On Tuesday, The Vanguard published an article arguing that enrollment decline nullifies any real argument that would scrutinize the district’s top-heavy administration wages, which has been a growing public concern among educators and community members. The Vanguard’s analysis fundamentally misrepresents and undermines the community’s concerns by offering nothing more than a strawman argument that misrepresents the core issues surrounding administrative pay. No one educated of the facts is arguing that administrative costs alone are solely responsible for the district’s fiscal crisis. The real concern is about equity, priorities, and accountability during a time of financial hardship.
The fact that DJUSD spends a higher percentage of its budget on administrative salaries than comparable districts is not insignificant simply because instruction still represents the largest district expenditure. Of course instruction is the largest category — it is in arguably every school district in California. The more important question is whether DJUSD has appropriately controlled administrative growth and overhead during a period of enrollment decline. The article provides no scrutiny on that question. Framing the argument in this way misses the point entirely.
What is also concerning is the article’s assumption that because enrollment decline exists, administrative spending therefore cannot be a meaningful contributor to the problem. These are not mutually exclusive issues. On the contrary, declining enrollment should have triggered more restructuring of district bureaucracy years ago, but instead, top administrators have continued to receive substantial salary increases despite already earning compensation well above surrounding districts and statewide averages. At the same time, the district has also created more administrative positions that are not seen in surrounding districts. Employees and community members have the right to ask why staffing and operational systems were not calculated more effectively as student numbers dropped.
For teachers, paraeducators, office staff, custodians, and other classified employees who continue struggling with rising living costs, staffing shortages, and job insecurity, this disparity matters greatly, as many of these positions are still well underpaid compared to surrounding districts and statewide averages. It is unfathomable to ask these classifications to simply accept an argument about “low enrollment” while simultaneously approving tens of thousands of dollars in wage increases for upper administration.
The Vanguard article dismisses concerns about administration by emphasizing that instructional spending still comprises roughly 55 percent of the budget. But that statistic does nothing to address the underlying issue regarding wage inequity and spending priorities within the district itself. Like the question of why Davis has some of the largest wage gaps between upper administration and classified staff and educators who work closest to the students.
A school district can meet classroom spending requirements and make cuts due to enrollment decline, yet still roll out a compensation structure that disproportionately rewards top leadership over frontline educational staff.
And while the article acknowledges that DJUSD administrative salaries exceed comparable district averages, it merely glosses over the significance of this fact, and gaslights readers by referencing that the district has still made “administrative cuts.” This here is a red herring tactic distracting us from what is relevant.
Administrative cuts can come from many places, including cutting back on orders for printer ink or paper towel rolls for the district office lounge room. What we do know is that these cuts aren’t coming from eliminating top positions or from putting a stop pause on any administrative wage increases. This is exactly what the community has been criticizing.
The Vanguard’s attempts to portray criticism of administrative compensation as financially uninformed because eliminating administrative costs would not fully erase DJUSD’s structural deficit is amateur and quite honestly laughable. No one argues that cutting a handful of administrator salaries would magically solve enrollment decline, because again, enrollment decline and extreme wage disparities are not inherently mutual. What would be feasible with restructuring or freezing wage increases for the top is the gradual closing of growing wage gaps.
This clarifies the argument that leadership credibility and trust erodes when sacrifice is distributed unevenly.
At a time when paraeducators and classified employees remain underpaid to comparative districts — while teachers continue to face larger workloads and job uncertainty — district leadership chose to prioritize substantial compensation growth at the top.
That is not merely a budget question or an analysis of percentages and spreadsheets, but a question about ethics, values and moral obligations.
The article also ignores the morale and consequences of these decisions. Paraeducators, support staff, and classroom employees are in many ways the backbone of student support, particularly for vulnerable and special education students. When these positions experience long-term underinvestment, layoffs, or stagnant wages while executive compensation continues to rise, it damages trust throughout the district.
Again, we are not evaluating spreadsheets. We are evaluating leadership choices.
No one is disputing that declining enrollment affects school funding under California’s ADA system. But enrollment decline alone does not explain why some districts have approached these challenges more successfully than others. Leadership decisions matter. Spending priorities matter. Organizational efficiency matters. Minimizing waste matters.
Overall, the article presents a false choice — or ultimatum — forcing you to choose between acknowledging enrollment decline or scrutinizing administrative spending. The district can — and should — do both. Recognizing enrollment challenges does not absolve district leadership of accountability for how resources were managed during those years of decline, and how they are managing them currently.
When top administrators continue receiving wage and compensation increases while educators and classified staff face cuts, layoffs, and ongoing wage disparities, the district sends a message — regardless if intentional — about whose contributions are valued over others.
That is why this issue continues to resonate so deeply with employees and the entire community, despite pushback and this latest attempt to minimize it through strawman arguments focused on budget percentages and accounting definitions that do not provide the context and nuance needed for a real argument.
DJUSD’s fiscal issues may indeed be structural. But leadership priorities are structural too. And communities and their public employees have every right to question a system where financial hardship appears to shower downward while compensation growth continues at the top.
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.
DJUSD pays its superintendent around $28 per student annually while WJUSD pays its superintendent around $33 per student annually.
“Employees and community members have the right to ask why staffing and operational systems were not calculated more effectively as student numbers dropped.”
The answer is DJUSD needs to face the facts and downsize.