by David Taormino
I will only respond to the inaccurate comments, not those based on contrary opinions to mine.
1. “The School District has invited 1,200 children” to attend Davis schools daily in the past few years. Response: Off and on, the School District advertised regularly on radio stations KFBK and on the Local National Public Radio station (cap radio) encouraging parents to enroll their children in Davis schools. Yes, a parent has to officially ask and the District can deny the request, typically for lack of space: rejections have not occurred for several years as evidenced by the 1,200 students.
2. “Taormino and others in Springlake have profited from Davis high quality schools.” Response: While that is true thanks to the Davis School District opening its Davis doors, it was not our first choice. In the early 2000’s we offered the Woodland Joint Unified School District a FREE 10-acre school site worth $3.5 million dollars and additional $1.0 million dollar endowment to be used for enhanced Reading, Math and Science teachers/classes beyond the District’s normal staffing. A total of $4.5 million dollars. The District to our SHOCK said “NO.” Why?
The Woodland Trustees were afraid that with these funds, the Springlake school would be the finest Elementary School in Woodland and would rival any Davis Elementary School, if not exceed Davis’s level of quality. According to the District’s logic, Woodland parents outside of Springlake would be upset that their children’s schools weren’t as good as the new one in Springlake. Rather than using Springlake Developers as an example of enhancement opportunities, the District said NO to our $4.5 million. LESSON: in Woodland it is better that all children receive a mediocre education, than some receive a superior one provided by developers funding such opportunities. Four years after our offer of a free school site and endowment, the District paid us the fair market value of the school site, $3.5 million.
As Springlake developers we had no influence on whether homebuyers could bring their children to Davis. Which was entirely a Davis District decision. At that time, around 2005 Davis schools were mostly full and allowed only a few children to transfer.
Obviously, times have changed, and it should be noted that the District’s current lack of Davis students was predictable and inevitable when you examine the logical and foreseeable impacts of the City’s Housing policies and the District’s “no comment attitude” towards proposed residential developments. Over the last 10 years or so, I raised this inevitable problem with District Trustees and Management, City of Davis Planning Commission and Council. All rejected my admonition because the messenger was a Developer. A common practice for Vanguard readers as well.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
“Off and on, the School District advertised regularly on radio stations KFBK and on the Local National Public Radio station (cap radio) encouraging parents to enroll their children in Davis schools.”
I didn’t know that, very interesting.
DJUSD Answers Critical Questions about Out-of-District Transfers and Finances
https://davisvanguard.org/2023/12/djusd-answers-critical-questions-about-out-of-district-transfers-and-finances/
“DJUSD is required to accept Interdistrict Transfers for students who meet the Resident by Employment standard in Ed. Code 48204, if space is available in the requested grade, school, or program.”
Further, “This code states that students whose parents work in Davis for at least 10 hours per week are considered residents by employment and therefore may be accepted into the school district, if space is available.”
Under this Education Code, “they can only be denied admittance into the district under certain circumstances, including if we are at capacity at the requested school site, grade level or program.”
In addition, “once a student is accepted as a resident by employment, the IDT cannot be revoked in future years, even if overcrowding does occur.”
Of our current interdistrict transfer requests, 63% are by reason of employment.
The District explains, “Of the IDTs without an employment connection, 79% are students who have already been in the district—i.e. a continuing non-resident student in this category or a student who recently moved out of the school district boundary. Usually it is the case where a student started their education by living in Davis and then for a variety of reasons, their families moved outside the district. Since the student is our current student, we honor their ability to remain in the district from year to year.”
…
Of the total 1046 non-resident students, about 92% were either: 1) a “resident by employment transfer” —i.e., legally required by California Ed Code to be accepted by DJUSD, if space is available; 2) an IDT not connected to employment but who is a continuing DJUSD student from the previous year; or 3) a student who was a Davis resident, but who recently moved out of boundary and is a new IDT, not connected by employment.
….
In 2023, the number of non-resident students in DJUSD is 1,046 with only 172 brand new IDTs, of which 90 of those (52%) are by reason of employment and legally required to be accepted if space is available.
From article: “The Woodland Trustees were afraid that with these funds, the Springlake school would be the finest Elementary School in Woodland and would rival any Davis Elementary School, if not exceed Davis’s level of quality.”
Pretty sure that’s not the reason. The reason likely has to do with the $50 million or so cost to actually build a school, not to mention the millions needed to operate it each year. (Some of the former cost could be paid by the state, I believe.)
From article: “According to the District’s logic, Woodland parents outside of Springlake would be upset that their children’s schools weren’t as good as the new one in Springlake.”
There probably is some truth to this – the older schools are falling apart, enrollment is declining, and the school district refuses to even consider shutting any of them down. (Sound familiar?) (I was told by some parents in Spring Lake that this was due to “equity” concerns, on the part of the district.)
The existing Spring Lake school was open to students across the entire city, but I believe they’re creating attendance boundaries in the near future. The existing school is not sufficient to accommodate the (4,000-unit?) Spring Lake development, which extends to the other side of Highway 113. Originally, I believe there were four school sites within the boundaries of Spring Lake, but only one small school has been built. (It is perceived, no doubt, as somewhat superior to the rest of the schools in Woodland.)
From article: “Rather than using Springlake Developers as an example of enhancement opportunities, the District said NO to our $4.5 million. LESSON: in Woodland it is better that all children receive a mediocre education, than some receive a superior one provided by developers funding such opportunities. Four years after our offer of a free school site and endowment, the District paid us the fair market value of the school site, $3.5 million.”
This paragraph doesn’t make sense. If you offered it to them (and they didn’t take it), why would they have to “pay you back”?
There are parents in Spring Lake who know more about this situation than I do. But for sure, some of those parents were upset that the existing school isn’t even designed to handle the demand from Spring Lake itself, let alone the 1,600 additional housing units that will be built at the planned technology park. (There is an organized group of parents who have been trying to get the school district to build a school at the technology park for years, but they’ve failed to get a commitment from the school district to do so.)
Bottom line is that as long as DJUSD is encouraging out-of-district students to attend Davis schools, “some” Woodland students are in fact, getting a better education than they would receive in Woodland – at the expense of Davis taxpayers. In addition, the fact that DJUSD and WJUSD are essentially encouraging this has a negative impact on the Spring Lake (and future technology park residents) who will be “left behind” at WJUSD.
Unlike Davis, Woodland did not approve parcel taxes for their school system. Also, the existing Mello Roos does not fund them, either. There are impact fees (passed on to new homeowners) which are intended to fund construction of new facilities in Spring Lake, and I understand that the district has a “leftover balance” after completing the existing Spring Lake school. (This is another issue that irritates some of the parents in Spring Lake.)
In any case, I’m glad to see the author of this article acknowledge that his development is the primary cause of what he’s now apparently suing DJUSD for, in regard to “using up DJUSD capacity” that he doesn’t want to pay for, in regard to his Davis development.
Isn’t this also the same developer who initially claimed that he couldn’t make a small infill development work in Wildhorse, without sacrificing the greenbelt? (Which turned out to not be the case? Something like that.)
Ron O
A good summary of the issues in Woodland. One minor counterpoint–because Woodland transfers bring money into DJUSD, it reduces the cost of Davis residents. Without them, the parcel tax would have to be larger given the high proportion of fixed costs in the school system.