My longtime readers have no doubt read this account a few times, but it bears repeating as there is an update to the end of the story. It was six years ago back in August when my nephew moved in with us, just a few days away from turning seven and entering first grade.
When we took him in, we knew that he was severely underweight and he suffered from pretty serious emotional outbursts at home. What wasn’t apparent was how far behind he was in school. In many cases he was scoring in the 20th to 30th percentile.
As a new parent – we had a nine-month-old baby that we would be adopting a year later – it was overwhelming, but the first time I walked into the district IEP (Individualized Education Program) meeting it no longer felt so overwhelming. I found myself surrounded by a group of ten people, ranging from special education teachers to counselors to psychologists and the works.
They had a plan, but most importantly their presence told me I was not alone. It has been a long and uneven path over the last six years. But my nephew is now starting seventh grade.
This week I sat in on his first IEP at Harper Junior High. I swear they were talking about a completely different kid from the one we had known six years ago. Gone are most of his behavioral issues. Gone is his sense of social isolation. And almost gone is his academic gap from his peers. He’s still a little behind in math.
He has learning difficulties, he will probably never process information the same way as other people, but he has a real chance. As they told me, for the first time, we will be able to see what he can achieve academically because the behavior barriers are now virtually gone.
I hear a lot of bashing about schools, and I have my own concerns about this district in a lot of ways. But at the end of the day, the progress I have seen in that kid gives me hope.
While of none of this directly relates to a parcel tax, here is what we can infer from our experience. Resources do matter. A district that did not have the resources available would not have been able to provide the level of service my nephew needed to overcome his early childhood difficulties. There was a lot of one-on-one attention, nurturing and help from a large number of people at three schools over six years in time.
Second, how many other kids have not gotten the kind of attention they needed?
I know it is not just the schools – we have done our part providing him with a stable and loving home, a good and safe community, resources and support. But the heavy lifting was not done by us, it was mostly done by the schools.
As recently as third grade, he was being pulled out of class more than half the time, not by design. Most of it was due to his shutting down when he encountered struggles and hardship. This week I was told he had only three to six shutdowns this year, and all of them lasted less than five minutes and he was redirected and back on task. Things that would have knocked him out for the day just four years ago, he’s shrugging off in less than five minutes.
We have discussed at length here that the Davis school district is an averagely-funded district when we have the parcel tax. We are below average if that parcel tax ever goes away.
There are numbers being thrown out there that frankly don’t make a lot of sense. Jose Granda, the one opponent of the parcel tax running for school board, has discussed the $5000 commitment that each person who owns a parcel will have to pay over the next eight years.
There are two factors in that increase. First, the yearly rate has increased by $100 partly because of a court decision that changed the way the district receives parcel taxes from multi-unit residences. Second, instead of coming back to the voters for renewal every four years, they have made this an eight-year commitment.
I actually have mixed feelings about the latter issue. After all, coming back to the voters every four years is a reminder of our commitment to education. On the other hand, it is a sign that our financial gap is not dissipating, even in good years. The base state obligation is insufficient to provide the level of service that we are accustomed to in this district.
I am in agreement that, in an ideal world, the state would supply the local districts with sufficient resources to operate without local parcel taxes. I am also in agreement that there are better and fairer ways to tax the community, but those are prohibited under Proposition 13.
My problem is that we are not asking for enough. I believe that this district can be great and, while I am pleased with the education that my nephew has received and our other two children as well, I know there is so much more we could do.
Five thousand dollars over eight years pales in comparison to the cost of poor education. It costs $50,000 or so a year to incarcerate someone for a year, but less than $10,000 to educate them and give them a chance to succeed. It’s a small trade off.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
” I am also in agreement that there are better and fairer ways to tax the community, but those are prohibited under Prop 13.” I will note that if the school district boundaries were aligned with the city boundaries then you would have hundreds of options here as you could use any revenue model available to the city.
Brett Lee, for example, went to a school district that spanned several small cities in southern california. After he left the district was realigned with each city having their own district and some of them sharing high schools. Each city can support the schools to the extent the local populace desires.
David wrote:
> When we took him in, we knew that he was severely under-weight and
> suffered from pretty serious emotional outbursts at home. What wasn’t
> apparent was how far behind he was in school. In many cases he was
> scoring in the 20 to 30th percentile.
First I want the thank David (and Cecilia) again for reaching out and helping a kid that didn’t have a lot of great options. Second I want to remind David (like I so often remind my wife) that only 10% of the kids are in the “top 90th percentile” and fully “half” the kids score “below average”.
As I have mentioned before my parents are not college grads and I have a lot of friends who never went to college. Some of these friends make more than my friends that went to Medical and Law school. Large numbers of people in town not only look down on people who never went to college, but even look down on people (like me) that never went to grad school.
I think that the half of kids that have “below average” test scores in every school district would be happier and end up in better places in life if the teachers help them develop other skills and let them know that many electricians make $1K a day and tile and stone contractors that do kitchen remodels can easily average $20K/month (everyone that does not go to college is not homeless and living by the railroad tracks).
You’re kind of old school there. You don’t need a degree to learn coding, do robotics, computers, etc.
“There was a lot of one-on-one attention, nurturing and help from a large number of people”
As should be the case for all of us.
Every campaign for some new tax uses this same argument. Then they add “vote no and hurt the _ _ _ _ _ _ (insert your favorite cause).
If you have a dollar, then giving the government another cent does not seem like much. Except for the fact that you are already giving the government $.50 of that dollar. And you know that that the next cent will be followed by a demand for another and another and another.
It is financial death by a thousand cuts.
The problem in funding is one of failing to establish public priorities living within our existing budget means. The state has sent less to the local schools because the state has kept increasing spending on other priorities. The primary culprit has been obscene pay and retirement benefits for unionized state workers like prison guards. And then the governor raids the RDA cookie jar thus destroying a valuable mechanism of economic development… one that served to incrementally increase the property tax base that feeds local schools. You can look at this like a family having an income stream from some investment, but then raiding that investment and giving all the money to a friend in temporary need. Then the friend spent all that money and is back for more. But there is no more… except for taking yet another penny from the depleted leftover income streams.
When does it stop? It is simple to understand that you cannot keep raising the rate of taxation on wage earners… the Laffer Curve is real and the evidence is all around us. Meager economic growth is the result of too little returns (because a larger and larger percentage of returns are taxed), so then people with means stop investing in things that have risk but if successful can grow more returns. If I have an extra dollar and I can take risks to invest it to make two dollars, but the government will take more than half of that… why would I be so stupid to take the risk? I won’t. Instead I will save what I can so I can vacation in Europe every five years. That might sound wonderful, but it does not help grow the economy so that there is a larger organic tax base.
The schools have enough money to do a good job if the schools where managed to constantly improve in the value they provide. The schools are not unlike all most government “business” in that they constantly strive to do the same with more instead of working to do more with less. They keep coming back with their hand out threatening to cut programs unless we again empty our pockets. That is a broken and unsustainable trend… it cannot continue. The math is clear (well maybe they are using Common Core math and it isn’t clear).
As they say, “The Buck Stops Here!” It has to stop at some point. The schools need to reform how they do business. They won’t unless we force them to. I am voting no to start that forcing.
Maybe David can suggest areas of the current budget that are less important than schools and could be cut to provide the funds?
Frankly
“Every campaign for some new tax uses this same argument.”
Maybe that is because it is often true.
“It is financial death by a thousand cuts.”
I doubt that either of us is hemorrhaging, let alone dying from our “thousand cuts”. I do not encourage tax increases for those who truly cannot afford to pay. For those of us who can, I see at as a contribution, not an onus.
“The state has sent less to the local schools because the state has kept increasing spending on other priorities.”
Agreed, like our prisons as David has pointed out many times in many ways.
“When does it stop? “
The need for ongoing contributions to the over all well being of our society is never going to stop. So why even post the question as though there should be some well defined “stop” point. Or we could stop doing this piecemeal and provide a UBI so that people do have enough and do not need to drain each others pockets in some arbitrary redistributive scheme while still relying upon the kindness of strangers to just have enough to eat and a place to live.
“The schools have enough money to do a good job if the schools where managed to constantly improve in the value they provide.”
Your data to support this claim would be ? Jose Granda has not provided evidence to back this claim which he also seem to believe is true with perhaps a little grant money ( from where he does not specify) thrown in on the side.
“As they say, “The Buck Stops Here!” It has to stop at some point.”
This is a complete misrepresentation of this quote. “The Buck Stops Here” was used as a claim of final responsibility. Although it did not originate with him, it is commonly attributed to President Truman who had a copy of saying made into a sign for his desk as an affirmation that the final responsibility was his. I absolutely believe in this saying. My interpretation with regard to our schools is that the “buck” should include the responsibility of those of us who are able to pay for our schools and that should mean you and I and others like us who have been blessed with sufficient wealth to be able to help others build their own careers and lives just as we did.
So Tia, in order to raise the “truly needed” money, AND cover the funds that the “truly unable to pay” do not contribute, the rest need to pick up their share, as well, right? A non-deductable ‘charitable contribution’ as it were? Just want to make clear what your position is… particularly if to meet the criteria you seem to suggest, and given that DJUSD could define all their ‘would like to have as “mission critical”, we might be looking @ $1500/year.
Do you feel the same way as to City “needs”?
hpierce
“ in order to raise the “truly needed” money, AND cover the funds that the “truly unable to pay” do not contribute, the rest need to pick up their share, as well, right?”
That’s right. I truly believe that those of us who have benefited the most from our economic system have the responsibility to contribute more in return.
“A non-deductable ‘charitable contribution’ as it were? Just want to make clear what your position is”
I don’t mind being perfectly clear. I do not consider this as a “charitable contribution”. I consider public education far too important to be left to “charitable contributions” that people may or not feel like making.
“Do you feel the same way as to City “needs”?”
Yes, I do as I have stated on many, many occasions.
Tia,
I agree on the importance of public education and it should be funded at a significantly higher level. I would prefer to take the money from other areas of the budget rather than raise taxes.
Yes, you do. There is no ‘means test’ for parcel taxes, they are applied to every property regardless of ability to pay. The School District allows for an exemption for those over a certain age, but proving that the tax is a financial burden is not a requirement for taking the exemption. A retiree living on a generous public employee pension who owns their home clear of debt and has 2-3 rental properties providing additional income, could just as easily claim the exemption. Those young families struggling to make ends meet in a town with exorbitant housing costs do not benefit from the exemption and have to pay all of the new taxes. Consequently, every new tax that you advocate for directly impacts ‘those who truly cannot afford to pay’ and helps drive them out of town.
Mark West: The School District allows for an exemption for those over a certain age, but proving that the tax is a financial burden is not a requirement for taking the exemption.
Nor is an across the board means test allowable under California law.
Even if one can “afford” to pay that also comes at different levels. For instance a doctor making $250,000/year can afford to pay a lot easier than a family struggling with bills. Can they squeeze out another $620, most likely yes, but there will be consequences.
It’s not squeezing out another $620, it’s squeezing out another $100 over what they have been paying
Plus the $3,000 that the City will need.
The fact that they have been paying still doesn’t take away the reality that it’s a burden on many homeowners. Are you saying that it isn’t?
The exemptions should be eliminated.
polling consistently shows seniors are on the bubble of supporting the parcel tax WITH exemptions. so then you force the board to eliminate their lawful exemptions and then they lose, then what?
Maybe the proponents work harder to make sure it doesn’t lose.
Perhaps the Board will have to do a better job educating the community on why the taxes are necessary, particularly those seniors who would have taken the exemption.
Perhaps the Board will have to learn to ‘live within the means’ that the community provides.
Perhaps we will turn the City into a retirement community, kick out all of those under 50 and close the schools.
Or perhaps the community will come to the realization that the best way forward is to improve the economic vitality of the City through commercial development instead of repeatedly trying to raise taxes.
maybe. or maybe we just all lose
This path that we are currently on, where our answer to every problem is to raise taxes, is the pathway to certain insolvency. Costs will always outstrip tax revenues. Maybe not this year, maybe not this generation, but we will eventually reach a limit where there is no more money to squeeze out of residents. Continuing on this path guarantees that we all lose. Eventually, probably much too late, we will all come to that realization. Some have just figured it out sooner than others.
Mark
“Yes, you do. There is no ‘means test’ for parcel taxes, they are applied to every property regardless of ability to pay.”
No, I do not. I would also change the structure of our tax laws to allow for means testing or better yet just provide a UBI so we don’t have to worry about it. So please, disagree with me all you like. But do not tell me what I do and don’t encourage. I am quite capable of doing that for myself.
Reconfiguring the school district boundaries to be contiguous with the city boundaries would eliminate this problem.
quielo: Reconfiguring the school district boundaries to be contiguous with the city boundaries would eliminate this problem.
I question if you can do that — disenfranchise students who live outside the city limits.
Your idea would affect families who live in El Macero, Willowbank, Binning Tract, North Davis Meadows, Royal Oaks Trailer Park (has a different name now, but I don’t know what it is) and of course rural areas.
You may not intend to, but the impact of your advocacy is to do so.
It is nice that you want those things, and to work for those ends, but today they do not exist in our current ‘reality’ and so are of no consequence to the discussion. Your advocacy for increasing taxes in today’s reality directly impacts those who cannot afford the additional cost. Your claims to the contrary are nonsense.
When your ‘solutions’ require major changes to society, they are not true solutions, just dreams. Good to have and even work towards, but not very practical in dealing with the reality that we currently face today.
“I question if you can do that — disenfranchise students who live outside the city limits”
Putting aside the obvious fact that K-12 students don’t vote no matter where they live it has been done before and whether it would be possible is a coin toss at this point. Areas in the school district and outside the city may be given the option of becoming part of the city during the process. I don;t see much reason for El Macero, the Binning Tract, and certainly North Davis Farms to be outside the city anyway.
David, why are you beating the dead horse of we should have asked for higher taxes? The district made a decision. Why don’t we simply try to get what is in front of us passed?
I don’t think it’s David’s job to get Measure H pass, although I think his column does a good job of it.
Frankly wrote:
> Except for the fact that you are already giving the
> government $.50 of that dollar.
It would be a dream to “only” give the government $0.50 of each dollar.
The IRS gets close to $0.50 on every dollar I make since I also pay self employment taxes, then CA puts me well over 50% with the 9.3% state income tax rate. The state (and city) get another 8.5% sales tax on most things I buy plus the thousands in property taxes and parcel taxes every year plus almost a hundred other little fees and taxes (like the “municipal service tax” and public safety charge” on the city services bill, “government charges and fees” on the Verizon and Comcast bills every month, auto registration, bike license fees, dog license fee, gas taxes, building permit fees etc. etc. etc.)
P.S. Years ago I added up all the taxes and fees I pay but I don’t want to do it again since it will depress me so much that I might switch from drinking 80 proof Scotch (taxed by the state at $3.30/gallon) to 101 proof Bourbon (taxed by the state at $6.60/gallon)…
LOL! South of Davis… I feel your pain. But scotch is so good I keep paying the tax!
David makes a lot of good points, but so does Frankly. My wife and I are retired but still see 15% of our retirement income disappear before we even see it, in the form of federal taxes. Then, at least another 5% disappears in the form of CA taxes. So, after years of working hard and saving for retirement, at least one-fifth of our fixed income is gone before we even see it. On top of that there’s property taxes and sales taxes. Then I look around and see UCD students sitting in the front yards of their neighborhood mini-dorms in the middle of weekday afternoons drinking beer from pitchers, and wonder why I’m paying State taxes for them to enjoy that luxury. So, I’m still on the fence about Measure H. I’ve almost automatically voted “yes” on school funding measures for decades, but am beginning to wonder if it’s time to start voting “no” as a matter of financial self-preservation.
Davis school parcel taxes, since 2007, have had an optional exemption for senior homeowners (age 65 or older), because the likely situation was that such folks would be retired and on a more fixed income. Prior to 2007, one of the most common criticisms of Davis school parcel taxes was that seniors on fixed income found it to be harder to pay. This was also the situation statewide which led to the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. There is also an optional exemption for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipient homeowners.
Measure H does not involve funding of UC Davis or UCD students, only DJUSD K-12 students.
Yes, and to still raise the necessary revenue the rest of us will have to cover the revenue “exempted”, right?
Edison wrote:
> but am beginning to wonder if it’s time to start voting
> “no” as a matter of financial self-preservation.
If you or your wife are over 65 you can vote for the tax and file a “senior exemption” so you won’t have to pay it.
If you are “retired” but still under 65 you can probably talk your kids in to paying the tax by telling them that good schools will make the home they inherit more valuable.
http://www.djusd.net/parceltax
PS> I don’t believe that us seniors should vote one way or another way unless they are also willing to pay the bill. It is hardly fair at any time….but this type of thing is hardly uncommon and not only in the senior crowd. At UCD and many other places, one may propose a “sliding scale…unfortunately upward as the years go forward”….a good example are the TA contracts and the Davis water project where the current voters subject future students or town residents to higher and higher bills, knowing full well, they may not be around to pay up.
Something is wrong with this type of picture…
PS> Some Davis seniors struggle less than many young families or singles in this town. I don’t really agree with blanket exceptions for certain categories of residents….and I also agree to folks paying their fair share.
Each of those statements are very much up to a difference of opinions as to what is fair, what categories should or shouldn’t pay etc…not easy to get consensus when there are so so many variables.
It may seem like ‘beating a dead horse’ to some, but the simple reality is that school funding is another area of our lives that we have severely limited by restricting the economic vitality of the city. The lack of commercial development means a smaller tax base to fund our programs, including the schools, and fewer businesses able to supply additional support through their generosity.
School funding is further restricted by having insufficient housing for young families. Young professionals working in town or at the University are moving to surrounding communities where they can find appropriate housing, but continue to bring their children to Davis schools. Since these families are not paying the school’s parcel tax, the added burden to fund those extra services are now put on Davis residents. Building sufficient housing in town allows those families to return to Davis, expanding the number of people/parcels funding the schools but without adding to the enrollment burden since the kids are already here in our schools.
The efforts to protect certain people’s ‘quality of life’ by preventing commercial development and blocking additional housing has done nothing but add to the financial burden of everyone else in town. It is the ultimate expression of using other people’s money to fund your own selfish lifestyle, with the added ‘bonus’ of negatively impacting all the children in our schools.
Mark – keep beating that horse, it’s important.
The dead horse I was referring to was David continuing to advocate for even higher parcel taxes to fund the schools. He advocated for that before the school board and lost when the board put up a tax proposal that they felt could actually pass instead of an amount that was pie in the sky high. I agree with you Mark West about everything you have said above except the part where we shortchange the kids because of the foolishness of the adults.
Aloha, hola and mahalo, David.
For many of us it was always about the kids. Even before I had kids of my own, I knew the value of an education. It was instilled into me, an immigrant refugee from a third world country.
I was fortunate to move to SF to a decent neighborhood, and qualify for Lowell HS, and then be chosen for UCD.
I was actually a mediocre student unless I was truly challenged enough with much more advanced projects that sparked my activist interests.
If not for the basics I received very early on, and some lucky breaks, I may not have even been accepted to UCD in those days.
The point is that those of us who have lived what we have, can often share stories which illustrate our points.
This school district went very south under the “leadership” of Susan Lovenberg and I am naming names as she is up for re-election.
Not long ago, I got wrapped up in GATE issues, though my sons are now past 30 ….and found out stuff which would put ones hair on fire….
I met a brilliant attorney in the area, who shared that his biracial child was underserviced….I was already discussing issues with Deanne Quinn, the only expert the DJUSD has had in many a year, and found out that she had never heard of the child….
Deanne reached out to me after I posted on something on the DV….and she is the one who told me that the vast majority of the children identified for the third strand of GATE were minority children….
and that so many teachers, who think they are experts and have little clue of the depth of the needs of children on the gifted side of the scale, later get so frazzled trying to keep up with the level of differentiation needed in such a mixed ability class – that the only ones served by the typical common core classroom are the low average children….the upper level and those at the bottom of the barrel are underserved.
Now that there is money for the vast dare I say majority of children who have issues and are medicated, and the vast majority of children from low income and broken homes, and so on…for the many minority children who were busssed into town and moved into the low income developments sprinkled mostly throughout the 95618 zip code, and those who are very bright were kept out of GATE….
At least two times before this one, I and some parents saved Deanne’s job…it appears that those this last time on the parent group simply couldn’t understand how bad a truly poor board can devastate the schools for the vast majority of children.
I had been at least 30 weeks behind on reading the DE when I saw the headline and wrote a very snarky letter of advice aka letter to the Editor to try to reach GATE parents….they didn’t follow my advice…and everyone here with children, grandchildren, or who cares about education knows what happened.
The point is that those of us who have lived what we have, can often share stories which illustrate our points.
This school district went very south under the “leadership” of Susan Lovenberg and I am naming names as she is up for re-election.
Not long ago, I got wrapped up in GATE issues, though my sons are now past 30 ….and found out stuff which would put ones hair on fire….
And, those stories above are the result…
If you care about the kids, vote well for this election. Vote for Poppinga and Fernandes… I like Granda also, but he is always too little too late. If you vote for him, then likely Susan will win..
If Susan wins, be prepared for a recall vote….
Also, I don’t believe the school district needs more money….look how much they wasted by canning Deanne and then so much else.
I would be happy to help audit the books when I retire of the DJUSD and to make suggestions on benefit plans which will be better, cheaper and still as inclusive.
Of course, you may have to catch me where I am….not likely in the Davis area …at least not for much of the first months of my retirement.
I would also advise the current Super to bring Deann back and to listen to her.
Have a good day…
PS> Dear folks, as I tell anyone who will listen, it is never the money but the principle of the matter….it is also never about the money but about choices.
Though I may think nothing of spending $99 on a DV fundraiser, I will quibble about overpaying for water bills when the family refuse to turn off the water in the yard.
Those on the current majority on the school board, who think they know better than the many parents in this town who have way more alphabet soup initials behind their names, and though some have been teachers or married to teachers or were children of teachers or whatever, they somehow think they know more about education, than education professors…
and in the hard sciences, those full professors will wonder wth the education folks are talking about..
You see, the Math professors who were raised in countries where achievement is many times higher in math than in the US, will scoff at the fuzzy math proposed by Education professors as they are not used to the truly horrific lack of achievement by many in the USA>..
When “know it alls” , who think they know it all, devastate the opportunities for children in this town, sometimes the only way they may listen to those who truly do understand better, is if we withhold the blank checkbook they have gotten so used to.
Tough love some call it.
Marina Kalugin, “…is if we withhold the blank checkbook they have gotten so used to.”
I philosophically oppose the whole concept of parcel taxes because they are regressive; however, I vote aye for any tax that funds education, to not do so will only harm the students. Voting against measure H because one doesn’t like the behavior of a school board member is “cutting off your nose to spite your face”. Other avenues need to be pursued to correct what one percieves to be problems with our school system.
quielo
“I would prefer to take the money from other areas of the budget rather than raise taxes.”
I would agree ( although I can see room for both ) and suggest we start with our prison system. What would be your favorite programs for diversion of funds ?
Tia,
I would second the prison system. If we are talking state money than Medi-Cal would be the most attractive place to look. As an anecdote my friend’s father-in-law was visiting from another country when he had a medical emergency. My friend negotiated an inpatient procedure for $25K cash with a local hospital. After the procedure the hospital sent him the $25K back and said they made more money billing Medi-Cal.
I would of course reverse the LCFF and made districts apply for money based on what additional services they were going to implement.
Big A affordable housing is a pet peeve as it is a lot of money for a few individuals.
The carbon emissions money is also attractive as they are planning now to distribute it to a few well connected insiders.
If we are talking Federal than Section 8 would be the first to go.
Just a start
quielo: If we are talking Federal than Section 8 would be the first to go.
The biggest reason for segregated schools today is segregated neighborhoods, mostly based on income level. No surprise, more affluent neighborhoods have the “better” schools, at least as defined by standardized test scores, which you seem to like.
Section 8 housing maybe the one of the more effective ways to give lower income families access to schools in more affluent communities, in Davis, for instance.
But if the goal is to have the highest standardized test scores possible, well, eliminating Section 8 housing is one way to do that — kick out the students who would be low performers and drag down the standardized test score average.
But the problem is that one original mission of public schools isn’t to have the highest standardized test scores, but to create opportunities for social mobility — giving students the opportunity to move up in social class from one generation to the next.
wdf1 wrote:
> But the problem is that one original mission of public schools isn’t
> to have the highest standardized test scores, but to create opportunities
> for social mobility
For the most part the WASPs that funded public education in the early schools just wanted the poor immigrants to learn to read and write so they would be better workers. Not many of the early public school founders were not looking to have the poor European Catholics, Eastern European Jews and free slaves move up in to their social circles.
As wdf1 has pointed out in the past a parent’s education level is the best predictor of a kids academic success. As a history buff I have realized that a parent’s desire for their children to move up the social ladder has MUCH more to do with the kid’s social mobility than where they went to school.
In the mid 1800’s many “lace curtain” Irish domestic workers came here as starving peasants and after watching how the rich they worked for lived and dressed passed this on to their children who almost always did very well. The “shanty” Irish who came to the US at the same that did not pay attention to the rich and kept on drinking, fighting and starving like the Irish back home passes this on to their kids who more often than not grew up drinking, fighting and starving.
In modern times virtually every poor Jewish and Asian immigrant to the US has seen their kids move “up the social ladder” regardless of the school they went to since the parents have made education and “fitting in” a priority (Asian immigrants will often name their kids “Tom” knowing that name will make it easier to move up the ladder [edited]).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lace_curtain_and_shanty_Irish
[moderator] edited. No stereotypes, please.
“Section 8 housing maybe the one of the more effective ways to give lower income families access to schools in more affluent communities, in Davis, for instance.”
You have a common but incorrect understanding of Section 8. Section 8 is a subsidy for landlords whose purpose is to raise rents by providing an alternative renter so there is never a need to lower rents. Similar in function to programs where the government buys peanut butter as a price support for peanut farmers and then gives the peanut butter to food groups.
The net effect is to significantly raise rents for the people you describe. You may note that when the right-wing makes lists of programs to cut Section 8 is not ever on the list as the main beneficiary are large landlords.
Granted there a few people who benefit just as homeless shelters and food banks like getting free peanut butter and cheese. For about $20B it’s a huge expense. If the feds divided it up evenly for schools it would be an additional $3-4B for the state of california and I believe would lower rents in many places.
There are lower income families who live in Davis and attend Davis schools by virtue of Section 8 housing. They would probably live elsewhere without it. I grant that there maybe better ways of providing affordable, more accessible housing opportunities, but I’m not sure they currently exist or are wide spread.
“There are lower income families who live in Davis and attend Davis schools by virtue of Section 8 housing. They would probably live elsewhere without it.”
That’s a tradeoff, a few families may move but another $3.5B for schools. Which do you believe is more important?
Personally, I think better integrated communities would serve everyone better in the long run with respect to schools, social mobility, and communities in general. That involves having a better housing policy. But most others look at education in isolation, without regard to housing, so my point of view is not likely to have any traction at the state or federal level for a while. Section 8 housing might be as far as we go on this.
Schools benefit when there is better awareness of social development, IMO. Having a diverse student population is one way to bring about better social development in the long term. $3.5B from the state or federal government on schools is probably not going to involve my interests in schools. Rather it will probably involve more standardized testing, more schemes to raise standardized test scores, maybe more STEM instruction. Not all bad in and of itself, but I don’t think it’s very effective in promoting overall social mobility for lower income students.
Privileged families, probably like yours and mine, in general like to live with like-minded and similarly privileged neighbors. Bringing in less-privileged families brings about more anxiety and negative feelings among the privileged. We have euphemistic language for it (like having “good schools”), but it’s bias that is rationalized. That’s why I don’t think any better housing policy will come about for a while.
“I think better integrated communities would serve everyone better in the long run” So when I moved to Davis I could have chosen Natomas, Rio Linda, North Sac, Florin, or many other places. I really don’t think my family would be “better in the long run” and I do count myself as part of “everyone”.
In regards to Section 8 it a huge amount of money and the primary beneficiaries are landlords so we will just have to disagree on that.
In general I am opposed to subsidies that are only available to a few people. This includes things like general aviation which support the rich.
quielo: “I think better integrated communities would serve everyone better in the long run” So when I moved to Davis I could have chosen Natomas, Rio Linda, North Sac, Florin, or many other places. I really don’t think my family would be “better in the long run” and I do count myself as part of “everyone”.
I made the same choice to live in Davis as you did, choosing not to live in those same other places. At an individual level it looked like a good decision for me and it probably looks that way to you, too, right now. But for myself in recent years, I have struggled to bring to my kids some understanding of broader realities of how others live — that there is poverty around and that it affects real people, and it’s not just the homeless folks who hang out downtown or at the public library. My kids have lived in a bubble, and have been relatively well-cared for, and have succeeded in conventional ways for having been raised in Davis and received a college education. But there is poverty that comes from not having a college education. In the Great Recession, it was non-college educated adults who suffered the most, economically, and that same segment was the last to feel any economic recovery. It’s harder to find them in Davis. Today a lot of those folks are Trump voters. Many of them were Bernie Sanders supporters.
In other blog postings, I have commented that I find that adults in Davis are less likely to socialize and personally know someone who doesn’t have college education. And by “socialize and personally know,” I think of someone whom you might invite over to dinner, and chat with at length. What that means over time is a stronger disconnect with segments of larger society. And over time this becomes a trend of social self-segregation, and I think it’s reflected in the politics we see today, in which many see a political divide that we can’t cross.
So yes, our choices make a lot of sense at an individual level, but is questionable on the macro scale. That’s why I posited that “better integrated communities would serve everyone better in the long run.”
wdf1 wrote:
> But for myself in recent years, I have struggled to
> bring to my kids some understanding of broader
> realities of how others live
Volunteer work is a great way to let your kids know “how others live” (and as a bonus become fluent in an other language working with and helping people that don’t speak English).
> But there is poverty that comes from not having a college education.
The only “poverty” of not having a college education (or grad degree) comes from the prejudice of people who choose not to associate with the “lesser” folks who have not gone to college (or grad school). I have never spent a lot of time anywhere in the world where a larger percentage of people look down on those who did not go to college (or grad school) than Davis. I would be more successful in business today and have more money if I never went to college.
> In the Great Recession, it was non-college educated
> adults who suffered the most, economically
In the “Great Recession” the “smart go-getters” suffered the least. It just so happens that most (but not all) “smart go-getters” go to college these days.
> I have commented that I find that adults in Davis are less
> likely to socialize and personally know someone who
> doesn’t have college education.
I agree with this 100% and as I have mentioned it is amazing how often I am not only the only person at a party in town that didn’t go to grad school, but the only one that does not have at least one degree from a “top 25” school (the last ranking I saw for UCD put it at 44)…
P.S. It is amazing how often that when I tell someone in Davis where I went to school that they laugh thinking I am joking (assuming that my wife who went to two “top 5” schools would never be married to someone who went to a college that is not even in the “top 100”)…
I am concerned/aware of this, as well.
I recently heard the term “empathy wall” to describe this phenomenon — the lack of exposure that leads to insensitivity towards others and disregard of commonalities. A barrier to “kindness,” a quality that comes from recognizing we are of the same kind.
A stronger case that integrated communities can yield better academic performance for “at-risk” students. It even reminds me of a place very close to home.
Dana Goldstein, 16, Oct. 2016, Politico: The Inequality Fight Dividing Hillary Clinton’s Hometown An affluent New York suburb was supposed to be a national model for affordable housing. Instead, it proves how hard it is even for towns that say they want to do the right thing.
Excerpt:
Don’t tell the US military this.
The problem as I see it… the education system is liberal and female-oriented. For the inner cities it needs to be conservative and male-oriented.
Frankly: Don’t tell the US military this.
Truman integrated the US military in 1948.
From Goldstein “But integration forces affluent white people to do something big: accept newcomers into their communities.”
When I look at Davis and not broad national trends, I don’t think this describes Davis at all. I believe that an overwhelming majority of whites in our community want integrated communities and schools–once someone is a neighbor (which is directly affected by housing). I see and hear a resounding commitment to second language learning, for example. I see and hear a resounding commitment to neighborhood schools. At the same time, I see and hear a resounding counter commitment to special programs and choice. Much of the drive for choice comes from non-whites and how DJUSD delivers educational services to non-whites or valued by non-whites. When taken to its logical conclusion, “choice” can lead a number of kinds of segregation, e.g. Cesar Chavez, AIM, Montessori, AVID, Fairfield school, DHS’ Academic Center, etc. I say “can” because with administration, the negatives of these choices could be mitigated for. The fact that DJUSD administration doesn’t try to mitigate for them is another topic, but important.
Now expanding the scope back up to the National level–
I recommend this Atlantic article The Destructive Legacy of Housing Segregation
I found it written in a manner that helps put the reader into the shoes of a low income person who is trying to shelter his/her family and the challenges they face as a person in that market. Empathy building.
MrsW: When I look at Davis and not broad national trends, I don’t think this describes Davis at all. I believe that an overwhelming majority of whites in our community want integrated communities and schools–once someone is a neighbor (which is directly affected by housing).
I didn’t have that specific quote (“But integration forces affluent white people to do something big: accept newcomers into their communities.”) in mind when I was commenting on comparisons to Davis. What I had in mind were descriptions in the linked article about efforts in Chappaqua, NY to approve affordable housing and in general have more housing. There are forces in their community that appear to be anti-growth, similar to the way that there are forces in Davis that are resistant to growth.
I agree with you that Davisites in general appreciate diversity, but I think I see a greater appreciation for diversity of culture, race, and ethnicity as long as those individuals have college education, or are clearly on there way to getting it. When I hear comments that ‘Davis is a wonderful place to live for its good schools and being a safe place (with respect to crime)’, the unspoken message that I think I hear is ‘Davis doesn’t have many poor, lower-educated residents that one associates with crime and lower-performing schools.’ I don’t think anyone will explicitly admit that they don’t want lower-income, lower-educated residents, but instead they will describe characteristics of lower-income/lower-educated communities that they don’t like — crime & lower-performing schools.
Frankly: The problem as I see it… the education system is liberal and female-oriented. For the inner cities it needs to be conservative and male-oriented.
I’m not sure what those words (liberal, conservative) mean, coming from you to describe education. In general, I think a diverse range of learning experiences is the best approach to yielding the best outcomes to the most students.
I would agree that a diverse teaching staff is a good thing including having better balance of male & female teachers is good, if possible. If that’s your solution for lower income communities, then you will have to raise salaries for teachers in such districts to attract a greater diversity of applicants.