By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – The Davis CAN (Community Action Network) program on Sunday fused together a number of different strands. The first speaker was Victor Lagunes, the President of the Davis Teachers Association (DTA) who discussed the impact of the housing crisis in Davis on our schools.
Lagunes called this a “critical issue that’s facing our city and region” and explained “how we’re going to grow a local movement to expand climate smart, affordable housing in this community.”
He said he has been an educator in Davis for the last 10 years and “during that time the one thing that has been most salient is the truth that schools are one of the foundations of neighborhoods and community.”
Lagunes continued, “Schools are a bedrock. They create the interconnectedness between us and our neighbors. They serve as the vector for a majority of our youth’s social engagement and experiences. They’re a great equalizer and a commonality that we share.”
While schools have been a bedrock of the community, DJUSD and Davis schools face an unprecedented challenge, Lagunes noted.
“We have been privileged in Davis to have a long history of great schools, but unfortunately that won’t continue if we 
are in the status quo. Current housing projects in Davis have been focused on housing students from the university, but not in bringing in families that have students that can participate in our K-12 schools,” he explained.
“The most recent projects have very little projected student enrollment, and this is information that was presented to the city just in March by the DJUSD and superintendent at best, because the developments that are there are designed, that are designed for families are cost-prohibited,” Lagunes continued.
This is a problem across the state, but Davis is in worse shape than most others.
“K-12 enrollment is declining across the state, and unfortunately, Davis is far worse off than others,” Lagunes said. “Our numbers don’t seem to be as bad as the rest of the states, but they are masked.”
He continued, “We are in a dire situation and they’re masked because average daily attendance is done by the students that we have, and 14% of them come from our inter-district transfers.
“What that means is, out of boundary students make up 14% of that population, and we’re fortunate to receive that ADA, but this means that we depend on funding from outside of our own community. This means that 14% of our students and families are not connected to our community outside of merely attending school. This means that they don’t get the advantage of the bikeability of our community and must instead carpool into Davis.”
He added, “This means that we are not a community that maintained its ability to welcome new families.”
There is another angle to this as well, as “only 56 percent of Davis teachers live in our community.”
Lagunes explained that “the number one stated reason is high rent and housing costs. Our schools are already struggling to maintain staff, and that is the truth everywhere. But this year alone, we started with eight teacher vacancies, two counselor vacancies that continue to trouble our school sites.”
He said that DTA has done everything it can to address the need for competitive salaries, and “we also know that there has to be something done outside of that to make Davis more affordable, one outside of that to make Davis more affordable, to bring in those families and to bring in our educators because they are vital to the strength and cohesion of our community, and they deserve to live in the community that they serve.”
But more importantly, he said, “we deserve to have them here. We deserve to have them connected to our neighborhoods and invested in our community success. Because a city that’s thriving should be able to be a place that houses the people that give back to the community.”
“We have a problem,” Lagunes said. “If we don’t address it, then our schools our foundation for interconnectedness, the sense of neighborhood and, uh, greatest support for our students and families will suffer.”
“So why are we here?” he asked. “Because Davis can be a place of greater diversity where we are truly inclusive.
“Davis can be a place with a healthy school district where we welcome more families to be a part of our school communities and feel invested in their success. Davis can be a place with vision where we do things with climate friendly and sustainable signs to benefit our posterity. Everyone, Davis CAN—and that’s why it’s great to see you all here today so we can share that mission.”
What this means is that DJUSD is “taking” that money from other districts. In fact, the state would pay more to those other districts, per student (had they remained in their own districts).
Good – glad to hear it. Hope the proposals become even less-conducive to DJUSD’s self-interested goals, at this point. Though truth be told, plenty of wealthier people have kids.
Let’s break this down:
So at first, the claim was that teachers (of which there are too many for the size of the community’s needs) require a higher salary.
Then, the claim is that housing has to be cheaper (somehow), despite that salary raise.
Next, the claim is that there aren’t enough students in the community to justify the number of teachers in the first place. (Circling back to the first point.)
I wish I had known about this event in advance, as I would have taken steps to be there.
But the “logic” of the arguments put forth by the speaker above seems to show that the quality of DJUSD has already “declined”, regardless. Makes one wonder what they’re actually teaching in classrooms, to their captive audience.
Davis has to depend on money from outside of the community in order to try and maintain its bloated school system which is too large for its actual student population demographics presiding in Davis..
This mischaracterizes the problem that the district has. The problem is “declining” enrollment not overall size. The problem of declining enrollment is directly related to housing affordability. Even if the district took in no out of district students, the problem would remain.
Not if the district downsized to the city’s actual student population.
The enrollment will continue to decline after that downsize occurs – that’s the actual problem.
Then you downsize more, problem solved.
Nope. I’ve explained this too many times why this doesn’t work.
Nope, I and others have explained to you many times why we believe that is the best course to take.
Neither of you have used actual math to justify your position. There are serious problems with the approach aside from the fact that it would take 14 years of losing approximately 70 to 80 students a year to even get rid of out of district transfers. Not to mention MOUs with DTA.
The source of your “actual math” comes from the self-interested school district, itself. Are you seriously claiming that this is to be trusted?
This isn’t something you can analyze on a blog. But for sure, there’s an immediate and drastic cost savings every time a school is closed, sold-off, and its staff jettisoned.
And again, the parcel tax would then go farther, for those that remained.
The issue is not “out-of-district” students. The pursuit of which simply allowed DJUSD to buy some time before the inevitable school closure(s) occur.
David, out of district transfers are not the problem, and DJUSD should NOT be trying to eliminate those transfers. Your 11:11 comment is (in my opinion) both extraneous and a straw man argument.
The real issue is biological. Young couples today are simply not having as many babies as their parents and grandparents had. With the financial and gender equity realities of today, a substantial proportion of young couples are choosing commitment to their respective jobs rather than having any children. No amount of gnashing your teeth is going to change that. The question we should be asking is “How many in district students are we losing a year? What is that trend?”
Further, since Davis has become a stay in place community for the non-UCD student portion of the population, existing households are aging out of the child bearing age demographic.
Those are factors that DJUSD should be analyzing in making its decisions on whether to close any of the existing schools. In retail that kind of analysis is referred to as “same store sales.” In retail the analysis of the performance of new stores is conducted separately. Out of district transfers are the equivalent of new store sales. Lumping them together obscures the trends that each of them have.
With all the above said, Lagunes point “This means that 14% of our students and families are not connected to our community outside of merely attending school. This means that they don’t get the advantage of the bikeability of our community and must instead carpool into Davis.” is a good one. The question is whether that is a “requirement” or a “nice to have?”
Neither Keith nor Ron O apparently understand the state’s and district’s school financing systems, nor the nature of the underlying costs that the district will continue incur regardless of enrollment level.
1) The Serrano (1976) decision took away the majority of local financing for schools on an equity basis. Instead the vast majority of school funds come through the state general fund (remember Prop 98 anyone?) That formula is distributed in part based on community wealth and Davis gets a very low allocation for that reason. The parcel tax is a small proportion of overall district finances and I believe that it is dedicated to paying the bonds issued for improving and replacing aging district facilities. That state money is allocated on a per student-day basis, so it is directly dependent on attendance.
2) The district has a large amount of outstanding bonds for facilities. (I believe in excess of $80 million.) Those bonds must be repaid regardless of the number of students attending within the district. That is an unavoidable fixed cost.
3) Many (most?) current teachers have pensions that will be paid regardless of where those teachers might next be employed. Reducing positions will avoid only a part of their costs because their pensions still need to be funded, much of which is coming the state’s student-based allocation.
4) In order to avoid facility costs, an entire school must be closed. These facility costs are significant and will be spread over a shrinking student base, thus squeezing the funds available to pay teachers’ salaries, which already are less competitive than other districts’. And as David points out, if enrollment keeps shrinking, this can become a death spiral where the rising share of facility costs squeezes out the funds for teachers and discretionary programs.
5) The question then becomes what to do with those closed facilities. If they are not maintained, they become a blight on the local neighborhood. If they are sold for a different purpose, then the funds must be used to pay other facilities–they cannot go to operations under state law.
Of course, this whole call for “downsizing” ignores the fact that I have posted here numerous times that much of the housing value premium that Keith O enjoys (Ron O doesn’t have one in Woodland) is driven by the excellence of the education system in Davis. If the district is viewed as being in decline with a reduced education quality, then that value premium will disappear. It’s not current older residents who fantasize about the way Davis used to be that drive housing prices; it’s younger families wanting to be part of the community here that do.
As I already pointed out, this is a reason to not poach students from other districts (where those same students would result in a higher payment from the state, if DJUSD hadn’t poached them).
I see 5 DJUSD parcel taxes on the example I’m looking at, and another one that may not be classified as a parcel tax. Anyone can easily find out what each of those is for, as needed. As I recall (since it’s been discussed many, many times on here), one of them is to increase teacher salaries, and one of them is for “extra programs”.
If there are fewer facilities, those can indeed be avoided.
Probably should let the unneeded ones go as soon as possible, to eliminate their salary (and reduce or eliminate their subsequent retirement costs).
Exactly.
What? You’re stating that reducing facility costs will decrease teacher salaries? First of all, those are two different categories. Secondly, reducing facility costs does not correspond with reducing teacher salaries.
Again, the parcel tax for teacher salaries will go farther when there’s fewer teachers, resulting in MORE salary potential available to them.
And again, there’s no basis for this claim. Again, the opposite is true, since parcel taxes would go farther when there’s fewer students and teachers.
Sounds like a perfect solution, and might also result in more parcels within city limits available for housing.
There’s so much wrong with this statement it’s hard to know where to begin.
First of all, students and families living in Woodland “enjoy” the same premium that you describe above, since they’re eligible to attend Davis schools (without paying for them, for that matter).
Secondly, you have no idea what I personally “enjoy” or pay for – in any given locale(s).
Again, quality does not equate with quantity. But why do you and others continue bringing up “increased housing prices” as a benefit (in one breath), while then claiming that “increased housing prices” are the problem for DJUSD?
Again, “younger (presumably “poorer”) families” can already enjoy the benefits of Davis schools (if they choose to), while living in a cheaper, surrounding community.
Is it not true that the proceeds from a sale of existing facilities/property may also be used to retire previously accumulated facilities debt (ie. bonds)?
It is true.
Richard said … “Of course, this whole call for “downsizing” ignores the fact that I have posted here numerous times that much of the housing value premium that Keith O enjoys (Ron O doesn’t have one in Woodland) is driven by the excellence of the education system in Davis. If the district is viewed as being in decline with a reduced education quality, then that value premium will disappear. It’s not current older residents who fantasize about the way Davis used to be that drive housing prices; it’s younger families wanting to be part of the community here that do.”
From a practical perspective Richard’s point about housing value premium only works “on paper.” The reasons for that are pretty simple. The only way to make that housing value premium liquid is to sell your house, but unlike a stock market investment, which can be liquidated and not replaced, we all need a roof over our heads. So the person selling their house in Davis has to acquire a replacement residence. In California, the housing market inflation is ubiquitous, with homes in Davis experiencing the same year-to-year percentage increase as the rest of the state. More locally, during the past 10+ years the percentage increase in prices for homes in Woodland has been greater than the percentage price increase in Davis.
In addition, the housing value premium is not a singularity (exit transaction only). Everyone who owns a home in Davis had to pay the housing value premium when they purchased their home. So the whole concept of “housing value premium” should be recast as “percentage return on investment.”
Finally, regarding Richard’s ending “fantasy” point, I agree that any young families with children fantasize about raising their children in a house with a bedroom for each child and a yard for the children to play in, but they also fantasize about the same things in Woodland when they see either (A) the comparative cost of comparable fantasy residences in Davis and Woodland, or (B) the reduced room and yard size that they get in Davis for a residence with the same purchase price in Woodland.
The Djusd/city funding model is not sustainable, and we seem to be importing “social capital” (students/teacher) from other communities to sustain Davis. Apart from loss of indigenous population to sustain volunteer groups esp in our schools, this threat to quality of our schools is real. Given one of reason Davis home cost (are worth) $100-$150/sq more than in woodland is schools, it’s in our interest to address. (Yeah – good schools drive up home prices.. but slow growth rations supply also drives up prices.)
this is apart from distributional equity arguments Oertel made.
We can ignore at our own risk.
Thanks to Vanguard for covering CAN event that would have otherwise flow under radar.
That’s right.
I don’t know what “indigenous population” you’re referring to, but DJUSD wants to import more “non-indigenous population” – rather than right-size its system.
But more importantly, quantity does not equal quality. In fact, the parcel tax (which isn’t dependent upon enrollment numbers) will go farther, when it’s spread among fewer students.
Not sure what your point is, here. Is it “good” to drive up housing prices? Because that’s the opposite of what DJUSD claims. While also claiming that good schools drive up housing prices (and simultaneously painting that in a positive light). Seems like a schizophrenic argument, which again makes me wonder about the “quality” of what they teach in the first place. Or maybe it’s just a particularly blatant display of their self-interest, while undermining their own conflicting arguments. Did they think no one would notice this?
Not sure I made an “equity” argument, though it is probably true that those “left behind” in Woodland (in particular) experience a lower quality as a result of Davis’ poaching of their students.
“Flow under the radar” doesn’t apply to the Vanguard’s constant harping on behalf of an oversized school district.
But too bad there wasn’t advance notice, as I would have tried to attend. Maybe next time. These people need to be confronted, directly.