tax bill.
“In addition, Granda will turn 65 within the year, if he hasn’t already. So he can apply for an exemption, just like Janet Zwahlen, apparently, if he’s personally vexed over paying the school parcel tax.”
Have you ever thought that maybe for Granda it’s not about his personal finances but instead about what’s right?
“rusty: the parcel tax pushers always try to have it both ways. They try and say that renters don’t have to pay the tax and at the same time they’ll say that renters do have skin in the game because of the $20 tax. “
Rusty, you really are thinking about this backwards though. If they ended the differential, the owner of the parcel would pay the flat parcel tax rate. In most cases that would be far less than they are paying now by having the $20 per unit cost. In fact, any parcel with more than 30 units, will pay in some cases far less and any parcel with less than 30 would pay more. Is that really accomplishing what you intend?
No, I’m saying each dwelling unit should have to pay more, maybe something like $60 to $100. The current $20 per unit is meaningless. Renters have children too and they should have more skin in the game. By them having a bigger piece of the pie it would take some of the burden off the homeowners.
So you think that the parcel owner of an apartment complex should have to pay three to five times more than they are already paying?
[i]I believe that Mr. Granda is sincere in his desire to right what he sees as injustices. I only wish that as an educator himself, he would bring as much passon to the actual provision of education as he does to his anti tax obsession.[/i]
medwoman – I think Mr. Granda brings plenty of passion to the subject of education. I think it is maybe just not your preferred passion.
medwoman…..what is your evidence that Mr Granda doesn’t “bring as much passion to the actual provision of education as he does to his anti tax obsession”
“So you think that the parcel owner of an apartment complex should have to pay three to five times more than they are already paying?”
David, quit playing games, you know what I’m saying. I’m saying the cost of the $60 to $100 dwelling unit cost should and ‘WOULD’ be passed on to the renter.
Frankly wrote:
> this argument fails to consider the situation
> where someone purchased a house in 2006 at the
> peak of the housing bubbly, and then someone else
> across the street purchased the same model house
> in 2010. In this case, unless the assessed value
> of the house purchased in 2007 had decreased, the
> 2007 homeowner would be paying a higher property
> tax. Is that fair?
The assessed value of homes that drop in value are fairly reduced, while the assessed value of homes that increase in value are (other than the max of 2% per year allowed under Prop 13) are unfairly not increased.
> I pay an auto registration tax/fee every year
> that is in part based on the cost-value of the
> car. Is it fair that I pay a lower registration
> fee on my older car?
California fairly taxes lower value older cars less but they also fairly tax higher value older cars more (ask someone who owns a $500K Mercedes Gullwing from the 1950’s or a $2 million + Ferrari from the 1960’s what they pay in California taxes)…
> In general, I think it is fine to reward longevity.
If it is good for property taxes should we do it for other things like make new residents of California pay $45 for a fishing license, but let my grandfather keep paying $2 since he has lived in the state for a long time, how about keeping sales tax at the same rate is was when people moved to California and that would mean keeping the corporate tax rate at 5% for any company that had been in the state since the 1960’s (if we want to “reward” longevity)…
P.S. To Don not to go way off topic, but if you think everything is now “fair” about getting in to UCD today (and they ask race for no reason at all) and you thing that a black kid with a 3.75 High School GPA will not have a better chance of getting in to UCD than a Chinese kid with a 3.75 High School GPA then I have a bridge I want to sell you…
P.P.S. Not to pick on the people that check a box other than white when applying to UCD, it is also not “fair” that a kid who’s Uncle is a UC regent or a big donor or has some other political connections will also have a better chance of getting in to UCD…
Soda and Frankly
My evidence for my statement lies in Mr. Granda’s position when he was running for the school board.
And I probably should not have stated that he had less passion, but rather than his passion seems to me to have been misdirected to avenues that have been tried and found insufficient for many, many years.
Mr. Granda stated that he felt that instead of increasing taxes, the way to fund schools was through various voluntary and private fundraising efforts. When confronted with the fact that these efforts have been in effect and ongoing for many years he chose not to address the apparent inadequacies of this approach at all, but rather remained silent on this point. I am aware that Mr. Granda himself is strongly supportive of his own efforts to teach and provide funding, however, he seems oblivious to the fact that the vast majority of people either cannot or will not support private funding for schools on the level needed but, will indirectly support the schools in the form of voting repeatedly for parcel taxes. Therefore it seems to me that Mr. Granda tends to divert his passions into ways to block what the majority have already approved.
And to Frankly, I do not like the idea of directly or indirectly supporting our schools through our current means. As I have stated previously, I believe in rewarding people directly for actions that benefit our society.
Given my own preference, I would not only use tax money to fully fund our educational system, I would go further and financially reward students who meet established educational criteria by paying them directly to stay in school. I feel as a society we would likely more than recoup our money in the long run by putting our educational money where our mouths are and rewarding educations directly.
Rusty: The owners are going to argue that level of pay is disproportionate and illegal. You saw what happened in Alameda case.
rusty49 wrote:
> No, I’m saying each dwelling unit should have to pay more,
> maybe something like $60 to $100. The current $20 per unit
> is meaningless. Renters have children too and they should
> have more skin in the game.
Where is you get the $20/unit from?
Measure C charges $150/unit (acording to the Enterprise article below):
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/featured-stories/measure-c-wins-comfortably-with-72-3-majority/
So the new owners of the 42 unit Oakshade Apartment in South Davis will be paying peoperty tax of over $200K a year plus another $6,300 for measure C.
Thanks Medwoman for the clarification. Although I did not agree with Mr Granda’s methods for raising school funds, I found his passion for teaching admirable when I heard his candidate statement at one of the forum’s. We might be confusing the two issues, teaching/learning passion and how to fund (or not). Agree?
rusty: [i]Have you ever thought that maybe for Granda it’s not about his personal finances but instead about what’s right?[/i]
What’s right is adequate funding of education.
Neither you nor him can propose a legal, workable, and passable tax or funding policy better than what we currently have.
Do I wish things were different? Sure. We all do. But the necessity of compromise will allow no one to have their ideal.
I am grateful for what we have rather than bitter about falling short.
[i]I would go further and financially reward students who meet established educational criteria by paying them directly to stay in school. I feel as a society we would likely more than recoup our money in the long run by putting our educational money where our mouths are and rewarding educations directly.[/i]
I could be wrong, but there is some indication that Mr. Granda agrees with this, or at least some of this.
In terms of rewarding students, why not give them a voucher that lets them chose what school they want to attend? That would seem reward enough.
The related point that many pro-education-funding-by-supplemental-parcel-tax people seem to ignore is the over the last 20 and 30 years, the adjusted by inflation cost per student and teacher compensation has increased. The number of education system employees per student has increased. Yet, the education quality in terms of outcomes has stayed flat or declined, and student choice has significantly dropped.
There is every indication that sending more money to the education system will primarily go to fund more education employees and provide greater compensation for those employees… and not benefit the kids in a commensurate way.
So, in terms of passion for education, by opposing parcel taxes and increased government spending on education, Mr. Granda may very well have more of it as it relates to the true welfare of the students; while many of his opponents seem to be advocating more for the employees of the education system.
SOD
Where is you get the $20/unit from?
I don’t know, I guess from David’s above article:
“At issue is the differential assessment rates for multi-dwelling unit parcels which is charged at the base rate of twenty dollars per dwelling unit, and all other parcels which are assessed at $204 per parcel.”
[i]”over the last 20 and 30 years,…. student choice has significantly dropped.
[/i]
Not in DJUSD. Student choice has increased here.
David is correct, Measure “E” is $20/unit (in addition to Measure “C” that is $150/unit)
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Davis_Joint_Unified_School_District_parcel_tax,_Measure_E_(November_2012)
It still does not seem fair that some single parcels in central Davis with 10 small studio units (with no kids) are paying much more than the family with 8 kids in a big house next door…
Can we all stipulate that taxes by their nature never are “fair” to all? And, then get to what’s accurate about this specific situation? Like, what’s the basis for what tax level? What about duplexes or triplexes? Only $40 or $60 per parcel? Doesn’t make sense that multiple-unit dwellings would pay only a fraction of a single-family dwelling parcel. David, are you sure about your $20 per unit figure?
P.S.–Taxes aren’t fair.
Da Vinci was initially launched from a Gates Foundation grant. The exact same funding mechanism that Mr. Granda advocates. Without this and other private money, I don’t think you would be able to make the claim that choice has increased.
And removing Da Vinci from the “choice” menu, I don’t think you can make that claim that DJUSD student choice has increased. That choice was stronger 20-30 years ago, and much stronger 40+ years ago. For example, many more industrial arts electives.
DSIS has expanded. DaVinci is expanding. I’m glad Gates helped fund it, and have no problem with private funds going into the public school system. I do have a problem with public funds going into the private school system. SI has expanded.
Seems that you have changed the debate. I note that you have reverse the discussion from “student choice has significantly dropped.” Clearly, [i]clearly[/i] that is not true. I don’t think you can even seriously make the claim that choice is what it was 20 – 30 years ago.
Your statement about industrial arts electives may be true. I would support expanded funding for that if there is a demand for it.
SOD
“It still does not seem fair that some single parcels in central Davis with 10 small studio units (with no kids) are paying much more than the family with 8 kids in a big house next door…”
Good cherrypick, how about the retired couple under age 65 with no kids paying $204 on a single parcel next door to a 4-plex that has four families with 3 kids each paying $80 for the entire parcel or $20 each dwelling?
SODA
[quote]We might be confusing the two issues, teaching/learning passion and how to fund (or not). Agree?[/quote]
I agree. I don’t doubt Mr. Granda’s individual commitment to teaching, and from the clarity with which he is able to speak, don’t doubt that he is an effective instructor himself. I just feel that his time spent launching law suits might be more favorably spent using his talents to actually improve public education.
Frankly
[quote]In terms of rewarding students, why not give them a voucher that lets them chose what school they want to attend? That would seem reward enough.
[/quote]
I disagree on several points:
1) First I would want an agreed upon curriculum of the school. I object to paying for religious instruction for
any student. Many feel that a religious education is something that we should support, or think they do
until it is pointed out to them that this would include not only Christian schools, but Jewish, Muslim, Hindu
etc. based education.
2) This does not reward the student himself, but rather his or her parents, or perhaps the family as a whole.
I would prefer payments into an account that is directed to the student him/herself. This way this is an
immediate reward that the student can appreciate, not some vague reward that the student may or may
not appreciate or even be aware of.
3) As to the origin of DaVinci, this is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. There are certainly other choices
within the Davis schools not started by the Gates foundation such as the Center for Independent study, and
King.
4) With regard to choices, I agree the individual choices and class offerings have decreased. But this has not
been the preference of teachers. This has been the unwillingness of voters to fund adequate levels of
support to the schools due to some perception that public school teachers are somehow evil, or greedy, or
that the funding of schools is somehow “unfair” to one group or another, or
whatever excuse is trotted out in order not to have to pay.
[i]Your statement about industrial arts electives may be true. I would support expanded funding for that if there is a demand for it.[/i]
It is true, and because it is true, so is my point that choice has declined. I very much value that choice for the groups of kids that are most at risk for dropout and poor education outcomes.
[i]With regard to choices, I agree the individual choices and class offerings have decreased. [b]But this has not been the preference of teachers.[/b] This has been the unwillingness of voters to fund adequate levels of support to the schools due to some perception that public school teachers are somehow evil, or greedy, or that the funding of schools is somehow “unfair” to one group or another, or whatever excuse is trotted out in order not to have to pay.[/i]
Certainly it is not the preference of teachers. However, as I wrote… the amount of money teachers make has increased, per pupil spending has significantly increased and the number of education system employees has significantly increased.
So what is reasonable? You and others seem to just gloss over this point of increased costs. Education delivery has gotten more and more expensive, and quality has not improved and choice has significantly declined. So at what level do you and others take notice of this? When education eats up 50% of our state and local budgets? When the average teacher is compensated like a Davis firefighter? When we have 15 or maybe even 10 education employees per student down from the 28 per student that we had in the 1960s and 1970s?
Whenever you are paying more and more for something and getting less and less of a return, when do you stop and challenge the system and demand reform?
You don’t – instead you and others just demand more public money to feed the beast and protect the status quo. A status quo that proves we will continue to see minimal or flat improvements in outcomes, and reductions of student choice.
Do I understand that Davis will soon need another supplemental parcel tax to maintain its fantastic schools that would not be so fantastic were it not for all the private money and free top-shelf labor provided by all these well-off, well-educated, concerned citizens?
Under prop 13 the person who bought at the top and is upside down can have his property reassessed at the current lower value and get a break on their taxes.
i wonder who is paying the legal costs? I am sure they are more than the amount Granda and Randall will ever save if they prevail.
[i]When the average teacher is compensated like a Davis firefighter?
[/i]
What on earth are you talking about?
Teacher compensation has continued to increase and is still increasing. At what point do we stop making the false argument that there is not enough funding, and start talking about costs inflating much faster than the CPI?
I was using the firefighter problem as an example. We ignored the cost increases and kept pouring more money into them. Now, finally most of us are in agreement that the high cost of this public service is the main problem… not a lack of funding.
Teacher compensation has not increased since 2007 in Davis
What compensation HAS increased since 2007 except for politicians? You do remember that we had a Great Recession and the economy is still not well?
2008 – 2012 should be removed from the dataset as it corrupts the data and the conclusions from the data.
Let’s just focus on the trends through 2008 to get the real picture.
Otherwise, if you want to stick with that 2008-2012 story about teacher pay not increasing, we should compare it to pay in the private sector for this same time period.
I guess I’m confusing you made the argument that we don’t need funding based on increased teacher compensation. I point out that in the last six years we haven’t increased teacher compensation. You respond that we should ignore after 2008, but the funding crisis is part of the same trend that stalled compensation. That’s why we need the money. So I’m confused as to what you’re arguing at this point.
JB/Frankly: [i]2008 – 2012 should be removed from the dataset as it corrupts the data and the conclusions from the data.[/i]
Wow. Ignore contrary data because it messes up your argument and world view?
[i]It is true, and because it is true, so is my point that choice has declined.[/i]
You really haven’t made your case, here. All you’ve said is that choice had declined because there are fewer industrial arts options. You still have JH shop class and HS auto shop, food/nutrition and related home ec. components. By the way, no longer is shorthand, typing, BASIC and FORTRAN computer programming taught at DHS either, so I guess you’re on to something after all, my bad. 😉
K-6 teachers involved in DTA will also strenuously disagree with you about lack of options at the secondary level. Many of them made the counter argument when discussions were going on about where/what to cut from the DJUSD budget.
Don Shor also left out the Montessori program at Birch Lane as another option, all the GATE strands around Davis, all the language choices available at HS, and newer ROP offerings. You have some elementary schools going with block schedule configurations of various sorts, others with a more traditional model. And each elementary campus with characteristic culture and offerings in visual and performing arts, mostly funded by site PTA’s.
When you listen to reports of student demographics in Davis schools, what is notable is the number of students attending out of the attendance area of their local schools. To me that suggests families taking advantage of choices.
Is there a school district in California about the size of Davis’ that you can point to that has the kind of diverse offerings that you think Davis should have?
On this, I think you’re just fishing for reasons to criticize to justify a contrarian stance.
Frankly
[quote]Whenever you are paying more and more for something and getting less and less of a return, when do you stop and challenge the system and demand reform?
You don’t – instead you and others just demand more public money to feed the beast and protect the status quo. A status quo that proves we will continue to see minimal or flat improvements in outcomes, and reductions of student choice. [/quote]
Once again, I cannot imagine how you would ever imagine that am defending the current educational status quo. I believe that my idea about paying students to attend class is more “different” from the status quo than anything that you have ever written about in your posts. Leveraging technology and offering vouchers are far from unique or new ideas and as Don has pointed out already are in place. So once again, you are stuck in telling me what I must believe so that you can fit me comfortably into that “liberal box” you have constructed in your mind regardless of how little correspondence it may have to my actual position.
Is anyone else interested in deriving a fair way to fund public education?
I think the first task is to quantify fairness in public education.
Edgar
I would be interested in your concept of ” a fair way to fund public eduction “. Please include in such an analysis your meaning of the word “fair” in this context. In reading about funding over the years I have seen a number of arguments over the use of the word ‘fair’ in this context.
Just a few examples :
I have heard people say it is not “fair” for them to pay taxes to fund public education because they don’t have
children, or because their children are no longer in public schools, or because they chose to send their own children to private schools, or because they don’t believe the public schools are “worth it”, usually without defining how much money public education would be worth, or because they think taxes are already “too high” almost always without any kind of statement about how much we “should” pay and for what services.
Frankly, I think you have some misunderstandings of our school district, teachers, and the situation that has developed over the last years:
[i]
Yet, the education quality in terms of outcomes has stayed flat or declined, and student choice has significantly dropped. [/i]
Do you know why this is? We have lost over $10 million in state funding, and millions of dollars of cuts have been made over the last 5 years (100+ teaching positions, counselor, VP, academic support, etc). This is why student choice has decreased, and at this point, we are lucky to be able to keep this district’s API and educational outcomes as strong. Why? Because we have some of the best teachers around here, who work their tails off in light of very tough circumstances this year (and in previous years), and for what can be easily called a decreasing purchasing power of our pay. We are lucky and grateful that this community sees the value of keeping the best educational opportunities and potentials, and have overwhelmingly voted to support education to keep those opportunities and potentials. You seem, with this comment, to be concerned about state funding. Are you for increased state funding to help repair the loss of choices and to help move students forward? Because, as of now, that is the only possibility. And if you are, I would like to direct you to Sacramento, and you should be focusing your efforts on them.
[i]There is every indication that sending more money to the education system will primarily go to fund more education employees and provide greater compensation for those employees… and not benefit the kids in a commensurate way. [/i]
Do you have proof for your contention? Because, we, as teachers, have not seen a raise in our pay scale, nor even an additional COLA for 5-6 years. We received a 1% bump 6 years ago I believe. That is it, so in reality, as costs go up, we are getting paid relatively less than we were. And please don’t take this as me complaining: I am grateful to still be employed right now, and will take what I can get, along with classes of 60, 45, and two that are less than that.
Furthermore, if the money were to go to teachers, how would that not benefit the kids? More income to the district would lead to more options for class periods, which means smaller classes, a better learning environment, more width of opportunities, and yes, more teachers and people employed (but god forbid because teachers are the cause of all evil in this world, right?). And again, we have been fighting hard to keep the status quo, because it is clear that we really can’t push for more money or more opportunity at a time when there isn’t the funding for it by any means.
[i]
So, in terms of passion for education, by opposing parcel taxes and increased government spending on education, Mr. Granda may very well have more of it as it relates to the true welfare of the students; while many of his opponents seem to be advocating more for the employees of the education system.[/i]
Your opinion here, is just your opinion, and I would go as far as to say that this is a very biased and short sighted statement, based clearly in a conservative philosophy that blames teachers for the problems of today, and acts as if the only thing teachers want is more money and the only thing this town wants is more money for teachers (I’m just waiting for you to start blaming the union for all this). Please realize that you are basically saying that between 69% and 74% of Davis isn’t voting for continuing a strong education, but is voting to give teachers money. What an absurd and short sighted, not to mention, dead wrong, argument. These are their children they are voting to support, not the teachers. Further, that is quite an insult to lay at the footsteps of a community based on education and providing young people with the best options possible from K – 12 and in higher education.
[i]However, as I wrote… the amount of money teachers make has increased, per pupil spending has significantly increased and the number of education system employees has significantly increased.[/i]
No. It hasn’t. I already explained the pay issue above. And again, as I said above, we have over 100 less teachers, counselors and staff compared to 5 years ago. The state has cut our per pupil spending by over $1000 (if not as much as $1500) since 5 years ago, and there are far less administrators and support staff working. Do you have proof to back up your contention? If not, stop making up stuff. It doesn’t help any of your arguments to know that you have such an easy time making up information to support your feelings and opinions.
I should also add, that through your commenting, you give not one solution to help fix the problem. What are your solutions? Do you have any ideas to help? Or are you just complaining? Because without presented solutions, your complaints are just that.
more below….
Finally, after all that, you state:
[i]
2008 – 2012 should be removed from the dataset as it corrupts the data and the conclusions from the data.
[/i]
Ah. You don’t like the facts, so ignore them, huh? Is this how you always argue your points? Use the information that benefits you and dismiss the facts that don’t?
This all calls into question everything you said, since you are so easily willing to 1: make up factually untrue information to support your argument, 2: blatantly blame teachers as being money moochers to be the problem and 3: then dismiss the facts when it contradicts everything you have posted.
To end this, let me remind you of what you just said:
[i]
You do remember that we had a Great Recession and the economy is still not well? [/i]
Well, do you?
[i]2008 – 2012 should be removed from the dataset as it corrupts the data and the conclusions from the data. [/i]
Hmmm…..
Just in case it wasn’t overtly obvious, my comments are in response to the poster, “FRANKLY”
JB/Frankly: [i]Da Vinci was initially launched from a Gates Foundation grant. The exact same funding mechanism that Mr. Granda advocates. Without this and other private money, I don’t think you would be able to make the claim that choice has increased.[/i]
You are correct about the Gates Foundation grant, but you miss the point as to what Granda advocates. The Gates grant was one time startup funding. Granda advocates fundraising to support ongoing expenses, year after year. That is a less sound strategy for ongoing funding.
Greg Brucher – I appreciate your points, but like others arguing for more education spending, you fail to acknowledge that inflation-adjusted costs have increased significantly over the last 30-40 years… and even over the last 10 years.
Educators and those advocating for them have been complaining about funding every year… even in the years where the economy has been humping and the state has been sending the money. The funding has gone up and up and up, and the results have gone down, and down and down.
Then the Recession hits and all of a sudden it is a brand new funding crisis.
I fully expect that once the Brown “temporary” tax increases term, the education system and advocates will be flapping their wings and gums again to extent them so we “don’t hurt the kids”.
It is a system that has demonstrated over and over again that funding inputs do not return anything close to a comensurate return in student welfare and outcomes. This not a teacher problem, it is a system problem. Those that protect the system using the false human shield student welfare and false claims of teachers being “attacked” by calls for reform… are the true people guilty of hurting the kids.
JB/Frankly: [i] you fail to acknowledge that inflation-adjusted costs have increased significantly over the last 30-40 years… and even over the last 10 years.[/i]
You fail to acknowledge that what is demanded of public education has increased during that time. When you were in high school, someone could drop out and still make a decent life, and the concern wasn’t as great as it is now. We demand that everyone have equal access to education nowadays. In your day, schools were not under the same obligation to serve students with mental, emotional, or physical disabilities. A greater diversity of home languages and cultures. We demand a higher level of credentialing and preparatory background of teachers. There are more job options for somebody with the equivalent background for teaching, and many of those jobs pay better, have better security, and potentially less stress. I still don’t think teachers get paid enough, and I base that on what it would take to get me to switch careers and become a school teacher.
[i]It is a system that has demonstrated over and over again that funding inputs do not return anything close to a comensurate return in student welfare and outcomes.[/i]
No, only the biggest, strongest and most innovative economy in the world.
[i]It is a system that has demonstrated over and over again that funding inputs do not return anything close to a comensurate return in student welfare and outcomes. This not a teacher problem, it is a system problem. [/i]
The customers appear to be satisfied with the system and the outcomes. They show that in public opinion polls, and by voting in special taxes by a supermajority. The way to achieve reform is to persuade the consumers of the education system that it is in their best interest, pose alternatives, get involved in the system. The way to achieve reform is not by suing the schools to overturn a voter-approved tax. To his credit, Jose Granda put his money where his mouth was: he ran. And he lost. And the tax he opposed was passed. So evidently the voters of DJUSD don’t agree with you, or Mr. Granda, about what is needed in the schools their children attend.
Frankly,
Yes, for a long time, there was an increase of pay and funding for education, which has been sorely needed since Prop 13 passed in the late 70’s. Prior to Prop 13, California was at the top for education. Now, it is at the bottom. What did Prop 13 do: Cut funding tremendously. So if is the case that our schools’ quality has gone down because of a lack of funding, it seems quite logical that the only way to help regain some of that quality is to put more money back into the schools.
And yes, that had happened for 30-40 years (which coincidentally places us right when Prop 13 was passed), as people realized how much they screwed up the schools by voting to pay less taxes. Over the last 5 years (which you want to write off the books because it doesn’t fit your opinions and beliefs), we have lost a tremendous amount of funding. Despite that, we have been able to keep Davis schools close to or at they were then on our API scores and overall educational output. And as I said above, that is because Davis was willing to tax themselves to make sure we didn’t lose any more money in the schools, which, by experience, we know, has hurt education tremendously in the past (see: my statement above about prop 13’s effect.)
So, back to what I was saying. Over the last 5 years, we’ve seen a tremendous decrease in state funding, and finally, the good will of this state and this town has chosen to add extra funding in to help move our schools back in the right direction. And again, lets remember, that as schools get worse when money is taken from them, schools will improve when money is added to the system. Why? Because the more teachers, counselors, and up to date equipment there is, the better the educational environment there will be for students, and that is where we will see better results in our children.
So, past all that, I’m honestly not sure what you are getting at in your post, so maybe you can clarify, but the truth is, that I have no problem acknowledging the facts of history, as well as what is happening in the now.
And I ask and hope that others will do the same, because if we focus too much on the past or future, we cannot focus on the now, and it is attention to the now that we must hold strong in order to continue to help dig ourselves out of the worst economic situation in 75 years.
[i]You fail to acknowledge that what is demanded of public education has increased during that time. When you were in high school, someone could drop out and still make a decent life, and the concern wasn’t as great as it is now.[/i]
I keep reading hoping there is something worth responding to. Apparently we all live in our own echo chamber.
However, wdf1 hits the nail on the head here.
What is demanded of public education HAS increased, because what is demanded of people has increased. What is demanded of people to earn a good life HAS increased. The flow of information HAS increased. The need to have at least some marketable job skills HAS increased. The speed of technological advances HAS exponentially increased.
All of these things have increased. What hasn’t increased is our ability to successfully prepare young people to launch to a life of reasonable happiness and prosperity. Only the lucky academically-gifted make their way… more likely to a government job these days.
Kids today get more relevant live knowledge and skills from a 2.5″ smart phone screen than they do from their public education experience.
That experience is delivered by a system and model so far behind the curve of social and economic advancement, it is prehistoric by comparison.
Davis schools get a C+. Most of the rest get an F or maybe a D- at best.
We pat ourselves on the back for a job well-done when that job incorporates copious external funding and help from a top-notch affluent and well-educated charitable labor pool. Is that the new model every school district has to adopt to ensure the students in that district get a passable education? It won’t work. It barely works for Davis. It only works because we can frighten voters to tax themselves over just the fear that it will get worse. How long can we do that? When will the next parcel tax fail and destroy all of our pride over Davis schools?
I know the signs of a failed or failing model when I see it. Our education system needs to be completely reformed. It needs to be a modern 21st century marvel. It needs to be education system 2.0. This new model is being developed and implemented in many parts of the county out of sheer financial necessity. My expectation is that these early adopters will stumble on what works and it will leave the old system in the dust.
Here is the problem in a nutshell. There is no sense of urgency from the protectors of the education system status quo. Students cannot go back and get another education. There is no good excuse for not striving for an A+ system because of the life tragedies caused by anything less. Frankly (apparently I like that word), I think the current state of education should be criminally prosecuted for the harm it causes people.
The prop-13 cry is invalidated by the simple fact that tax revenue stabilized and spending increased by every metric imaginable. We have many more education system employees per student today than we did before prop-13. Teachers make more today than they did before Prop-13. The cost to educate a single student has increased, yet the results have not. Insiders either cannot see this, or refuse to accept it. They have been told, and told themselves, that they are so underpaid and under-funded for so long, those stories just extrude from their pores without any facts to back them.
Frankly (there is that word again), the education system was saved by the Great Recession as it is now a great proxy excuse for the exploded costs, and all the crappy system outcomes and performance. The education establishment with the help of Democrat politicians bought and paid for, and a complicit liberal-tilted media, have made the recession funding impacts the new story. That is a shame, because it only means more kids will be failed by this broken system until we get back to the real needed debate of quality and value.
Davis Schools are better than others. I agree. Woopee! They are still greatly inadequate for what we need, and they are not improving fast enough to prevent a reckoning day. I can’t wait.
Frankly,
[quote]They are still greatly inadequate for what we need, and they are not improving fast enough to prevent a reckoning day. I can’t wait.[/quote]
Your excitement over the possibility of some unnamed catastrophic event in our educational system that will then allow Randian’s to completely rebuild a system more to their own liking is in one way quite endearing. There is a certain charm in someone having so much faith in their own ideas that they do not have to deal with complexity and nuance.
You write as though you are a “true believer” in a world in which most change is incremental and evolutionary and yet you still seem to believe in the same way that many true believing Christians I have met seem to believe that since the “end of times is near” they really don’t have to contribute anything themselves to their current society other than prayer,patience and the certainty that they will live to see the end.
Re: medwoman
I started thinking about fairness on how to fund public education, and arrived at the following concept:
[b]Using Career Advancement Tax to make Schools Accessible[/b]
The Government can implement public education by taxing people who advances their income after learning from a school, and use the tax to subsidize the tuition fee for anyone who attends that school.
Example:
o The Operating cost for a School is $1000 a year, it currently has 100 students.
o The tuition fee per student is $10.
o John graduates from the school, and uses the credential he earned to look for a job.
o John gets a job with that credential, and now earns a salary of $1000.
o The Government Taxes 10% on John’s first pay check for $100.
o The Government gives the $100 to the school and requires the school to lower its tuition per student for next year.
o Next year, 120 students are enrolled at the School. The operation cost is $1200.
o The tuition per student is ($1200 – $100) / 120 = $9.17.
Results:
o The School that helps produce assets for society becomes [b]more accessible[/b] to the public.
o The government does not need to “invest” in public schools, it uses the strength of existing schools and aims to make the productive ones accessible.
o The government only taxes those who have advanced their career due to their education.
o In the long run, a “public school” comes into existence not because the government [i]made[/i] it a public school, but because its graduates are so productive that the Career Advancement Tax the Government collected for that school is larger than the expenses that of the school. As a result, that school becomes a school with zero tuition fees.
My thoughts leading to this concept are in here:
[ Fairness in Public Education ] ([url]http://skylet.net/docs/2013-02-16-FairnessInPublicEducation.htm[/url])
[i]Your excitement over the possibility of some unnamed catastrophic event in our educational system that will then allow Randian’s to completely rebuild a system more to their own liking is in one way quite endearing. There is a certain charm in someone having so much faith in their own ideas that they do not have to deal with complexity and nuance. [/i]
I deal with copious complexity and nuance on a daily basis. I see the education need through a lens of significant complexity and nuance.
Just because it is a complex problem, does not mean that we should not have an open-mind about what solutions we should be prusuing.
My interest is 100% the kids.
Here is the thing… I think we might possibly improve the education system enough to meet what I believe are the requirements, but it would take far more money than we could come up with. The efficiency of the education system is so dismal, that every additional dollar would only return 10-20% in added benefit for the kids.
That won’t work. We cannot and will not spend that type of money for so little return.
So, we need a new model for education. One that is much more efficient and where we get much greater value for our money.
How are we going to get that new model?
When the old model completely fails. Because, otherwise there are too many people like yourself protecting the old model.
[i]So, we need a new model for education. One that is much more efficient and where we get much greater value for our money.
How are we going to get that new model?
When the old model completely fails. Because, otherwise there are too many people like yourself protecting the old model.[/i]
You seem to be completely unwilling to acknowledge that Davis parents are satisfied with the school district. I have little doubt that parents and students would like improvements, would like more choice within the system, and would be happy to see some programs expanded. But the voters and parents aren’t dissatisfied overall. They vote to retain the incumbents and vote to continue the tax funding. So why on earth would they want to destroy the current model? You may not like it, Jose Granda may not like it, Thomas Randall may not like it — but the voters here give strong approval to the current model.
The voters approved the tax. Randall and you and Granda had the opportunity to persuade the voters against it, and you failed. So yet, in spite of all that, you just want to sue to block the majority-approved tax to support the majority-approved school system.
JB/Frankly: [i]I know the signs of a failed or failing model when I see it. etc.[/i]
I’m not sure that there has ever been a time when our education system wasn’t in crisis or failing in some way, some years a little more than others. I’m certain that crisis has been, is, and will always be a way of life.
[i]So, we need a new model for education. One that is much more efficient and where we get much greater value for our money.[/i]
I don’t think you’ll get one that makes you happy, because a society-wide solution requires compromise, and you despise the ideas of too many engaged people (your fellow commentors, for instance) to be willing to compromise.
[i]My interest is 100% the kids.[/i]
As is everyone else’s, though you might refuse to acknowledge it.
JB: [i]Kids today get more relevant live knowledge and skills from a 2.5″ smart phone screen than they do from their public education experience.
That experience is delivered by a system and model so far behind the curve of social and economic advancement, it is prehistoric by comparison. [/i]
Hey, look at what I just read in today’s Enterprise:
[quote]New tech director sizes up school district’s aging infrastructure ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/schools-news/new-tech-director-sizes-up-school-districts-aging-infrastructure/[/url])
Wallace is finding that everyone wants to talk about computer tablets.
“These can be far cheaper than setting up a computer lab; you can have tablet carts that go from one classroom to another,” she explained. “The apps for tablets are very education-friendly, you can sometimes download an app for $4.99 and have it on every tablet. Tablets are becoming very popular in elementary schools in other districts. Under teacher supervision, then can be a good way for kids to have an introduction to technology.”
What about giving students a tablet containing electronic versions of textbooks, rather than having students tote around a set of heavy printed textbooks in their backpack? That day is doubtless coming, but it’s not quite here yet.
What about having students bring their own tablets, smartphones and other devices from home, and allowing them to use them at school?
“That brings a whole set of opportunities and a whole set of challenges,” Wallace said. Da Vinci Charter Academy is trying out a “bring your own device” program.
….
“The district already has a pilot for online learning going on at the Davis School for Independent Study,” Wallace said. (She was the half-time principal at DSIS until she took on the new technology post; she retains an assignment as the half-time principal at King High School.)
“One other thing I’d like to convey: It’s not about the technology itself,” she concluded. “It’s about how people are using technology to educate students. Learning through technology is the point. And good teaching using technology is the method.
“Just having the tools doesn’t mean learning is happening. It’s really important to equip the teachers with the training, the philosophy, the troubleshooting ability and the paradigm that we are shifting into — so that it’s not done in a haphazard way that doesn’t contribute to student achievement. Student achievement is our ultimate goal.”[/quote]
JB: Another informative letter to the editor for you from the Enterprise:
[quote]Don’t overlook DSIS program ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/letters/dont-overlook-dsis-program/[/url])
….children of all grades may participate in site-based workshops and classes. Secondary students of DSIS also have the option to “split site,” where they can take up to three classes at any of the traditional secondary campuses. All secondary students also have the option of participating in districtwide functions, such as school sports, Grad Night, school dances and after-school clubs.
In addition, DSIS is experimenting with some exciting new programming, including utilizing Skype for teacher meetings when students are traveling extensively and hybrid course offerings where students combine online and in-person learning.[/quote]
[quote]Chronicle of Higher Education, 2/21/13: Online Courses Could Widen Achievement Gaps Among Students ([url]http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/online-courses-could-widen-achievement-gaps-among-students/42521[/url])
The study found that all students who take more online courses, no matter the demographic, are less likely to attain a degree. However, some groups—including black students, male students, younger students, and students with lower grade-point averages—are particularly susceptible to this pattern.[/quote]