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.