By Nicholas von Wettburg
The Davis Vanguard hosted a School Board Candidates Forum at the Community Chambers on Sunday.
Participating in the event were the four candidates, who are running for two open seats on the Davis Joint Unified School District (DJUSD) Board of Education.
Two of the candidates are incumbents Susan Lovenburg and Alan Fernandes, while the other two, Jose Granda and Bob Poppenga, are former candidates and current college professors.
Following an outline of the event’s proceedings from Vanguard founder and forum moderator, David Greenwald, candidates were given two minutes for an introduction.
After that, each candidate submitted one question for the other candidates to answer with two-minute responses. Following their answers, the querying candidate responded to his or her own question.
All four were granted two one-minute challenge answers and one 30-second challenge answer.
Granda, a longtime Davis resident and engineering professor at Sacramento State, asked the first question, which was, “What is the evidence of the impact of the parcel taxes on the admission to college of students in the Davis district? Do you know what percentage of students graduating from Davis have been accepted to our local university, UCD, or other universities?”
In her response, Lovenburg gave the graduation rates of Davis students, which is at 96 percent, and guessed that the number of those graduating and attending college is probably at somewhere around 90 percent.
Lovenburg, who has been on the board since 2007, referenced the district’s funding formula to the state, the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP), which she said is detailed, and filled with valuable community input to determine priorities.
“As we are working on closing the achievement gap our strategies, our goals are there,” Lovenburg said. “Our strategies are there in the progress that we are making towards those goals as well so you’ll be able to see the specific graduation rates that apply to all of our students.”
In regards to whether or not the parcel tax maintains the quality of all schools, which was also asked in the question, Lovenburg said high-quality schools are not necessarily a direct result of the tax, but also the product of a university community like Davis willing to step up and eventually “provide additional programs for our students.”
Lovenburg ended her answer, saying there are no new programs as a result of Measure H, and that the parcel tax only continues the programs already in place.
Candidate Bob Poppenga gave his response to the need for a parcel tax, which, he said is important to “funding librarians, funding science teachers, supporting the World Languages Program. We are very fortunate in Davis to have five language options. The parcel tax helps support counselors, lower the class sizes in first through third grade.”
Poppenga, a professor of veterinary toxicology at UC Davis, said that with the parcel tax funding being 12 percent of the total budget, most of the money ends up paying for “positions.”
He said that he was unable to give any percentages of Davis students and how many are attending local colleges or universities, but he did know that they are going to some of the top schools in the country.
In his response to the parcel tax and its effects, Fernandes said he “sees the evidence on the face of kids that get reading specialists, that go walk into the libraries, I see the evidence on the face of librarians in our schools.”
Fernandes said that he did not know the percentages of Davis graduates and attendance rates for local colleges, but he did know that 10 percent of all Davis students attend UC Davis.
He added that one of the charms of the district is its ability to provide open pathways for its students, whether by attending college or though a career.
Granda is running on the slogan, “Elect a Different Candidate,” and he said that the other candidates did not really answer his question and only made assumptions.
He said that voters are being misled about the latest parcel tax and that the 12 percent reliance is a call for mitigating that need.
“Despite the fact that we passed Proposition 30 and the district receives $10.8 million a year from it they still want to double tax the community,” Granda said. “We need to step up, including myself. I voted for Proposition 30 because I believe in funding the schools. I am just against abusing the taxpayers and I believe Measure H is a total disaster.”
In his 30-second challenge answer, Poppenga said that he is confident the money from the parcel tax is funding the right things, and brought up the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee, which he has been a member of the past two years and is a group of community members that meets with district staff to discuss the measure’s specifics.
Granda challenged Poppenga’s response, pointing out that the Oversight Committee is made up of members appointed by the school board.
Granda said that the committee lacks the authority to determine how and what is spent and, after looking at their reports, he has not seen any sign of improvements.
The next question, from Lovenburg, was about the district and its commitment to the needs of every student, and improving their academic success and social/emotional well-being.
“Where have you seen good progress in this regard and where would you encourage more?” she asked.
Poppenga said he has seen some progress being made in the closing of the achievement gap, but there is much more that needs to be done.
He also said he is a firm believer in investing early, which is why he supports the idea of an increase in sales tax across the county for quality preschool.
At the district information night, Poppenga said he noticed a downward trend in the success rates of English Learners, later on in their education.
Reading programs, like Bridge, are crucial, Poppenga added, bringing up that “if children read at grade level by third grade that is a predictor of long-term success.”
On the board of the Explorit Science Center, Poppenga said that with its experience in hands-on inquiry-based learning for elementary school students, the district should partner up with the center and offer some after-school science classes for at-risk kids.
Fernandes answered the question in two parts.
He first brought up the Later Start policy and the innovation Davis used in getting that going.
The addition of school nursing and counseling in elementary schools is another thing Fernandes said he was proud of achieving.
Granda, in his response, lauded the district for its Spanish Immersion program. He said that his family has been a part of the program since its beginnings, and that he has seen it flourish.
One thing Granda would encourage more is a change in credentialing teachers.
“My suggestion would be to make it a little easier for people who have degrees, not necessarily went to a teacher’s, but that they could be progressively brought into teaching in such a way that would enhance the quality of the schools, would increase the number of jobs and the quality of teachers.”
Answering her own question, Lovenburg highlighted the progress of both the board and its Common Core implementation, and the professional growth of teachers to help them “better differentiate instruction in their classrooms for all students.”
Lovenburg said that last year, 63 percent of district teachers participated in professional learning and differentiated instruction.
The next question, asked by Bob Poppenga, was, “UC Davis is an integral part of the Davis community and a world-class public university the parents of many Davis children are employed by UCD. What have you personally done to help utilize the vast educational resources of UCD for the benefit of the school district? How can the district more effectively partner with UCD to improve school programs and educational opportunities for Davis children?”
Alan Fernandes said it was a great question and talked about partnering the community and university, using the work he did for the Bicycling Hall Of Fame as an example.
Fernandes said there is room for improvement and that he remains “a partner in any endeavor that seeks to leverage all the resources of the university to bring them here locally.”
During Engineering Week a few years ago, Granda said that, along with the UC Davis College of Engineering, they organized an Engineering Merit Badge, in which local Boy Scouts – from Davis schools – participated.
He said, in regard to the second part of the question, his concern remains the amount of Davis graduates that are attending UC Davis.
Granda believes there should be some type of special consideration for Davis residents.
Susan Lovenburg said that, in her nine years on the school board, there have been a number of opportunities to interact with UC Davis.
Lovenburg named her work with the 1,000 Mentor’s Challenge, the Davis Bridge Foundation, setting up internships, the Future Farmers of America, and the Healthy Youth Healthy Yolo project.
Responding to his own question, Poppenga said he believes that the link between the Davis education community and UC Davis would be stronger if there were an institutional goal that guarantees that type of consistent and balanced interaction.
“When I found out the high school was starting a veterinary science course I went to the vet school leadership and the vet school is willing to put in some resources to help support that program,” Poppenga said. “But next summer, if everything works out we would have four paid summer internships for high school students to spend six weeks in the veterinary school paired with a veterinary student doing research.”
Alan Fernandes, who had the final question of the round, asked, “What about your professional background prepares you for the work of a trustee?”
Up first was Granda, who said teaching “has been my life.”
He said the guidance and mentorship of students, particular those who thought school was not for them, is something that serves him well.
“We need to care for the students and I think all of us agree,” Granda said. “And I am well prepared to meet that challenge.”
Susan Lovenburg said that, early in her career, she had been a professional librarian, and some of the skills that translate are being service-oriented and organized.
As a self-described stay-at-home mom, for a decade, Lovenburg said she became a volunteer and has worked at Willitt Elementary, Emerson Junior High and Davis High School.
“I did newsletters at all of the schools, websites, parent information, so really spent my time making sure that parents had the information they needed to feel connected and to be able to support their kid,” Lovenburg said.
For the past five years, Lovenburg has worked for California Forward, where she focuses on government and finance issues, which includes the state’s educational funding system.
A university educator for almost three decades, Poppenga said he has teaching experience in most every learning platform, and can relate to the amount of patience teachers have, and the extra amount of time they put in, both inside and outside the classroom.
The collaboration process is something Poppenga says he is familiar with, and would translate well to working with the other school board members.
“I think we need a scientist on the school board,” he said. “I think we need to have somebody that understands STEM subjects, understands career and technical education and somebody that could sort through to judge whether it’s good data or bad data. Not all data is created equal.”
Fernandes thanked the other candidates for their responses and explained the reason for asking about the work and role of being a trustee, which he said is multi-fold and, at its core, part of a local government.
“And that’s what I bring, that’s my background” he said. “I am a lawyer by practice, specializing in public law and government law. Eighty percent of our money comes from the state government. I’ve spent the last almost 20 years of my career understanding the state budget process.”
The Vanguard prepared three questions for the candidates to answer in the next round, which will be reported in a subsequent article.
Was there no discussion about AIM/GATE?
There was – one of the Vanguard questions asked about support for the changes and an audience question asked about how well differentiated discussion works. Nicholas is going to get me the second half for tomorrow. Hopefully.
Jose said AIM should accept all comers and gave himself as an example of what happens when you give someone a chance. IMHO his best answer of the night.
Bob said there needs be be some feedback loop on how the changes are preforming
Susan said she welcomes the suggestions of the OCR. Clearly dishonest as nobody welcomes a OCR investigation. A little like a CEO saying they “welcome” the SEC or Grand Jury Investigation.
Alan, per most of his answers, said nothing but took two minutes to do it.
I know we shouldn’t focus on spelling, but once in a long while, clarification is appropriate… I hope the term “preforming” was meant to be “performing”… if ‘preforming’ was meant, I’d worry about a self-fulfilled prophesy in regards to AIM/GATE…
I honestly learned nothing from this. Candidates should not be submitting the questions. GATE, the OCR investigation, achievement gap strategies, teacher retention — any number of issues that could have been addressed.
Don
While I agree that having the candidates ask questions is not a favored format of mine, I would like to point out that there was discussion of GATE and achievement gap strategies. I think that discussion of the OCR investigation is premature. I would have liked to see more details on achievement gap strategies, differentiated instruction and would have liked a discussion of new teacher hiring, assessment and retention ( although I was there and certainly had the ability to ask).
If this was the inaugural event than the candidate question format was likely wise as it seems friendly enough to encourage everyone to show up. In subsequent cycles you can make it a little more aggressive. If you have let me ask questions no candidates would ever agree to participate in the future.
I my opinion Bob did best while Jose did worst. Susan was condescending with most of her answers some variation of “read the manual” or “read the books of xxx”. Alan did not pretend to have all the answers but on the other hand was ready to support good ideas of others. I like that he did not feel the need to invent answers on his own and was comfortable enough to say “I like Bob’s idea, I’ll help with that” though some of his answers were really dippy like “I see the evidence on the faces of the children”.
Home owners (parcels) will pay the tax. However, sometimes I would seriously like to suggest those folks with children in school should receive 1.5x the vote. And while we even the playing field: our teachers should get 2x. What do you think?
Kropp1 wrote:
> Home owners (parcels) will pay the tax.
Don’t forget the owners of (parcels) that have office buildings, coffee shops and gas stations will also pay the tax (that they will pass on to their tenants and customers).
> I would seriously like to suggest those folks with children
> in school should receive 1.5x the vote
During the Measure C campaign we knew some parents who were barging that they had both received 3x the vote because they both got a couple senior neighbors to vote for the tax after explaining that they could opt out of paying it (and they would help them with the paperwpork). They were hoping that other parents would reach out to seniors in town to make sure they all knew they could vote for Measure C without having to pay it (to “double” or “triple” their votes)…
During earlier parcel tax campaigns, there was no exemption for seniors in Davis. A regular criticism from the “No” campaign in those days was that the school parcel tax was too heavy a burden on seniors, and there were letters to the editor from seniors complaining of it. Now there is a senior exemption specifically to address that concern.
Untrue… you imply that this will be the first DJUSD measure to have a ‘Senior’ or ‘Low Income’ exemption provision… that is a falsehood, as the way the definitions were…
You’ve convinced me… I was somewhat inclined to vote for the PT… now I am strongly inclined to vote NO.
hpierce: Untrue… you imply that this will be the first DJUSD measure to have a ‘Senior’ or ‘Low Income’ exemption provision… that is a falsehood, as the way the definitions were…
OK. My bad. By earlier, I meant before 2007 (Measure Q). The first parcel taxes in Davis did not have a senior exemption.
hpierce wrote:
> now I am strongly inclined to vote NO.
As most know I am not a big fan of taxes, but I’m hoping that hpierce (and other homeowners) step back and realize that even when you take Granda’s advice and look at it as one pretty big number over 8 years having good schools in town should increase the value of each home by MORE than we pay in school taxes (I would be saying this even if I didn’t have school age kids).
Yes, but an educated person would have to presume that another educated person would have qualified their post on the first swing of the bat…
Given your rapid response and the date (2007) noted, I am convinced you already knew that, and were “trying to run one”… you said,
How is “senior” defined? Any difference between income level for “seniors”? I know it is an “opt-out” exemption, but still…
Sounds like a tactic a school teachers’ union advocate would use… I may be wrong…
hpierce: Yes, but an educated person would have to presume that another educated person would have qualified their post on the first swing of the bat…
Given your rapid response and the date (2007) noted, I am convinced you already knew that, and were “trying to run one”… you said,
I will consider your response here when evaluating your responses for human error and oversight in the future.
hpierce: You’ve convinced me… I was somewhat inclined to vote for the PT… now I am strongly inclined to vote NO.
For as long as I’ve followed your comments on this blog, you have expressed opposition to every school parcel tax that has come up. I’m really not expecting anything different from you, although it’s interesting to see the reasons you use to justify your opposition. Currently it’s over a petty “gotcha!”
hpierce: How is “senior” defined? Any difference between income level for “seniors”? I know it is an “opt-out” exemption, but still…
Homeowner, 65 or older. No definition based on income.
hpierce wrote:
> Yes, but an educated person would have to presume that another
> educated person would have qualified their post on the first swing
> of the bat…
I read it the way hpierce read it at first, but then when I re-read it and realized that wdf1 did not call me a liar for talking about the Measure C senior exemption I don’t think that he (or she) was pulling a “teachers union trick”. That is coming from a donor to Democrats for Education reform who is not a big fan of teachers “unions” (but is a big supporter of “teachers”)…
wdf1..
Wrong again… my spouse and I have voted for all but one of the DJUSD parcel taxes since they first came forward… but we’ve only been regular voters since 1979. My spouse voted yes on the one I voted no one…
You attempt to dissemble…
Even in the post you responded to, I said I was somewhat inclined to vote yes on this one…
You said,
No, that is yet another falsehood [see above], unless you are saying I am lying… I have questioned expenditures, priorities, etc., that would be true. I have questioned those who “believe in AIM/GATE as it existed, right or wrong”… that would also be true.
I have a problem with having folk vote for parcel taxes on others, when it has no real effect on themselves. That is also true.
It is obvious “the truth is not in you”… will comment no further on this thread… your current and future words [even if they are patently untrue, as you have already admitted to in one instance] may well sway votes… but only in the negative way for me…
Have a nice day…
hpierce: It is obvious “the truth is not in you”… will comment no further on this thread… your current and future words
We’ll probably have to agree to disagree, here, but I’m interested to see your comments.
Since the homeowners are actually the people who will be paying the tax I feel they should get 2x the vote.
Hey, some of us who pay them don’t get any vote at all. But having said that, I do support this one.
“Lovenburg gave the graduation rates of Davis students, which is at 96 percent, and guessed that the number of those graduating and attending college is probably at somewhere around 90 percent.”
It would be interesting to get the actual percentage of DHS students that have a transcript sent to a 4 year college (knowing that some may not get in) to see how many take the “traditional four year college route”, vs. the kids who take a real estate or cosmetology class at a “local community college”…
South of Davis: It would be interesting to get the actual percentage of DHS students that have a transcript sent to a 4 year college (knowing that some may not get in) to see how many take the “traditional four year college route”, vs. the kids who take a real estate or cosmetology class at a “local community college”…
Look here.
I don’t think I’ve seen all the information required to understand DJUSD’s graduation rates. I am skeptical of DJUSD’s drop out rate of 4 or 5%. I note that even Menlo Park and Palo Alto high school have drop out rates of 6%. I did find this 2011 article in the Enterprise: Davis posts high graduation rates, low drop out rates, which has a bit more analysis.
The reason I am skeptical is that sometime in junior high, I believe I observed DJUSD start to encourage lower performing students to disappear. Remember that Junior High goes through 9th grade in Davis, which may be credited for keeping more kids in school, but has the potential to be used to manipulate DHS graduation rates. Sometimes students go to DSIS, Da Vinci or King and graduate or drop out of one of those schools. Sometimes they go out of District or enroll in an online school. Sometimes they drop out in junior high. For those who are interested, it is notable that DJUSD does not track, whether a graduate or drop-out was enrolled in the AIM program.
I also want to point out that Davis Adult School is not accredited. A graduate with high school diploma from Davis Adult School may not be eligible to even enter the military.
It does look like, after 60 years, the Adult School is in the process of applying for WASC certification. However, they don’t have it. See left hand column here DAS diploma
The article you post in link suggests a 4% dropout rate districtwide, which would include Da Vinci, DSIS, and King as well as DHS. I did not know that Adult School is not accredited.
There are different ways to measure dropout rates. The standard measure I’ve seen generally is how many 9th graders go on to graduate in 4 years. Another way is to measure in 6 years to account for adult school. You can get dropout data here.
Our family was told that DJUSD’s rule is that students have four years to graduate, once they enter 9th grade. If they don’t earn the correct number and type of units in four years, they have to move on from DJUSD. This creates an incentive for DJUSD to get at-risk students (every definition) to leave DJUSD in eighth grade, so they don’t affect the graduate rate.
Other districts, like Sacramento, allow for six years or until 19 years old. Depending on the equation used to calculate the drop-out rate, these numbers can be manipulated. If a student is passed-off onto Davis Adult School, it’s not WASC certified, so a student would have to pass the GED or similar to have a diploma that has any worth anywhere outside of Davis. But does DJUSD include a DAS graduate in its graduation rates?
70% going to 4 year colleges, 24% to 2 year colleges. Pretty solid numbers.
I don’t have numbers for this, but a strong suspicion that many of the 2-year college matriculations eventually go on for transfers to 4-year colleges.
It would be useful to have all numbers broken out along IDT lines.
Why?
As I replied in another thread to determine the IDT students are helping. Generally the more work parents go through to get schools the better the children do in school but I would like to confirm that.
Why? What’s your goal?
wdf 1 wrote:
> I don’t have numbers for this, but a strong suspicion that
> many of the 2-year college matriculations eventually go
> on for transfers to 4-year colleges.
I have always been amazed at how few 2-year college students transfer (and why I recommend that students that want a 4-year degree do whatever they can to avoid 2-year colleges aka the 13th and 14th grade). I just found something that says “Fewer than one in seven community college students transfer and get a bachelor’s degree”
http://hechingerreport.org/how-often-do-community-college-students-who-get-transfer-get-bachelors-degrees/
In the 90’s I knew a teacher at a SF Peninsula 2-year college and it blew my mind when he told me that just over 15% (right around one in seven) of kids that said their “goal” was to transfer to a 4-year college (so not counting the fire science and cosmetology students) ever had transcripts sent to a 4-year school.
> It would be useful to have all numbers broken out along IDT lines.
My guess it would be about “average” with the kids of UCD professors and DJUSD teachers doing a little better than average the kids of low skilled local workers like janitors and gardeners doing a little worse than average and the rest of the IDT kids doing average.
Some CCs have really good transfer rates and others don’t.
http://www.smc.edu/NewsRoom/Pages/SMC-Maintains-Top-Spot-In-Transfers-to-UC.aspx
My guess it would be about “average”
What I have seen consistently is that kids whose parents jump through hoops to get them into a particular school or program will out-preform those for whom it is the default choice. So all else being equal (which it never is) IDT’s should do better than locals.
South of Davis: I have always been amazed at how few 2-year college students transfer (and why I recommend that students that want a 4-year degree do whatever they can to avoid 2-year colleges aka the 13th and 14th grade). I just found something that says “Fewer than one in seven community college students transfer and get a bachelor’s degree”
As with public schools, I think success and trajectories in community colleges probably have a lot to do with parent education level. More highly-educated parents will impart skills and expectations that will lead to higher success for their offspring than less-educated parents.
wdf1 wrote:
> As with public schools, I think success and
> trajectories in community colleges probably
> have a lot to do with parent education level.
I agree and it is probably why I have never heard of parents who have advanced degrees sending their kids to community college (I am sure that “some” parents with advanced degrees have sent kids to community colleges and I suspect that most are among the small number that move on to a 4-year college and get a degree)
I don’t want to bash the many teachers that work hard at community colleges I just want to point out that the community college “culture” makes it hard for anyone to actually move on and get a bachelor’s degree (just like the housing project “culture” makes it hard to graduate from High School and go to college)…
I think the issue of community colleges vs. 4-year colleges is more complicated than you might be willing to articulate. Education is commonly thought of as learning facts and concepts that will probably get you a job. That is one way to look at it. But education is also about building non-cognitive skills that are often connected to how one relates to one’s peers and makes social connections. Traditional 4-year colleges have more of those resources than a typically community college — dormitory life, fraternities/sororities, clubs, newspaper, student government, intramural sports, student performing arts (band, choir, orchestra).
Students who go to community college for a transfer option and have college-educated parents are likelier to have resources to supplement those socializing activities. College-educated parents have a greater awareness of the broader experience of college-age life. Students with parents who have lower levels of education don’t have access to this same awareness.
And maybe I run around in different circles, socially, but I think I run into a lot of families locally who take the community college/transfer option, often to alleviate the burden of student debt (it’s cheaper to go to a community college for a couple of years).