By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – For years we have justified growth control policies in an effort to keep Davis the small and vibrant community that many remember from the 80s and 90s. But there is growing evidence that those very policies meant to protect Davis are also causing damage to the vibrancy of the community.
Census data shows that the population of Davis grew at just 5.8 percent over the last decade—and the non-student population may have grown at a considerably lower rate than that.
Advocates of slow growth will undoubtedly point to the benefits of constraining growth, but with housing supply limited, prices soaring, and families shrinking, we are seeing an impact that threatens to change the character of our community every bit as much as rapid growth and urban sprawl would have.
Once again this week, the school district sounded the alarm. It is creating a dilemma for a school district that has been a lifeline for the community, a driver of quality of life and a stabilizer of housing prices.
Interim Superintendent Matt Best warned the Board of Education: “Our district is facing some significant long-term challenges regarding our budget, related to our enrollment, which is the primary driver in determining the vast majority of our funding.”
This week he told the board that they need to focus on declining enrollment which they project will lead to declining of funding from the state over the next few years and which will greatly stress the programs that have made DJUSD what it is.
While some will point to a decline in the number of births in Yolo County—a trend that started around 2008, a big factor locally is the lack of affordability of family-style housing in Davis.
The district cited a number of students who started in Davis schools but moved to Woodland or Dixon, because the housing costs were lower and there was more housing availability.
This is not a new issue. We have raised it many times. The link to new housing makes it a very volatile issue in Davis. Davis had to address UCD student housing needs over the last five years, but has left untouched the need for family housing. And as we have seen from our analysis of the Housing Element, where to put family housing is going to be increasingly an issue.
Should we even worry about declining enrollment? I have argued this is a basic quality of life issue. Declining enrollment—which we have managed to shore up through transfers from outside the district—will eventually add stress to the school district and compel the community to live with a district that has fewer resources, or drive up parcel taxes further or explore other ways to fund core educational programs.
For certain, as we have seen, some people will push back that the city should not be adjusting its growth policies to make sure that the school district stays vibrant—my words, not theirs.
Moreover, they have argued the need to “right-size” the school district, that is, close a school or adjust to the new reality rather than other options like parcel taxes and inter-district transfers.
The problem of right-sizing runs into economies of scale problems. As Bruce Colby, the former Superintendent for Business used to point out, you really can’t right-size a district. You can’t shed enough cost to keep ahead of the reverse economy of scale (as you grow, fixed costs take up a smaller portion of your overall budget plus products decrease in per-unit cost at higher volumes; when you shrink the reverse happens—fixed costs become a higher share of the overall budget and the per-volume costs elsewhere increase).
Moreover, Best this week warned, “We’re coming to a point where the declining number of resident students will outpace our capacity to bring in nonresident students.”
So even that interim policy will no longer stem the tide.
Best believes, “As a result, we will face some very difficult challenges” in the next few years.”
Increasingly I have seen people in this community—many who are well past the age of child-rearing—unconcerned about this trend, and some may even welcome it. Few are willing to find solutions to it.
But as I have argued many times here: Davis has been a vibrant community BECAUSE we have young families and kids in our midst. The extent to which that diminishes, the vibrancy will disappear. Moreover, great schools have increased people’s property values, and thus as schools shrink and become more resource-starved, they are likely to decrease in quality as well.
This is a slow leak and is part of the problem that we face now. An immediate crisis would be evident and we would meet it head on. This is going to be a 20-year slow decline on our quality of lives—and some of the impacts will be patched up with parcel taxes and transfers over time to decrease the impact.
People have been advocating that we constrain new housing as a way to prevent growth and the problems of growth that other communities have experienced, but the problems of stagnation and lack of growth are only now coming into focus.
I’ve argued before that the school district should (like the city) pursue revenue producing solutions. What if the school district, closed a school and put up high density mostly affordable housing (51%) some of which it used to house it’s own teachers? What if they closed Willet and put up 300 units with some mixed use community retail? The school could sell some of the units for immediate income and rent out the rest for regular continuous income.
One problem – you couldn’t use that revenue for instructional money.
Why not? I’m not familiar with the way school districts are funded in terms of what they can use their funds for. And if they can’t, couldn’t they use the revenue to pay for other costs to the district and move that money over to pay for instructional money?
Having sat through a couple of full DJUSD budget presentations, I will say that the answer to your question is no, they cannot do that. Use of dollars is locked in place in certain regards and they are answerable to county board of education and the state for how it gets spent.
I’m not sure I follow. I understand that they can’t use funds meant for instruction for other uses. But we’re talking about money going the other direction. Money from outside sources (much like the school district property tax we pay)….in this case revenue from apartments and condos to be used to fund the schools.
Didn’t the school district sell land to Don Fouts for Grande Village? Or did they donate the property and get some teacher housing deals? If so, the district could JV with a developer by contributing to the land to the deal and share in the revenues.
My point is that they can’t “move that money over.” The accounts are siloed. Not to say it couldn’t be used for some purposes, but shifting funds is not allowed. That’s my impression anyway. The school finance system is very Byzantine due to constraints enacted by the voters and legislature over the years.
Don is completely correct. But even if you could do it, you are not going to generate enough money to make a different in declining enrollment.
True if the land is ‘sold’… not so convinced about the situation if DJUSD brought in a developer, built homes/apts, etc. nd then rented them out… theoretically, that money could be used in DJUSD general fund… but, big problem… that scenario would be very expensive with up-front costs, with revenue only coming over time… not a good plan.
In short, you “could do it”, but you “shouldn’t”.
However the DJUSD could ‘rent out’ their existing facilities, (MPR’s, sports fields, etc.) for weddings, ‘start-up’ churches (COD does those, with VMB facilities), local non-profits (theater, other uses), etc. Weekends, holidays, and Summer… I strongly suspect that would be “street legal”.
Yes – even if developed and rented out, it’s leveraged off facilities and therefore goes to facilities. I checked in the past – this isn’t the first time someone has floated the idea.
There are basically two ways to fund instructional money – ADA and parcel taxes. That’s it. There are a few categorical grants but those are restricted monies and have to spent as apportioned. You could fund raise privately but that would be one-time money.
Wait…what??? I get what you’re saying about restrictions in school budget and finance making my proposal difficult. But “if you could do it”…..you seriously believe that if you put up 200-300 units; half of which are market rate that it wouldn’t net significant revenue for the school district….as well as closing down a school and getting rid of some of the fixed costs (yes not proportional by your claim….but still costs).
How many birds have we killed with this stone?
Revenue for the school district
Reducing district expenses (closing a school)
More community housing
Affordable housing
Infill housing
Dense urban housing
How much net revenue would 200 units of apartments generate annually?
Where have I heard that type, tone, of question on the VG before?
Find it funny coming from someone who has been quoting rental rates for years… when it bolstered his arguments…
Huh? I know how much a place rents for, I don’t know how much net revenue they generate.
I ballparked one figure to give an idea – if an apartment generated $1200 in net revenue per month, 200 units, would generate about $2.8 million per year. That’s the size of a relatively modest increase in the parcel tax. Which as we know gets wiped away every four years or so, with another needed parcel tax. It would be helpful but not a gamechanger. But I could be completely off on net revenue – do you know or are you just spit balling?
If you did 300 units (remember all that nice legislature that granted density bonuses for affordable housing?); at your rate of $1,200 per month (a mix of affordable, workforce and market rate rental rates….) it would generate $4.3M per year in revenue. PLUS the reduced expenses for getting rid of a school.
Here’s the thing about students revenue; there doesn’t seem to be a break even point. The revenue a student brings in doesn’t seem to match the expenses required to educate them. So we’ve supplemented with a parcel tax. But that doesn’t fix the problem if we keep pumping more students into the system just for the revenue without regard to the net bottom line. We can’t just increase the parcel tax….the voters are going to rebel at some point. So school district needs other sources of revenue and to stop pumping in students without regard to the net bottom line.
Any revenues from real estate deals end up going to facilities, which are largely unneeded in a district with declining enrollment. That said, the district does have a large bond in place to upgrade facilities, so that can go towards addressing that problem. But that doesn’t solve the problem of operating costs.
One question not addressed, how many students are projected for DJUSD when the married student housing gets rebuilt on Russell Blvd.?
“Increasingly I have seen people in this community—many who are well past the age of child-rearing—unconcerned about this trend,…”
As my brother observed sitting outside of Noah’s “This town is all seniors and college students.”
“People have been advocating that we constrain new housing as a way to prevent growth and the problems of growth that other communities have experienced, but the problems of stagnation and lack of growth are only now coming into focus.”
The implication of no growth is steady state but the reality is decline. You supported Measure D so as a supporter of no growth you should welcome the predictable outcome you supported.
Assuming you mean off-spring of the in married student housing… better question would have been, how many students are projected for DJUSD when the married student housing gets rebuilt, how many students are projected for DJUSD when the married student housing gets rebuilt, that are of school age?
From the folk I’ve known, all young families, with children, have moved out of the housing before the oldest child is 5.
It is time for the residents of Davis to begin planning for the next generation’s housing supply. The region is growing and Davis will need to provide its share of housing. The changing demographics here (skewing to the older and younger age groups) reflect the lack of housing supply in the mix of sizes and price ranges that appeals to young families and workers.
The constant talk about infill and densification has almost become a deflection. A new subdivision with a mix of densities and housing types, including single-family and multi-family housing, would benefit the school district, the city’s tax base, the retail sector, and more. The sites are obvious if you just look at a map.
I looked at a map:
• East of Mace Curve (ouch no more mountain views)
• West of West Davis (ouch no more sunset views)
• Annex Kidwell Road to Davis (ouch, land changing counties)
• NW (already voted for old people – ouch NO KIDS to stock our schools!)
• Annex North North Davis from Woodland to Davis (ouch)
I resemble that remark.
We are so dumb
Alan your map reading skills need a refreshing.
Northwest quadrant
Covell Village
Mace Curve
Shriners
North of the hospital
Ramosland
There are sites for thousands of single family homes. Covell Village alone was slated for over 2000 homes.
yeah, but “The Tree” fell over, dooming the property to be forever vacant.
Well, Don, my “next generation” housing supply has been taken care of. No entity is dependent on their decisions, to accomplish what has already been accomplished. Even for that of my ‘next-next’ generation.
Now, If you’re talking other folks, next generation, that would be an act of altruism or charity, or believing that those generations will be altruistic, charitable towards mine.
I am not being opposed to altruistic or charitable, but don’t hang that on me as an obligation. Our family had to cut their own path.
I do not agree with this sense of obligation. The region is the region it grows and it doesn’t grow. All the cities and counties do what’s in their own self interest in terms of economic and residential growth.
Why and to what degree do the residents of Davis need to plan for people in the future’s housing needs? I mean sure if it makes sense in terms of local economics…..but again this notion of blind obligation makes not sense. Hey…if you wanna live here….we’ll make sure you have housing options! Uh…why? Again, I’m not against growth. I just want the growth to have a reason.
I was referring to the state increasingly informing local jurisdictions that they must provide housing in numbers that correlate somewhat to regional housing growth.
The RHNA requirements will have to be addressed one way or another eventually. There’s still lots of pushback going on. Most of it has been stopped by the courts but it’s still going on. I suspect the methodology for those calculations will be what’s attacked next and I can see it being a legitimate complaint against the RHNA assigned numbers. One complaint is that it forces some communities to become bedroom communities; take on the costs of serving residential units because other cities have drawn people to the region. A basic example is if Woodland suddenly brought a major Amazon regional distribution and operations center to their city to employ 5,000 people. Based on that population growth projection, the RHNA would assign the majority of housing requirements to Woodland but it would then assign spillover to other surrounding cities and regions….the closer to Woodland you are the more units you’re assigned. Or if an a big institution right next to you but not in your city limits grew and the housing requirements spilled over into your town. There is a push by some municipalities in CA that in regions where there is growth that the specific justification where the growth occurs is responsible for housing that growth. I can see that gaining some traction.
Unfortunately, that attitude has led to segregation and a growing disparity in wealth between whites and Blacks. The larger societal interest trumps local individual interest if we want a society that is just and sustainable in many different ways.
“The constant talk about infill and densification has almost become a deflection.”
It was always a deflection.
But what about PG&E? Surely we can build high density housing on PG&E! 😐
Regarding the self-interested claim that right-sizing the school district won’t save money, the evidence is that the school district would not be the same size today – if it was designed from scratch.
The issue is not the absolute size, it’s that declining enrollment shrink revenue faster than you can shrink costs. I’ve explained this many times, I’m stating this now for the benefit of those who did not have to witness those previous conversations.
And no matter how many times it’s explained, it’s still not correct. 🙂
What David is describing is the result of self-interest. Close a school or two (which has no impact on the number of students), and costs drop overnight.
Ultimately, the same is true with administration.
In regard to those who want to grow the town to meet the desires of the school district, there’s another issue, as well. Eventually, all new families “age-out” of the school system. So, unless existing housing is turned over, folks like David will continue to advocate for more-and-more sprawl – simply to avoid right-sizing the school district.
Even if one were to pursue the path that David advocates (otherwise known as the “dog-chasing-its tail”) approach, one has to look at the type of housing that he would advocate for. Unless it’s a traditional “sprawl” model of development, it’s not likely to have units that are large enough to accommodate families with significant numbers of kids.
And even when it does (such as The Cannery), one cannot count on the occupants having enough kids to satisfy the “dog-chasing-its-tail” crowd.
My comment was deleted, so I’ll have to retype it.
David’s conclusion is derived from a self-interested source. As such, it has no credibility.
If a school or two is closed, costs will drop overnight (without even impacting the number of students). Same is ultimately true with administration.
For those who advocate growing the town to meet the desires of the school district, there’s another issue as well. Eventually, all families “age out” of the school system. So, unless there’s turnover, folks who advocate for more sprawl will continue to do so, simply to avoid right-sizing the school district. This can be described as the “dog-chasing-its-tail” approach.
And in regard to the “dog-chasing-its-tail” approach, one has to look at the type of additional housing that they advocate for. If that housing is anything but a traditional, single-family “sprawl” type single-family housing, it’s not likely that the units would be of sufficient size to appeal to families with kids.
And even if it is a traditional type of development (e.g., with single-family housing), the results may not be what those advocates hope for (as with The Cannery).
Ron O
You have no stake in this discuss as you are not a resident of Davis. You’ve already made demands of DJUSD to somehow create a financial analysis showing the results that you want rather than the findings that contradict your hypothesis.
You also do not have a stake or a voice in the question of whether Davis should grow because you live in Woodland and have no discernable interest in our town.
Richard: Again, your conclusion is incorrect.
Why does the Vanguard continue to allow you to comment regarding this?
If its not true why don’t you provide an explanation as to why its incorrect.
My opinion is that at some point Davis and the school district have to bite the bullet and size the school system to the actual number of students enrolled.
The problem is that if enrollment declines – you lose revenue faster than you can shed costs. That’s the issue. Focusing on size is missing the problem.
You have to start somewhere, shedding costs would be a good start. Don’t you think?
You shed ADA money and costs is the problem. You end up losing more than you gain. That’s why this is very tricky.
The only thing that’s “tricky” is the false claim that closing a school or two (without even impacting the number of students or amount of ADA money) won’t save money.
One only has to ask if the same-sized (and same structure) school district would be designed and implemented today. If not, there’s a problem with the school district, not the city.
Exactly, does the closure of schools necessarily mean a reduction in the number of students?
Ron O
Please provide the empirical evidence to support your speculative assertion that closing a school will on net save DJUSD money, and it’s a “false claim” otherwise. Oh wait, we’ve already gone through this roundabout with you endless times before! You got your answer in great detail from David before in a DJUSD analysis. You’ve already been proven wrong before–please accept you’re wrong on this issue.
If you can’t do the analysis to support your assertion and you can’t find anyone foolish enough to try to do it for you, then you need to drop this.
Amazing, coming from someone who claims “economic expertise”.
Of course closing a school would save money. Should we go through all of the costs (salaries, facility maintenance, etc.)? Again, there’s no evidence that it would even result in a loss of students. But if it did, they’re ALREADY a money-loser on an individual basis, using the district’s own figures!
Do you always believe analyses from a source that has a vested interest in the results? If so, you wouldn’t make a very good auditor.
“Do you always believe analyses from a source that has a vested interest in the results? ”
But it is interesting that you believe analysis that you never do without examining the numbers.
The cost of educating each student exceeds the revenue that the district receives.
That’s a fact.
Technically not, otherwise the district would be operating in a perpetual deficit.
To clarify, the cost of educating each student exceeds the revenue received by the state.
You already know all of this.
There comes a point of “diminishing returns” for you to continue arguing something that makes no sense. And yet, you continue.
The district has chosen to educate students beyond what the state reimburses, the district makes up that money through local parcel taxes approved by the voters.
We already know all of this, David.
I know that you don’t “like” the facts regarding all of this, but putting forth political arguments isn’t going to change them.
You’re on a losing side with this, as you’ve already somewhat acknowledged in the article itself.
If it didn’t bother you, I assume you wouldn’t continue writing these type of articles.
As I said, not much gratitude expressed on here regarding those with no kids paying for the cost of those who do. (And not just “Davis” kids, either.)
Are people in Affordable housing (such as yourself) even subject to DJUSD parcel taxes? (In other words, do the owners of those properties pay DJUSD parcel taxes, or any other city parcel taxes?)
What bothers me is that people want to argue stuff without doing the legwork and research to make sure they have the numbers right. You don’t. You don’t even live here. And you don’t have kids here. So like Richard, I’m baffled that you spend hours of your time arguing about stuff that you have never bothered to research.
You want to say my source is biased, fine. You have no source. You’re just arguing based on assumptions and suppositions.
Maybe you should start with this:
And then move on to this:
You’d think that those who live in Affordable housing would be grateful that others (in one way or another) are paying their costs. But, it apparently doesn’t work that way. Some of them seem to have the loudest voices in the room, regarding what someone else (or the city itself) should do for them, in addition to subsidized housing.
It is not up to me to perform a full financial analysis regarding the school district. But for sure, I would not automatically trust information from a source which has a vested interest in the outcome.
If you want to pay me to audit the district (and its claims), I might give it a shot.
But really, it’s THEIR problem.
As I said, who cares about them, anyway? Especially when many of their students, parents, and teachers don’t even live in Davis in the first place.
I think you are missing the problem here. What it means is that 60 percent of the costs, or some estimate thereof, are either fixed or incremental and thus you cannot create the savings when you reduce the district population by one student. Part of the problem is that losing even 30 students is not sufficient to reduce teachers by one, because you don’t lose 30 kids in one grade at one school. They are distributed. Eventually you can reduce staffing, but not by nearly as much as you lose revenue. And then there are costs that are not going to decline at all as district populations decline.
Here’s another way to think about it – 700 out of district students generated a few years ago (when we did this analysis) $5.6 million in ADA. 25 sections costs the district $1.6 million. That gives you an idea that the district is advantaged when they add students and disadvantaged when they lose them.
I am not missing the problem.
The numbers show that each student is costing the city $5,000, in addition to what they receive from the state. Adding more students (as Keith E.) noted will increase this “demand” (cost).
Again, you’re citing claims by the district itself. What did I just say regarding that?
Who said anything about “losing kids”?
Close a school and see how fast costs are reduced. This does not correspond with losing students, as they’re simply transferred to other schools.
Probably not a major factor. And if it is, that could be a reason to consolidate with the district that’s already sending 800 of its out-of-district students to DJUSD.
Let’s see how total costs go down, as the number of students naturally declines. Even if one assumes that the incremental cost of educating each student rises, as you and the district claim.
10 students, each costing the city an additional $5,000 = $50,000 cost to city.
5 students, each costing the city an additional $6,000 = $30,000 cost to the city.
A total savings of $20,000.
The parcel tax is definitely not adding $5000 per pupil. That would mean that it’s increasing instructional money by 50%, it’s not.
I was referring to this comment:
If you’re claiming that’s not correct, what number do you believe is? And if it’s different, is it actually relevant to any larger point?
I’d suggest a full-blown audit of the district’s claims. Either that, or just ignore them – and let them deal with reality. They are their own entity, separate from the city. (Except to the extent that property owners are forced to subsidize them, since they’re not the only ones who have the ability to make such decisions.)
I have the exact figures – 10.5 million in revenue, 8500 students, approximately $1250 per student.
$1,250 (additional) cost to the city, per student.
Seems like numbers are tossed-about quite a bit on here, but none of them change the underlying points or reality.
Students are not a net revenue-generating machine, for cities (or school districts). Can you imagine if that was the case?
I don’t know why you say to the city. It’s costs to parcel owners.
I would argue that education is an investment in the future. You are looking to get students into college and into jobs. We pay about $10,000 per year per pupil to educate them and we pay $85,000 per year to incarcerate people who we fail to educate.
Parcel owners comprise a significant portion of the city – perhaps even the majority (other than perhaps students). In fact, they “own” the entire city, in regard to private property.
Do Affordable housing owners pay those parcel taxes?
Hmm, prison or education (as if Davis is the only place that schools exist, and that they’re headed to prison if Davis doesn’t save them). What a dilemma.
Seems to me that Davis should educate all of the children in the entire state (if not the entire country), to save them from a life in prison.
Stabilizer of housing prices? Housing prices are skyrocketing! Is that “stabilizing”? Didn’t you site that as one of the causes of the problem of fewer children?
One can only wonder if Measure J hadn’t passed and Covell village had been built how many more kids would be enrolled in DJUSD today. Figure 2000 single family homes with 1.5 kids each and you would have a healthy school population today and into the foreseeable future.
This is an opinion and the statement “many who are well past the age of child rearing- unconcerned about this trend” is offensive. I am a Senior citizen, a retired teacher and Davis has been my home since 1969. I care about our schools but also care about our community. If you want to talk with me about the declining enrollment, feel free to do so. Please don’t insult me and my fellow Seniors with statements such as the above.
Amen, John!
.
David massively over simplifies this issue and in the process labels it “tricky” when in fact it really isn’t “tricky” at all.
Where his argument gets into trouble is when he says that shedding costs in the District results in shedding ADA revenue.
What is actually happening is that the decline in student enrollment has already happened, or is in the process of happening, or both. That decline in enrollment has nothing to do with any efforts by the District to decrease its costs … which means the decline in ADA money also has nothing to do with any efforts by the District to decrease its costs.
The District is in the position of having already shed ADA money, with even more ADA money shedding to come.
The decision to shed costs … fixed costs by (A) closing one or more schools and/or (B) selling off surplus/closed assets and/or (C) following some variation of Keith Echols’ suggestion … variable costs through teacher/administrator headcount reductions/attrition … produces for the District a better bottom-line. With the newly reduced costs structure better matching the already reduced ADA money reduction.
In fact, in a time of reducing revenues, a failure to reduce costs simply produces more and more red ink.
Davis can still have great schools, the quality doesn’t have to suffer, maybe just not have as many of them.
I agree completely with Matt Williams comment here.
“ The District is in the position of having already shed ADA money, with even more ADA money shedding to come.”
This is not true.
David, you are now arguing out of both sides of your mouth. The headline of this article is “Why Declining Enrollment is Something of a Concern to This Community”
Is enrollment declining? Your ADA slide says that it isn’t, but that is not consistent with the premise of your article.
Which is it? Declining? Or Not Declining?
Did you carefully read the article? The article showed that (1) enrollment is declining but has been staved off with out of district transfers and (2) that Matt Best is arguing this strategy is not going work. You have to actually read the article, not just the headline.
Of course I read the article, and the article is totally inconsistent with the graphic you posted.
Best has been honest and acknowledged that the ADA revenue is already lost … it is just a matter of time before that fact manifests itself in the District’s numbers.
Which gets us back to my original point, in a time of reducing revenues, a failure to reduce costs simply produces more and more red ink.
“Best has been honest and acknowledged that the ADA revenue is already lost … it is just a matter of time before that fact manifests itself in the District’s numbers.”
This is not an accurate statement either. ADA has not been “lost” – in district students have declined, that has been remedied by out of district transfers. What Best is warning – which is what I have for several years – is that that is not sustainable.
The bottom line.
I think everyone is in agreement with Best who is sounding a warning. The problem is that the time frame to build housing and grow children is longer than the time the district has before the decline manifests itself. With lower grade enrollments lower than higher grade enrollments the stage is set.
The question facing our leaders is how do you address it? Cutting is one solution increasing enrollment is another. Building family housing isn’t because we waited to long. One way to increase enrollment that hasn’t been discussed is to get people whose kids are going to schools outside the district to enroll them here. Its a heavy lift for the school district but it is not totally impossible.
“One way to increase enrollment that hasn’t been discussed is to get people whose kids are going to schools outside the district to enroll them here.”
That’s actually been a main topic of conversation.
And what repercussions would that create on other districts outside of Davis?
Yeah I raised it during the appointment of a replacement for Trustee Pickett. There was one candidate who I thought could have helped move the district in a direction that could attract minority students whose families have abandoned DJUSD for reasons related to race. Sadly she was not chosen to serve.
“And what repercussions would that create on other districts outside of Davis?”
Mostly these are kids going to private schools so they would lose revenue from the family but not from the state.
So how do you know this?
I heard it through the grapevine.
Seriously, I taught in Woodland and rarely did I see a kid from Davis enrolled there. Everyone I know who has taken kids out of DJUSD and not moved away placed them in private schools.
I think you missed the point. It was about students living and going to school in other districts switching to DJUSD.
Maybe that was your point but my answer is its not a significant factor for DJUSD. Maybe for those other districts but I haven’t heard them complaining about it. If Davis could get families with kids in private schools to enroll in DJUSD it would help.
But Ron, you are the one who stated:
Then you stated:
“Seriously, I taught in Woodland and rarely did I see a kid from Davis enrolled there. Everyone I know who has taken kids out of DJUSD and not moved away placed them in private schools.”
Sometimes I think I’m in another dimension.
Since the district receives ADA money for interdistrict transfer students, that funding has not changed.
That amount is determined by the state and is intended to, in fact, match the expenses required to educate them. Davis voters have decided to increase the funding with special parcel taxes for specific purposes: retain or increase certain programs, pay teachers more, etc. So Davis voters have decided that Davis property owners will increase the district’s revenues, but that is not on a per-pupil basis.
Bottom line is that the cost of educating kids in Davis is more than what the state pays for as well as the property tax revenue.
So simply pumping more kids into the school system isn’t the answer.
What are the options for school district financial prosperity or just stability?
Cut Costs – lower the quality of education (at least from a financial support perspective).
Cut Costs – cut fixed costs like a school site.
Cut Enrollment (the revenue from property tax will be stretched less)
Increase Revenue: increase the property tax. I’m just going to say that I think the district has gone to this well as many times as it can. I don’t think the people of Davis can stomach an increased property tax.
Increase Revenue; find alternative revenue sources. Bay area school districts have built affordable teacher housing. Why can’t Davis?
As someone as some one with two kids in the school system (and lives here); I think you’re ignoring the financial realities in Davis.
This is what I would call WEAK LEADERSHIP. Bending over to the whims of unwashed masses who don’t know what’s good for them. Cutting school district costs and increasing positive net revenue sources (which doesn’t appear to be enrolled students) is just sound financial sense. A good leader would convince the rabble that it’s the right decision and not simply give up and continue to make poor financial decisions.
Excellent. I’ll look forward to your candidacy. And I might even support you, depending on your answers to the following questions:
Which schools would you close?
Which programs would you eliminate?
I will start my candidacy with: “Okay unwashed masses….here are my solutions….”
Voters in the Davis school district have repeatedly shown a willingness to increase taxes to maintain the special programs that make this district such a magnet for home buyers and transfer students in the region.
I suggest those who wish to cut the district expenses by closing schools go ahead and find a candidate willing to run in one of the Trustee Areas on that platform and see how well it goes over. Once we have that exercise in futility out of the way, perhaps a more serious discussion could ensue: magnet programs to consolidate some facilities, special programs that would continue to draw interdistrict applicants, and more.
The region is expected to grow. If Davis were to grow somewhat with homes for families as part of that growth, this whole discussion could be moot. Closing schools is not going to happen without a major, major fight locally. So exploring alternatives seems like a good process to begin. This isn’t a crsisis. But some long-term planning is needed.
I very much appreciate John Clark’s comment above. I’m not a resident but I do work and pay taxes here and my kids both attended Davis schools via interdistrict transfer. We did that because we felt it was the best fit for our kids. I think very highly of the Davis school district and the special programs are a big part of what sets it apart. So I would support solutions to the changing demographics that enhance the schools, not proposals that would diminish their quality.
Let them fight. Who cares?
Compared to the population of the city as a whole, the number of people impacted by an individual school closure is quite small (and temporary in timeframe, given the amount of time that anyone stays in the public school system).
Unbelievable, that some advocate for sprawl to suit the desires of the school district. Is this type of argument actually intended to be taken seriously? It’s a Ponzi scheme approach.
Didn’t they previously close a school in Davis?
Ultimately, the only way to get a continuing supply of new students is when housing turns over. That ultimately goes for new housing, as well.
Of course, developments like The Cannery (and its single-family housing) don’t seem to have as many students as some hoped for, regardless. Even when new.
(Worth repeating.)
“Let them fight. Who cares?”
Certainly the people who actually live in Davis and who have kids will care. Moreover, as you saw last June with the appointment, there is no guarantee that the voters can override the decision with a vote. So to say who cares – I think ignores potential political realities in Davis.
(And probably half of them actually live in Woodland anyway – students, parents, and teachers alike.)
As I said, let them fight.
Didn’t they previously close a school in Davis?
The other problem is you actually have to flip the school board to get that result in the first place. There is no appetite for that. So this is all speculative.
Whoomp! (There It Is)
It was just a matter of time.
Forgot to add this, from your own article:
They aren’t willing to allow more housing, but they have been willing to support ever parcel tax since 2000 by at least a two to one margin.
Maybe they value quality over quantity.
Or, maybe because it’s a liberal college town.
In any case, parents and teachers should be thanking them (e.g., property owners without school-age children), rather than trying to force more sprawl on them for their own selfish desires.
Not much gratitude expressed on the Vanguard, that’s for sure. Always looking for “someone else” to pay – even newcomers, not to mention sacrificing open space, farmland, etc.
That’s their problem. Not the city’s.
Many empty nests in Davis are occupied by people who have benefited from education or have kids who went to Davis schools and for these reasons they continue to support the schools financially.
Keith: “So simply pumping more kids into the school system isn’t the answer.”
Actually it is one possible answer when combined with subsidies from taxpayers and has been the path of least resistance for a long time.
Keith, perhaps you are new to the complexities of school funding in Davis but those of us who have been here a long time have been over this ground many many times.
Over the years the economies of scale have buffeted the school district through the use of inter district transfers. Without these transfers the shortfalls would be much worse. What the new Superintendent is saying is that there is declining enrollment despite the efforts to shore up the district with transfers. Figuring out the path forward is not going to be easy or simple.
@Ron Glick
Please ole wise one, if you’re so knowledgeable, SPECIFICALLY explain to me these “economies of scale” in the school district. I’ll wait….
Economies of scale? Tell me, will ordering in even greater bulk of school supplies achieve enough economies of scale to close the funding gap? If the school district expands and gets more classrooms can they go to Costco for a bulk discount package of teachers (a bulk rate on their salaries)?
Btw.
THE DISTRICT GETS ABOUT $73M FOR STUDENTS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (from the LCFF, the Local Control Funding Formula)
THE SCHOOL BUDGET FOR ALL EXPEDITURES IS ABOUT $110M.
(unless someone wants to correct my under 2 minute reading of the DJUSD online budget doc)
Yes, they keep pumping in more students for the $$$$. But it appears to be a losing financial strategy. If the districts makes $9,000/Year from federal sources per student and it costs $13,000/Year to educate a student…that doesn’t work. Now you can fill in the gap with parcel tax revenue but that’s not going to grow with more students enrolled….Parcel tax revenue is almost a static source of income. So pumping in more students is simply going to stretch that parcel tax revenue even thinner.
So you’re right, I’m no expert on school district financials. Please review the numbers and show me where I’m wrong…unlike my opinions on land use (of which I’m close to an expert)….I don’t know much about school district finance.
You want a not easy or simple answer? See my first post up at the top. Btw. Bay area school districts have been building affordable teacher housing.
“Please ole wise one, if you’re so knowledgeable, SPECIFICALLY explain to me these “economies of scale” in the school district. I’ll wait….”
I could probably do that as well. For example, a good percentage of the costs are going to be there regardless of how many students there. We have the same superintendent for example. If we have 100 fewer students, each student incrementally pays more for the superintendent and those types of costs. The more students you have, the more those costs are spread around. It’s not a perfect relationship obviously since some of the salary of the superintendent is determined by size of the school district, but going down by 100 students is not going to change that. Economies of scale concept can be anything from class size to supplies to shared resources, etc.
The term you’re looking or is “fixed costs”. The Superintendent’s salary is a fixed cost. Almost all businesses have them. And you’re not paying attention to the bottom line which is the more students you pump in the more money you’re losing…unless you want to correct my simplistic (yes I admit it) calculation.
lol… but thank you for the basic Econ 101 explanation of “economies of scale.”
But, I’ll tell you what, Costco jokes aside, if you can show me that the fixed costs are the budget issue and not the variable costs….I may change my mind.
But then that leads to the problem that if the district’s financial problem is a fixed costs problem…..then the entire budget and financial structure and competence of the school district should be be brought into question.
The concept is that as you increase your size, economies of scale lessen the cost per unit. As you decrease your size, the economies of scale increase the cost per unit. When I walked through this with the school district, Bruce Colby estimated that fixed costs and such were such that the district would only save about 60 cents on the dollar at best for reductions in size. That means that for every dollar that doesn’t come to the district, you can only shed about 60 cents.
Yes, thank you for your continued Econ 101 explanation of Economies of Size. I find it amusing.
However this comment is interesting.
Bruce Colby needs to be asked to elaborate on this statement. Remember teacher salaries are not fixed costs. So what on god’s green earth is costing the school district so much money that is a fixed cost? School maintenance? You eliminate that cost by shutting down a school….thus it’s no longer FIXED cost…or a cost at all. If you do something revenue positive with the property asset then the district can go in the other direction financially.
He’s retired now. But I have his back of the envelop calculations somewhere. I have also published this.
They calculated they would save about $600,000 by closing a school. That assumes a steady number of students however. So if you close a school and lose 100 kids, it’s probably a wash.
One would have to examine whether or not smaller school districts (than Davis’) exist, and the degree of their fiscal efficiency. I suspect that they do exist.
If a school district becomes too small (e.g., if there’s only a handful of students) consolidation with other districts is generally the outcome. This has been a topic of discussion (and possibly action) in Sonoma county, as well. (But I think it only applies to very small school districts, so far.)
In any case, Sonoma county (and many other locales) are facing this same issue (declining enrollment).
But Keith E. has already noted the primary problem, that it costs more to educate each student than the school district receives from the state.
Followed (predictably) by this:
https://soconews.org/sonoma_west_times_and_news/news/grand-jury-report-suggests-school-district-consolidation-as-cost-saving-measure/article_34e60712-7753-559e-9b57-9a3c39598f86.html
The LAST people who should be listened to regarding this are those who would lose their jobs as a result of consolidation.
But Keith E. has already noted the primary problem, that it costs more to educate each student than the school district receives from the state.
Actually Ron, what I believe the primary problem is that net (positive) school district revenue does not match net school district costs.
Pumping in more net (negative) student revenue isn’t an answer.
The solutions on the table are simply put:
Cutting costs
Increasing (net positive) revenue. One way is through taxes. But I’d say Davis residents are approaching a point of being taxed out. So I think the school district needs to explore alternative (net positive) revenue source ideas.
Some combination of the two will hopefully balance things out.
The bottom line is this:
Would the same-sized (and same structure) school district be proposed today?
If not, the problem lies there.
But the bigger problem is that the small number actually impacted by changes will fight tooth-and-nail to preserve the status quo. Some might describe those people as “afraid of change”, to use a phrase sometimes leveled at others. 🙂
As I pointed out yesterday, the problem isn’t the absolute size, the problem is with the ongoing decline of students where you constantly have to adjust the budget to account for the loss of sixty cents on the dollar. If you had a steady enrollment, you could decrease your size and take you hit. This is more like a slow bleed that you can’t stench.
There will likely be periods in which significant “chunks” of fixed costs are eliminated (e.g., school closures).
But the overall trajectory (fewer students, fewer costs) is the same.
As Keith E., noted, one does not solve the problem by injecting more money-losing “solutions” (in the form of additional students).
The overall (TOTAL) deficit will be smaller, as more money-losing students are jettisoned.
And frankly, it’s about time for Davis to stop assuming responsibility for most of the 800 or so students from out-of-district, for more than one reason. Going forward, at least.
And again, the basic point remains:
The fact that some believe it’s challenging to right-size the district is NOT a valid reason to avoid it.
You’re going to have to explain this. If you’re losing annually about $5,000 per student (LCCF/student – District Expenses/student) then how are you losing .60 on the dollar per lost student?
Something must be ASTRONOMICALLY off with district financials for that to be the case. What are these mysterious and ginormous fixed costs in the district budget? And more to the point there shouldn’t be such ginormous fixed costs in the budget!
Its the programs other districts don’t have; seventh period electives in Secondary, the music programs and librarians come to mind. I think small class sizes in early grades is another. You could cut to the bone but you would lose lots of things that enrich a DJUSD education.
I’m not sure if this is true. The other districts I’m familiar with (which is just a handful) have most if not all of these things.
This is absolutely not true. Or I suppose it’s relative. There are like 25 kids or more in Kindergarten, 1st Grade etc…. So yeah, it’s not 30 kids but it’s not 20 kids either.
“Certificated Salaries” by far make of the largest expense item in the District Budget. Now are the bulk of those salaries all the electives? Probably not.
Well done Ron O. That phrase is often used on here.
Maybe some of you critics should tune into the next district budget work shop to better understand what is going on. These are complex budgets and the district has been run by competent people who have done their level best to provide excellent educational opportunities for the kids of this community. Maybe you can find a better way forward. If you could I’m sure the Trustees would want to hear it. Otherwise all this second guessing and speculation based on limited understanding of the finances is missing the mark.
The district is now facing a new challenge in the form of declining enrollment at the lower grades that Matt Best laid out for the school board. Before speculating on how to address that problem it would be helpful to understand both where the district’s budget is today and where it needs to go tomorrow.
Ron O. on the district’s analysis “Do you always believe analyses from a source that has a vested interest in the results? If so, you wouldn’t make a very good auditor.”
Ron O. seems to believe that people who have views that are different from his have some corrupt intent or conflict of interest. This seems to be a regular trope of his. I strongly take offense at this idea. It has been my experience that DJUSD administration and elected officers have served with the best interests of the community at heart.
Auditors do not accept analyses based upon faith. Even more so, when vested interests are the ones presenting them.
If they did, they would be derelict in their basic duties/function.
Let alone accepting selected figures put forth on a blog, which shares the same goals as the vested interest.
Did you know that by state law, the district must have it’s budget independently audited?
https://www.djusd.net/departments/business_services/financial_audit_reports
That does not surprise me, since every bit of their funding comes from taxpayers.
Audits generally have a limited scope.
Did they also audit the school district’s claims that closing a school or two “won’t save money”?
“Did they also audit the school district’s claims that closing a school or two “won’t save money”?”
The school district didn’t claim that. The school district claimed that they could save about $600,000 for closing a school.
So now you malign both the district and David.
Just sharing how auditors would view claims like those put forth by the district (and by David). They would not rely upon it. If that was the case, there would be no need for audits or auditors. Everyone would be on the “honor system”, not to mention the “assumed competence” system.
Personally, I don’t care what the school district does, as long as they (or their lackeys) don’t advocate for sprawl as a result of their unwillingness to adjust to reality.
I don’t even really care if they redouble their “poaching” efforts, from other districts. Even though that has some negative consequences.
And apparently, someone thought that the same type of issue required a Grand Jury inquiry, in Sonoma county:
https://soconews.org/sonoma_west_times_and_news/news/grand-jury-report-suggests-school-district-consolidation-as-cost-saving-measure/article_34e60712-7753-559e-9b57-9a3c39598f86.html
I don’t know much about what triggers this type of inquiry and report, but I assume it has to do with not relying upon vested interests for an impartial analysis.
Last I heard, this was still an issue there.
There seems to be a political impulse to establish universal pre-K. If such a program were funded by the ADA formula in the public schools, I wonder what impact that might have on enrollment. It seems like the facilities would be available in the district, probably even statewide.
The problem is that there aren’t enough students in the lower grades to replace the kids now in high school. I don’t see how pre-K can help that.
Maybe everyone should have more unprotected sex? Assuming that they’re not too old to reproduce?
Anything to serve the school district.
Our goal in the comments section is conversations that are civil and productive. The civility is waning and this thread lost productivity a while ago.
Comments are now closed.