With the resignation of Cindy Pickett announced effective July 1, when the board meeting again, next week, the board is expected to outline a process for appointing a successor to the board. The successor would be appointed and then have to almost immediately run for a two year seat in November.
It was just two years that we had a somewhat different appointment process where the board simply appointed a replacement to Madhavi Sunder to hold the seat for a few months until the new members – Cindy Pickett and Joe DiNunzio were seated.
A lot has happened in two years since that August 2018 appointment process. In the face of the teacher compensation gap, the board appointed a subcommittee who spent about six months studying the finances of the district and who concluded that the best solution was a nearly $200 per year additional parcel tax to fund teacher compensation increases.
It was a grueling but compressed campaign this year and a long wait from March 3’s election day to April 8’s certification of the results showing that Measure G had passed having received 68% of the vote. The measure is not only permanent, but it has an inflator built into the measure, which should allow teacher compensation to track with other districts.
That from the standpoint of the school district is the good news.
The bad news is that the short-term will be quite challenging as the district now faces a potential shortfall from the state with the huge budget deficit in Sacramento. How big and what the impact of that and how long-lasting are matters future discussion and speculation.
Still I would argue that the overall challenges for the school district have not changed all that much – although the passage of Measure G should address one key and ongoing issue – teacher 
compensation.
Two years ago I argued that we have a great school district but we are also in deep trouble and many in this community do not yet realize it.
The good news I think is that the community is probably more aware of the ongoing funding challenges for DJUSD than it was before. Alan Fernandes and Joe DiNunzio deserve a lot of credit for really unpacking the district’s fiscal challenges.
One of the most important issues was covered in February 2019: If We Are An Average Funded District, Why Do We Have a Compensation Gap?
If We Are An Average Funded District, Why Do We Have a Compensation Gap?
The answer is: we are not an average funded district.
“I don’t like any longer to say we’re an average funded district,” Alan Fernandes explained at the conclusion of the meeting. “Because we’re not.”
The key point from 2019, that hasn’t changed a lot since, is that prior to the new parcel tax, even with the parcel tax, it was $11,582 or about 95% of state average. While that seems reasonable, without the parcel tax that amount drops to $10,333 (84.5%).
The key take-away point, however, is that while the parcel tax appears to take DJUSD from 84.5% of the state average to 95% of state average, it is somewhat of an illusion. The parcel tax is not just general fund money. It has already been allocated to fund specific programs that other districts have decided not to fund.
And for a long time – the district put their money into programs rather than increasing compensation for teachers.
But the bigger point is this: we are disadvantage by the current funding system. LCFF funds only about 79% of the district’s operating expenses with the rest made up through local parcel taxes.
To some extent, we have solved that particular problem. The community decided to step up and close that gap.
There is another point here – while we have solved the teacher compensation gap, what happens the next time, the state has to cut funding to our district – which is now coming sooner rather than 
later.
In 2018, I argued that we face a quality of life crisis in this community – on all fronts, not just school related.
We have an unfortunate tendency to view the issue of schools in one silo and the issue of city financing in another.
But as I argued in 2018, schools are a key to the quality of life in this community. schools increase property values – one broker told me by as much as 40 percent.
What we face in this community is the reality that the cost of housing is pushing out the middle. The middle could mean middle income people who cannot afford to purchase homes in Davis. The middle could mean people in the 30 to 55 age range who are declining as a demographic precisely because they cannot afford that housing.
The result is this community more and more is a bifurcated community – those under 25 who attend the university and those over 60, who have purchased their homes here before pricing skyrocketed.
Declining enrollment for school is problematic. As we have explained a number of times over the past several months – when you lose students you lose ADA money. But because of economies of scale and the reality of fixed costs and overhead, districts end up not being able to shed costs fast enough to keep up.
This means as you lose students, you lose revenue but it also becomes more expensive per student to provide educational services.
Demographics in the city then pose an ongoing challenge for the district. They also pose an ongoing challenge for the city. Even outside of the threat of losing millions in revenue with COVID – the city was already struggling to meet its revenue needs for city services and infrastructure.
The roads are badly in need of repairs and the city can no longer afford to maintain basic infrastructure like roads, parks, greenbelts and city buildings.
Right now we see our community as a great community – a great place to live, but unless we fix these problems long term, we no longer will be able to afford to maintain either.
That was the challenge two years ago for the schools and it remains one today.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The biggest immediate challenge facing the school board is overseeing the re-opening of the schools safely such that parents are willing to send their kids back. If a large percentage of parents feels the situation is unsafe, the district’s ADA funding will plummet. If a significant percentage are going to be distance learning, the board needs to provide oversight to ensure that’s done correctly and that all students have the resources they need. They may need to significantly expand resources to DSIS if there are going to be lots of students learning at home.
I think the overall challenges for the school district have changed dramatically, affecting their whole agenda for the next 1 – 2 years.
I was just talking with someone about that, I don’t see how they can re-open until January. I’m not sending my kids to a physical school this fall.
I don’t get it, what’s magical about January?
I guarantee you the kids are not getting the same level of education at home.
I should have said “at least” until January
They can. We did it via DSIS. But it takes a commitment of time and effort by a parent.
Sure, some can, many don’t.
How many are slipping through the cracks?
So if 20% of parents make that decision, what’s the hit to the district’s ADA? And what would be the impact on staffing?
It will depend on several factors. (1) Do they offer a distance learning option and (2) how does the state handle ADA amid COVID – afterall they handled it differently than usual this year.
“I guarantee you the kids are not getting the same level of education at home.”
Really ? I know many parents that are very skilled in math, science and reading skills who now also have the time at home to expand their kids’ curriculum to include practical applications of those other skills by cooking, building and home remodel/repair and craft projects. These are useful and vendible skills that the schools are not equipped to provide.
My bigger concern is that kids are not able to practice the social skills school once provided, but hopefully in a few months they will be able to return to a more relaxed social setting than would now be required for physical safety.
The problem we are having is that both of us work full time. The kids are young and need parents to sit with them, but we have other obligations. So that puts a huge onus on parents and is a huge problem for working parents, especially those who are not at home because they are blue collar workers who cannot telecommute and those parents with demanding jobs even if they can telecommute.
So, it’s not really about “education”.
It’s about having a taxpayer-funded babysitting service. On top of all the other tax breaks for having kids.
Why not just call it what it is?
Raising a child costs an average of a quarter million dollars (before college). And that “education” is actually preparing the workforce to pay for your Social Security, Medicare and any other retirement income (all investment income is 100% dependent on the labor force). There are subsidies flowing from you to parents–its the other way around.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2018/02/26/raising-child-costs-233-610-you-financially-prepared-parent/357243002/
Yes – the subsidies ultimately flow to children, who then grow up to contribute to that system.
But, those who nevertheless contribute to that system (in adulthood) are also subsidizing those who essentially aren’t paying the full cost.
Now, whether or not those offspring then grow up to fully offset those costs, I’m less sure of. But it certainly appears that there isn’t enough “production” to fully offset those costs, e.g., in various retirement and medical care systems.
Not to mention the costs of the school system, etc., itself.
In any case, it strikes me (to some degree) as yet another Ponzi scheme.
The “logic” of this argument is that districts should always be “oversized”, to begin with.
For example, create a district for 10,000 students, in a community that only has 5 students. That ought to “save money”.
“The “logic” of this argument is that districts should always be “oversized”, to begin with.”
That’s actually not true. The logic of it is that declining enrollment is the culprit not the overall size.
Just taking your argument to its logical conclusion.
If it’s “cheaper”, why not build one that’s too large in the first place?
Because there’s no advantage to do so. Where is the revenue coming from?
Good question, but didn’t address what I asked.
If it’s cheaper to (purposefully) build a district that’s larger than what a community needs, wouldn’t that be the “logical” thing to do in the first place?
And if not, why is it “cheaper” to continue to maintain an oversized one?
You’re misconceptualizing this issue. As you increase in size – you get more revenue from additional attendance and you save marginally on economies of scale and fixed costs. As you shrink, you lose ADA and you have to shed costs to keep up – but the problem is that you can’t shed costs fast enough in part because of fixed costs and economies of scale. It’s not “cheaper” to run, it’s that the per unit cost goes down as you expand and up as you contract.
I’m not “misconceptualizing” this issue at all.
That is a different issue. No business pursues “economy of scale” if there’s no market for their product. They tailor their production to meet demand.
Or, they try to “increase” demand, as the school district is attempting to do. Just like a business, they have a vested interest in attempting to do so – regardless of what’s in the best interest of a community.
Would you like to speculate, regarding the reason that costs are not shed “fast enough”?
Again, that has nothing to do with economies of scale.
Again, you’re conflating “economies of scale” with overall costs.
Which leads me back to my question: If it’s “cheaper” to build an oversized district (to accommodate more than the actual demand), why wouldn’t every community do so, in the first place?
Some simple examples of this.
The Superintendent – if we add 10 students to the district, the superintendent is not going to get a pay increase and we are not going to have to add additional staffing. So that is largely a fixed cost. That means as the number students go up, the cost per student for the superintendent goes down.
That’s the basic example of fixed costs.
Economies of scale – For a single serving package of cheerios, you can get a six pack at Walmart for about $6.48. You can get a 9 ounce box of Cheerios for $2.99 at Target. 15 ounce box is $3.49. 20 ounces is $4.50. The cost of the boxes goes up, but the cost per ounce shrinks as your economy of scale reduces. That’s the second basic concept.
Therefore if you reduce you need – you can save money, but you are not saving money on a unit by unit basis.
“Again, you’re conflating “economies of scale” with overall costs.”
No in fact you are. The cost goes down, just not proportionately.
The current size of DJUSD, the number of schools at different grade levels, was based on enrollment projections from the 1990’s that didn’t come to pass. At the time they seemed reasonable, since the schools were very overcrowded back then. Two additional elementary schools were built, and another junior high school, to accommodate current and projected enrollment. The city and district had grown considerably over the previous decade.
Then enrollment growth slowed to a rate that meant there was a surplus of facilities. Ultimately it came down to the fact that the district had only really needed one new elementary school. Nobody really questions the need for the junior high, given how crowded Emerson and Holmes were. After much community discussion and considerable push-back, Valley Oak Elementary was closed. That still left them with barely enough enrollment at those grade levels to fill the schools with efficient use of teacher and staff resources. Closing schools is a very difficult, controversial decision.
In a metropolitan region which is expected to continue to have increasing population, it is not unreasonable for DJUSD to expect there will be some growth in enrollment over a decade or so, but the demographics of Davis have changed in ways that push that possible growth out further than they originally expected. So they can fill the facilities with interdistrict transfers, for which there is a strong demand, and they can consolidate facilities and leave some empty or repurposed until they become needed.
I’ll go ahead and respond, but this is not intended to illustrate exactly what might be done.
You would probably need an outside consultant, to accomplish this (given that the school district has a vested interest in the status quo).
Maybe he/she should get a pay “decrease”, and maybe there should be less staffing.
Or, maybe they should consolidate with other districts.
Not necessarily.
True, if his/her pay remained the same. (Or, if the position was still needed in a consolidated district, for example.)
That would not necessarily be true.
That’s the same concept. Honestly, do you think I don’t understand “economies of scale”? Why do you keep bringing this up?
Right. But the problem is that you might not need a “six-pack of Cheerios”. You might only need “three”, for example.
The rest would normally go in the garbage, unless you artificially increase “demand”.
Again, I’m well-aware of “economies of scale”.
Which leads me back to my original question: If it’s cheaper to (purposefully) build an oversized district (larger than what’s needed to meet demand), why wouldn’t every community pursue that?
I have talked to consultants – you should because you are not listening to what they tell me – and this is really basic economics. The bottom line is you seem to continually conflate “cheaper” and “less per unit.” It costs less per unit (in this case per pupil) but it costs more to be larger. The issue again goes to the revenue – revenue comes in based on per pupil, as you add students, the fixed costs per student go down, and the economy of scale works in your advantage. As you contract, you lose revenue from the pupils and you have to shed costs to recover that lost revenue, but are disadvantaged in doing so because of the fixed costs and because of the reverse economies of scale.
It would be better if you simply wrote in paragraphs, it’s hard to follow.
Ron O
Are you saying that DJUSD should ignore all current financial obligations for its existing infrastructure, tear down all of its existing buildings and infrastructure, and then build the school complex for TODAY’S student body population? And then what does the district do 10 years from now when the district is yet another size? How often does the district “right size” in your scheme?
Your fundamental flaw is assuming that the district can easily expand and contract costlessly. Keynes greatest single insight was describing how the economy is often “sticky” with many adjustment costs. Until you can describe how commitments can be shed costlessly, you have little to go on. There is not way to “right size” readily once a district is a going concern.
(And since this is your proposal entirely, you need to give us a complete set of details, and not try to claim its someone else’s job. You’ve already been shown that it won’t work by those who work with the numbers. You need to explicitly show why they are wrong, not just simply assert that you’re right with absolutely no evidence.)
No.
They close down unneeded schools, consolidate districts (as you suggested), etc. For now, they “poach” students from other districts.
Show me where I said that.
There is “not way”? Do you mean that there’s “no way”? I just suggested a way. So did you.
It’s not “my” proposal, and the excess capacity (beyond what the community needs) has been noted by others on here (first).
What do you think I’m “wrong” about, and what are others “right” about? Especially given that you and I have both come up with the same possible solution, as one example (e.g., consolidation)?
Also, why are you proposing “solutions”, if you think there’s no problem?
The district is going to be forced to deal with this (regardless), as noted in the article below:
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/new-projections-forecast-slow-decline-school-enrollment-as-local-birth-rate-continues-to-drop/
“They close down unneeded schools, consolidate districts (as you suggested), etc. For now, they “poach” students from other districts.”
In previous articles I have shown you the math on what this looks like. In addition, it doesn’t actually solve the problem if the underlying base of students continues to decline. This is the point you keep missing – size isn’t the issue, it’s declining enrollment that is the actual problem because you lose revenue and cannot shed costs fast enough or efficiently enough to keep pace.
Another key point here – even if you could “right size” a district, it doesn’t solve the problem. If you are in declining enrollment, then you are bleeding money faster than you can shed costs.
Don – I think your point gets to the bigger question. Demographics are clearly changing in Davis. We are becoming more of a bar bell – a lot of people 18 to 25, a lot of people over 60, and not a lot of people in the middle. We can continue our current policies and allow that to play out, or we can attempt to change the direction. That to me is the real point I wanted to raise in this piece.
That’s right – you want to “adjust the community” to meet the school district’s “needs”. Rather than the other-way around.
The “tail wagging the dog”.
To me this is a community-based issue – what do we want the community to look like.
What you want the community to “look like”. What an odd thing to say. (Maybe even more so, in regard to your advocacy regarding housing that could have been on UCD’s campus – rather than in the city itself.)
But again, nothing to do with economies of scale, or the poaching of students from other districts, for example. And, sticking David property owners with the parcel taxes (and development fees) for an oversized district.
Again, you cannot trust an institution such as a school district to appropriately adjust itself (on its own). But, it’s nevertheless inevitable, as even new residents have fewer kids.
We talk about it all the time. It’s embedded in our vision, our general plan. The fact that we favor a small compact design with ag surrounding it. The fact that we talk about the character of Davis, small town feel, college town, etc. That’s all about how we want the community to look like. Nothing odd about it, it’s at the core of all our planning discussions.
The “poaching” model (pursuit of non-resident students) actually might work for now, regarding your “economies of scale” argument.
But of course, that has other ramifications – not all of which are good.
Ultimately, I suspect that DJUSD will be forced to reckon with the inevitable, over time. But, not without one helluva fight (resistance).
If they simply allow people who work in Davis to bring their kids to school here, that seems defensible. I do think it’s an error to actually advertise and recruit – that I actually have a problem with.
Of course, the resistance will fade over time, as well.
Perhaps the same thing has occurred (or will occur) in some other communities, as the number of children decreases.
This brings up a point David, I wonder if school districts that are losing students to another district have a case that they should get the ADA funds if their kids aren’t actually attending out of town schools during this time of COVID?
How about next year if the school year is pushed back?
It’s not like the people who work in other towns than where they live are now bringing their kids to school there.
Just something to ponder……
Ron O
Please identify exactly when the district was expanding facilities and staff when it should have been standing still or shrinking.
And what current ongoing financial obligations (not salaries, but payment obligations to debt and pensions) have you identified that the district can readily shed when it “cost effectively” right sizes?
Hilarious, to suggest that would be accomplished on a blog.
Look, you can either accept this, or try to continue to deny/fight it:
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/new-projections-forecast-slow-decline-school-enrollment-as-local-birth-rate-continues-to-drop/
The big story you haven’t touched upon is the retirement of Bruce Colby.
Thanks Bruce for your years of dedicated service.
Of course who could blame him with the district facing a funding shortfall currently projected at $7 million due to the pandemic and the district sitting with a low level of reserves. The school board and the district are going to need to make some tough choices if no relief comes.
Just wondering if you know who is responsible for this:
Study: 24 states have uncontrolled virus outbreaks
Multistate manhunt ongoing for UConn student after killing, home invasion
Sacramento school district votes to lay off 12 teachers. More ‘difficult decisions’ ahead
((Apparently, larger isn’t always more-efficient.)
Woops – not the first couple of headlines. Editing period immediately cut-off.
I agree; thanks to Bruce and best wishes in retirement. Over the years I found Bruce very approachable and straightforward during my time on various DJUSD committees and site councils. The school district has been fortunate to have him.
Actually did cover it – but it was on the newsletter not the website
‘The fact that we favor a small compact design with ag surrounding it. The fact that we talk about the character of Davis, small town feel, college town, etc.”
How do seven story apartment buildings fit into that vision of a small town feel?
I wonder how changing anything in Davis is going to address this (from the same article regarding Sacramento’s school district woes, above):
Man – some must be breathing a “sigh of relief”, regarding the timing of the parcel tax approval for teacher raises in Davis.
A week or two later, and it might have been “toast”.
Whew! 😉
But yeah, sounds like you and Eileen are actually on the same page, regarding yet another megadorm.
“I wonder how changing anything in Davis is going to address this (from the same article regarding Sacramento’s school district woes”
As I wrote in the article: “The bad news is that the short-term will be quite challenging as the district now faces a potential shortfall from the state with the huge budget deficit in Sacramento. How big and what the impact of that and how long-lasting are matters future discussion and speculation.”
Probably all districts – not just Davis’.
And some (such as Sacramento’s) are worse-off in the first place – by far.
Maybe time to start reconsidering those tax breaks, for parents. (Yeah, that will “happen”.)
Then again, distance learning might increase (thereby lowering costs – if school districts don’t fight it, and if parents start allowing it). Sounds like that’s going to happen in the short-term at least, anyway.
One teacher could teach many (online), if the taxpayer-funded, in-person babysitting function of schools wasn’t also “demanded”.
That’s exactly why I focused on the structural issues rather than the short-term shortfall, but since you brought it up, I showed you that I addressed the issue.
You addressed it on a personal level, and also mentioned some other examples.
Someone else (other than me) noted that kids can actually get a good, perhaps even better education at home.
And even more so now, via technology.
It would be interesting to see the results of the nationwide “experiment” that we’re currently undergoing (regarding at-home learning).
Ultimately, it seems to me that a question needs to be asked regarding how much society wants to subsidize the cost of having kids, for those who really can’t afford to do without significant subsidies. And in essence, that includes the baby-sitting service provided by schools, day care, etc.
(However, I’m sure I’m in the minority, regarding that question.) On the other hand, there’s “never going to be enough subsidy money”, as you can already see.
“ Someone else (other than me) noted that kids can actually get a good, perhaps even better education at home.”
Definitely not my experience with distance learning with two parents who have full time jobs.
Yeah – you’re one of the people who depended-upon that subsidy. You’re not alone, but I’m sure there’s successful examples of the experiment that we’re undergoing.
Of course, I realize that you generally can’t leave very young children unsupervised, at home.
In the “old days”, Mom stayed at home with the kids. (Sometimes, it’s “Dad” now, in some families.)
Then, there’s grandma and grandpa, etc. Provided they live somewhere nearby.
But yeah – it must be a “shock” to have to suddenly have to take care of your own kids – even with the distance learning assistance – after depending upon the system to watch after them, etc. (Forgive me if I’m laughing, a little.)
As you know I am an advocate of telecommutes, technology and agree with Jeff that education needs a disruption. That said, I can tell you first hand, it doesn’t work well with young kids and parents who work. In fact, I’m not sure it has worked well period talking to teachers, admins, and other other parents. The one thing we lack here is longitudinal data, but at least first and second hand, I call into question whether this is workable for most families except perhaps those with a stay at home parent – which is comparatively rare and ignores the plight of families who both work or without college degrees.
Also most parents aren’t trained to educate. Some will do their best but I doubt most students are getting the 4, 5, or 6 hours of class time that they received attending school.
This is just a band aid for now, but in no way should this be the future.
Hey – something we agree on!
Davis has an independent study school that covers all grade levels. There are hundreds of students who have been through DSIS and done very well. It is effective. It requires a commitment from the parents. It might be necessary for one or both parents to adjust their work schedules to help make it work. So with respect to:
It is workable.
I suggest you contact DSIS and find out about their program if you intend to keep your kids out of school in the fall. For all the years we did DSIS with our kids, we both worked full time.
David: There’s actually two parts to this:
1) Lessons/education, which doesn’t necessarily have to be performed by parents – due to the use of technology, and
2) Babysitting service.
I haven’t actually seen many articles regarding the (nationwide) results of school shutdowns, and online learning.
In general, online learning can provide the best teachers, the best lessons, and even the best environment – depending upon the situation. And, one teacher can teach thousands.
Now, the same is not true of the babysitting service. That’s hands-on. But again, maybe that’s something to consider, before “embarking upon” such a major decision. (Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to be the case, for many.)
Regardless of what one thinks of my opinion, “society” seems to (somewhat) agree with me, regarding the perennial “shortfall” of funding – despite the massive tax breaks, free education, lunches, etc. – for kids.
And, if one is actually concerned for kids (other than their own), there’s LOTS of examples of those in far more-challenging situations. We can start with Sacramento’s schools (and move on from there), but really – think about how families live around the world – in some much less-wealthy societies.
Truth be told, anyone fortunate enough to take advantage of Davis public schools ought to be pretty thankful, and perhaps stop continually asking for “more”.
Hey – I just saw Don’s post above, and appreciate it as well.
But you are not talking from experience here. And you’re also not talking from data here. In fact, it’s hard to know what your basis is for your view…. But I can break it down a bit from the perspective of a parent, who not only has to work, has a very demanding job.
Yeah but there is another part of this. It’s not just babysitting. (1) You have to make sure the kids log on when they are supposed, (2) you have to make sure they stay logged on, (3) you have to make sure they participate in class, (4) you have to make sure they do the work, (5) you have to explain to them how to do the work if they get stuck and with my kids some of these steps are more difficult than they sound on paper. That means one of the parents has to stop their work and work with the kids. The process has proven a lot easier for my 16 year old who can be more independent. But even he has proven difficult to make sure he does the work and turns it in. Two of my kids have special needs issues that represent another layer. The instructional time has fallen way down. The amount of work they do has dropped. Keith’s view is correct – this is a bandaid and temporary and that’s fine, but the kids probably lost half a year of schooling as a result of this.
On a personal level, I’d say that I pretty much “stopped learning” in public schools sometime around the later stages of junior high. And, didn’t pick it up again until college.
Truth be told, it’s a good thing I was apparently smart-enough (on my own) to pick it up by that point again, I guess. And, I didn’t come from a dysfunctional family. (No – that’s not a comment regarding yours.)
Many public schools are dysfunctional, and can’t even keep kids safe in many environments. And no, I’m not talking about school shootings.
Regardless, your personal experience is anecdotal, as is mine. But, I suspect that “both” are common. As are “success” stories – as Don just mentioned.
And, let’s be even more “truthful”.
Those who depend upon public schools move to (or stay in) communities that have functioning ones in the first place – such as those in Davis. At least, the “motivated” parents.
The rest are “left behind”. And, they are disproportionately “people of color”. That, plus the increasing dysfunction ends up “scaring” white families into leaving at an even higher rate. “White flight”. (Unless one can afford a private or religious school.)
Roseville also comes to mind, from what I’ve observed. Middle-class white families.
Probably “whites AND Asians”, are in the same “category”, in this example. (And, in most other examples.)
I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re increasingly represented in online learning, as well. Now, and into the future.
That might be true for a small, educated segment of parents, but not true for the general population. Those latter students supply the majority of our workforce.
I’d say that many are getting a pretty poor education in public schools. (Not a comment regarding Davis schools.)
Nor does it seem directly related to the amount of funding, as poor-performing districts receive more.
So hey, if you want more state funding . . . 😉
Just kidding.
Education has needed disruption for decades but has resisted due to giant government jobs program that also feeds the establishment political machine.
What we need is greater differentiation of methods and curriculum that targets the specific learning style-capability of the student. It needs to be technology-driven. And the curriculum needs to shed the BS common ideological indoctrination that masquerades as useful humanities instruction… and instead developed real life skills and foments critical thinking skills, individualism and diversity of thought/perspective.
The shrinking of government and the related reforms of education might be the ONLY positive outcomes from this man-made economic catastrophe.
Don’t you ever get bored of singing the same old mendacious tune? I know many of us are tired of hearing it. Your defective (and deceptive)reasoning seems to rely on false premises and your own prejudices.
While certain content may benefit from being presented in a particular way, there is no evidence that learning is enhanced by changing the mode of presentation to match students learning preferences. This idea has taken strong hold because it is an appealing one. It is consistent with a desire to see ourselves as individuals, it is a positive and optimistic and false proposition that each person has equivalent potential to learn if the instruction can be matched to their individual learning style, and it and it places the responsibility for students’ achievement (or lack thereof) on the teachers and schools rather than the students.
The evidence that this decades old approach affects outcomes is scant to non-existent.
Part of the problem is that before you can “fit” the method of delivery to a student, you must evaluate that student’s “learning style” but with hundreds of commercial and non-commercial assessment tools available, which one works? (Spoiler: so far none) even the long debunked theory of multiple Intelligences and your favorite the Meyers-Briggs typography have been adapted for the purpose.(Another good example of reasoning from false premises)
One finds thousands of journal articles, books, conference presentations, magazine articles, websites, etc. While the volume of the literature may suggest that the hypothesis at the heart of the theory has been well studied, that would be incorrect. Scholars who have studied this material note that it is all theoretical and descriptive rather than empirical and does not appear in peer reviewed journals. Very few of the empirical studies are methodologically strong, lacking randomly assigned control groups. the remaining few do not support the “styles” hypothesis.
Ultimately the instruments which purportedly measure learning styles really just measure a student’s studying “preferences.” Most current psychological research on metacognition demonstrates that our beliefs about how we process information and how we learn are wrong, with people predicting superior performance with instructional methods that ultimately produce inferior results. Therefore objectively-measured improvements in performance, rather than self-reported perceptions of effectiveness, are desirable.
Such an approach approach can prevent wasteful spending on ineffective educational experiments. Learning styles theory has failed to produce any evidence of being a valuable educational tool. By focusing on teaching to students’ strengths this approach misses an important opportunity to encourage students to develop their weaknesses as well, instead of providing an excuse for poor performance to the detriment of students who will not recognize the need to make changes or seek help.
Hogwash of a self-serving academic with a horse in the money race.
As a a father of children that attended the Davis school system, and a manager of people from the age of 20 it is clear to me and everyone with similar experience that the education system is a mess failing to prepare students for a life of economic self-sufficiency. In corporate America we long ago determined that each employee is a unique development challenge and that personality traits, learning styles, biases, perspectives, life experiences and basic brain wiring make for a need to custom-fit. The education system cannot get out of its own way trying to shove every child into a very limited and very controlled box of education approaches. The reason… it is a more difficult service model to provide highly differentiated instruction. And those unionized education employees like to have their jobs made as easy as possible.
There is copious scientific evidence that the human animal is highly differentiated in unique intelligence types and different brain wiring where learning needs to be differentiated to be optimized. You and others rejection of this only proves the very first point… a massive defense of the old worthless 150 year old lecture model that primarily serves to provide job security to the adult employees of the system.
Jeff B
Wow, I agree with your assessment of the current education model. For example, the singular lecture model is a good part of the reason why boys are now lagging behind girls in the early elementary grades–that group needs a more active learning model.
I don’t think “all” teachers fall into resistance to this new model, much like how not all police officers tolerate brutality within the force. In both cases, its a small cadre who control the dialogue, and it reflects badly on both groups. The question is how to change the culture in both of these groups.
As a father of children that attended the Davis school system, and a manager of people from the age of 20, I do not agree with your conclusions at all.
“Hogwash of a self-serving academic with a horse in the money race.”
Delusion/lie#1: In no way am I nor have I ever been an academic, self serving or otherwise.
Delusion/lie#2: with a horse in the money race.
Nope, not a one.
” In corporate America we long ago determined that each employee is a unique development challenge and that personality traits, learning styles, biases, perspectives, life experiences and basic brain wiring make for a need to custom-fit. ”
Well there’s your problem right there, a skewed perspective and subject bias.
“You and others rejection of this only proves the very first point… a massive defense of the old worthless 150 year old lecture model …”
I just pointed out that almost all reputable psychological studies say otherwise.
Delusion/lie#3: “that primarily serves to provide job security to the adult employees of the system.”
Read Tomlinson’s book “Leadership for Differentiating Schools and Classrooms”
You act like differentiated instruction is somehow a novel concept and it’s like you slept-walked through a couple of years of local debate on that topic.
Doesn’t sound all that different to me, and I would agree with both.
To Jeff’s more specific point, I’d recommend reading “Rich Dad, Poor Dad”.
The part that’s really interesting is noting which one was “educated”. And, which one ended up “hiring” those who were educated. (Something to that effect.)
The other part of that book that’s interesting is the “resistance” that the author noted, regarding what he put forth (e.g., from those “educated”).
I’d also recommend searching out some of George Carlin’s comments regarding “education”. (And, “child worship”, for that matter.)
Along with the “real owners” of the country.
(Something like that.)
In any case, it’s brilliant.
Rich Dad Poor Dad is a great book. Read it at least twice, but have not yet left the rat race.
Jeff B
I agree the education system needs the fundamental, differentiated change that you describe. However the ideological goal you set out isn’t the correct course. Instead we need MORE education about the experiences of others in our nation and the world, not less. We need BETTER informed students, not less informed which is what your proposal (and the Texas Board of Education) would head towards. We need to be MORE informed about our community, not less. (It’s amazing how blind you can be to the indoctrination that occurs in other states with a focus on reactionary principles instead.)
Huh? I have no idea what you are chattering about here. The education system is used for leftist ideological imprinting… stuffing those little muffin heads with all sorts of senseless and irrational hypersensitivity and frankly, lies, that end up making them terrible employees that have to be reverse engineered just to allow them to function. I hire bright UCD students that generally take about 3-5 years to deprogram. When the light goes on they ask me “why didn’t they teach me that in school?”
Today those kids can get all of the fake news ideological brainwashing they care to absorb from those little 24×7/365 massively powerful research computers they carry around with them constantly. But meanwhile they should learn some economics, financial accounting… and how to fill out a tax return… in addition to many other life skills that have been axed by the education system to be replaced with victim studies classes.
I’d have to agree that it has that bias, at least in places like California. Regardless of whether or not one “agrees” with it.
I have not had this experience. I also don’t speak about my employees or children in this extremely condescending manner. Interestingly, I have not had “terrible employees.” I’d guess you’re pretty hard to work for if you have these attitudes about your staff.
I thought we were talking about DJUSD, not UCD.
Econ might be an interesting thing to teach in high school, but it isn’t what I’d consider core curriculum for everyone. Nor financial accounting. I would like to see more vocational programs, where those could be useful courses.
Most young adults don’t need to fill out a tax return since they don’t itemize their deductions.
I don’t recall my kids taking any victim studies classes.
Don: Do you see the basic “lefist” (or is it “liberal”) bias in public schools (in places like California, and perhaps more specifically – places like Davis, the Bay Area, etc.)?
I can’t put my finger on it, other than in a film literature class I took in college. In that case, it was pretty obvious.
Again, I’m not referring to “agreeing” or “disagreeing” with that view. That’s a separate issue.
I suspect that schools (wherever they are) largely reflect the views/values of the inhabitants (or are “biased”, in that direction). I suspect that there’s more “conservative” districts (elsewhere), as well.
Leftists are people of radical views who tend to want to overthrow the government. We need to keep on track or people will go into silly tangents.
Davis HS requires economics, usually senior year. Within the first couple of pages of their course catalog.
What you described here is a radical or far leftist.
Leftists are just people with left leaning views.
Leftist has a specific radical connotation.
How about “progressives”? And, how are they different from “regressives”?
Anyone want to make something up? Because that’s all this stuff really is. 😉
They missed it by that much…
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/ethnicguidelines.asp
I used to go around and around with you on the topic of mainstream liberal media bias. You claimed it did not exist. Maybe you are just a bit slower at recognizing the reality trends.
Nice try. Little muffin heads relates to the point that they are underdeveloped in understanding the world around them and highly impressionable. They have to be started young to get their ideological imprinting. If you are going to assimilate them into the collective, do it when they don’t have any other concepts injected into their heads.
I am sure you have read the scientific studies proving that modern educational experience seems to reduce critical thinking skills.
That is good to hear. I did not know that. I would like to see the actual syllabus to make sure it is real economics and not just fake news to inject socialism hogwash.
In the same place where you were looking up Ethnic studies is an extended framework description of Economics.
While I am generally encouraged, I think there are bits to this description that are not good sign. It depends on who is teaching it and how they deliver the subject matter and how they frame the lessons. I worry that this is just a repackaging of what should be standard micro and macro economics into a “social consciousness” framework… which is just more of the left-biased ideological imprinting junk that needs to stop.
I guess while the left tribe owns the business of education we will see left tribal bias in the curriculum. That is a problem because the job is to stay politically and ideologically neutral and allow the students to develop their own views on these things. That is the critical thinking skills that seem to be not an aim of education… but instead an aim to eliminate.
I hired interns that would have never considered a career in lending because their education had taught them that it was a bad (possibly evil) profession. You can see this is Hobbs labeling me “Banker Boone” his bias is clear. But then look at the nations that forbid banking or lack a banking infrastructure… they are backwards and their people generally don’t have anything close to our good life. And my young previously brainwashed hires eventually get it… that lending money to private business is one of the key ingredients that enables society to pay the salaries of all their leftist professors that worked hard to convince their students that bankers were bad and evil.
That is just one example. Economics at a fundamental level is valuable enough and should not be corrupted with the hogwash that an ideologue fake economists like Paul Krugman would approve of. That same ideologue fake economist that was sure the economy would crash weeks after the November 2016 election.
There is a subtle but important ideological different that gets to the heart of the problem. And it has a basis in pursuit of individual self interest that has organized into two tribes.
The tribe that owns the education establishment and sets the curriculum is the administrative tribe. It serves their pursuit of human hierarchy and the related income to have more indoctrinated into supporting the administrative tribe. According to the lessons the kids will learn, the private sector loan officer making a good commission is bad, but this person is good:
Take the scenario where 100 people are set down on an isolated land. They have nothing… no connection with the outside wold… only themselves. They will immediately prioritize on needs fulfillment. Food, shelter, etc. Those of the 100 that do a good job producing those things will likely become the leaders… the top of the hierarchy. Eventually they note the benefit in consolidating services for justice, road maintenance, postal service, education, etc. And they elect and appoint people to take on the role to provide the common services. These administrators serve the producers. The administrators produce nothing of value except to serve efficiency of service to help the producers produce more.
What we have today is the administrators out of control. Having grown too big without enough oversight, they are naturally pursuing their interest to take more from the producers.
The problem from an economics perspective is that this is not a sustainable trajectory. We cannot pay the Barbara Ferrers $500k in salary plus a millionaires pension and expect that our economic system will thrive or even thrive. I bet that are not doing THAT math in Davis high school economics.
I must be dense. I cannot understand why you are using a thread about public education on the Davis Vanguard to attack the public health director of Los Angeles County.
“attack” Not at all. Do you think she should be paid that much? She is not a medical doctor. She has no private sector work experience.
The answer is simple. No. Not by a LONG SHOT.
She is of the same tribe of public-sector money beneficiaries as are the employees of the education system. The education system is subtly pushing a narrative that benefits that tribe. You as a tax-paying private business owner should be against this, but for some reason that I cannot understand you support their high pay and seem to be fine with them taxing you into a much lower economic situation.
Her pay is inflated way higher than what labor market would support because the administrative state has grown unchecked and has not control. California, which spends the most overall on education, spends 28.3 percent of its budget on education, 15th most in the country, and the argument is that it is not enough. It is not enough for the state health department. It is not enough for every damn agency. And then we have the public-sector managed education system teaching economics to the children that will eventually vote to increase taxes, increase budgets and increase administrative pay.
Barbara Ferrer is a glaring example of the overall problem. An ideological agenda supporting big government and anti industrialism because it serves the immediate pockets of our public sector “servants”.
I am looking forward to extracting the students from this brainwashing factory to think for themselves. There is some good news. Recent surveys of younger students has almost 50% wanting to start and grow a business. Once they get started in that they will start to recognize how their education experience was polluting their heads with bad stuff.
I must be dense. I cannot understand why you are using a thread about public education on the Davis Vanguard to attack the public health director of Los Angeles County.
And now I cannot understand why you are doubling down on this off-topic attack, and pretending it is not an attack. And then attacking her more and again.
Quite bluntly, most of what you posted here is irrational and borderline incoherent.
No, you were correct the first time. Dense. Spend some more time listening to people that don’t agree with your politics and you might learn enough to get it one day.
Maybe one day we can sit down and I can explain it to you in a way you might understand.
This all started with my point that the man-made virus emergency might have one good outcome… education reform. Easy to understand, no?
Why do you call it, ‘victim studies’?
I believe that most of banker Boone’s comments can only be attributed to RDS, reality derangement syndrome.
David: Here’s what I see you attempting to do:
You’re suggesting that due to economies of scale, a smaller district can’t be as efficient as a larger district.
(I suspect that Sacramento’s school district might “disprove” this claim, when compared to smaller districts. Probably others, as well. Despite their financial difficulties, they probably also receive more funding per student in the first place, compared to some smaller, more-efficient districts.)
You’re implication (based upon that claim) is that Davis (or any other community) should “grow”, for the purpose of achieving “economies of scale”, regarding their school districts. Presumably, forever (and as large as possible), since that will continue driving down costs per student.
Does that sound about right?
I ask because I think you’ll continue putting forth these claims.
Neither are correct.
There’s actually 4 “theories”, put forth in my comment:
1) The implication that small districts can’t be as efficient as larger ones.
2) That Sacramento’s district (as an example), is larger than some others, but is not as efficient as some smaller ones.
3) That Sacramento’s district receives more state-funding, per student.
4) That (based upon your claim regarding “economies of scale”), communities should pursue as much growth as possible, so that the cost/student is reduced as much as possible.
Which of these are “incorrect”, in your view?
So I addressed points one and four in my response. Neither accurately reflect my view.
I would agree that #1 and #4 are “false”.
But (based upon your advocacy), I’m surprised that you agree with that.
Regardless, thanks for clarifying.
The fact that you’re surprised means that you have misconstrued the implications of what I am presenting.
Ron O
Do not confuse “efficiency” with “economies of scale”–efficiency measures the net benefit or cost effectiveness per unit given a certain set of resources, while economies of scale measure costs at different relative output levels. A district can be efficient but still more costly than an inefficient district that is much larger. I’m sure that we can find a small district that is “efficient” that is more costly per student than LAUSD which is the prime example of inefficiency. So you’ve set up a set of false comparisons. And as I pointed out above economies of scale do not imply unlimited growth. (Please provide me with an economic literature citation, even just a basic textbook, that supports your claim.)
Yes – I’m aware of all of that.
I suspect (but I’m not willing to spend hours looking for “evidence”) that a small district can take the same amount of dollars (per student), and achieve a similar or better outcome.
And, vice-versa.
Or, that the difference in cost/student is negligible.
I also suspect (but am not willing to spend hours looking for evidence, other than the examples of Sacramento and Los Angeles) that larger districts (for whatever reason) can be more “wasteful”, regarding the funds that they receive. (Unrelated to “economies of scale”, however.)
It’s also possible that this waste “overcomes” any savings from “economies of scale”.
I also suspect that there’s other factors involved – such as the nature of various communities, themselves. Some communities are more “dysfunctional” overall, to begin with.
But, I suspect that the “real” cost savings might come from consolidating districts, as you mentioned closer to the bottom of this thread.
And, in Davis’ case, you have a school district (and actual number of schools) that are greater than what the community actually needs.
And, some are fighting tooth-and-nail to keep it that way, and will continue to do so as long it personally benefits them.
If you don’t believe that some will fight ferociously for that, Don can refer you to a 144-comment article, which demonstrates it pretty clearly.
THAT’s the problem, more than arguments regarding efficiency, economies of scale, etc.
Now that I look at this, what are you talking about? What do you think I’m “claiming”?
I think you misread what I wrote.
Ron O
What does “economies of scale” have to do with “growth”? Economies of scale are about comparing two different static levels of output, one larger than the other. A larger district (up to a point) typically has a lower cost per student than a smaller district. The other aspect of economy of scale is that the incremental/marginal cost of an additional student is less than the average cost of serving all students. But this says NOTHING about the optimal size of a district. The optimal size is constrained by how many students are served.
BTW, it’s not obvious to me that school districts should be segmented to such small sizes. Education is too important to leave to a bunch of local entities governed by a relatively uninformed elected board. (DJSUD is highly unusual for obvious reasons as to the level of professional knowledge on its board.) We wouldn’t be talking about “right sizing” if the school district covered, say Yolo and Solano counties.
About 20 years ago, the CPUC staff did a study on the optimal size for an energy utility, and found that economies of scale governed to about 500,000 customers and then it became more costly with increased size. PG&E and SCE are now almost 5 million customers, while SMUD has about 600,000. Guess which one is better run.
I’m not sure if we’re “disagreeing” on anything. My comment was in response to what I viewed as David’s advocacy, to “adjust the community” to meet the desires of the school district. That’s where “economies of scale”, etc., was discussed.
He says that I misunderstood his advocacy, so I just left it at that. And, happy to do so (for now).
Me, neither.
Agree, again. I’d also note that those decisions impact more than just “education”, and those associated with the school district.
That’s right, and is something I mentioned as a future possibility.
“And, in Davis’ case, you have a school district (and actual number of schools) that are greater than what the community actually needs.”
One person’s opinion.
Maybe more than “one”:
I’ve seen other commenters note this, as well.
For cryin’ out loud, they are “advertising” on the radio, according to another commenter as I recall (recently).
Truth be told, I don’t care all that much if they use interdistrict transfers to “fill the void”, for now. However, it no doubt has some drawbacks, and it delays the inevitable.
Here’s a “hint”: If the district is importing students to avoid right-sizing, it’s too large for what the community needs.
It doesn’t get much more plain and obvious than that.
Make that two.
The problem comes to this: what is the community and what does it need?
For example, is Don Shor part of the community? He doesn’t live in Davis. He worked in Davis. Sent his kids in Davis. He probably, but I don’t know for sure, participates in Davis community dialogue far more than he does in Dixon, so why would he not be considered part of the community? For the most part, the out of district transfers are people who work in Davis but don’t live in Davis.
Sure – Don has every right to have his kids attend DJUSD. As a side note, he pays DJUSD parcel taxes on his commercial property, as well.
I don’t really care if DJUSD poaches students from other districts, to avoid right-sizing their facilities and system. But at some point, those other districts might. (I believe that they have to grant “permission” for this to occur, and that such permission is revocable for future students.)
So, I would ask those who put forth arguments regarding “economies of scale” what will occur if the 850 non-resident students are reduced, over time. Coupled with the projected reduction in resident students. (Assuming that DJUSD makes no adjustment to its own system to correspond with that reduction.)
I would also ask what those folks propose to do, if/when that situation occurs.
I’m going to assume that whatever you are referring to assumes that DJUSD can maintain a certain level of students.
Again, what will occur to that model if/when they’re no longer able to maintain the same level of enrollment?
Size of the district IS the issue, if enrollment is declining.
What would you propose to do about that, assuming that they cannot maintain the same level of enrollments over time?
For example, do you propose increasing the size of the city, so that DJUSD can avoid right-sizing to match the needs of the existing community? Is that what you’re ultimately advocating for?
“Again, what will occur to that model if/when they’re no longer able to maintain the same level of enrollment?”
I beleive at some point enrollment is going to decline unless the demographics of the community shift. And once enrollment declines, the district will struggle maintaining funding. But in my view, the level of enrollment matters far less than whether the enrollment increases, maintains, or declines. Size of the district doesn’t matter, change in enrollment does.
Change in enrollment is what we’re referring to, and is the issue that will likely need to be addressed.
One way to address that is to adjust the size (total cost) of the district, when faced with declining enrollments.
This would also reduce the cost per student, in a declining-enrollment district. Maintaining the same size (total cost) of the district in that scenario increases the cost per student.
What’s your suggestion?
Adjusting the size of the district doesn’t change anything. It just establishes a different starting point. If you have 700 fewer students and you still losing 5 to 10 students a year, it looks the same as if you have 700 more. Losing the 700 students doesn’t buy you anything and in fact it hurts you because you only recoup 40 to 60 cents on the dollar.
My suggestion at this point is to continue with the current level of out of district transfers. The city as a whole has a lot of decisions to make about its future, and that’s really where the long term picture is going to come into play for the district. At this point, I see the city headed to concentrations of people under 25 and over 60. Regardless of your view of the schools, I don’t see that as advantageous to the community.
What kind of gobbledy-gook are you putting forth, here?
Adjusting (reducing the size of) the district reduces cost, including cost-per-student.
Failure to adjust the size/cost of a district (when faced with declining enrollment) reduces revenue, but not cost. This will result in a deficit.
Again, what do you propose, regarding a district facing declining enrollment?
This isn’t a difficult question to answer, unless one is trying to conceal what they’re advocating for.
“Adjusting (reducing the size of) the district reduces cost, including cost-per-student.”
The problem is it reduces the revenue faster than it reduces the costs. (I’ve shown you this in concrete numbers, you respond in abstract). It actually increases the cost per student because as I explained the combination of fixed costs and reverse economy of scale.
Again, this assumption is based upon maintaining a certain level of enrollments.
I’m not responding in the “abstract”. I’ve posted an article (above) which shows that the district is facing declining resident enrollments.
Then, there’s the tenuous nature of the 850 non-resident enrollments.
Not it doesn’t. It’s the opposite, when enrollments are declining. Revenue is reduced as enrollment declines, but you’re suggesting that costs should not be. This results in an increase in cost/student, and a deficit.
So, I’ll go ahead and ask the question again, which you keep avoiding:
What do you propose to do regarding a district facing declining enrollments?
For example, do you propose that the district take steps to reduce their size/cost, or do you propose that the city itself grow so that the district can continue to avoid right-sizing?
Again, this isn’t a difficult question to answer, unless one is attempting to conceal their goal.