44% Give a Positive Response to Davis School Board; City Council only Gets a 21% Positive Rating –
44% Give a Positive Response to Davis School Board; City Council only Gets a 21% Positive Rating – He believes that it is possible that the district could get the voters to approve a $600 parcel tax measure if they are convinced it is needed to maintain some of the existing school programs.
There are a number of interesting findings in this poll that bear scrutiny.
This shows that 69% of respondents believe that Davis schools are among the best. This finding along with the finding about parcel taxes being a small price to pay for our schools are probably the ones that most convince Mr. Ziegler that a $600 parcel tax is possible. I am not going to show the graphic, but it is interesting to note that support remains strong across ideology with conservative voters (65%) actually holding slightly higher satisfaction marks than middle of the road (60%). 77% of liberals are happy with the schools. For me though, I would say I would prefer a thermometer gauge rather than a simple happy/ non-happy measure.
This one is fascinating to me at least. We can see that the School Board enjoys a 44-14 net positive rating, the Yolo County Board of Supervisors has a 27-14 net positive rating which probably reflects more the fact that fewer people pay attention to the county than the schools. Here’s where it gets interesting, the Davis City Council holds a 37-21 net negative rating. For all of the chest-thumping the city council did when they polled people’s satisfaction in Davis, the council itself is fairly unpopular. Now it does not rise to the level of the Governor or the State Legislature, but that is probably because fewer people are paying attention to it.
About half of the Davis voters polled believe that the quality of educational programs in Davis schools is protected by the parcel taxes they pay and that’s probably a good answer if you think about it, because while the parcel tax serves as a buffer, the state cuts have proven to be very detrimental. Interpreted the right way, voters might be convinced that the educational programs will be protected better with a higher level of parcel tax.
Here is the first in a series that are mixed findings for the district. 25% support the current parcel tax, 28% want it renewed for a limited period of time at the same level, but only 24% say it is too small and needs to be increased. On the other hand only 12% believe it should be allowed to expire.
This is a similar question but only asked of the 50% of voters who believe that the quality of educational programs in Davis schools is protected by the parcel taxes they pay. Of those voters 31% believe it is just right, 31% believe it should be renewed for a limited period of time at the same level, but only 25% say it is too small and needs to be increased. That tells me that both groups are fairly similar, and there is not overwhelming support for an increase in the parcel tax right now. It does not preclude it, but it would take some sales.
Davis voters believe the Davis schools funding issue is not urgent enough to necessitate a special election, but do favor action within the year. Only 18 percent believe there needs to be a special election with 59 percent supporting an election in November, but this may be a skewed result as the pollster indicates, “Respondents may have thought that the parcel tax is set to expire this year and this may have affected their answer to this
question.” Based on that, the result of this question is not that meaningful other than most voters do not believe a special election is needed.
I have a bit of a problem with interpretation of this item. Public awareness of the parcel tax is going up since 2008, probably because we have already voted on two parcel taxes, one in 2007 and one in 2008. So the fact that 23% know the correct number (or guessed it) versus 10% in 2008 is not that significant. Moreover, while it was the single highest response, 77% of the people got it wrong, so to spin it as a plurality got it right doesn’t hold a lot of meaning. 29% of the public think they are paying considerably more with only 12% believing they are paying considerably less, and 36% being honest and saying that they don’t know.
Here’s the with education responses, now that 29% don’t think we are already paying $500 to $1000 for parcel taxes, 52% of the voters think it is right with still only 31% believing it should be increased.
Again, the middle of the road voters are actually least supportive of increasing the parcel tax (21%) compared to 27% for conservatives. The liberals are again most supportive at 39%. Conservatives are most likely to want it see eliminated entirely, but about the same amount of conservatives and middle of the road voters want to see it either decreased or eliminated (17%).
This is a strange set of findings, we have overall the 86% figure that it’s a small price to pay. Then you have 62% saying that it should be retained, 56% saying it is barely sufficient, 54% saying increase it but eliminate it once the state pays in full, and 51% say it should be increased. I assume they were measuring each individually and asking people if they agreed, based on that a small majority favor it being increased but less than the number required to support a vote.
Once voters know the details 25% felt the size was right, 24% wanted it increased, and only 12% felt it should be allowed to expire. Again, do not see the overwhelming sentiment for increase.
Here you see that a bare majority of Davis voters support a county sales tax measure for public safety programs and a plurality just falling short of majority for health programs. But that is not nearly enough for a county-wide tax to pass that would require a two-thirds vote and require Davis to make up for the lack of support in more conservative parts of the county. Based on this, the county vote has very little chance.
Middle of the road voters are probably more indicative of the rest of the county and it fails among them in both public safety and health programs by about the same margin.
The bottom line here is that the school district is going to have to fight for a parcel tax increase, a county tax is DOA, and the city council is not a very popular body in Davis these days, but at least it’s not the state legislature.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The Davis School District needs to be cut from the top. You have a superintendent who does not even live here for crying out loud.. and he has multiple overpriced assistants.
Davis students do well due to PARENTAL involvement with their kids. Too much of this success is claimed by those who least deserve it.. overpriced school administrators.
Raising taxes during Great Depression II is not the answer. Cutting outrageous administrative salaries 30% is a better solution.. if they dont like it I can assure you there are many qualified people who would take the job for half what is being paid now.. its the truth and you all know it.
I don’t agree with you on that point, first, they have cut an assistant Superintendent and they have cut much of the support staff in the business department.
Second, if you look at the numbers, the administration is not getting paid enough to make any kind of dent in the $5.7 million deficit.
We’ve basically cut $11 million over the last three years in a district whose general fund isn’t that big.
Basically you have two options, you cut teachers which they are doing, or everyone shells out $300 dollars either in donations or through taxation.
DPD: “Basically you have two options, you cut teachers which they are doing, or everyone shells out $300 dollars either in donations or through taxation.”
And do we have any guarantee how the money from a parcel tax is going to be spent? I prefer donations (rather than taxation), bc I would not have given one red cent to upgrading DHS Stadium during this economic mess.
It seems that we’ve been through the question before – yes we do have guarantee as to how the money from the parcel tax has been spent and none of it has gone to upgrading the DHS Stadium.
Here’s the original powerpoint presentation posted on last Thursday’s school board meeting agenda:
[url]https://davis.csbaagendaonline.net/cgi-bin/WebObjects/davis-eAgenda.woa/files/MTI3MDMxNTA5NjQ1OS9kYXZpc2VBZ2VuZGEvMzc5LzI5NzQvRmlsZXM=/04-01-10_djusd_parcel_tax_poll_presentation_final.pdf[/url]
Here’s the streaming video archive of the meeting. Parcel tax discussion took up most of the meeting. Other items discussed included an update from DSF, announcement of an agreement w/ DTA on furloughs (saving almost $1 million), and demographic projections.
[url]http://www.djusd.tv/content/april-1st-2010-school-board-meeting[/url]
The Davis School District needs to be cut from the top. You have a superintendent who does not even live here for crying out loud.. and he has multiple overpriced assistants.
What do you propose is a sensible adminstrative organization to cover issues of budgeting/finance/payroll, academic/curriculum issues, human resource/hiring/contract negotiation issues, facilities/maintenance issues, plus maybe a couple of other categories that I may have missed?
Davis students do well due to PARENTAL involvement with their kids. Too much of this success is claimed by those who least deserve it.. overpriced school administrators.
Are you saying that administrators are walking around saying, “I am responsible for the success of this district”? To be frank, I haven’t heard that, personally. If you have, I would be very interested to know the circumstances, because it does represent very poor form on the part of an administrator/executive.
I have heard school board members and administrators regularly give credit to the teachers and the community (which I take to include parents).
if they dont like it I can assure you there are many qualified people who would take the job for half what is being paid now.. its the truth and you all know it.
That maybe true, but for now I would prefer to see some continuity in the administration. I don’t want to see someone coming in to replace folks in budgeting/finance, or maybe in personnel/human resources who would have to spend the next few months (while we’re trying to figure our way through this budget mess) learning about the district, brand new, when decisions have to be made, almost on a dime, about how to handle the latest cutbacks and layoffs.
Now is the time to make the needed changes, preferring ‘continuity’ means changing nothing.
Continuity means continuing…
Sure, its the teaching staff that needs financial support. I have suggested that ‘baseball’ cards be created for all of the teachers slated for termination. Sell the cards to the public, and make the donation go directly to that teacher..
Answer I got was.. thats against the union rules, and bypasses administrators.. Obviously the ‘system’ is the PROBLEM.
Unions and administrators are more concerned for themselves than they are for the kids. Teachers should be able to get direct support from the pubic.
The future will be where more people send their kids to private schools, use tutors, and home school. The politics of educators and administrators have ruined the public system.
Sure, its the teaching staff that needs financial support. I have suggested that ‘baseball’ cards be created for all of the teachers slated for termination. Sell the cards to the public, and make the donation go directly to that teacher..
Interesting idea, but it seems like it would be rigged to favor secondary teachers. Or is there some point that I’m missing?
How does a 3rd grade teacher who sees 20 students a year have a chance for attracting any kind fundraising that a JH or HS teacher would who sees 120-150 students per year?
The politics of educators and administrators have ruined the public system.
How so? What do you have in mind as a sensible alternative?
DPD: “It seems that we’ve been through the question before – yes we do have guarantee as to how the money from the parcel tax has been spent and none of it has gone to upgrading the DHS Stadium.”
You missed my point, inarticulate as it was! “My bad.” Do we have any guarantee of how the money will be spent if we instituted the $600 per year parcel tax? What would the additional $300 per year be used for? I assumed the entire discussion surrounded whether we should increase the parcel tax, or did I miss something?
Do we have any guarantee of how the money will be spent if we instituted the $600 per year parcel tax?
Yes, parcel taxes lay out what kind of programs they will fund, if passed.
What would the additional $300 per year be used for?
It would cover programs that have been cut back since 2009.
I assumed the entire discussion surrounded whether we should increase the parcel tax, or did I miss something?
And if so, when to run a parcel tax. Also what to do about Measure Q & W — run a renewal? when? run everything at once?
wdf1: “Yes, parcel taxes lay out what kind of programs they will fund, if passed.”
Hmmmmm…. do they really? Or do they just state fairly general categories? For instance, does it state specifically how many teachers’s jobs will be saved and which ones? Or does it just say “goes for decreasing classroom size”, in a general mix of nice-sounding nonspecifics?
Hmmmmm…. do they really? Or do they just state fairly general categories? For instance, does it state specifically how many teachers’s jobs will be saved and which ones? Or does it just say “goes for decreasing classroom size”, in a general mix of nice-sounding nonspecifics?
Elaine, I’m surprised that you ask; other comments of yours suggest you understood this. Based on language of recent parcel taxes, the description says that it will fund X FTE (teaching units; 1 FTE = one full time teacher) for program X.
If it has to do with class size, the it will will probably say X FTE for K-3 class size reduction, or 4-6 class size reduction, or whatever.
wdf1: “Elaine, I’m surprised that you ask; other comments of yours suggest you understood this. Based on language of recent parcel taxes, the description says that it will fund X FTE (teaching units; 1 FTE = one full time teacher) for program X.
If it has to do with class size, the it will will probably say X FTE for K-3 class size reduction, or 4-6 class size reduction, or whatever.”
Thanks for the clarification! It will be interesting to see how this all plays out…