Borikas Decision Based on Specifities in Alameda Law, Did Not Result in Measure H Being Thrown Out in Its Entirety – Jose Granda is a frequent critic of the Davis Joint Unified School Board and their efforts to pass parcel tax measures as a means to bridge funding gaps from the state. Following the passage of Measure E by the voters of Davis by a nearly 70% vote, Mr. Granda, along with several co-conspirators, challenged the legality on the basis that the district exceeded their authority by charging homeowners and commercial property owners at different rates.
A recent decision by the California Supreme Court not to review a Court of Appeal decision that invalidated the creation of different classifications of taxpayers in that district’s parcel tax has led Mr. Granda to send out a press release, essentially declaring victory and arguing that “Davis Measure E effectively struck down by Supreme Court decision.”
He writes that “It is likely the Borikas decision will lead the Yolo County Superior Court to determine Measure E is also invalid as Measure E has the identical legal defects as did the parcel tax in Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District.”
Superintendent Winfred Roberson did acknowledge the decision will impact the pending legal challenges on Measure E. However, we believe that Mr. Granda’s proclamation is premature.
He argues, “I hope this marks the end to illegal parcel tax measures and fraudulent all-mailed ballot elections. “
We do not believe that is going to happen. Mr. Granda may force the district to have to re-write the measure and put it back before the voters – we believe that can happen relatively easily, and the voters who have passed parcel taxes in 2007, 2008, 2011 and twice in 2012 have strong support for the district and would have a great amount of sympathy should the district’s hands be forced.
Ironically, the legal actions and the costs for running a special election may force a higher parcel tax.
But we are not sure that this is going to go that way.
First of all, the similarities between the two parcel taxes are not as close as Mr. Granda has alleged. 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.”
That is of course very different from what happened in Davis. The district created a senior exemption, but the problem with the claim is that under the state constitution, as laid out in Prop. 13, the district is allowed to create a senior exemption. In the Alameda County court ruling they noted, “Measure H’s exemptions for senior and disabled taxpayers are permissible under the statute.”
The plaintiffs here may get more traction in showing that there is a differential rate between single-family homes and multi-family homes. The parcel tax, as required under the law, establishes one set rate for single-family homes and a separate per unit rate in multi-family dwellings.
Opponents of the parcel tax have argued that, by allowing renters in multi-family homes a much lower rate, the district secures their vote. The problem is that parcel taxes are assessed on a per parcel basis. The district could opt to equalize that discrepancy by opting to charge all parcels the same regardless of the units on them. That of course, ironically, would widen the discrepancy between single family parcels and multi-family dwellings.
Another problem that Mr. Granda has is that, while his 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.”
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.”
In short, Mr. Granda is overreaching with his conclusions. First, the court upheld the senior exemptions in the Borikas case. Second, the court severed the impermissible differential rates from the rest of the parcel tax. Third, there is a clear difference between what DJUSD did in establishing differential rates for single versus multi-family dwellings, and what Alameda did in terms of setting differentials for business versus private dwellings.
Our sources in the Capitol note that, at least at the moment, Assemblymember Rob Bonta’s legislation has stalled. Will the court’s decision push the heavily-Democratic legislature to act? We shall see.
“I have told the school board that Measure E was illegal on several grounds, including the same grounds as set forth in Borikas. Instead of structuring a tax that was not subject to legal attack, they needlessly took a significant risk. Now, Measure E is likely to be struck down,” Mr. Granda wrote.
But in our analysis, if the Borikas case is going to matter, it will matter on the margins and not act to strike down the entire ballot measure as Mr. Granda claims in his press release. Worst case scenario is that the district would have to re-write the measure and take it back to the voters for approval.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Worst case scenario is that the district would have to re-write the measure and take it back to the voters for approval.[/quote]
Take it back to voters who are now seeing higher water bills coming to their mailbox monthly. It would only take 3 voters per 100 to change their vote from last time to sink the measure.
The voters are always going to back education in Davis. The robustness of results around five elections is extraordinary. You’re going to lose in even the worst case scenario and again, the precedent here in a much more aggressive parcel tax measure was not striking down the measure in total, it was changing that one aspect.
It seems ironic to me that Mr. Granda, himself an educator, and a self styled champion of education chooses to spend so much of his time and energy attempting to block financial support for education in our community. It would seem more consistent with his stated goals when running for school board if Mr. Granda were to spend his time and considerable organizational skills establishing and promoting the types of volunteer and community support that he was promoting as a candidate, rather than his choice of divisive and costly attacks on funding for our schools.
medwoman: I agree. If his concern is, as he states it is, that Measure E is illegal, then he could put all his righteous energy into making sure AB59 passes.
[quote]Second, the court severed the impermissible differential rates from the rest of the parcel tax. [/quote]
David: Any idea on how, if the same thing happened here, this would play out. i.e. would apartment dwellers have to pay the same amount as single family homes?
[i]It seems ironic to me that Mr. Granda, himself an educator, and a self styled champion of education chooses to spend so much of his time and energy attempting to block financial support for education in our community. It would seem more consistent with his stated goals when running for school board if Mr. Granda were to spend his time and considerable organizational skills establishing and promoting the types of volunteer and community support that he was promoting as a candidate, rather than his choice of divisive and costly attacks on funding for our schools.[/i]
Mr. Granda has been perfectly clear about his positions and reasons. There is no irony at all.
I would not support sending any more money to the US Post Office or the DMV, but that does not mean that I don’t support their need or purpose.
When you believe something is broken and needs fixing, spending more money just to keep the broken thing propped up is a fools pursuit. Advocating that we stop raiding the pocketbooks of citizens to pay for a system that fails miserably to keep costs in check while also consistently failing to deliver quality-enough service. Also, we have a state run by Democrats insistent to give away all of our tax revenue to reward public labor unions for their campaign contributions while local schools get shafted. When does this insanity stop? It stops when more brave people like Mr. Granda stand up to it and challenge it at every possible point.
[quote]Mr. Granda, along with several co-conspirators[/quote]
“co-conspirators”? I think calling these brave stand up people conspirators is way over the top and uncalled for. Many in this town would call them heroes.
Frankly: Granda seems to be arguing the legality of Measure E, not the tax itself. You seem to be arguing against the tax. Is Granda’s lawsuit just an end run around the voter’s overwhelming support of Measure E, because it wastes taxpayers money? (He does not seem to care about the tax implications his law suit is having on the district, nor the cost of the additional election that may have to occur if he wins his suit.) If he is worried about the legality of the Measure then there is a legislative fix for that. If on the other hand is concerned about the additional tax, I wish he would accept defeat. He got his chance to fight against the Measure during the election and a super majority of people did not agree with him. He is now wasting tax payer money so that he and a small majority of voters get there way. I wish he put his “bravery” to a more productive use.
[quote]Mr. Granda has been perfectly clear about his positions and reasons. There is no irony at all. [/quote]
Perhaps I was not clear in my post and so would like to clarify my postion. My words were in no way meant to demean Mr. Granda. It is his tactics with which I take exception.
I agree that Mr. Granda has been perfectly clear about his positions and reasons. I do not believe that anything I wrote could be construed to mean that he has not been perfectly forthcoming. However, clarity does not preclude irony.
I also agree that in one respect, Mr. Granda did demonstrate bravery. That was in his willingness to put himself forward as a candidate for public office. And I would say the same about anyone who believes enough in the importance of their ideas to go through the ordeal of a public campaign. What I do not see as bravery is bringing lawsuits and what I see, as David noted, as premature claims of victory.
[quote][quote]It stops when more brave people like Mr. Granda stand up to it and challenge it at every possible point.[/quote]
I have a different perspective on “when it stops”. I believe that bad systems “stop” when better alternatives, based on evidence of superior outcome, are brought forward. It is my belief that Mr. Granda, as an educator, would be ideally positioned to evaluate alternatives, demonstrate their viability in our community and champion them in such a way as to make them viable systems within our community. It is this kind of activity that I feel would be more worthy of Mr. Granda’s time and skills set than are lawsuits and the obstructionist tactics he has chosen.
Frankly: [i]When you believe something is broken and needs fixing, spending more money just to keep the broken thing propped up is a fools pursuit. Advocating that we stop raiding the pocketbooks of citizens to pay for a system that fails miserably to keep costs in check while also consistently failing to deliver quality-enough service.[/i]
The nature of yours and Granda’s opposition to local school parcel taxes are not aligned. Granda has said, mainly through his school board campaign, that Davis schools are good and he wants to keep them that way. He talked about how his kids got a good education in the Davis schools. What he argues mostly is that there is more than enough money to keep everything funded even with the cuts that come down from the state. His position comes from misreading budget numbers for the district, and he is too stubborn to recognize that misreading.
Davis schools are not broken, and they deliver a high-quality education. They can be improved, and they do improve each year. I think your opposition to Davis schools comes from anger over not availing yourself of choices that were available to you and your family. The only thing about that I concede is that the district doesn’t do a very good job of publicizing all of its programs. They need a public information office or official to aid in information flow within and without the district, but that hasn’t been viewed as a high enough priority.
Schools in a community will respond if there is enough local engagement and buy-in. Davis has that, most other California school districts don’t have it to the same degree as Davis. By responding to Serrano v. Priest ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serrano_v._Priest#Serrano_I_.281971.29[/url]) with more state level funding control, California schools have lost responsiveness to local level interests and values.
wdf1 above mentions Serrano v. Priest in regard to state funding and loss of responsiveness to local level interests and values. If I am not mistaken, Serrano v. Priest was important to even out dramatic disparities in school funding between “rich” and “poor” districts because of funding based on property tax. And so,
we are back to the same old system of “rich” district able to raise the funds and leaving “poorer” districts in their wake. I would say that the real problem is the extreme reduction in state funding and how the Davis parcel tax for to make up some of this difference would seem to me to violate the spirit, if not the Serrano v. Priest decision.
Nancy Price as a good handle on the genesis of this. It would be interesting to look at how “rich districts” augment state funding with parcel tax approvals as compared to “poor districts.” I wouldn’t be surprised if we’re back on the same old “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” track (just with a higher base level).
[i]”I think your opposition to Davis schools comes from anger over not availing yourself of choices that were available to you and your family. The only thing about that I concede is that the district doesn’t do a very good job of publicizing all of its programs. They need a public information office or official to aid in information flow within and without the district, but that hasn’t been viewed as a high enough priority. “[/i]
You are only partially correct here wdf1. Absolutely, the district does a crappy job publicizing all of its programs. But is more than that. Davis has a high percentage of affluent academics obsessively helicoptering over their little darlings… tutoring them, helping them, paying for supplemental education and training. The Davis school system and its employees are quite frankly spoiled and some are just plain lazy. They don’t have to put that much effort helping kids track along a path that gives them the best shot of success, because they have all these parents doing for them.
I have some points related to this.
One, it is worse in Davis than in other districts with more low income students lacking these top levels of parental support.
Two, it is worse than it was when I attended public school and had a sense that educators actually had some greater interest in helping me and other students optimize our tracking.
Three, we have crappy outcomes in general. When controlling for economic circumstances of student’s families Davis schools better perform, but not by enough of a gap to allow for bragging rights. And, the gap between the outcomes of affluent and low-income students and minority students is still substantially embarrassing
Four, outcome statistics for boys in general are on decline relative to the overall statistics for outcomes in general.
Five, times have changed. Not only are the choices and outcomes worse than when I went to school, with hyper global competition reducing the access to alternative paths for kids to reach their parent’s level of economic security are falling fast. Even is our education system was as good as it was in the 1970’s, it would still be far from adequate.
Six, knowing what I know today if my kids were entering Davis schools, I would have put them in private schools.
Mr. Granda and I might have had different experience with Davis schools, and his position might be different from that perspective, but we completely agree that we are spending too much for the product we are getting today. Mr. Granda might be happy with the status quo of Davis school quality, and just wants us to stop spending so much. I want us to stop spending so much and ALSO reform and improve. There is much less of a gap between mine and Mr. Granda’s position than there is between your and my position.
N. Price: DJUSD funds its students at or slightly below state average in recent years, even when you include school parcel taxes. DJUSD does not bring in as much money for free and reduced lunch or Title I connected programs. About 20% of Davis students are in free/reduced lunch. You can scour tons of data about this here ([url]http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/[/url]).
Most school parcel tax money makes up for what was cut from the district because of the state budget. Davis has been able to provide for more fiscal stability to weather those cuts from the state. Davis is hardly a rich district in California.
Governor Brown has proposed a “Local Control Funding Formula” (LCFF) that includes more money for districts with larger lower income populations. It hardly appears to be “local control” however, because the state is strict about what kinds of programs the extra money can go towards. Here is one recent op-ed ([url]http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-school-funding-jerry-brown-20130528,0,7667677.story[/url]) about the issue. LCFF may have already passed in a modified form — I need to catch up on reading about that issue.
Frankly: [i]…it is worse than it was when I attended public school…[/i]
[i]Not only are the choices and outcomes worse than when I went to school…[/i]
In part this is nostalgia, thinking about the good old days, etc. Second, it depends on who you were. If you were male, white, and/or ~middle income or above, you would likely have experienced a relatively
Also, I don’t think you have much of any authority to make your judgements. By your own admission, you don’t have time to get involved in volunteer work with the schools to see for yourself how things work. You have said you were too busy to be as involved when your kids were in school. You display a perspective of focusing on what you don’t have rather than what you do have.
If you read about the history of education in the U.S., it has forever been a scapegoat for everything that is wrong with society. Go spend some time reading archived newspaper stories on education from when you were in grade school and see if they reflect your impression of how great things were when you were in school at that time.
Overall schools are better now than when you and I were in school. More broadly, teachers are better trained, more information resources are available, more education options are available, and there is better uniformity of resources among school districts. Things can still be improved, and more true local control is one of those things.
[quote]Overall schools are better now than when you and I were in school.[/quote]
This statement is so not true.
I suspect it depends on how old you are and where you went to school. I grew up when schools were largely funded by property taxes, in an area with high property values. We had lots of enrichment programs and extras. The school district thirty miles away, much poorer, didn’t have those things.
[quote]but we completely agree that we are spending too much for the product we are getting today. [/quote]
70% of voter’s disagree with you.
[i]By your own admission, you don’t have time to get involved in volunteer work with the schools to see for yourself how things work. [/i]
You seem to keep falling back on a tactic of denegrating my time and my wife’s time and attention spent on our two kids as an explanation for their crappy Davis school experience. I could say that you need to get out more and talk to people outside of your bubble of self-congratulatory defense of the adult jobs program status quo we call education… but that would not be productive.
I have never said that I didn’t have time. I did volunteer work with the schools when my kids were in elementary school. My wife did a LOT of volunteer work up through Jr. High. She was the bank booster secretary for one year and then President for two years. My wife worked part time specifiacally because we both decided that the loss in income was a necessity for increasing the odds that we would succeed in raising good kids. We succeeded, However, we did buy the false advertisement about Davis’s great schools. I think they are better than average through 6th grade; but 7th-12th grade Davis schools suck for kids not gifted with academic genes and highly-educated parents with resources.
I didn’t have time to substitute for all the crappy teachers and crappy lack of engagement that our tax dollars is supposed to be paying for. Nobody should have to do this.
But no matter… there is not some “insiders only” mystery to how the schools operate. Any parent paying any attention will quickly understand the game.
[i]70% of voter’s disagree with you.[/i]
Not so. A majority of Davis voters have voted to tax themselves and others more to keep money flowing to the schools. Given that we are a university town, with a high percentage of voters that make their living from the education industry, why would we be surprised when they vote with a pack mentality for keeping education well-funded? And these industry-insiders know that their kids will do well enough because of the help they can provide. They know how to coach their kids to win the game, because they are playing it.
Then there is a percentage of voters that just don’t know any better. Their kids will suffer, lose interest and either drop out or barely gradute… but this is as good as it gets, right? Wrong.
Lastly, there are those that are protecting their property values propping up the myth of Davis schools.
[quote]However, we did buy the false advertisement about Davis’s great schools.[/quote]
Who falsely sold you this argument? And what data did they falsify to persuade you?
Also, how will drastically cutting funding to DJUSD make the schools better?
In 1971 the Beverly Hills school district was funded at a rate of $1,638/student and was considered to be a very good school district. Baldwin Park funded at a rate of $690/student and had less to offer. (1971 dollars)
Source: Musker, Charlotte, March 24, 1972, “School Finance, Serrano Decision,” Davis Enterprise, p. 9.
In 2011 Beverly Hills schools received revenue at a rate of $12,377/student, whereas Baldwin Park was at a rate of $9,587/student. That year Beverly Hills had 6% free/reduced lunch, Baldwin Park 60% free/reduced lunch. In that year DJUSD was funded at a rate of $8,659/student and had 21% free/reduced lunch. That includes local school parcel tax revenue. (2011 dollars)
source ([url]http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/[/url])
The reason that Beverly Hills fund at a notably higher rate is that they are a basic aid district ([url]http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_sys_revlimits.html[/url]), meaning that they get no state revenue to supplement their property tax funding of the schools, and in fact are allowed to keep excess property tax revenues to fund their schools.
“N. Price: DJUSD funds its students at or slightly below state average in recent years, even when you include school parcel taxes. DJUSD does not bring in as much money for free and reduced lunch or Title I connected programs.”
wdf1, thanks for the great site. It’ll take some time to figure out everything that’s there. But, in the meantime, help me understand your specific point. I understand including parcel taxes for every district, but why include lunch program reimbursements?
Also, it seems as though in order for Davis to be below the state average in education spending, a majority of the other districts also would need to have supplemental parcel taxes. What are the other variables that affect the level of school funding post Serrano v. Priest?
wdf1, To be able to make a claim that more money per student results in better outcomes, you would need to control for a number of criteria that you are not controlling for.
And there are plenty of contrasting cases that debunk this theory that just spending more money will do the trick. For example, you must know what we spend per student in DC. It is the second highest in the nation (just dropped below New York last year) and they still rank dead last in outcomes. Conversely, in Utah they are spending toward the bottom of the ranking of states spending per student and achieving outcomes at the top of the list. Idaho is another state where per student spending is at the low end and outcomes are at the top end.
Have you read about “lean operations”?
[quote][b]Definition[/b]
Lean operations are business practices that use as little time, inventory, supplies and work as possible to create a dependable product or service. The less that is used, the less waste occurs, and the more money the business saves.[/quote]
I think this is what Mr. Granda wants. Me too.
Parcel taxes: It’s not been mentioned that the folks at Rancho Yolo were able to create a special category for their share of school taxes. Most Rancho Yolo residents pay real estate taxes on their homes, and the Park owner pays property taxes on the land.
A very advantageous “mobile home park” rate was worked out just for Rancho Yolo.
“Frankly” is certainly correct that low income students in Davis are ignored and overlooked, and it’s clear they are not wanted in the Davis school system, no matter how upstanding and talented they are. The harm done to this group, and society in general as a result, is reprehensible.
Over the last five years DJUSD lost about $14 million in funding. We have gotten pretty lean.
Just Saying: [i]I understand including parcel taxes for every district, but why include lunch program reimbursements?[/i]
Free/reduced lunch is one measure of lower income levels in the district. Free/reduced lunch is also a qualifier ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_and_Secondary_Education_Act#Funding[/url]) for Title I funds, which are supplemental funds for instructional programs for lower income families.
[i]What are the other variables that affect the level of school funding post Serrano v. Priest?[/i]
Local/regional cost of living factors — it’s cheaper to live in Davis than San Francisco, for instance.
[quote]A very advantageous “mobile home park” rate was worked out just for Rancho Yolo. [/quote]
Those sneaky senior citizens living in mobile homes trying to get out of paying their fair share….glad you brought to light this injustice eagle eye.
So, Title 1 funds and state formula funds put poor districts ahead of Davis (even with our parcel taxes), by an allowance for high cost of living areas that include big low income populations? (And, why did you give me a link to the Aylesbury duck?)
…exacerbated by an allowance….
JustSaying: [i](And, why did you give me a link to the Aylesbury duck?)[/i]
Because I screwed up a link to wikipedia that explained Title I funding. This is the link in text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_and_Secondary_Education_Act#Funding
Maybe this link ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_and_Secondary_Education_Act#Funding[/url]) will work.
Frankly: [i]And there are plenty of contrasting cases that debunk this theory that just spending more money will do the trick. For example, you must know what we spend per student in DC. It is the second highest in the nation (just dropped below New York last year) and they still rank dead last in outcomes.[/i]
Right. How you spend the money, percent of low income families, culture of family and community involvement also make a difference. Some of those factors are in play for positive outcomes in Davis in spite of not having better funding. But it’s also ridiculous to think that you can get desired results and spend no money.
My point in presenting the Beverly Hills v. Baldwin Park numbers is that education funding has narrowed between more and less affluent districts. That was a concern for those who followed the Serrano case back in the 70’s, and is still very much referenced today.
Frankly: [i]And there are plenty of contrasting cases that debunk this theory that just spending more money will do the trick. For example, you must know what we spend per student in DC. It is the second highest in the nation (just dropped below New York last year) and they still rank dead last in outcomes.[/i]
Right. How you spend the money, percent of low income families, culture of family and community involvement also make a difference. Some of those factors are in play for positive outcomes in Davis in spite of not having better funding. But it’s also ridiculous to think that you can get desired results and spend no money.
My point in presenting the Beverly Hills v. Baldwin Park numbers is that education funding has narrowed between more and less affluent districts. That was a concern for those who followed the Serrano case back in the 70’s, and is still very much referenced today.
Sorry I ended up taking the rest of yesterday off, so in answer to this: “
David: Any idea on how, if the same thing happened here, this would play out. i.e. would apartment dwellers have to pay the same amount as single family homes?”
In a worse case scenario, I don’t think they could make apartment dweller pay the same rate as single family homes, what they would probably do is making apartment owners pay the same rate as single family homes, which would mean $202 for the entire parcel.
“”co-conspirators”? I think calling these brave stand up people conspirators is way over the top and uncalled for. Many in this town would call them heroes.”
That’s fine those people can write their own piece, this column was called “my view” not some in town’s view. By many, of course you mean, less than 31% of the voters.
That would be like me calling everyone who wrote up Measure E co-conspirators, but I refuse to stoop that low.
I think you’re blowing up my attempted playful rejoinder beyond it’s intended purpose, but I guess that does allow you to avoid the crux of the issue which is that Granda is claiming victory on a point that did not render victory even in the precedent setting case.
I don’t know, to me it didn’t come across as a “playful rejoinder”.
Beverly High has an oil well and mineral right left to it from Will Rogers.
Davis doesn’t get back to 2007 funding levels until 2017 under the new funding formula just Negotiated by Brown, Perez and Steinberg. Without supplemental support our schools will take a big hit.
It is hard for me to understand Granda’s position as anything more than an idealogue who on the one hand has been given much by this state but on the other doesn’t want to contribute. Sadly, he may win on this split roll issue damaging the schools here more than he can ever imagine.
Defamation/false light laws protect people from offensive and false facts stated about them to the public.
DMG’s tortious labeling of a person/people as “Co-conspirators” (libel) and publicly subjecting them in a false light may one day make a good blog story for an intern.
Hmmm…
[quote]Lean operations are business practices that use as little time, inventory, supplies and work as possible to create a dependable product or service. The less that is used, the less waste occurs, and the more money the business saves.[/quote]
I have two concerns with regard to using “lean operations” with which I am very familiar within the medical model, as principles for education.
The first is, I believe that “lean operations” are great if what you are doing is, for example, producing a product each unit of which is identical as in Oreo cookies or bolts of a certain size. But in education, this is, at least for me, not the goal. The goal is to identify individual needs, interests and learning styles and help each student based on their unique combination of traits to learn as much as possible in order to contribute maximally according to their unique skills sets. I do not believe that either our public nor our private educational institutions, in both of which I have participated, do a particularly good job in this regard. I do not have a panacea, but I am fairly sure that depriving our schools of money is not the right way to proceed.
My second issue is with the phrase “the more money the business saves.” This sounds good at first glance,
but then the question becomes, saves for what purpose ? Saves to invest further in the education of more people ? A worthy goal in my opinion. Saves to provide higher salaries for private school administrators, or more for investors or so that individual taxpayers do not have to make an investment in the future of our country. Not such a worthy goal in my opinion. The problem I have with the analogy is that it seems to ignore the differences in purpose of a private business which would seem to me to be profit for those running or investing in the company ( which by the way I do not see as “evil”) and the purpose of a public school system which to me would seem to be to optimize the education of its students. These goals are not identical nor should their approaches be in my opinion.
Frankly: [i]You seem to keep falling back on a tactic of denegrating my time and my wife’s time and attention spent on our two kids as an explanation for their crappy Davis school experience.[/i]
I am sorry for conveying that impression of yours and your wife’s involvement while your kids were in school. I applaud parent involvement and believe that regardless what kind of K-12 school/education one’s kids get, parent involvement is essential. I hold that education is a partnership that should always include parents whenever possible.
But you have certainly said that since your kids have left the Davis schools, you have no time for volunteer involvement, in spite of your demonstrated passion for this subject. I see what is happening at a ground level weekly, sometimes daily, not just w/ my own kid, but with dozens of kids. I see plenty of good work going on by teachers, staff, students, parents, and volunteers. And I see room for improvement. Your generalizations don’t match what I see with my own eyes, in person. You expect me to believe that I am deceived, based on limited data from a few years ago. And even after our pointing out options and programs that you overlooked, you appear to hang on to an outdated static impression from the past. You can make a good case for improvement in the schools, but a pie-in-the-sky bad case for tearing down the system.
Ok wdf1, fair enough. I don’t have time now, but I might going forward. What I will need to do is meet with people like yourself knowledgeable of the system and get some recommendations for how I could help.
But I don’t think lack of participation should disqualify a person from having an opinion. I have an opinion about US foreign policy and I don’t directly participate in setting it or administering it.
And, remember that I had two kids attend Davis schools from the beginning. My wife was a product of the Davis schools. I am not a neophyte when it comes to understanding the work being done or not being done.
[quote]wdf1
06/15/13 – 03:21 PM
…
DJUSD does not bring in as much money for free and reduced lunch or Title I connected programs. About 20% of Davis students are in free/reduced lunch. [/quote]
Does Title I funding go to the school district or to the individual schools that qualify. For example it is my understanding that 4 elementary schools in Davis qualify for Title I funding (because at least 35% of their students qualify for the free/reduced lunch program). Do these schools get the money or is it given to the district?
B. Nice: [i]Does Title I funding go to the school district or to the individual schools that qualify. For example it is my understanding that 4 elementary schools in Davis qualify for Title I funding (because at least 35% of their students qualify for the free/reduced lunch program). Do these schools get the money or is it given to the district?[/i]
If you look on the wiki link, there are different kinds & levels of Title I assistance. I think there is only one school in Davis that has more than 35% free/reduced lunch, and that’s Montgomery Elementary. I think it goes to the district and tagged for a given school.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is tied directly to Title I funding. If a school receives Title I funding, then it is subject to the restrictions of NCLB. If it doesn’t, then no potential NCLB sanctions. Some districts have opted not to accept Title I funding because of the NCLB restrictions. I think that may include some schools in Davis.
As I understand it 4 elementary schools in Davis qualify for Title I Funding and take it, Montgomery, Birch Lane, Patwin, and North Davis (all of which are in Program Improvement). According to an article by Jeff Hudson, next year North Davis will no longer have enough low income student to qualify for Title I funding and thus will no longer be in P.I.
It was hard for me to discern from the wiki link how the No Child Left program determines who qualifies for funding, wether individual schools do, or wether districts do. It seems like there are multiply ways to qualify. Basically I’m confused but curious :-).
eagle: [i]It’s not been mentioned that the folks at Rancho Yolo were able to create a special category for their share of school taxes. Most Rancho Yolo residents pay real estate taxes on their homes,[/i]
Rancho Yolo dwellings (trailers) are assessed as multi-unit, like apartments.