By Nicholas von Wettberg
Davis voters can expect to see a revised school parcel tax on the November general election ballot.
Residents have relied on supplemental funding to assist their schools for the past 32 years.
An exact amount is still up in the air, but taxpayers are assured of the cost being slightly more than that of Measures C and E, which sunset at the end of the year. These measures provide a total of $531 currently.
At their meeting on Thursday, June 2, the Davis Joint Unified School District (DJUSD) school board was unable to reach a final decision – mostly between the quantities of $620 and $750.
There was some discussion over the sum of $960, which, if approved, would place Davis firmly in the state’s top-10 for district funding.
No matter the final amount, the measure will be paid annually for a total of eight years.
That Thursday evening was also the same night the school board announced the hiring of a new district superintendent, Dr. John Bowes, effective July 1.
The board appeared happy with its appointment in leadership.
While there’s always pressure to make a district-wide move, stakeholders heard that trustees did their due diligence, traveling down to Palos Verdes – where Bowes worked the past few years as associate superintendent – for a lay of the land.
One would think that in addition to credentials (Dr. Bowes has over two decades in the Los Angeles USD), meeting with dozens of people Dr. Bowes had recently worked with – and worked for (namely, the parents) – provides an ample cross-section of feedback, if properly weighted.
As for impact on the Davis community, the school parcel tax is essential to the district, an average-funded one, to make ends meet.
The $620 amount, which was the number recommended to the school board on June 2 by the EMC Research Company, would calculate to roughly 12 percent of the overall budget and provide the district $9.5 million in supplemental funding.
EMC conducted two separate telephone surveys – one in April, the other in May. Each time they interviewed 400 “likely” Davis voters.
The first survey centered on interest in the initial measure at $620 for eight years, which, among other things, calls for maintaining academic, arts and music programs, and retaining “high-quality” teachers. While representing a slight increase from the current funding level, this proposed amount is necessary to maintain the status quo.
Also included in the first survey were questions that gauged the initial level of interest for a potential $750 parcel tax for eight years.
Ruth Bernstein of EMC explained that they had no clean read of approval interest, however, regarding the $750 amount, because the survey results were biased – those surveyed had first been asked about their approval of a $620 tax.
The difference translates to an increase of around $10 per month.
She said that, considering the order of questioning, there was strong support for a measure at $750, with a 64-percent solid yes, but it was still lower than the 71-percent solid yes for the lesser amount.
This happened after the board had just finished hearing a report about the firm’s follow-up, or second survey, on the accelerated $960 measure for eight years.
Trustees requested the second survey, using the higher amount, in some ways to gauge the spending climate of the community because they were intrigued by the April responses in regard to the $750 amount.
While the $960 parcel tax drew in the survey nowhere near the two-thirds support that would be needed for passage, with 55 percent of the voters responding a solid yes to approving the measure, the numbers did indeed show strong support.
DJUSD Associate Superintendent Bruce Colby said there are very few districts receiving $1,000 – maybe some districts in Palo Alto, Santa Clara or Marin, and a few others down in Southern California. Incidentally, Palos Verdes, where the new superintendent comes from, is one.
Caring about the programs is a big factor, according to Ms. Bernstein, but equally important is whether voters would be comfortable with the amount they’re asked to approve.
“So they’re responding to what is in front of them, which is, in this one case, it could be 620 (dollars) it could be 960, it could be some other amount that you decide, but that’s what they basically are reacting to – the programs…do I care about schools, improving academics?” Bernstein said.
She compared the surveying process to doing fundraising calls.
“It’s the same thing, when you actually call someone and say ‘can you give a donation of 100 dollars?’ People are going to say that’s too much, some people will say wait, you should have asked me for more. So, we don’t know what the right exact amount is, we also don’t know what voters are going to feel like in November.”
At that point, trustee Alan Fernandes said he “looks at the decision in two ways.”
The first point he made was that the board had to make a decision on the exact amount. Before Fernandes could finish making the comment, Board President Madhavi Sunder said, “today.”
The second point of Fernandes’ echoed what Bernstein had reasoned, in how important it is to have a good idea of what the measure actually funds.
By the end of the discussion, which included its share of amended motions and the such, trustee Fernandes – whose name is sure to appear on the same ballot as the measure in November – joined forces with the board’s Susan Lovenburg (the other member whose seat is up in November) in asking for a $750 school parcel tax.
Sunder also sided with a $750 measure for eight years.
Interestingly, the rainy-day reserve funds brought up by Fernandes would be enough of a game-changer for him to seriously consider proposing the $960 amount, recognizing that it received 61-percent support in the follow-up survey.
School board member Tom Adams voted to approve a measure that would be for $700 for eight years, while board Vice-President Barbara Archer gave an impassioned plea why fiscal prudence on the part of the district may be the best course of action.
Out of all the options, Archer felt most comfortable sticking with the sure shot approach, at $620.
Next up for discussion and action is drawing up the official 75-word measure that voters will see on the ballot, and unanimously agreeing on an exact amount.
Along with the regular meeting, scheduled for Thursday, June 16, there will be one, maybe two special board meetings held on the topic, at the end of the month.
As someone who obviously has no experience with school funding, the way we approach these funding measures has always baffled me. These surveys ask what you are willing to give, without specifying what you get in return. We do not do this with other things that we buy. If I am buying a pair of shoes, I know what I am getting and whether or not they are worth the price to me. And yet in funding, we are asked how much we are willing to “buy” with no certainty of what we are getting. What I would like to see is a concise list of what programs would be cut, maintained or added at the $620, the $750 and the $960 level. I would also prefer to know what is meant by terms such as “high quality teachers”.
Can someone explain to me why we handle school funding like the party game in which you choose a package without knowing its contents ?
Hi Tia,
I would be very happy to meet with you for coffee one day soon to talk shop about the parcel tax and surrounding issues. Let me know if you are interested and let me know how I can contact you.
Thanks,
Greg
Hi Greg,
Hi Greg
I would be happy to get together with you to discuss parcel tax, and probably many other issues. David can give you my private email. As you might imagine, I would prefer not to post it on the Vanguard. I did that a long time ago with less than optimal results.
Also, I obviously missed your first post. Sorry for the unnecessary post.
“You mention that David commented toward me? I don’t see it. Can you point it out?”
Unfortunately no. I could have sworn it was there but since I can’t find it now can only come to one of two conclusions, it was pulled for some reason, or more likely I was hallucinating as I had not yet had my first morning coffee which seems to be increasingly critical to my am functioning.
Thanks Tia – I don’t blame ya. I wouldn’t either.
You can easily find me on FB as well if you are there.
-Greg
Not only is there virtually no information on what we get for the parcel tax other than “trust us,” we now learn that the least trustworthy of the school board members is going to run for re-election – Lovenburg.
I think we need a poll a week before the election. If she is doing well in the poll, then it’s “no” on any parcel tax. If the citizens of Davis are rejecting as they should, then a generous parcel tax would be in order.
Napoleon Pig, many a woman has gotten pregnant after she listened to a man telling her, “Trust me.”
And many a man, being told “trust me”, being told that the woman was using contraceptives, ended up paying for child support… the saw cuts both ways…
You won’t get any argument from me . . . with the operative word being “cuts.”
NPIV –
What information are you interested in – the set of programs involved? The $620 is a renewal, including everything it currently pays for. If you want a list of those, they are readily available in Enterprise archives and on the District website (on this pdf), as well as the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee Reports. As well, there is the District Dollars website created as a way to communicate funding issues in a transparent way.
The additional amount being considered? Here are a few write ups about it, and you can watch old meetings to hear more.
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/school-board-cant-agree-on-parcel-tax-amount/
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/school-board-fills-three-administrative-posts-commissions-parcel-tax-poll/
More here: http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/parcel-tax-renewal-details-on-board-agenda/
My belief: At one of the board meetings, I made public comment and advocated that if they choose to increase the tax more than a renewal, that the funds go directly to fund program support for our youngest students. If we can catch all students at the earliest points and make sure they have the math, reading, and emotional/counseling support, we will find that it helps not only close the achievement gap, but will support all students to be more advanced learners as they get older.
Greg,
Thanks for the information and the links to more information. This is helpful, and I’ll read the material.
You are probably helping a lot of people make an informed decision, and I appreciate your efforts.
Let’s cut to the chase… are teachers (and, administrators, other staff) willing to accept true inflation increases ONLY on total comp (salary and benefits) during the term of the proposed parcel tax?
That is what seems to be demanded for municipal folk if a parcel tax will be accepted on the municipal side…[and many want even further “haircuts” on the municipal side]
“An exact amount is still up in the air, but taxpayers are assured of the cost being considerably more than the past measure (E), which sunsets at the end of June.”
If the cost is more than in the past, I will certainly NOT vote for it. Tia makes an excellent point: “These surveys ask what you are willing to give, without specifying what you get in return.” From where I sit, the achievement gap is still there, despite having more money thrown at it. We’ve had money wasted as in Volleyball gate, good schools closed as in Valley Oak, good programs shrunk like GATE, despite giving more money to the schools. Why in the heck would I want to give them more to waste?
I won’t either especially when we know the city will be coming after us for a road’s parcel tax and the County going after a sales tax increases.
Seems you value roads more than kids.
Seems you have no clue, where have I ever stated that?
In your post above mine.
No, I’m against raising the school parcel tax because we have more taxes coming. I simply agreed with Anon that if the school parcel tax is raised I won’t be voting for it.
The quote you mention is incorrect and incomplete. Please see my comment below.
Anon
“Why in the heck would I want to give them more to waste?”
Perhaps because you are also giving them more to educate ? No one is going to agree with every action of a school board. Some will always value some programs more and be perfectly happy to see others ended. So are we going to choose not to educate the students in order to punish the trustees ?
I am now going to ask you the same question that you asked me when I was undecided about Nishi. What are your alternatives to educate the current students in our public schools if not through our taxes ?
I’ll answer that. The DJUSD needs to use our current tax money more efficiently and wisely instead of always coming after the taxpayers for more and more funds. When they tell us a tax is only temporary for an emergency stop gap they need to stick with what they originally said.
BP
1. I was actually asking for specifics. I don’t think it is enough to say “efficient” and “wisely” without defining what that would look like in the actual schools. What do you have in mind ? Larger class sizes, less science classes, less arts, less sports….?
2. I do not see any contradiction in saying that emergency funding is necessary during a recession, and then years later saying that more money is necessary again….perhaps partially due to that pesky little thing called inflation. Again, I would ask what can you name that has gone down significantly in price.
DJUSD is disadvantaged in two ways, we get less of a baseline take from the state and we get less in lcff. In this community we should ask for what we need, and most often we will get it.
Inflation has been tame, at least that’s what our gov’t keeps telling us.
Like I stated in an earlier thread, please go for the higher amount, it will be so much easier to defeat.
They fund what we have at about as efficient a rate as one can get. California on average spends per student at less than the national average. DJUSD spends per student at less than the state average.
They have never run a true campaign for these things. They may have to fight for a higher amount, but I think you’ll be surprised by how weak the opposition is – no one except for the Granda’s is going to want to mount an opposition campaign to the parcel tax.
Tia.. given ‘power’ for the dollar, cell phones and computers are consistently going down in price for over 30 years now…
Recent school boards have spent a lot of political capital and are playing with fire if they think the voters are in the mood to give them more money. They hired people to tell them what the voters are willing to pony up then they wasted more on a senseless study to see if there way a way to get even more money out of the taxpayers. Ridiculous. It was obvious from the first study what the outcome of the second study would show. Makes me wonder about some current board members as fiduciaries. Sadly being a fiduciary is the main responsibility of the trustees.
This board needs to keep the parcel tax where it is or lower it, not raise it. The people of this community stepped up during hard economic times to support its schools but they did so after being told there was a funding emergency. Today the case for a funding emergency has passed and the only emergency that exists is the one created by using one time money for ongoing expenses. The Trustees have created a mess by entering into contracts that guarantee things they can only afford if the community passes parcel taxes. As a result it seems there is no reassessment to measure if programs are still needed or warranted but instead we seem to be on autopilot because we can’t change things that were allowed to be made contractual.
My advise to the district would be to keep the parcel taxes at a level equal to the amounts from the two taxes that are expiring. If anything they might add a cost of living adjustment in future years to account for inflation by tying any increase to a well known benchmark like the CPI. But asking for an increase in the parcel taxes by the Trustees should be seen as a non-starter.
Amen!
Just one more example of wasted funds: “They hired people to tell them what the voters are willing to pony up then they wasted more on a senseless study to see if there way a way to get even more money out of the taxpayers.” I am not voting to give them more to waste.
Misanthrope, I agree. That was my point above.
Misanthrop
“Recent school boards have spent a lot of political capital and are playing with fire if they think the voters are in the mood to give them more money”
I think that you have identified the key to how differently we see this issue. You see the tax as “giving them ( the school board) more money. I do not see this as a gift to the school board, but rather support for the education of our students. For those of you who were educated in the public schools, I would ask you to stop a moment and consider the consequences for you if your parents and members of your community had decided to “punish” the school board by not funding your education.
Just as I asked Anon, what is your alternative to funding the public schools ? And a second question. On what are you basing your decision that the maximal amount should be what the last tax was or lower. I cannot think of much else that has decreased in price through the years. What is your factual basis for claiming that education is less expensive today than it was previously and thus should need less funding ?
I support the parcel tax but my point is that there are others who don’t for various reasons including the performance of some members of the Board of Trustees and decisions they have made that effect the willingness of the voters to trust them as fiduciaries. The more they ask for the harder it will be to get the needed votes. My advice is to keep it low. Just as I predicted asking for more would not poll well and was a waste of money I’m saying if they ask for two much they risk the catastrophic outcome of the voters saying no.
The polling doesn’t bear out your contention. 80% at $620, 61% at $960
“This is just a renewal, we had to increase it a bit due to accounting changes from the state” is going to sell a lot better than “this is an increase, we need more money for undetermined or unexplained reasons.”
My advice is to state upfront what you need and what you need it for
The polling does support my contention and of course the polling has a margin of error. $620 polls well and that is the renewal amount. Some where between $620 and $960 there is a break point where you don’t get 2/3. You want to play with fire and risk asking for more. Go ahead but are you going to help write out the 100 or so pink slips that get issued if they get it wrong? My argument is they need to play it safe. While its true that the comments section of The Vanguard tends to be a more fiscally conservative group than the community as a whole I have seen an inordinate number of comments ripping the school parcel taxes and despite the polls it makes me worried.
My advice is ask for what you think you need, not what you think you will get.
Misanthrop: My advise to the district would be to keep the parcel taxes at a level equal to the amounts from the two taxes that are expiring.
That’s what the $620 option is.
If anything they might add a cost of living adjustment in future years to account for inflation by tying any increase to a well known benchmark like the CPI.
That’s what they have done with recent school parcel taxes. That’s likely what they will propose for November.
Yes, but there is chatter that they want to ask for more and I fear doing so is risky especially when failure means massive layoff and cuts to some good programs like music and librarians.
Does the parcel tax have a letter or number associated yet?
I will help lead the NO campaign… gotta start gearing up…..
If they have any hopes of it passing, they better reinstate the third strand of GATE asap and reinstate Deanne, if she wants to come back.
Think I am kidding?
Marina
“If they have any hopes of it passing, they better reinstate the third strand of GATE asap and reinstate Deanne, if she wants to come back.
Think I am kidding?”
I do not think that you are kidding. What I do think is that you are demonstrating an inability to think beyond your personal desires. What you have effectively said is “If I don’t get my way, I will help to defund education for our current students until I do get my way”. This is not my idea of support for education.
You are exactly right. Yet, this is also the sort of tack you take when we are talking about economic development in town. If Marina is wrong here, then so are you. Perhaps you will remember this comment to Marina the next time you make an ‘I will support it if…’ or ‘I won’t support it unless…’ statement about a proposed development project.
Mark
“Yet, this is also the sort of tack you take when we are talking about economic development in town”
It is interesting to me that you do not seem to make a distinction between defunding what already exists, namely our education system which current students depend upon, and not favoring something that does not yet exists and which no one is dependent upon ( since it does not yet exist).
Marina, In this case I tend to agree with you. I am new o Davis and don’t have a good handle on the SB issue yet though I am on a number of parent newsletters and have children in three DJU schools. The AIM issue seems to indicate that the board is going in the opposite direction of the parents. The achievement gap is not going to be important to activist parents as our children are unlikely to be under preforming. Kids who are under preforming are much more likely to come from non-engaged households so catering to them will not build votes. People generally want higher preforming options so reducing AIM is clearly not what we want to see.
Again I am new here so am still trying to understand what people mean by their code words. “The best education for every child” is what people say though the district cannot do everything for everybody who says that is trying to hide their agenda.
Mr. von Wettberg,
I will assume it was an unintended error on your part, but you have posted incorrect and partial information.
From your piece:
This is a partial truth that leads you to a non truth.
There are two taxes currently on the books, Measure C and Measure E. They total together, $531 at current. Both sunset at the end of this year.
Due to the Borikas case in the Ca SC and thanks to Granda’s lawsuit, the district had to change the way that the parcel tax worked midstream, and due to that, if we want to keep things exactly the way they are in the schools, the amount needed is $620. That keeps all programs currently funded through the parcel taxes (7th period, all elem and some jr. high music, all librarians, all elem science, etc) going with no loss of program or opportunity.
This is not “considerably more” as you put it. That increase keeps us at the exact level of program and opportunity we have this year.
Leaving out that fact completely changes the intention and idea of your piece. Please amend your article to reflect all the facts, and please change your opinions (the “considerably more” phrase) to be based on all the facts.
Respectfully,
Greg Brucker
PS> Once again, it was a very poorly designed and written “study” – and typical for the type of stuff I’ve seen come out of this school board… I wasted WAY too much time on it.
They didn’t care that I was concerned about anything and would not be voting yes, they only wanted to find out what pricepoint they could ask for – HUH???
Just because the residents in Davis always support the parcel taxes, now they assume that this one will pass?
Don’t they get they have pissed off some of most intelligent in town? those whose children are not in GATE because of the “fill in the blanks” on the school board majority….
They have also pissed off some of the lesser intelligent people in town like myself. Whatever your intelligence you only get one vote.
Misanthrop
Thanks for my first Vanguard induced smile of the day. And thank heavens that what you wrote is still true.
“Just because the residents in Davis always support the parcel taxes, now they assume that this one will pass?”
I think it is precisely because they are not assuming that it will pass that they chose to do the survey’s.
It will take a campaign to do it – the district is assuming nothing. Although the polling is clearly encouraging.
As long as they listen to what the people they hired told them but several board members seem to be going rogue. They also don’t seem to be worried about people like Marina, who are really quite angry and might very well vote to take their ball and go home. I’m not sure these people will get in line and they will be willing to punish the kids because they are angry at the adults. Sad but true.
Look at the polling – why are you over-weighing anecdotal evidence?
Because the anecdotal evidence seems to be mounting up and polls aren’t perfect either. Hillary was supposed to win CA by 2 points according to several respected polls but the 400,000 early ballot margin seems to be holding up. That margin was reflected anecdotally in the polling. Why are you so dismissive of anecdotal evidence?
I’m not outright dismissive of it, but the polling should be more systematic and avoid the loudest person in the room phenomenon. I also believe we need to ask for what we need, not simply what we think we can get here. Part of Alan’s suggestion is to create a rainy day fund. Create a campaign, run it like a campaign, and I think we can win even with some discomfort in the community.
Do you mean the discomfort of some struggling homeowners having to dig even deeper to try and pay over-inflated property taxes?
No. I mean people who have issues with the school district.
I would recommend to all, that instead of a 7th period, that the students go to DSIS and support that, and then they can take Sac City and UC classes at will to truly get a hands up to whatever university…
Sac city and UCD….and then they can graduate early, or take their time to graduate and participate more…
Both of my sons did, because even the 7th period did not allow enough options…
Back then, we did not have such a great thing as Sac City on the campus nor enough options…and now between that and UCD< and Sac State not far etc….we don’t need a 7th period…
MK: I would recommend to all, that instead of a 7th period, that the students go to DSIS and support that, and then they can take Sac City and UC classes at will to truly get a hands up to whatever university…
Doesn’t work that way:
You have to commit to 4 or more classes at DSIS to enroll there. DSIS can work for students who don’t require supervision, or else a parent is free enough from work commitments to be around to supervise. Also, taking classes at City College or UCD might make sense for some students at the HS level. There are very few students at the JH level for whom that would make sense.
in the late 80s and early 90s there were some boys in the GATE class who took the bus to Sac City from Valley Oak everyday for advanced math as they had exhausted the math opportunities in Davis…later JoAnne Moldenhaur (RIP) got the AP Calculuas BC to DHS….it was a course that was on the transcript as a DHS course AND on the Sac City transcript as a traditional Calc BC level course… ..that meant the elementary children who were on Calculus could go to DHS.
Some here do not understand that there are myriads of gifted children for whom the common core curriculum is stifling and that is why the huge effort to get out of the mainstream, as the mainstream is not adequate for the majority of bright children in town…
furthermore, children from families who are immigrants, like me and also my children, where English is a second or in my case was a third language, it matter not what language is spoken at the home…if the parents are educated and the child learned to read early, picking up another language is nothing
if the parents are illiterate, it is much more of a challenge….and that is also why private testing should be allowed and encouraged…….a colleague’s daughter is truly dying under common core…but she didn’t get the proper testing….of course, she is a white girl and not a “minority” so not as desireable for her to be in the Gate with her peers….instead, her family has hired tutors to MAKE her do the coursework…
MK: …later JoAnne Moldenhaur (RIP) got the AP Calculuas BC to DHS….it was a course that was on the transcript as a DHS course AND on the Sac City transcript as a traditional Calc BC level course… ..that meant the elementary children who were on Calculus could go to DHS.
And it still exists at DHS. See DHS catalog. I don’t know whether elementary students go to DHS or not. I know of one elementary student who currently attends college level math classes.
MK: …common core curriculum is stifling…
I have a student in the district taking common core classes right now. I had students in the district taking what existed before common core. I don’t see a whole lot of difference in the curriculum from what existed before, particularly in math. Other subjects have not been rolled out enough for me to evaluate. I have issues with some of the CC reading standards for kindergarten and 1st grade, but that has to do with the expectation that students at that age should be reading at a level that may not be realistic for all students. So far I don’t see the standards as any more or less stifling than what existed before. Maybe you can be more specific.
I do have issues with standardized testing.
MK: if the parents are illiterate, it is much more of a challenge….and that is also why private testing should be allowed and encouraged…….
I assume you mean AIM/GATE identification. Do you think illiterate parents will likely have the income and extra money to afford private testing? Why not make the district responsible for any such testing so that it isn’t a financial burden?
In the old AIM/GATE program, which is currently in force, 82% of the participating students have parents who have a graduate or professional degree. 2% come from families with high school diploma or less.
and yes, missi, sadly the trustees are not the “typical” sorts of folks who usually sit on such boards in “college towns” and it is becoming clearer and clearer to me that we need people like John Munn back, if he would be so willing…
the current bunch forgets their “fiduciary responsibilities” and that they serve at the will of the people, which includes parents and grandparents of the GATE children….and also includes those children who used to be in GATE and now have their own children or hope to someday….and many other parents who have children with challenges on the other end of the spectrum…
Brother, I just wish you would stop posting inaccurate nonsense.
There’s a lot of people who post nonsense on here, I’m sure some will say I and you often do, but I don’t think anyone should be trying to discourage someone from airing their views.
The Pugilist wrote:
> I just wish you would stop posting inaccurate nonsense.
I have noticed that when people actually post something “inaccurate” that others will post the “accurate” information and often link to a source document (like earlier in the week when someone posted the wrong election results) while when someone posts something that someone else “does not like” they just post that it is “inaccurate” or “nonsense” with no specifics or anything to back up what they are saying…
Marina
Do you honestly believe that the sole responsibility of the board members is to protect your favored program. Do you believe that there are not pressures from other groups of parents with other priorities. Have you ever held a public office and been in the position of having to balance the goals of many different groups each advocating actively for what they see as most important.
We get it. You are angry about Gate. Does that mean that you truly do not give a damn about the rest of the students ?
This is also only partial information, with a dose of incorrect information.
The $620 passed on a 5-0 vote, and the $750 passed on a 3-2 vote with Archer and Adams voting no.
The board will be deciding soon which they will go with.
David –
I appreciate you fixing this:
But I think the Vanguard owes the community at large a statement of retraction and inaccuracy, because just changing it without acknowledging it is not enough.
And a public flogging.
LOL….the DV is full of inaccurate info and many also post whatever nonsense they please without any docs….I get asked for docs, but I truly don’t have time to go digging….
Greg Brucker
I am not sure if you are aware that this is not a “Vanguard article” in the sense of being written by David. The author is Nicholas von Wettberg who may or may not even be following the comments section. When I have submitted articles in the past, I have made the commitment to follow the comments and respond as indicated as my work schedule allowed. To the best of my knowledge, the Vanguard has not formalized a requirement for authors to do so. It would seem to me that David’s comment of appreciation to you is a Vanguard acknowledgement of error and appreciation for correction.
Thanks Tia – I did indeed know it was Mr. von Wettberg as noted in my first post a ways up-he has been writing for the VG for a while. You mention that David commented toward me? I don’t see it. Can you point it out?
Many thanks,
Greg
both of my sons took various courses at DSIS to “supplement” their elementary and other years.
They were enrolled at Valley Oak or wherever the bulk of the coursework was, and took a class here and there at DSIS.
Is that no longer the case nor allowed?
The youngest graduated in 2004, that was 12 years ago, so it that has changed, it needs to be changed back.
My youngest was studying Russian through UW correspondence school,
my oldest traditional algebra at DSIS when the pink book versus red book fight broke out, and so forth…
My oldest also did higher level Spanish than what was offered at the HS through DSIS and I paid for a tutor to assist, as I was always a single mom working fulltime…
You (your kids) also benefited from school parcel taxes that were in force when your kids were in Davis schools.
yes, and I always supported and voted and campaigned and paid FOR the taxes……
Davis schools are not what they once were…and there are many reasons for that.
parents need to be more involved – it is never about the money, but it is about the poor decisions and people making decisions who are kinda clueless…..those who have not studied gifted and talented education should bow out and listen to experts….
instead, they are sitting smug on the school board….
This is an opportunity to get parents back in charge….
Marina, all 5 board members are parents of students who are currently enrolled in the schools, or have just graduated.
As a teacher, I believe that all 5 of our board members have all of our students’ best interests in mind, as well as us, the teachers, and though they all may not agree on path, they are all 100% here to support all students, and all of us as educators, and therefore the whole community.
BP
“Do you mean the discomfort of some struggling homeowners having to dig even deeper to try and pay over-inflated property taxes?”
Or do you mean the discomfort of those who have plenty and simply dislike the thought of anyone asking them to make a monetary contribution to the community ? I am sure that both groups exist in our very affluent little community. One problem is that for those who post anonymously there is no way of telling to which group they are more likely to belong or “represent”.
So do you think there aren’t any struggling homeowners with families in this community who are struggling to get by? What does someone posting anonymously have anything to do with it?
BP: So do you think there aren’t any struggling homeowners with families in this community who are struggling to get by?
Yes, I know some. They live in Davis because they want to put their kids in Davis schools and they like the community. They in particular have benefited from the school parcel taxes.
So how do they afford to pay for the higher and ever higher school parcel taxes?
They manage. We were such a family in our early years in the district.
It always strike me as funny how when liberals talk of taking money from struggling people that they say they can manage as long as the money is going to something they promote. Otherwise they cry that poor people can’t even afford to buy their own flouride toothpaste.
In earlier decades, a conservative would likelier have argued that local communities should be responsible for funding local schools. Liberals would have argued more for state and federal funds to fill that need. It sounds like you are an old school liberal on this issue.
I see the typical folks are out bashing me again…. listen and you MIGHT learn something – or otherwise, really I don’t care what the mediocre of the mediocre think about anything I say….have a good weekend….I am trying to stay out of this idiocy here and attacks on me when the real idiots should just look in the mirror
as a truly struggling single mom, who lived for my sons and gave them every opportunity, those who have not walked in my shoes should stop spewing their hateful agenda….
as I say, idiots, everywhere!!!!!!!!
PS> as a “senior” I can now get exemptions….and as a woman who worked hard and made difficult choices every day, I now have the means to get things done…and believe it or not, I do, and still do and still will…. it is not a good use of my time to lower myself to the idiocy here….
you will see me elsewhere though…
Marina
“ it is not a good use of my time to lower myself to the idiocy here….”
you will see me elsewhere though”
If the recent past is any indication, we will see you here again in short order.
I would not only vote for, but would campaign for a $960 parcel tax if the teachers union was willing to drop their requirement that layoffs be done by seniority only. Instead they should be done by job proformance. Otherwise I am not sure I can continue to support spending money on low proforming teachers that can’t be fired.
Sam – as a union site rep for many years in the DTA, I can assure you that the union on the whole will never change that without the CTA as an overall organization being ready to make the move, and as has been discussed in many a long comment over the years, there is not enough agreement on how to implement a performance standard that is fair and appropriate, while ensuring abuse can’t happen by administrators.
Having said all that, if your vote depends on what the union does, and you’re basing your vote on whether or not you like some of the teachers, I’d ask you to think first about the students’ needs, interests, and opportunities, as that is what this parcel tax, and all parcel taxes, are about here in Davis. This isn’t about teachers. This is about students and their ability to have a wonderfully vast selection of opportunities to help them find their passion in education, so they may help themselves (and us as educators help them) to develop their skills, knowledge base, and width of experience, to be able to move on past the K-12 system into whatever direction they want to go to become productive members of our society. We want to see them find what they love, have the opportunity to learn about it, and then use that experience to help them make great decisions about their futures, whatever that path may be.
I might know more than anyone that read this article this morning about the financial and educational effects of the parcel tax measures on DJUSD. I also understand the educational impact of handing out pink slips to your newest and most energetic teachers for several years in a row while at the same time keeping underperforming teachers just because they have been there longer. The teachers union has been complaining that it is difficult to attract young teachers because Davis pays less than other districts in the area. New teachers would flock to Davis if they knew they would not automatically be laid off like in every other district in California.
Just about every other profession in the world has some sort of way to judge employee performance. Just because the CTA is unwilling to have its teachers evaluated does not prevent you from creating a system in Davis. It seems like a fair trade off when you are asking the public to fund 12% of the District’s budget and save your member’s jobs.
CTA isn’t opposed to teachers being evaluated and every district I know of has a method for doing so. You seem to have drunk the reformer kook-aid but let me raise a few issues that perhaps you haven’t though about. There are two sides to evaluations and because of personnel issues we don’t know if administrators are doing their part to document teachers who aren’t getting the job done. From what I have seen I think its clear that the principals know who teachers are who aren’t cutting it. I know the parents know and the kids know so its fair to assume the principals know too. So, my question is what are the principals doing to deal with their problem teachers? Are they doing the evaluations, providing corrective measures, compiling documentation and the other work to take the appropriate action if needed? My hope is that the new Superintendent, who has some background in HR, will set the expectation for the administrators to do their jobs. Its one of the reasons why they get higher pay. Before we put all the blame on teacher unions let’s make sure that the district is living up to its responsibilities.
What “strawman”? I was going off what appeared to be a plain reading of what you wrote… what nuance am I missing, in your view?
And I was going off of a plain reading of what you wrote, hpierce – in that you were inferring we didn’t have any performance based evaluations. We do. That is the straw man.
If you were referring specifically to the RIF process, it wasn’t clear in your post, and I’ll state it again: At this point, without consensus on how it can work to make it a fair process for teachers that has abuse prevention and protection, changing the process to a performance based system from a seniority based system in the RIF process will not happen locally. If you think it is unprofessional for me to state this, I will tell you tell you that your use of that term is uncalled for and inappropriate, only undermining any point you’re trying to make.
Sam: Instead they should be done by job proformance.
Based on what? Determined by whom?
Sam and wdf1
I agree with both Sam’s comment and wdf1’s question about the setting of standards and how that should be accomplished. This is not a trivial question and as someone who has 25 years experience in hiring and evaluating the work and fit of junior doctors for advancement, this is something on which I can speak.
I think that a system which takes into account numerous critical aspects of teaching could be devised just as we have a system for evaluating residents and non partner physicians. We make assessments based on a number of criteria:
1. The assessment of the individual of how good a fit they are for our department.
2. The assessment of their peers on how the individual works with others. Are they a cooperative team player or do they care only about their own patients and their own time ?
3. How effective is the care they provide ? Do their patient’s objectively do well with high rates of successful treatment and low rates of complications ?
4. The assessment of other members of the care team ? Do they work well with the nurse’s, the medical assistants, consultants and physicians from other disciplines ?
5. Subjective input from patient’s and/or families on how effective the doctor was in meeting the needs of the patient .
6. Credentialing and maintenance of competencies.
It really is not that difficult to set up a system that is capable of determining “best fit”. I do no believe that it would be impossible in our education system any more than it is in a large medical system.
These systems exist and the process was recently reformed by the legislature to reduce the time it takes to remove problem teachers. The problem is that often times administrators don’t do the work required. Another thing people often overlook is that most struggling teachers resign before the process plays out in full so the public rarely sees the system working except in the most unusual circumstances. This is partly why half of beginning teachers leave within the first five years. Yet when I see teachers who remain in the classroom but have the same concerns raised year after year, and, it seems administrators aren’t engaged in addressing those issues, I don’t think you can absolve those administrators of their responsibility for getting a handle on the situation.
Tia…
Meant as an honest friendly question [actually ‘questions‘]… do the Kaiser doctors acquire “tenure”? Does someone, @ say, your level/time of service have annual evaluations? Are they “360”, or only by someone higher up in the food chain? [end of question/comment regarding Tia’s post]
I believe a good system would be something approaching “360”… for teachers that would include input from parents, aides, co-workers, and led by the senior administrative staff.
I understand concerns from teachers (particularly the lower performing ones) that performance might be judged capriciously/arbitrarily, but to say that because of any risk of it, true performance evals should not occur, and/or possibly be used as a criteria if a RIF occurs, is wearing VERY thin… despite what the union says, there are, and have been mediocre (or worse). Teachers, if they wish to assert their professional status, should not be able “hide behind” union ‘rules’…
To say that DTA will not consider performance based evaluations/decision making until CTA leads [another poster, not Tia], is, well, unprofessional in my view… perhaps if DTA took the lead, CTA might follow. As they should…
Pierce,
I don’t know if doctors have the equivalent of tenure but many professions do. There is a general misunderstanding of what teacher tenure means. It means that teachers are not at will employees and can’t be fired without due process. Many professions have these sorts of job protections yet it seems there is only this drumbeat for teachers but not these other professions.
Misanthorp & Greg- So it sounds like you agree that you can identify the low preforming teachers. in the district. Your only concern is that administrators will no do their jobs and avoid issuing evaluations. Then require that they do the evaluations and report the percentage issued during Board meetings by school. Why would you want to give a pink slip to a high preforming first year teacher in February so they can start looking for another job instead of giving it to a low preforming fourth year teacher? That is the current system in place.
The other union rule that needs to change is the one that does not allow years of experience to transfer from district to district.
No, I did not drink the kook-aid nor do I know any “bad” teachers teaching for DJUSD. I am able to recognize work rules in the current contract that adversely effect the students and high preforming teachers. Is it worth holding onto that low preforming teacher hoping that they can somehow turn it around in their fifth year risking a year of a child’s education? Why would you advocate for that?
hpierce,
You stated this:
You are using a straw man (and a completely incorrect one) to make a point here. I didn’t say that the DTA won’t consider performance based evaluations/decisions. We have that process. All teachers are evaluated every year until they reach tenure (and are considered “at will” employees until then), and then after tenure, there are evaluations every other year until an employee has been around for 10 years, and then every 5 years unless there is something that happens negatively that gives an administrator the right to commence in an evaluation in an off year.
Further, after creating that straw man, you choose to make it a personal attack by calling me unprofessional. This direction you take further invalidates your point by attacking the person after getting the point wrong and only undermines any actual argument you intend to make.
No one said this. You are making things up.
Sam
Please don’t misrepresent my posts. I said neither of those things as you post them, and am not sharing my personal beliefs on the topic. Sorry.
Greg,
Sorry, that statement was for Misanthrop not you. I should have segregated it from the rest of the post.
Not a worry. I appreciate your response here, Sam.
Sam, I think everybody at a school knows what teachers are having problems, so yes, I believe that if we held administrators accountable they would in turn hold teachers accountable. I am also hopeful that the new Superintendent will be up to the task. I think a big problem in DJUSD is that for years, up and down the line, from the school board on down, people haven’t been held accountable. Still I wouldn’t go about it as you suggest. Public humiliation through the reporting you suggest isn’t the way forward and will do much damage to morale.
As for using RIF as a tool for getting rid of poor teachers how about we use the evaluation process to help teachers improve their craft or move on before we get to that fifth year you describe and we reserve the RIF process for what it was intended to do provide an orderly way to reduce staff in a budget crisis. You do realize that in a RIF process laid off teachers have first right of refusal to return to their jobs when new hiring takes place. Co-mingaling these time worn processes is not easy to do. Although it seems so simple on the surface reinventing the wheel is often times much harder than it looks.
I agree that teachers should get to transfer all their years of service when they change districts.
he he….everyone here does know that I am moderated now, right? some of my posts are still waiting for posting…but I am taking the rest of today off…..going to enjoy our new place in the country…..
our own water and our own off the grid everything and yet, still in town and still near enough to the office…..
Davisites will vote for the parcel tax even if it is for the amount of $1200 or more. The current tax sunsets at the end of the year. The choice will be to give DJUSD what they want or approx. $9 million will be cut from schools. There will be no alternate tax amount or plan B. The resulting cuts from a no vote that will be put on the table by the board will be core programs. Nothing in administration will be touched. Given the options of approving a new tax in any amount vs. gutting school programs, the least painful choice will be the new tax. Residents will moan and groan, demand accountability, and threaten recall campaigns, but the reality is that they can be counted on to “do it for the children” (providing the senior exemption is a part of the tax). In 8yrs all the anger will be forgotten, and if the inflation rider is included, it will then just be a renewal of an existing tax.
If true, the concept of ‘nothing in administration will be be cut’, if true, is truly scary and disgusting…… perhaps all the more reason to vote No on ANY renewal until Admin gets the kind of haircut folk get when they go off to boot camp… the ‘senior exemption’ is still a sticking point for me as well…
WesC
“they can be counted on to “do it for the children” (providing the senior exemption is a part of the tax).”
I know that this is the urban legend in Davis. People love to write about the greedy selfish seniors ( I am not yet in that category so cannot be accused of being self serving). However, I have yet to see any proof or even evidence that they exist. I would be very interested to see how many people in town claimed a senior exemption the last time a school parcel tax was passed.
The one senior neighbor I have discussed the senior exemption with is a retired public school teacher with 2 and soon to be 3 houses. He stated he applied for and gets the senior exemption for at least one of his properties. We live in the land of me, myself, and I where where the amount of personal wealth amassed seems to be the most important indicator of success in life. Don’t know how you would get data on the age of every owner occupied detached home but would love to see it. I suspect getting the total number of senior exemptions from the assessor would not be too difficult.
I have neighbors who jumped on the exemption as soon as they hit 65.
Per the 2015 Parcel Tax Oversight Report: for measure C, 1,241 senior exemptions were approved for March 16, 2012. For measure E, 1,552 senior exemptions were approved for November 2012. I think 1,500 households probably a pretty significant percentage of the total number of senior owner occupied households. If you assume a dual voting senior household and a 100% voting record this could be as many as 3,000 votes to gore someone else’s ox.
WesC
“to gore someone else’s ox.”
There is another way of looking at this. Those who are over 65 have already put in many, many years of supporting public education through their taxes. One might conclude that they have already made their fair contribution ( or already had their ox gored repeatedly depending on how you view publicly funded education). While I fully believe that those of us who have had the good fortune to become affluent should continue to contribute, I have no problem with those of lesser economic prosperity ( particularly those on fixed incomes) to opt out of school support.
I would support $700 and $1000 because I know what that would provide as far as more programs and quality education for kids. However, I am comfortable with the $620 or $700 since we have a road tax and preschool for all potentially appearing on the ballot. When you see the sad state of affairs in communities that do not fund education you realize how fortunate we are here in Davis to have such a good school district with good teachers, aides and staff. I hope you will consider at least voting $620 or $700.
I wish I had the time to pull up all the old comments about the temporary school parcel tax that many posters on here said would never remain temporary and become permanent. We have many of the same characters here now who argued back then that we were wrong and that is was only a temporary emergency tax. Well we all know once any gov’t agency gets its hands on any funds that they will never give up that revenue stream. Maybe someday I will pull up those old posts so everyone can see how they framed the argument and how wrong the people were that claimed it would indeed only be a temporary tax.
BP – I can’t speak for everyone, but I bet that many to all of us hoped that it would be temporary because of the depression we all went through, and that state funding would return. But with, as I bet you’d agree, an economy that just didn’t come back as fast or as strong as we all would have wanted, and then a new funding formula in the state that doesn’t work in Davis’s favor, we’ve come to the point where we have to say that, yes, this was supposed to be temporary, and with the changes made out of our control, we’re left having to either keep it going, or lose lots of opportunities that are currently offered, as we had to do years ago. So, we look at the situation and have to make a tough decision. The whole goal of this was to keep Davis offering the same programs so that these students had the same great width and breadth of opportunities and options and the quality and standard of excellence of our schools wouldn’t decrease, so why would we change that ideal now?
Ok… we contribute $1200/year to Smile Train (correcting cleft lips/palates in third world countries for kids who could be killed/ostracized for their appearance)… it’s for the kids… on a fixed income, do you want us to cut back on that or contribute more to DJUSD in taxes? A “yes or no question”… about 10% of our income goes directly to charities, another 20% via taxes that go to charitable/social activities… guess in some folk minds it should be 100%.
That will have to be a personal choice, hpierce. You’ll have to make a personal decision based on what is best for your family and the community. Isn’t that what elections are about? If you find you can vote to support a parcel tax, great. If you can’t, and your reason is that you are already spread too thin, I understand.
Let me add, and forgive me for not saying this up front, that you should be commended for being willing to do so much for a really important cause. And that being why it is hard to add more money to support the district, well, you’re doing a great thing, and I understand how and why that makes it tough to be ok with a higher tax of any sort.
now that I’ve enjoyed some well deserved hours off –
it matters not how much money is thrown at the school district….whatever they receive they shall spend……and also, it really matters little how “great” or how inept the teachers are….
those children whose parents or grandparents or foster parents don’t spend 24/7 making sure their children’s education is up to snuff are the ones whose children get “left behind”…..
as a single mother for over 25 years, I was the one who did it all and brought home the bacon and cooked it also…. I was fortunate, I got to work a job where I had somewhat set hours, and got to have time off (all of which was to handle children’s issues) and so forth.
No grandparents any where around…no siblings within a hundred miles and friends who also worked or had better support at home from spouses……..and just some wonderful neighbors who helped me keep an eye on the days I couldn’t get home when they got home.
Every spare cent was spent on having a paid student to pick them up on the days when I truly couldn’t and so on…the students drove them to activities.
Sometimes it was impossible from them to get from South Davis to little league with all their gear, for example, otherwise they tested my nerves and their lives on the Richards tunnels (faster than the bike overcrossing) and so on….they were always “late” as they raced here and there.
parents are held hostage by the “school board and super” with the doom and gloom and death and so forth which would happen if they didn’t get their funds.
Well, this time I am not going to go along with that agenda…as I got older and my cynical, and saw some real life and death in the last few years – I won’t listen to such garbage.
If I don’t get a real dollars and cents breakdown of ALL costs….real true transparency, forget about it..
There may be some “collateral damage” but children are much more resilient that us old farts…
They bounce back from the very worst teachers, and some truly horrid parents, and yet most all survive.
in many large corporations, including those at UCD “shared services” where there are 25 or however many persons sitting side by side paying invoices or whatever all day, it is much easier to see who is performing to a standard and who isn’t.
and, in those kinds of unionized positions, it is also easy for those with “seniority” to abuse the system and so on….just try to get rid of someone who no longer wants to work, if they are most senior, it is near impossible.
on the other hand, in the decades that my children moved from pre-school through HS and beyond here in Davis, I don’t believe they had a single horrid teacher… every single one of them cared….some were better at eliciting the proper results from my children…
but there was always a workaround if they were not getting what they need….
As I mentioned, my youngest graduated HS some dozen years ago….I may be out of the loop as to whether there are now mediocre or worse teachers, but much of what is forced on competent teachers, such as common core, did not exist back in those days……I am sure it is way worse to be a teacher now…
“There may be some “collateral damage” but children are much more resilient that us old farts…
They bounce back from the very worst teachers, and some truly horrid parents, and yet most all survive.”
Ok, in the interests of admitting when I am wrong, I have the following admission to make. Marina just proved me wrong. I was doubting that older people who will no longer support the schools once their own children were no longer in school because of personal interests were a legend. Here we have someone who admits that it doesn’t matter to her if there is “collateral damage” because after all, almost no one dies. I am appalled, but stand corrected.
You are overly kind to Marina’s rants… thank you, and even if you do not believe in a supreme being, God bless you… what can it hurt for me to say that… it either means nothing, or might be positive.
hpierce
“even if you do not believe in a supreme being, ”
Off topic alert. But I cannot help but wonder what makes you think that I do not believe in a “supreme being” ?
Note the phrase “even if”… i.e. ‘whether or not’… means the rest that follows applies in any event. I presumed nothing…
“… children are more resilient…” Not true. Children do not have the support or life experience to be as resilient. They cope as best they can, and when they can’t they turn to drugs, alcohol, sex, crime, anorexia….
This is a reckless attitude that unfortunately permeates the family court as well, where it destroys children. RIP Tatiana Garcia.
I was riding around with my 4th grade son this evening. He said to me unprompted, “if I was still at (previous school) I would have learned a lot more this year. He is in touch with his old classmates and he understands they are learning more and having more fun doing it. Most kids do not like review and prefer to move forward. This is not a function of good/bad teachers but more about the curriculum. Everywhere I go in Davis someone is talking about how great the schools are here. Let me give you the truth, compared to some other public districts, the schools in Davis are not that great.
Your son’s experience was due to the teachers, not the curriculum… at least if we are to believe teachers are actually ‘professionals‘… you are somewhat correct… DJUSD can express things as a ‘legend in their own mind’… to paraphrase Dickens “they are the best of educators, they are the worst of educators”…
hpierce
“I believe a good system would be something approaching “360”… for teachers that would include input from parents, aides, co-workers, and led by the senior administrative staff.”
Sorry to be so late in responding to your questions, we had a UCD graduation yesterday ! I am not sure that I know what a “360” evaluation is although the name is suggestive.
All doctors in Kaiser with the possible exception of our CEO gets an annual evaluation regardless of years of service. Even his performance is subject to a term vote by the shareholders. The evaluation is reviewed with us in person by our immediate supervisor who is usually either the assistant chief or chief of service before being added to our file. The information for the review is gathered by the assistant chief, but then vetted by the entire management team both to obtain more information but also to guard against personal bias. It consists of the factors I mentioned in my previous post as well as a number of metrics that may change from year to year and are assessed on a “needs improvement, meets standard, or excels ” basis with retraining offered for those who get a “needs improvement”. Since the “re-trainings” are done in a “how can we help you ?” way instead of being punitive, they usually result in improved performance. In the unusual circumstances in which they do not, corrective action is sometimes needed, but again need not be punitive. There are many roles that a Kaiser physician can perform. I will use only my own case as illustration. When I became old enough that I felt that I was no longer up to the rigors of our very high risk labor and delivery unit, I asked for and was allowed to assume a clinic only roll. There is an organized effort in Kaiser to retain talent, skills, and knowledge and to ensure that each individual is in the right position to make an optimal contribution. We have however, on rare occasion, dismissed, or when appropriate involuntarily retired, docs who were no longer able to contribute for whatever reason.
hpierce
“Tia.. given ‘power’ for the dollar, cell phones and computers are consistently going down in price for over 30 years now”
Good catch ! You win my first Vanguard induced smile of the day award. I thought about that after I had posted. So let me rephrase. Please name a comparable service whose price has decreased within a fixed market where the number of recipients is not within the direct control of those providing the service ?
Too complex a question for this early in the morning… I’ll let others have the first swing at that puppy… have a great day!
Tia Will: “What are your alternatives to educate the current students in our public schools if not through our taxes?”
The first thing I would do is improve teaching techniques. Students should be ability grouped. Common core should be tossed in favor of the 3 R’s first and foremost – with drills, drills, drills the order of the day. Detention would be unpleasant for those who go, not free “twiddle the fingers” time. None of these reforms takes money by the way. Many changes like this need to take place, but the schools refuse, instead favoring “the new math”, “Common Core”, etc. – which are nothing but gimmicks that make money for textbook companies that constantly develop new programs. I used to teach 8th grade math and science, so I know of what I speak.
hpierce
“Note the phrase “even if”… i.e. ‘whether or not’… means the rest that follows applies in any event. I presumed nothing…”
Fair point. But I remain curious about why you even chose to raise the issue of my belief or lack thereof.
Actually, my intent was what I said… “God bless you… “… nothing more, nothing less.
I did not intend to raise an issue of personal belief.
Are you now presuming what other folk are thinking? Just curious…
Anon
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.
What you seem to be favoring is turning schools into mindless “drill”sessions with punitive measures for those who step out of line. If what you want is a nation of automatons, this is a good recipe. But I sincerely hope that the schools will not acquiesce to your suggestions since I believe that teaching students not only the basics ( which of course are necessary) but also how to evaluate, compare and even challenge the ideas that are being taught will ultimately encourage students to engage from a young age in what we need most, innovative thinking.
Now my elementary and junior high level experience was limited to volunteering a couple of 1/2 days weekly so is not nearly as extensive as yours. However, my daughter has for two years headed a volunteer reading program in Sacramento for second and third graders and I have seen her manage a classroom of children each working at their own pace through a program specifically designed for their tested level of understanding with no “drills” whatsoever. The child that I was working with had by the end of the year exceeded his target level of improvement. Learning does not have to be by rote or punitive to be effective.
However, my view is clearly based on anecdotal information. Catch me for changes in opinion this time next year after she has earned her master’s and credential in teaching science at the eighth grade level ?